Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: apollo on May 31, 2013, 04:34:39 PM
-
I heard today that Bishop Fellay has retracted the Doctrinal Declaration of Apr 15 2012.
Has this really happened?
Can anyone give me a reliable source for this?
-
To my knowledge, it has not been retracted as yet. Fr Morgan, in his recent response to The Recusant's Open Letter found here (http://www.sspx.co.uk/) states that the Doctrinal Declaration had been publicly withdrawn while Bp Fellay was in Ireland. However, a "withdrawal" is not quite the same as a retraction, and it could not have been all that public. Given the international confusion this Declaration caused, a public retraction should have been communicated through the SSPX's official website, and not in a room with a handful of people in it. This appears to be an example of Bp Fellay telling his audience what they want to hear.
-
A'withdrawl' must mean it was submitted......... :surprised:
-
Regardless of whether the Declaration has been withdrawn or not, how anyone can trust Bp. Fellay to represent the best interests of the SSPX is beyond me. The mask has been torn away to reveal his true face.
-
Has the Doctrinal Declaration been retracted yet?
I heard today that Bishop Fellay has retracted the Doctrinal Declaration of Apr 15 2012.
Has this really happened?
Can anyone give me a reliable source for this?
I found it alarming how quickly the news spread amongst the accordistas
that their man had "taken back his profession of doctrine" as though that's
A) possible, and B) admirable.
The 'rumour' that this is what had happened was part of the Easter Cor Unum (http://www.therecusant.com/fellaycorunum2013),
which is an internal bulletin for the SSPX priests of the whole world, but it is
usually something that they're not supposed to make public.
This one came out on Monday of Holy Week, right when all the priests
who are reading it should be thinking of how to make Holy Week more
prayerful. I.e., it's not quite clear to me how polemical intrigue at such a
time could accomplish such a goal. This is a question that everyone
should be asking +F, such as at his "Fatima Conference" appearance, or
wherever they can get his attention for a few seconds. He should be
accosted with pointed questions every waking moment of his life, for it
would be nothing compared to what he faces if he dies without true
repentance of these crimes against all justice.
But it's not quite enough to read the Cor Unum, but also you have to
refer to the "introductory text (http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-note-cor-unum-mar2013)" (which is a separate docuŠ¼ent)
which he drafted for the sake of "context," and to which he briefly
refers in the 9th paragraph of said Cor Unum.
There, you have to go to the last paragraph to read the following.
In this 'rumour', +F claimed that he had a conversation with Archbishop
di Noia on August 28th, 2012, in which he said, "After sending to Rome
the texts of the General Chapter of last July, I met Mgr. Di Noia on 28th
August 2012, and I informed him that I was withdrawing our April
proposal, which could no longer serve as a basis from which to work."
Notice, it is nothing in writing, and as such, without witnesses (apparently)
it cannot be proved to have ever taken place. That could work to the
benefit of either Mgr. di Noia or +Fellay, for example, or to their
detriment, as the case may present itself in the future.
It was with alarming speed that the news of this last paragraph of an
introductory text -- referred to by an internal bulletin sent out at the
start of the holiest week of the year, when priests are generally trying
to focus on spiritual matters and NOT POLITICS -- made the rounds of
the world. The speed of its circulation alone seems to me to be a cause
of concern. I.e., how can so many rank-and-file faithful be so eager to
not only hear of it, but to immediately adopt the PROPER SLANT to its
interpretation?
If you are interested in having a common-sense outlook on this thing,
you really need to read A Letter of Entreaty (http://www.therecusant.com/letter-of-entreaty) to Fr. Morgan and the Clergy of the
British District. There is a really important conference beginning in about
two hours from now, that will be, no doubt, all over this Letter and its
monumental contents, which see.
-
It is, dear reader, totally irrelevant whether the 'doctrinal declaration' was 'withdrawn' or not. As the young lady said on "My Cousin Vinny", the question cannot be answered-- it is a trick question!
How is it possible to 'withdraw' your 'profession of faith' which you gave at confirmation? How is it possible to withdraw your "I do" given at your wedding? How is it possible for the Godparents to withdraw the promises and attestations made at your baptism?
These are statements of faith. These are statements which declare, plainly, that
"this, I believe." Would you have been lying at your Confirmation? Would you have told a false hood to begin your married life? Would your Godparents have deceived the priest, and the Church , to become a Catholic? Of course not!
Bishop Fellay wrote, in hard copy, "this I promise-- this I believe!" He then committed the entire SSPX to the set of beliefs he stated. He made absolutely no
reservations-- mental or otherwise. He was communicating with whom he believed was the Vicar of Jesus Christ Himself!. And he followed up his declaration with a personal letter stating that, but for some traditionalist recalcitrants in the SSPX, he would give Jesus Christ everything that Benedict had asked for!
Such statements cannot be withdrawn. Only by admitting error and adherence to a false religion, by publicly condemning the false sect and stating clearly that one denies and abhors such false teachings and anti-Catholic beliefs as are in the establishment church, can there even be contemplated a repudiation of the doctrinal declaration and his "private " letter.
All of Bishops Fellay's efforts to trick the traditionalists into thinking he 'withdrew' the declaration are solely to hang onto the donation stream and his precarious position as Superior.