Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked  (Read 5723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TKGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4498
  • Reputation: +3870/-339
  • Gender: Male
SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
« on: June 23, 2012, 07:13:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Source:  http://eccehomocatholic.blogspot.com/2012/06/sspx-doctrinal-preamble-leaked.html

    I don't know how reliable either of these blogs are, but this is definitely news if it can be verified:

    Quote
    From Brazil, the blog Fratres in Unum has published a portion of the doctrinal preamble (or at least a summary thereof) between the Holy See and the SSPX. According to Fr. Pfluger, First Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, these are the terms that the Vatican laid down that the SSPX had to (and did) accept:

    “O critério e o guia para a compreensão dos ensinamentos do Concílio Vaticano II deve ser a Tradição da Fé Católica integral, que por sua vez esclarece certos aspectos da vida e doutrina da Igreja ainda não formulados, mas implicitamente presentes nela. As afirmações do Concílio Vaticano II e do Magistério Pontifício posterior relativas à relação entre as Igreja Católica e as confissões cristãs não-católicas devem ser entendidas à luz de toda a Tradição”.

    My translation:
    "The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the Pontifical Magisterium of the past relative to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic christian confessions are to be understood in light of all of Tradition."


    At first reading it seems clear.  But as I read this text carefully, I'm not so sure.  There is definitely a disconnect between what the SSPX has understood "in light of all of Tradition" and what the entire Conciliar church has understood.  

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4264
    • Reputation: +3955/-1254
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #1 on: June 23, 2012, 07:29:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Source:  http://eccehomocatholic.blogspot.com/2012/06/sspx-doctrinal-preamble-leaked.html

    I don't know how reliable either of these blogs are, but this is definitely news if it can be verified:

    Quote
    From Brazil, the blog Fratres in Unum has published a portion of the doctrinal preamble (or at least a summary thereof) between the Holy See and the SSPX. According to Fr. Pfluger, First Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, these are the terms that the Vatican laid down that the SSPX had to (and did) accept:

    “O critério e o guia para a compreensão dos ensinamentos do Concílio Vaticano II deve ser a Tradição da Fé Católica integral, que por sua vez esclarece certos aspectos da vida e doutrina da Igreja ainda não formulados, mas implicitamente presentes nela. As afirmações do Concílio Vaticano II e do Magistério Pontifício posterior relativas à relação entre as Igreja Católica e as confissões cristãs não-católicas devem ser entendidas à luz de toda a Tradição”.

    My translation:
    "The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the Pontifical Magisterium of the past relative to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic christian confessions are to be understood in light of all of Tradition."


    At first reading it seems clear.  But as I read this text carefully, I'm not so sure.  There is definitely a disconnect between what the SSPX has understood "in light of all of Tradition" and what the entire Conciliar church has understood.  


    Let's pretend it is true, and perfectly translated:

    1) it is a diversionary tactic to allow it to be leaked;

    2) it will cause readers to quibble over the text and terms;

    3) rather than wonder why we should be talking about signing anything at all;

    4) whilst all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved in Rome.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #2 on: June 23, 2012, 07:29:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    At first reading it seems clear.  But as I read this text carefully, I'm not so sure.  There is definitely a disconnect between what the SSPX has understood "in light of all of Tradition" and what the entire Conciliar church has understood.  


    This issue of the "doctrinal preamble" and its secrecy is frankly bizarre.

    This text is surely not the bone of contention - certainly not worthy of being kept secret - but it is very helpful to certain parties for the mass of people to believe that it is.

    Offline Cristian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 444
    • Reputation: +65/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #3 on: June 23, 2012, 07:53:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Source:  http://eccehomocatholic.blogspot.com/2012/06/sspx-doctrinal-preamble-leaked.html

    I don't know how reliable either of these blogs are, but this is definitely news if it can be verified:

    Quote
    From Brazil, the blog Fratres in Unum has published a portion of the doctrinal preamble (or at least a summary thereof) between the Holy See and the SSPX. According to Fr. Pfluger, First Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, these are the terms that the Vatican laid down that the SSPX had to (and did) accept:

    “O critério e o guia para a compreensão dos ensinamentos do Concílio Vaticano II deve ser a Tradição da Fé Católica integral, que por sua vez esclarece certos aspectos da vida e doutrina da Igreja ainda não formulados, mas implicitamente presentes nela. As afirmações do Concílio Vaticano II e do Magistério Pontifício posterior relativas à relação entre as Igreja Católica e as confissões cristãs não-católicas devem ser entendidas à luz de toda a Tradição”.

    My translation:
    "The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to must be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part (Vat II) makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are were not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the subsequent Pontifical Magisterium of the past relative to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic christian confessions are to be understood in light of all of Tradition."


    TKGS: I dare to make some corrections.

    I don´t think it is true, but I imagine the original document (if it will ever be made public, which I doubt) says some garbage like this.


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4498
    • Reputation: +3870/-339
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #4 on: June 23, 2012, 08:31:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cristian
    TKGS: I dare to make some corrections.

    I don´t think it is true, but I imagine the original document (if it will ever be made public, which I doubt) says some garbage like this.



    Please make any correction to the translation you see fit.  The "My translation" refers to the original blogger, not to me.  I have no ownership here.

    In any case, I doubt the original document is in Portuguese, so this is a translation of a translation.  The original document was likely written in Italian or French (or, though I think an unlikely possibility, Latin).

    I think Seraphim is correct that this will cause more quibbling about this particular paragraph rather than wondering why it should be accepted in the first place.  If this is really what the Vatican demanded, then I really do wonder what Bishop Fellay is thinking.  Based on much of what he has said (and done) of late, I wonder why he didn't accept it.

    I recently commented on another topic that, with the leak of the infamous letters and the obvious dissension that arose, it was possible that Bishop Fellay and the Vatican arranged a face-saving rejection at this time so that Bishop Fellay could further strengthen his hand and eliminate his opposition.  Then, the deal can be struck next year, probably around the same time.

    The other question that simply will not go away is why something like this needs to be secret.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #5 on: June 23, 2012, 08:45:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So it's claiming Vatican II teachings were implicitly present in the pre-conciliar tradition.

    That's clearly an unacceptable thesis.

    Offline JohnGrey

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 602
    • Reputation: +556/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #6 on: June 23, 2012, 09:33:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Source:  http://eccehomocatholic.blogspot.com/2012/06/sspx-doctrinal-preamble-leaked.html

    I don't know how reliable either of these blogs are, but this is definitely news if it can be verified:

    Quote
    From Brazil, the blog Fratres in Unum has published a portion of the doctrinal preamble (or at least a summary thereof) between the Holy See and the SSPX. According to Fr. Pfluger, First Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, these are the terms that the Vatican laid down that the SSPX had to (and did) accept:

    “O critério e o guia para a compreensão dos ensinamentos do Concílio Vaticano II deve ser a Tradição da Fé Católica integral, que por sua vez esclarece certos aspectos da vida e doutrina da Igreja ainda não formulados, mas implicitamente presentes nela. As afirmações do Concílio Vaticano II e do Magistério Pontifício posterior relativas à relação entre as Igreja Católica e as confissões cristãs não-católicas devem ser entendidas à luz de toda a Tradição”.

    My translation:
    "The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the Pontifical Magisterium of the past relative to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic christian confessions are to be understood in light of all of Tradition."


    At first reading it seems clear.  But as I read this text carefully, I'm not so sure.  There is definitely a disconnect between what the SSPX has understood "in light of all of Tradition" and what the entire Conciliar church has understood.  


    The problem with any negotiations with apostate Rome, be it this one or a future one should the current fail, is two-fold:

    1.) Any reconciliation hinges one acceptance of and submission to the apostate Antichurch as the ordinary jurisdiction wherever the SSPX has a presence and acceptance of its juridical authority over the structure of the Society itself.  Should such an reconciliation be finalized, and accepted by a majority of the faithful attached to the Society, I expect that for a least a number of years, the conciliar curia would be mum on the formation of Society priests and laity with respect to their theological positions vis-á-vis the heresies of modernism.  Rather, they would permit the slow inculturation of the Society faithful in recognizing the apostate Antichurch as lawful authority until such time they judge that they could exert greater pressure in aligning the formation of the Society along the lines of the false, Vatican II religion.

    2.) One must first recognize that the notion that any purported doctrine solemnly defined by the Holy Spirit through the organ of an oecumenical council could possibly require any elaboration or contortion to make it seem compatible with the authentic magisterium of the Church is at once laughable and blasphemous.  Beyond that, the acceptance of this part of the preamble (again supposing that the above is genuine) is based on a point very much in error: that a fundamental agreement between the Antichurch and the Society can be made with regard to the correct application of the "light of Tradition" to the perditious works of the apostate council.  Radically, the foundation of any understanding of Vatican II by the Society would be the notion that all doctrine of the Church is neither substantial nor historically subjective, i.e., it is infallible, self-consistent, and normative, for all times, places and peoples.  The false, Vatican II religion, relying as Ratzinger says on the Hegelian hermeneutic of discontinuity, permits no such firmament of theological thought.  Pursuant to my previous point, what the Antichurch believed, or purported to believe, on the day of the agreement would not necessarily or likely be the same as its belief at some future date.  At such a time that its belief became formally incompatible with the Society's understanding of the acta of the Apostate Council it would require the Society to either remove itself once more from the communion with the apostate hierarchy or submit.  Moreover, should it choose the former, it's likely that a significant number of the faithful would remain attached to the conciliar establishment, to the grave danger of their souls.

    Therefore, even presuming that the hierarchy lawfully and substantially hold the jurisdiction of their office, and as a sedevacantist I openly discount this, it is for the good of the Church and of souls that the Society rebuff publicly any agreement with Rome that does not being with the total repudiation by the latter of the false council, its heretical teachings, and the false and odious religion that it engendered.  The Society should instead direct its energies to the proselytism of all who suffer unto their destruction beneath the weight of the apostate Antichurch, and address all supplications to Our Immaculate Queen, beneath the efficacious seal of her crown, to the total conversion of Rome, its diabolical agents, and all peoples ignorant of or inimical to the true Church of Christ.

    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #7 on: June 23, 2012, 09:37:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    So it's claiming Vatican II teachings were implicitly present in the pre-conciliar tradition.

    That's clearly an unacceptable thesis.


    No kidding.  They are simply asserting something as true despite the fact that it clearly isn't, inviting the faithful to assume what needs to be proved.  This is a perversion of authority, since the way Rome is attempting to beat the problem of obviously inventing new doctrine is by commanding the faithful to see it as old doctrine.  Now, they could only command this last point if it were a dogmatic fact and religious liberty were itself a dogma.  Given the Conciliar documents and the commands of Rome since, can anybody pretend that the post-Conciliar pontiffs do not believe and have not shown that, as far as their Magisterium is concerned, religious liberty is the faith of the Church ?  A decree's sense, if unclear, will be made clear by the subsequent actions of the lawgiver.  How much clearer does it need to be that this is a formal defection from the Catholic Faith as definitively taught in Quanta cura ?


    Offline Francisco

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1098
    • Reputation: +823/-5
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #8 on: June 23, 2012, 09:55:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim

    Let's pretend it is true, and perfectly translated:

    1) it is a diversionary tactic to allow it to be leaked;

    2) it will cause readers to quibble over the text and terms;

    3) rather than wonder why we should be talking about signing anything at all;

    4) whilst all the doctrinal issues remain unresolved in Rome.


    It seems to be a diversionary tactic. The present "rumor" is that Rome has demanded the acceptance by the SSPX of Vatican II without any reservation. Several SSPX priests have circulated this "rumor" as fact.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #9 on: June 23, 2012, 10:10:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Quote from: Cristian
    TKGS: I dare to make some corrections.

    I don´t think it is true, but I imagine the original document (if it will ever be made public, which I doubt) says some garbage like this.



    Please make any correction to the translation you see fit.  The "My translation" refers to the original blogger, not to me.  I have no ownership here.

    In any case, I doubt the original document is in Portuguese, so this is a translation of a translation.  The original document was likely written in Italian or French (or, though I think an unlikely possibility, Latin).


    Hmmm... Portuguese .......

    The original Third Secret of Fatima is written in Portuguese. And they've been
    hoarding that for half a century.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #10 on: June 23, 2012, 11:42:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's unfortunate the preamble sees fit to deal only in vague generalities about continuity without going into any of the doctrinal specifics regarding collegiality, religious liberty, ecclesiology and the like. What makes this a "doctrinal" preamble then I wonder.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #11 on: June 23, 2012, 01:28:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • On October 20th 2011 after the Albano meeting I spoke with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais about the preamble, been along time but I can still paraphrase it.

    "Two years, Two years we were talking to them and they said NOTHING, NOTHING about what we talked about, it is as if it never happened"

    Then the person with me said "So does this mean there won't be a deal?"

    "Of course there won't be a deal!" replied the Bishop.

    Offline Clint

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 161
    • Reputation: +299/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #12 on: June 23, 2012, 01:54:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan
    On October 20th 2011 after the Albano meeting I spoke with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais about the preamble, been along time but I can still paraphrase it.

    "Two years, Two years we were talking to them and they said NOTHING, NOTHING about what we talked about, it is as if it never happened"

    Then the person with me said "So does this mean there won't be a deal?"

    "Of course there won't be a deal!" replied the Bishop.


    He said the same exact words in a sermon in Sanford Fl, at the last confirmations there.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #13 on: June 23, 2012, 01:56:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant2011
    It's unfortunate the preamble sees fit to deal only in vague generalities about continuity without going into any of the doctrinal specifics regarding collegiality, religious liberty, ecclesiology and the like.



                 :applause:                                       :applause:                                       :applause:                                    

                       
    ...Even though this may not be the whole thing,
    even though this is not confirmed as authentic,
    no matter -- if the real thing is anything like this, what you say, Nishant2011, is true.

    Vague generalities, "continuity," nothing doctrinal; no mention of collegiality, religious
    liberty, or ecumenism.

    But properly stated those things would be the hierarchy of the Church, false religious
    liberty and false ecumenism. But that's not going to happen until the EXORCISM takes
    place, to kick ol' Scratch out of the building.

    Quote
    What makes this a "doctrinal" preamble then, I wonder.


    We should all be wondering that, my dear!

    Seems to me it's just another lie: It's called a doctrinal preamble, and that's a half
    truth, for it's no doubt a preamble in truth, but it's not doctrinal in any way, shape
    or form, so the term doctrinal preamble is a half truth, and a half truth is a whole
    lie, therefore, it's a lie, plain and simple. Isn't logic nice when it's properly applied?!?!

    Remember, these are the same men who, during the "negotiations," said in
    response to the SSPX's accusation of "errors of Vatican II," that an oecumenical
    council of the Church is infallible, and therefore cannot contain error, so then
    Vatican II contains no error.

    If you believe that, we have a problem, Houston.
    But I know you don't, Nishant2011; so we don't have a problem, Houston.  :cowboy:

    I just found an old SG Letter to Friends and Benefactors
    that deserves its own thread........................... TBC ..........................
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: Doctrinal Preamble Leaked
    « Reply #14 on: June 23, 2012, 02:10:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Clint
    Quote from: LordPhan
    On October 20th 2011 after the Albano meeting I spoke with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais about the preamble, been along time but I can still paraphrase it.

    "Two years, Two years we were talking to them and they said NOTHING, NOTHING about what we talked about, it is as if it never happened"

    Then the person with me said "So does this mean there won't be a deal?"

    "Of course there won't be a deal!" replied the Bishop.


    He said the same exact words in a sermon in Sanford Fl, at the last confirmations there.


    Two years of talks down the drain, because the Vatican has the power, and they're
    not afraid to ab-use it!

    They can countenance going through the motions of having talks, wasting the time,
    all along having NO INTENTION of addressing ERROR, because ever since 1960
    (1962 is verifiable, but it was probably 1960, when they decided "never" to release
    the Third Secret) they have been maintaining the same intention, of not binding
    the faithful with dogmatic definition or papal infallibility to protect the Church from
    error, because they are devoted to PERPETRATING ERROR, and so they don't want
    to subvert their own dearly-held efforts.

    I have to take my hat off to the venerable Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, for he must
    know a lot of things he is not at liberty to divulge, this deep, dark secret of the  
    ChurchMen who hold the authority at the present, being one of them. That is to
    say, if I am correct, and the Vatican has been serving the aims of the devil for the
    past 50 years, H.E. de Mallerais probably knows all about it, but not being in a
    position of power, he can't do anything about it.

    By the infinite mercy of God, perhaps he will be raised to that Position one fine
    day, and then we will see what God's grace can really do in the world!
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16