CI-

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(8)."

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 docuмents 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 docuмents 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.

Sincerely,

Sean Johnson

Quote from: SeanJohnson

On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]

Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.

That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?

I disagree:

Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.

"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:

It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."

I definately agree that clearer language more akin to the June 27, 2013 "Declaration of the Three Bishops" ought to have been used.

Oh, come on SeanJohnson. Spend one month in Mexico or Brazil or France and they will explain to you what DDD (my other post today) is. Let me know if you need precise addresses of the contemplative monks who will explain this to you. Only thing they do day long: PRAY.

Huh?

"On this basis, Your Excellency, I apologize for my previous accusations that you had betrayed the Faith on this count".  :surprised:

SeanJohnson. A simpler advice than to travel abroad: read all ECs. If these reading does not convince you...The careful reading/listening to all ECs, +W, Father Faure, Father Pfeiffer, and all those signing the Vienna Declaration,

AND

the careful reading of SSPX sites

have convinced me throughout the years that I, myself, don't need to apologize for anything I had said or written. But, I only know my own background. So, I am really sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but for myself it is impossible for me to find the grain of cyanide in the soup...

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

No one with reading comprehension can accept this.

How can you fall for their hair-splitting sophistry?

WAKE UP!  Don't let scrupulous submisssion to these clowns trip you up!

It's saying Vatican II was of God, that it leads us to a true intepretation of aspects of the Faith.

Did they give an example of what it is that Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit?

The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.

How can such a thing then deepen and subsequently make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present?

Give me a break!

The vicious lying priests who have venomous freemasons foreword books for them and have Zionists represent Archbishop Lefebvre's choice for bishops - stabbing him in the back, who kick people out for objecting to this really believe that Vatican II deepens and subsequently makes explicit teachings of the Church not yet conceptually formulated?

It is modernist lingo.

You are off your rocker.

A bastard mass is legitimately promulgated?

Why don't they come out and admit they're breaking with the Archbishop?

They can't and won't because they are deceivers.  They'd have to admit they were hypocrites or were wrong in condemning Campos and the FSSP!

They are absolute scoundrels, and they know it!

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: SeanJohnson

On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]

Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.

That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?

I disagree:

Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.

"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:

It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."

I definately agree that clearer language more akin to the June 27, 2013 "Declaration of the Three Bishops" ought to have been used.

"All aspects" would not be ambiguous but "certain aspects" is because it is not clear which of the aspects are referenced. Furthermore, "all aspect" of the life and doctrine of the Church could not possibly be present in a council of limited scope.

So which aspects of the Church are present in Vatican II and are there aspects present in the Council not of the Church? Obviously, the Council does contain many foreign aspects. That overriding disqualification of Vatican II is obscured in paragraph 4 because the language is unclear.

What I don’t like about that provision is the fact that they give Vatican II a status which it doesn’t deserve. Here is what Father Girouard has to say about that provision on his website Sacrificium.org.


"We find in this text, not surprisingly, what we have known about for a while, since it was revealed by Fr. Pfluger on 5th June 2012, at Fanjeaux I think, and which is in itself an abomination [paragraph 3.4] Saying that Vatican II makes explicit “certain elements” contained implicitly in the entire Tradition of the Church means we have just put this pastoral Council (which was diverted and hijacked by the Freemasons and modernists) on the same level as all the other legitimate doctrinal Councils. When you think about it, Vatican II is more akin to a secret get-together of plotters and schemers than a true Council, even if it was presided over and approved by two Popes, because these two Popes made illegitimate use of it: they used it to make a revolution in the Church. That’s why I call it a plotters’ get-together. The first thing a Catholic Pope will to will be to declare the Council illegitimate and void, as was the case with several oriental councils at the start of the Church."

With all due respect to Fr Girouard, he wanders off-point:

The issue is not whether Vatican II is on par with other General Councils, but whether "certain elements" saves this provision from a blanket acceptance of V2 and the hermeneutic of continuity.

Clearly it does, or Rome would not have objected to it.