Could someone please clarify for me: Did +F actually agree to and sign this original preamble, and then they pulled a switch and asked him to agree to something more, and he refused? But he did actually sign this first preamble? Sorry, but I am a bit confused and want to make sure I understand correctly. :confused1:
How could you be confused?
Everything from Menzingen is so crystal clear!
My understanding, which may not be right, is that, after the priests/bishops at the Albano meeting overwhelmingly rejected the original Doctrinal Preamble
(DP) given by Card. Levada (see GB newsletter below), +F did not
sign that one. The DP that came out recently (the subject of this thread) is a modified version that he sent in. [e.g. the original had something about the New Catechism, which this one doesn't, right? (I can't keep track of all these details.)] At least, that is my understanding
.... FWIW. :confused1:
You could listen to +F's long conference in Canada, Dec. 2012, or read the transcript
to see what he said about the sequence of events.
The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.
The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions; and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble document itself.
With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings included and improved the old!
It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.
So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. Indeed, the document itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church...
Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.