CathInfo.com

"The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly;

(The text) was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: "The Holy Ghost has not been promised to St. Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the pope would the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith ." It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole docuмent, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.

And so take any kind of sentences from the text (of the April 15 Declaration) without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life.

According to Fr Morgan in England he not only withdrew it but denounced it.

Hollingsworth
Quote:
What did he actually mean by that withdrawal? Was it an utter rejection of the docuмent’s contents by the sspx SG?


Fr Morgan mention their District magazine would address this.


http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25470&f=19&min=0&num=3
Bishop Fellay Renounces Doctrinal Declaration:, Letter of Fr Morgan

How can you be so sure that the SSPX was taken over? Where’s your proof? Give me chapter and verse on exactly how this came about.

There is a certain amount of interesting evidence out there which points to how it most likely happened (GREC, for example), but ultimately how it happened is not what matters. What matters is that it has happened and that it has happened is beyond doubt. One does not need to know how a man died in order to be sure that he is dead. The old, ‘no-compromise,’ doctrinally sound SSPX, the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre’s day, is dead and gone. That much is beyond serious dispute. The new SSPX is a very different creature indeed. The old SSPX would never have declared that Vatican II “enlightens and deepens” the Faith, that “the causes” of errors are in the Council, that the new Mass was “legitimately promulgated”, and so much more besides. Archbishop Lefebvre condemned the ‘oath of allegiance’ whereas Bishop Fellay says that he accepts it. The old SSPX raised up Bishop Williamson; the new SSPX marginalised him, slandered him publicly and then cast him out.

You refer above to the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration. But Bishop Fellay has said that he withdrew it, so that’s no longer an issue. You’re just trying to dredge up the past.
What Bishop Fellay says when he thinks that no publicly available recording of his words is being made and what he officially ‘says’ to the world (Rome included) via DICI are not always the same, but we will let that pass. Even assuming that his ‘withdrawal’ is ‘official’, it is clear from his own words that what he is referring to is the docuмent’s usefulness in reaching an agreement. What he is not referring to is the docuмent’s contents, and it is precisely the contents that are a problem, not its usefulness (which had already been killed by Rome when they turned it down in June 2012, long before he ‘withdrew’ it the following August).

But you cannot be sure that Bishop Fellay still believes what he said in the April 15th Declaration. Or do you think you can read his mind!?
Firstly, supposing that the April 15th Declaration no longer represents Bishop Fellay’s position, how much confidence can we repose in a Superior General who is capable of changing his doctrinal position with his dirty linen? Secondly, the very fact that Bishop Fellay has insisted so often that the docuмent is in the past and no longer an issue whilst refusing to address its contents surely points to his continued belief in those contents. If he no longer believes what he said he believed in April 2012, why go to all the trouble of dodging questions and playing with words (“withdrew”, “renounced”) when a simple statement to that effect would quieten all opposition?

Thirdly, a careful reading of his June 27th 2013 statement shows that the same ideas are still officially in force (E.g. Vatican II may ‘cause’ errors but it does it actually contain any errors? The New Mass isn’t as good as the old Mass, but it’s not actually evil or illegitimate per se; et al.)
Finally, consider the fact that even if Bishop Fellay had genuinely seen the error of his ways and repented (both in word and action), and we believed him, the serious implications of his actions would remain. For example: how could a son of Archbishop Lefebvre ever have signed, let alone composed and kept subsequently secret, so scandalous a docuмent? Serious questions deserve serious answers.