....that the Doctrinal Counter Offer of April 15, 2012 was okay because it was the same signed by the Archbishop.  ABL only rejected it because it did not include a bishop.

This protocol contains a doctrinal declaration which Archbishop Lefebvre judged barely acceptable. Only two of the seven members of the proposed Roman Commission were to be upholders of Tradition, which was a grave handicap. Nevertheless, at that moment, His Grace saw fit to sign this Accord. In the Protocol Rome recognizes, in principle, that the episcopate is to be conferred on a member of the Society of Saint Pius X. Note how vague is left the date of an eventual consecration. Note also, that since the jurisdiction would come from the local bishop, the bishop proposed by Rome for the Society would be a powerless bishop, not able to protect the priests and faithful from modernist influences.

I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:

a)   Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.

b)   We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §2541 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.

c)    Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.

d)    Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

e)    Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.

II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS

Considering the fact that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X has been conceived for 18 years as a society of common life—and after studying the propositions formulated by H. E. Marcel Lefebvre and the conclusions of the Apostolic Visitation conducted by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon— the canonical form most suitable is that of a society of apostolic life.

1. Society of Apostolic Life

This solution is canonically possible, and has the advantage of eventually inserting into the clerical Society of apostolic life lay people as well (for example, coadjutor Brothers).

According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this Society enjoys full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate clerics, and can insure the common life of its members.

In the proper Statutes, with flexibility and inventive possibility with respect to the known models of these Societies of apostolic life, a certain exemption is foreseen with respect to the diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) for what concerns public worship, the cura animarum, and other apostolic activities, taking into account Canons 679-683. As for jurisdiction with regards to the faithful who have recourse to the priests of the Society, it will be conferred on these priests either by the Ordinaries of the place or by the Apostolic See.

2. Roman Commission

A commission to coordinate relations with the different dicasteries and diocesan bishops, as well as to resolve eventual problems and disputes, will be constituted through the care of the Holy See, and will be empowered with the necessary faculties to deal with the questions indicated above (for example, implantation at the request of the faithful of a house of worship where there is no house of the Society, ad mentem, Canon 683, §2).

This commission will be composed of a president, a vice-president, and five members, of which two shall be from the Society.42

Among other things it would have the function of exercising vigilance and lending assistance to consolidate the work of reconciliation, and to regulate questions relative to the religious communities having a juridical or moral bond with the Society.

3. Condition of Persons Connected to the Society

1)   The members of the clerical Society of apostolic life (priests and lay coadjutor brothers) are governed by the Statutes of the Society of Pontifical Right.

2)   The oblates, both male and female, whether they have taken private vows or not, and the members of the Third Order connected with the Society, all belong to an association of the faithful connected with the Society according to the terms of Canon 303, and collaborate with it.

3)   The Sisters (meaning the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: they constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and proper autonomy, even if a certain type of bond is envisaged for the unity of its spirituality with the Superior of the Society. This Congregation—at least at the beginning—would be dependent on the Roman Commission, instead of the Congregation for Religious.

4)   The members of the communities living according to the rule of various religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and who have a moral bond with the Society: these are to be given, case by case, a particular statute regulating their relations with the respective Order.

5)   The priests who, on an individual basis, are morally connected with the Society, will receive a personal statute taking into account their aspirations and at the same time the obligations flowing from their incardination. The other particular cases of the same nature will be examined and resolved by the Roman Commission.43

Regarding the lay people who ask for pastoral assistance from the communities of the Society: they remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, but—notably by reason of the liturgical rites of the communities of the Society—they can go to them for the administration of the sacraments (for the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage,44 the usual notifications must still be given to their proper parish; cf. Canons 878, 896, 1122).

Note: There is room to consider the particular complexity:

1) Of the question of reception by the laity of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, in the communities of the Society.

2) Of the question of communities practicing the rule of such and such a religious institute, without belonging to it.

The Roman Commission will have the responsibility of resolving these problems.

4. Ordinations

For the ordinations, two phases must be distinguished:

1)   In the immediate future: For the ordinations scheduled to take place in the immediate future, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he were unable, another bishop accepted by himself.

2)   Once the Society of apostolic life is erected:

• As far as possible, and in the judgment of the Superior General, the normal way is to be followed: to send dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the Society.

• In view of the particular situation of the Society (cf. infra): the ordination of a member of the Society as a bishop, who, among other duties, would also be able to proceed with ordinations.

5. Problem of a Bishop

1)   At the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical right, and the approval of its statutes by the Holy Father.

2)   But, for practical and psychological45 reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop appears useful. This is why, in the framework of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from within the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle indicated above (1), this bishop normally is not the Superior General of the Society, but it appears opportune that he be a member of the Roman Commission.

6. Particular Problems to be Resolved (By Decree or Declaration)

1)   Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.

2)   Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.

3)   Provision for an “amnesty” and an accord for the houses and places of worship erected—or used—by the Society, until now without the authorization of the bishops.

For the convenience of our readers, we put here the text of §25 of Lumen Gentium (including footnotes found in the original), oftentimes referred to in these docuмents [Taken from, Flannery, Austin, O.P., Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Docuмents (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1975), pp.379-381]. The passage to which Archbishop Lefebvre refers in his conference of May 10 and which condemns all the modernist bishops is the following: “This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded.” How many bishops in our days are “religiously guarding and faithfully expounding” the Deposit of Revelation?

Lumen Gentium, §25

25. Among the more important duties of bishops that of preaching the Gospel has pride of place.46 For the bishops are heralds of the faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people assigned to them, the faith which is destined to inform their thinking and direct their conduct; and under the light of the Holy Spirit they make that faith shine forth, drawing from the storehouse of revelation new things and old (cf. Mt. 13:52); they make it bear fruit and with watchfulness they ward off whatever errors threaten their flock (cf. II Tim. 4:14). Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the docuмents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.47 This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecuмenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.48

This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)—he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.49 For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism of infallibility is present in a singular way.50 The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office. Now, the assent of the Church can never be lacking to such definitions on account of the same Holy Spirit’s influence, through which Christ's whole flock is maintained in the unity of the faith and makes progress in it.51

Furthermore, when the Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together with him, define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to which they are obliged to submit; and this revelation is transmitted integrally either in written form or in oral tradition through the legitimate succession of bishops and above all through the watchful concern of the Roman Pontiff himself; and through the light of the Spirit of truth it is scrupulously preserved in the Church and unerringly explained.52The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, by reason of their office and the seriousness of the matter, apply themselves with zeal to the work of enquiring by every suitable means into this revelation and of giving apt expression to its contents;53 they do not, however, admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.54

41. Complete text of §25 found at the end of this chapter, pp.77-79.

42. This paragraph replaces the notes in the April 15 minutes. See how this does not correspond to the suggestions of the representatives of the Society, but rather gives full majority to the members from outside Catholic Tradition. This is perhaps the major point of failure in this whole Protocol.

43. This whole paragraph is new. See again how it separates these priests from the moral support they were getting from their connection with the Society.

44. Here they allow the possibility to give these Sacraments.

45. Please note the choice of words! As if the need for a bishop from among Tradition would not be, first of all, for a reason of Faith: to have an authority without any compromise with the errors of the day.

46. Cf. Council of Trent, Deer. de reform., Session V, can. 2, n. 9, and Session XXIV, can. 4; Conc. Oecr. pp.645, 739.

47. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Dei Filius, 3: Denzinger, 1712 (3011). Cf. the note added to schema I de Eccl. (taken from St. Rob. Bellarmine): Mansi 51, 579C; also the revised schema of Const. II de Ecclesia Christi, with Kleutgen's commentary: Mansi 53, 313 AB. Pius IX, Letter Tuas libenter: Denzinger, 1683 (2879).

48. Code of Canon Law, Canons 1322-1323.

49. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denzinger, 1839 (3074).

50. Cf. Gasser's explanation of Vatican Council I: Mansi 52, 1213 AC.

51. Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1214 A

52.Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1215 CD, 1216-1217 A.

53.Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1213

54. Vatican Council II Const. Dogm. Pastor Aeternus, 4: Denzinger, 1836 (3070).

If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement!  Oh!  How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. Du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.

“The Archbishop prayed with his head in his hands throughout the Rosary and Benediction in the chapel, sometimes sighing. Then without saying anything, he retired to his room. He did not sleep that night....Later he shared all this with his driver and confidant, Jacques Lagneau: ‘If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.’ The following day...he finished off his letter and put it in an envelope which he showed to Fr. du Chalard: ‘Father, before leaving, it is essential that this letter be taken to Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s a little bomb! ’ ”

“When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: ‘That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.’ ”

Just a clerical note of sorts: The text that you have quoted from Fellay that you have titled "doctrinal preamble" is not the doctrinal preamble.  It is the doctrinal declaration.  The preamble has not (yet?) been leaked.

Sheer Trickery!

Bishop Fellay and the Oath of Fidelity

Much has already been said regarding the Doctrinal Declaration which Bishop Fellay offered to Rome in April 2012, and no doubt a great deal more will still be said in the weeks ahead. There are more than a few difficulties and pitfalls in the text. This article, as the others before it, does not claim to be definitive or comprehensive, not is it intended to be the final word on the matter. We will for the moment focus on just one problem contained in Bishop Fellay's April 2012 text.

We refer to the first footnote, the reference to which is to be found at the end of Section II, which we believe means in effect that the compromise entailed goes even further than appears at a first glance. It reads:

       “ 1. cf. the new Formula for Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the
         name of the Church, 1989; ”

Since Section II of Bishop Fellay’s April 2012 text consists of only one sentence and begins with the words “We declare that we accept...” it is surely not unreasonable to conclude that the “we accept” also covers the Oath of Fidelity and Profession of Faith mentioned in the footnote. Nothing to the contrary is evident and it is difficult to see how it would make sense any other way.
 
Let us now turn our consideration to the text of the Oath of Fidelity in question, referred to in the above-quoted footnote. Its full title is: “Oath of Fidelity on Assuming an Office to be Exercised in the Name of the Church”, and as the title suggest, the idea is that it is taken by clerics on appointment to a given office. Whether or not the intention was that the SSPX clergy would have been required to take it, though worrying, is not the point: by including it in paragraph II of his April 2012 ‘Doctrinal Declaration’ which begins with the words “We dclare that we accept...”, Bishop Fellay has signalled and signed to the effect that he, on behalf of the SSPX, accepts the contents of this Oath. The reader who is really interested can find the text of the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity on the Vatican website:
(www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html).

 Moreover, from an interview which Archbishop Lefebvre gave to Fideliter in 1989, the same year as the Oath of Fidelity was published, we know that there was a originally a “preamble” to the oath, which came with the Oath and served as its introduction, although it was not strictly speaking part of the Oath itself. According to the Archbishop, it “clearly indicated” that the final part of the text “has been added because of the spirit of the Council.” Unfortunately, this introduction or “preamble” is not easy to find on the Vatican website. No reference to it whatsoever appears on the English page referred to above, indeed, had it not been mentioned by Archbishop Lefebvre, this author might well have been unaware of its existence. It is only visible in Italian and it reads thus:

         “Si è reso necessario, pertanto, provvedere a predisporre i testi atti allo scopo, aggiornandoli con stile e
          contenuto più conformi all'insegnamento de l Concilio Vaticano II e de i docuмent i successivi.”

Which this author, though being no expert in Italian, reads as meaning something like this:

        “It became necessary therefore to ensure the preparation of the texts with this purpose in mind: that they be
         updated in style and content so as to make them more in conformity with Vatican II and later docuмents.”

It is possible that the above-quoted passage could well have been written by the author of the Oath itself as a sort of introductory explanation. What is clear is that, whichever way one reads it, in the eyes of the men who originally published it in 1989 the Oath of Fidelity is a conciliar text. It is a text which has been designed specifically to be in conformity with Vatican II and all post-conciliar docuмents.

The text of the actual Oath of Fidelity itself is, thankfully, much easier to locate, being readily available in several languages on the Vatican website. The first paragraph of the Oath of Fidelity is perfectly orthodox being, as the Archbishop says in his Fideliter interview, nothing more than the Nicene Creed. Then follow two paragraphs stating acceptance of everything contained in Scripture or handed down in Tradition, and “everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” Again, as the Archbishop says, this in itself is unremarkable and quite acceptable.

The paragraph with which the oath concludes, quoted in our last issue (Recusant 6), is clearly the worst part and reads as follows:

         “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman
          Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do
          not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”

So far, so good. What follows is what is really interesting and where the reader will wish to pay close attention. As mentioned above, this very same Oath of Fidelity, apparently acceptable to Bishop Fellay and the modern SSPX, has already been dealt with by none other than Archbishop Lefebvre himself. In an interview with Fideliter magazine entitled "One Year after the Consecrations", given in the summer of 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of what was then a brand new text issued by Cardinal Ratzinger. Because his words are so clear, and because of its importance and relevance, we will here quote the Archbishop at some length, with emphasis in bold added by the author of this article.

    “ 14: Oath of fidelity

    Question: What do you think of the instruction of Cardinal Ratzinger setting up the Oath of Fidelity which includes a Profession of Faith?

    Archbishop Lefebvre: Firstly, there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council.    
    ...
    As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison is in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, “Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think.”

    No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the [1988] protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favour in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.

    And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.

    Differently from in the protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them. ”


What is very important, then, is that this text is clearly condemned by Archbishop Lefebvre, and in the strongest terms too! And yet it pops up again in a text which Bishop Fellay signed and handed over as a true representation of where the SSPX stands! One begins to see why, in his own words, the SSPX Superior General was somewhat worried about how his text would be received by the faithful!

What’s even more interesting to note is the way that Archbishop Lefebvre says that he thinks the Vatican composed the Oath of Fidelity, with its “poisonous” final paragraph, because they felt that the 1988 protocol was not explicitly Vatican II –friendly enough! It has already been pointed out that there is a certain similarity between the 1988 protocol of agreement signed (and almost instantaneously repented of!) by Archbishop Lefebvre, which had been proposed to him by and composed by the Vatican, and the 2012 “Doctrinal Declaration” or “Doctrinal Preamble” proposed by, composed by, and signed by Bishop Fellay (without a similar such repentance!). It is certainly true that there is a similarity. And yet there are important differences, differences where Bishop Fellay’s text is far worse than that of the Archbishop - Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 agreement did not accept the entire Chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium, for example! And surely one of the most important differences is the acceptance of the Oath of Fidelity, whose significance we believe has been largely overlooked:

•    The 1988 protocol proposed to the Archbishop contained no footnotes that we are aware of, and no reference to this Oath of Fidelity, which did not yet exist.
•   The 2012 agreement text proposed by Bishop Fellay contains this “poisonous” barb (to use Archbishop Lefebvre’s word) which had already been condemned by the Archbishop himself, when it first appeared.

Thus Bishop Fellay’s April 2012 text is significantly worse, more liberal, more modernist-friendly, and more lethal and damaging to Tradition than the 1988 text given to Archbishop Lefebvre. Those SSPX clerics who favour an agreement with Rome have made much of Archbishop Lefebvre's words prior to the episcopal consecrations, and for the past year we have been told that what was being intended was nothing less than what the Archbishop himself would have wished. And yet, in the Archbishop's own words, Bishop Fellay's April 2012 “Doctrinal Preamble” text is different from anything that the Archbishop would ever have considered signing, even when at his most optimistic, because:

                  “Differently from in the [1988] protocol, in these new texts [i.e. in the Oath of Fidelity, and therefore,
            by extension, in Bishop Fellay’s April 2012 text] there is a submission to the Council and all the conciliar bishops.”

Is Bishop Fellay aware of all this? Is there any conceivable way in which he could not be aware of this? After all, not only ought he to be familiar with the text momentarily signed by Archbishop Lefebvre, but he surely must also be aware of the Fideliter interview which was only one year after his own consecration as a bishop. Did he not spot the first footnote in his text? Of having spotted it, did he not grasp its significance? If one layman with a computer and a slightly suspicious mind can unearth and deduce what is written above, can it be asking too much to expect Menzingen with their superior resources to find out about what they are actually signing? Or did he simply know and not care? Taken as a whole, Bishop Fellay’s April 2012 text effectively reconciles Tradition and conciliarism, making them mutually dependent, so it is surely not outside the realms of credibility that he simply allowed it and somehow justified it in his own mind. One certainly does not wish to think him quite so grossly negligent or guilty of the sort of crass ignorance which alone could explain away any subjective guilt. Either way, we see here one more serious question to be added to the large and growing pile of questions which need urgently to be answered by Menzingen.

Finally, since Bishop Fellay has himself explicitly referred to his own qualms about how his April 2012 text would be received by the faithful, and since he himself has said that it would “need to be properly explained”, knowing now what poison it contains, we cannot help being reminded of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words and re-apply them 23 years later:
"It's sheer trickery!"

“II.- We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the
substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required
degree, according to the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the dogmatic constitution
Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council. (1)”

“(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of 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.”

This profession of faith says: “I also adhere with religious obedience of will and faith to the
doctrines which, either the Roman Pontiff, or the college of bishops, pronounce when exercising
an authentic magisterium, even if they have no intention of proclaiming them in a definitive act.”
This profession of faith is preceded by an introduction explaining the meaning of the said
profession: “It consequently proved essential to prepare adjusted texts in order to update them as far as their style and their contents were concerned and attune them with the teachings of Vatican II and docuмents developing them.”

This is Archbishop Lefebvre’s comments about this docuмent issued by Cardinal Ratzinger:
“The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official norm that has been confirmed by
Cardinal Ratzinger’s March 1989 profession of faith”. (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey)
“The new profession of faith which was drafted by Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly includes the
acceptance of the Council and its consequences. It is the Council and its consequences, which
have destroyed the Holy Mass, which have destroyed our Faith, which have destroyed catechisms and the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over civil societies. How could we accept this! [...] We have to keep the Catholic Faith and protect it by all possible means.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Le Bourget, November 19th, 1989)

“This is leading us to a contradiction since, since at the same time as Rome gives to the Fraternity of St Peter, as an example, or to Le Barroux Abbey or some other group, an authorisation to say the traditional Mass, at the same time they ask young priests to sign a profession of faith in which they accept the spirit of the Council. This is a contradiction: the spirit of the Council is expressed in the New Mass. How can one wish to keep the Traditional Mass and accept the spirit that destroys the Traditional mass? This is a total self-contradiction. One day, slowly, they will demand from those to whom they have granted the Mass of St Pius V, the Traditional Mass, that they also accept the New Mass. And they will just say that this is only complying with what they have signed, since they have signed that they accept the spirit of the Council and the Council’s reforms. One just cannot place himself in such a contradictory situation, in such an incredible non sequitur. This is quite an uncomfortable situation. This is what makes things so difficulty for these groups, which have signed this: it is a dead end for them.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Friedrichshafen homily, April 29th, 1990)

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Just a clerical note of sorts: The text that you have quoted from Fellay that you have titled "doctrinal preamble" is not the doctrinal preamble.  It is the doctrinal declaration.  The preamble has not (yet?) been leaked.

I'm not clear on what the difference is (unless by "doctrinal preamble" you mean the one Cardinal Levada gave him in Sep. 2011?), but I just copied it from the Recusant, and just copied what they called it.  Thanks for the clarification.