On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
At issue was the following provision contained therein:
"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(
As I explained to an eminant, unnamed SSPX priest in private discourse:
"My primary lingering concern is whether Bishop Fellay's doctrinal declaration violated Catholic doctrine in accepting the idea that V2 is contained implicitly in tradition, and that those areas which cant be reconciled must nevertheless be interpreted in a compatible manner forcibly.
The reason is that this seems to be both the acceptance of the heretical Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae (which was not exempted from this blanket acceptance of V2 being contained implicitly in tradition), as well as an acceptance of the hermeneutic of continuity."
The response of the priest (who has refused permission to let me identify him, or even quote him directly, but gave permission for me to paraphrase) was that:
1) He was in full agreement that an explicit, blanket acceptance of all the doctrines of V2 would indeed represent a doctrinal compromise, because the documents themselves contain errors;
2) But he says this is not the case;
3) The language of the Declaration says, " the Council "clarifies - i.e. deepens and makes more explicit over time - certain aspects
of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet formulated conceptually."
4) The Declaration does not state that all the documents or doctrines of V2 do this;
5) Thus, the inclusion of the words "certain aspects" save this provision from being an unacceptable/heretical statement or doctrinal compromise, as the only reason for their inclusion would be to avoid
giving a blanket acceptance of all the doctrines of V2.
6) And therefore, they also save it from representing an acceptance of the hermeneutic of continuity.
Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.
But that Rome did not accept it seems to evince that they too realized this provision was not a blanket acceptance of V2, and this explains why they came back with a specific requirement that all the docs of V2 be explicitly accepted before any accord could take place.
I hope that the educated readers on this forum will not see in this specific retraction a laying down of arms, but a simple act in justice, made unavoidable from the explanation given.
On this basis, Your Excellency, I apologize for my previous accusations that you had betrayed the Faith on this count.
I remain an honest man.