1) It is important to know that the "doctrinal preamble" and the "doctrinal declaration" are not the same thing;

2) The secret "doctrinal preamble" has never been publicly revealed...despite assurances from Bishop Fellay that it would be;

3) What is at issue here is the "doctrinal declaration" that Bishop Fellay signed, which is a different docuмent altogether;

4) Rome had demanded that he "clarify" his position on Vatican II (i.e., they wanted him to change his position on Vatican 2);

5) So this declaration was drawn up by Bishop Fellay, signed, and brought to Rome in the hopes of getting a deal.

6) Rome refused it because of the providential leakage of the Letter of the Three Bishops (perhaps the fruits of the Rosary Crusades?).

Wait - the thing that everyone has been referring to as the doctrinal preamble is actually not the doctrinal preamble? I thought the doctrinal preamble and the doctrinal declaration were the same docuмent! This is news to me. Sean, you say that they have not been "publicly revealed." Have they both been leaked?

Just to be 100% clear: is the leaked docuмent with Roman numerals I-III and Arabic numerals 1-8, the one that the latest Cor Unum was supposed to try to defend, the doctrinal declaration or the doctrinal preamble?

If the doctrinal preamble was sent to Rome to be signed, then what was the purpose of the doctrinal declaration?

Rightly or wrongly, I'm confused.

I think I might still be confused too, I'm sorry!

Sean (or someone) would you be so kind as to expand a bit more?

MeaCulpa, I totally agree with you on damage control. That's why the comparisons of what they're saying now and what they were saying a year ago are so incredibly helpful. It uses their own words, (which are always the best source and I'm sure they'd agree -- ahem), to dispel their assertion that Bishop Williamson and the expelled priests are insane and chasing after boogeymen. That reaction rather than admitting they were wrong about Rome changing is what clinches it for me that there is mischief at work and not just a sincere mistake.

Quote from: Johannes

Wait - the thing that everyone has been referring to as the doctrinal preamble is actually not the doctrinal preamble? I thought the doctrinal preamble and the doctrinal declaration were the same docuмent! This is news to me. Sean, you say that they have not been "publicly revealed." Have they both been leaked?

Just to be 100% clear: is the leaked docuмent with Roman numerals I-III and Arabic numerals 1-8, the one that the latest Cor Unum was supposed to try to defend, the doctrinal declaration or the doctrinal preamble?

If the doctrinal preamble was sent to Rome to be signed, then what was the purpose of the doctrinal declaration?

Rightly or wrongly, I'm confused.

Johannes-

The doctrinal preamble has never been revealed.

The preamble was the original docuмent Rome sent to menzingen as the basis for a practical accord.

All we know regarding the contents of that secret preamble are some comments Fr Pfluger made at the time.

But instead of signing the secret doctrinal preamble, Bishop fellay signed and submitted what amounted to a counter-offer.

It is this counter-offer that was recently leaked, and is known as the doctrinal declaration.

Ok, that is clearer for me. So what is being called the doctrinal preamble is actually what +Fellay revised and sent back, and it was refused by Rome, NOT by himself, even though the SSPX leaders claim they refused it.

Unless the acceptance of VII clause is what they say was added "last minute", which still doesn't account for why ROME refused them first.

Another thought. At the most recent Resistance Mass in the Twin Cities, Father Hewko expressed his astonishment that there was so little reaction to the publication of the doctrinal preamble - er, declaration. I agree - it is really astonishing. Back at the beginning of the crisis, when the Bishops' letters were leaked, everyone was going totally nuts because bloody-minded arsonists were walking around the house (the SSPX) with a box of matches in one hand and a bucket of gasoline in the other. Now that the doctrinal declaration has been leaked, it has become obvious that they've dumped the gasoline all over the inside of the house and are standing there with a lighted match, and everybody's like, "Oh, look, they're gonna set the house on fire! (Yawn.)"

This is what you get for not reading the Eleison Comments every week.

This is what happens when you don't bother to read The Recusant.  

The latter is now in its 6th issue but the former is in its 300th issue.  

The latter just came out with the 6th issue and there will be a 7th
issue (God willing) in early May.

The former comes out with a new issue every week, like clockwork.
We will see (God willing) the 301st issue (CCCI) as early as tomorrow
morning, more likely tomorrow evening but perhaps as late as
Saturday morning.  It has been as late as Monday in the past, but I
think that's the worst it has ever been.  

All these questions are answered there.  But Sean Johnson did a good
job distilling the points for your consumption.  

There are a lot more questions.

E.g.,
~  Why has the Doctrinal Preamble of Sept. 14th, 2011 not yet been released?  

~  Does that have anything to do with BXVI's abdication?

~  Is there something really sensitive or repulsive in the Preamble?

~  Is it unreasonable for us to demand to see it?  

~  Do we have a right to know what's in it?

~  Does Pope Francis abide by its contents or does he have a different idea?

~  Does the Declaration constitute a compromise with the Preamble?

~  Or, is it rather an attempt to raise the Preamble to a higher level?

~  Is it a LIE when they say that ABL would have approved of the Declaration?

~  And, last but not least, HOW DO YOU BEST RESPOND TO SOMEONE WHO
CLAIMS THAT THE 'LEAKED' DOCTRINAL DECLARATION OF APRIL 15TH
2012 IS NOT AUTHENTIC???????

The stupid cement dried again.




                              Right-in-the-middles-ville

As an historical point of reference, the Doctrinal Preamble was given to
the Society in secret one year and 26 days before the so-called Year of
Faith began, and, the so-called Year of Faith (now in progress) is slated
to last for one year and 45 days.

Right in the middle of that first year and 26 days, +Fellay came up with
his Doc. Dec. which he shared with a select few and demanded their
promise of strict secrecy -- probably threatening them with expulsion if
they break silence -- and then he expelled them anyway even if they did
not break silence.  What a guy, eh!?!?

Of course, right in the middle of the so-called Year of Faith (which everyone
seems to have forgotten about) the Pope who announced it bailed out,
and has left the Barque of Peter cast adrift on a stormy sea, with a
replacement Captain presumed chosen from among the remaining crew
left on board. Will the new Captain continue the so-called Year of Faith?
I don't think he has said boo about it, one way or the other.