Author Topic: Fellays doctrinal declaration leaked docuмent for the sellout (Read 9177 times)

PAT317 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2013, 03:55:17 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Will wait for a more precise translation, but at cursory review, I think there are some major problems with #4, 7, and 8.

#4 opens a floodgate for every novelty;

Quote

4. The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated.

So, Vatican II can enlighten certain aspects of the doctrine of the Church?!

Matto · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2013, 03:57:45 PM »

I wonder if my SSPX priest will say anything about this. I don't think he will.

Cristera · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:00:51 PM »

Number CCLXIX (269) 8 September 2012

APRIL AMBIGUITY

In mid-April there was submitted to Rome on behalf of the Society of St Pius X a confidential docuмent, doctrinal in nature, of which it was said that it laid out Catholic principles that all the SSPX authorities could subscribe to. In mid-June Rome rejected the docuмent as basis for a Rome-SSPX agreement. Thank goodness, because it contained a supremely dangerous ambiguity: in brief, does an expression like “The Magisterium of all time” mean up until 1962, or up until 2012 ? It is all the difference between the religion of God, and the religion of God as changed by modern man, i.e. the religion of man. Here are some of the principles, as summarized for SSPX authorities:--

“1/ ...Tradition must be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of Vatican II. 2/ So the statements of Vatican II and of the post-conciliar papal teaching with regard to ecuмenism and interreligious dialogue or religious liberty can only be understood in the light of Tradition complete and uninterrupted, 3/ in a manner that does not clash with the truths previously taught by the Church’s Magisterium, 4/ without accepting any interpretation opposed to, or breaking with, Tradition and that Magisterium...”.

The 1962 or 2012 ambiguity lurks here in the words “Tradition” and “Magisterium”. Are these two words being taken to exclude doctrines of the Council (1962-1965) and its aftermath, or are they including them? Any follower of Tradition will read the passage so as to exclude them, because he knows that there is a huge difference between the Church and the Newchurch. But any believer in Vatican II can so read the passage as to be able to pretend that there is a seamless continuity between the Church before and after the Council. Let us take a closer look at how the Traditionalist and the Conciliarist can each read the passage in his own way.

Firstly, the Traditional reading:-- “1/ Pre-conciliar Tradition has got to be the measure and judge of Council teachings (and not the other way round). 2/ So Conciliar and post-conciliar teaching must all be sifted according to the whole of Traditional teaching prior to the Council, 3/ so as not to clash with anything that the Magisterium taught prior to the Council, 4/ accepting no interpretation or text that breaks with the pre-conciliar Tradition or Magisterium.”

Secondly, the Conciliar reading (certainly that of the Romans in charge of today’s Church) :-- “1/ Tradition from before and after the Council (because there is no difference) must be judge of the Council. 2/ So Conciliar teaching on controversial subjects must be sifted according to the Church’s one complete pre- and post-conciliar Tradition (because that alone is the “completeness” of Tradition), 3/ so as not to clash with the Church’s pre- or post-conciliar Magisterium (because they teach the same), 4/ accepting no interpretation that breaks with pre- or post-conciliar Tradition or Magisterium (because there is no break between all four of them).”

This Conciliar reading means that the Council will be judged by the Council, which means of course that it will be acquitted. On the contrary by the Traditional reading the Council is utterly condemned. Ambiguity is deadly for the Faith. Somebody here is meaning to play games with our Catholic minds. Let whoever it is be anathema !

Kyrie eleison.

John Grace · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:02:34 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I wonder if my SSPX priest will say anything about this.

They might dismiss it as an internet rumour. On a serious note I doubt priests will mention it.

Matto · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:05:42 PM »

I have a question. Did Rome reject this? If so, why?

It seems to be a surrender to modernism.

Nishant · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:09:59 PM »

This preamble seems to be very much along the lines of the protocol of May 5, 1988, with a few additional provisions on the relationship between Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.

John Grace · « **Reply #21 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:10:04 PM »

I recall the YouTube channel owner 'Oblationem' stating if only we questioned Bishop Fellay more. How many were put under the "holy obedience" like the women on this forum was. She didn't dare question. See where not questioning gets ye.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #22 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:13:08 PM »

What will +Fellay say about this?

If it is real, why has no deal been done?

I mean, per this docuмent Fellay seems to have done nothing less than completely forsake everything ABL did and stood for, and forsake everything being a traditionalist stands for.

If that's his position, what's taking so long? Sign the bottom line already.

If that's not his position, why hasn't he done anything to make anyone think otherwise?

A damn mess.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #23 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:16:18 PM »

They have to wait until there's no risk of a large Exodus of priests and faithful.

Also, it seems likely Bishop Fellay was being asked to make some humiliating public concessions that would have made the "sell" of the deal that much harder to sell.

TheRecusant · « **Reply #24 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:39:42 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

What will +Fellay say about this?

If it is real, why has no deal been done?

I mean, per this docuмent Fellay seems to have done nothing less than completely forsake everything ABL did and stood for, and forsake everything being a traditionalist stands for.

If that's his position, what's taking so long?

Because Rome did not accept it. Irony of ironies, Rome - apparently in the person of B.XVI himself - replied that the docuмent was too ambiguous, that he needed to make his acceptance of Vatican II clearer and more explicit, and they gave him something to sign which even he couldn't, which didn't even leave him a fig leaf of respectability.

ancien regime · « **Reply #25 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:50:13 PM »

Thought I would post the translation of the notes on both threads:

Quote

Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of the faith and the oath of fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.

(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor aeternus, Dz. 3070.

(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”

(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.

(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the correction of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of the Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.

sspxbvm · « **Reply #26 on:** March 09, 2013, 05:18:54 PM »

Quote

7 We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intent of doing what the Church does with the rites referred in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramental Ritual legitimately promulgated by popes Paul VI and Jean-Paul II.

So, they accept the "Abomination of desolation standing in the Holy place" ? And every priest got one of these Cor Unums? Are they all standing with Bishop Fellay on this?

St Gertrude · « **Reply #27 on:** March 09, 2013, 06:03:22 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

They have to wait until there's no risk of a large Exodus of priests and faithful.

Also, it seems likely Bishop Fellay was being asked to make some humiliating public concessions that would have made the "sell" of the deal that much harder to sell.

Maybe I am dense, but wait for what, exactly? :scared2:

B from A · « **Reply #28 on:** March 09, 2013, 07:52:24 PM »

Quote from: Cristera

Number CCLXIX (269) 8 September 2012

APRIL AMBIGUITY

In mid-April there was submitted to Rome on behalf of the Society of St Pius X a confidential docuмent, doctrinal in nature, of which it was said that it laid out Catholic principles that all the SSPX authorities could subscribe to. In mid-June Rome rejected the docuмent as basis for a Rome-SSPX agreement. Thank goodness, because it contained a supremely dangerous ambiguity: in brief, does an expression like “The Magisterium of all time” mean up until 1962, or up until 2012 ? It is all the difference between the religion of God, and the religion of God as changed by modern man, i.e. the religion of man. Here are some of the principles, as summarized for SSPX authorities:--

“1/ ...Tradition must be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of Vatican II. 2/ So the statements of Vatican II and of the post-conciliar papal teaching with regard to ecuмenism and interreligious dialogue or religious liberty can only be understood in the light of Tradition complete and uninterrupted, 3/ in a manner that does not clash with the truths previously taught by the Church’s Magisterium, 4/ without accepting any interpretation opposed to, or breaking with, Tradition and that Magisterium...”.

The 1962 or 2012 ambiguity lurks here in the words “Tradition” and “Magisterium”. Are these two words being taken to exclude doctrines of the Council (1962-1965) and its aftermath, or are they including them? Any follower of Tradition will read the passage so as to exclude them, because he knows that there is a huge difference between the Church and the Newchurch. But any believer in Vatican II can so read the passage as to be able to pretend that there is a seamless continuity between the Church before and after the Council. Let us take a closer look at how the Traditionalist and the Conciliarist can each read the passage in his own way.

Firstly, the Traditional reading:-- “1/ Pre-conciliar Tradition has got to be the measure and judge of Council teachings (and not the other way round). 2/ So Conciliar and post-conciliar teaching must all be sifted according to the whole of Traditional teaching prior to the Council, 3/ so as not to clash with anything that the Magisterium taught prior to the Council, 4/ accepting no interpretation or text that breaks with the pre-conciliar Tradition or Magisterium.”

Secondly, the Conciliar reading (certainly that of the Romans in charge of today’s Church) :-- “1/ Tradition from before and after the Council (because there is no difference) must be judge of the Council. 2/ So Conciliar teaching on controversial subjects must be sifted according to the Church’s one complete pre- and post-conciliar Tradition (because that alone is the “completeness” of Tradition), 3/ so as not to clash with the Church’s pre- or post-conciliar Magisterium (because they teach the same), 4/ accepting no interpretation that breaks with pre- or post-conciliar Tradition or Magisterium (because there is no break between all four of them).”

This Conciliar reading means that the Council will be judged by the Council, which means of course that it will be acquitted. On the contrary by the Traditional reading the Council is utterly condemned. Ambiguity is deadly for the Faith. Somebody here is meaning to play games with our Catholic minds. Let whoever it is be anathema !

Kyrie eleison.

(emphasis added)

Francisco · « **Reply #29 on:** March 09, 2013, 11:23:25 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

This preamble seems to be very much along the lines of the protocol of May 5, 1988, with a few additional provisions on the relationship between Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.

For years the long time Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Mgr. Camille Perl, kept saying that the May 5th, 1988 Protocol was still on offer to the SSPX. I think I once read somewhere that he even said so to G.R.E.C.

The whole problem is that Bp Felliar was making out that he was obtaining some sort of sweetheart deal with Rome, when in fact it was no more than an amended version of the 1988 Protocol that Abp Lefebvre accepted on 5th May, 1988 but repudiated the very next day.