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:

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.  

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.

TKGS: I dare to make some corrections.

I don´t think it is true, but I imagine the original docuмent (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 docuмent is in Portuguese, so this is a translation of a translation.  The original docuмent 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.

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 oecuмenical 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!