Author Topic: What did Fellay mean when he withdrew the April 15 Declaration? (Read 4869 times)

hollingsworth · « **on:** December 17, 2013, 11:45:05 AM »

When Bp. Fellay withdrew the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, What did he actually mean by that withdrawal? Was it an utter rejection of the docuмent’s contents by the sspx SG? Or did he simply “withdraw” the Declaration because of the difficulties he thought he might encounter in getting his confreres to accept the amended form of it as re-presented to the SG in June 2012 by the Vatican. I have never understood this entirely.
I am particularly interested in Article III. Item 7 of the original Declaration, viz
III,7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
Do Fellay & Co. recognize the validity of the New Mass and Sacramentary Rituals, as promulgated by Paul VI and JPII? And if ABL is alleged to have accepted them earlier, why should we make any fuss about that particular provision? I am hearing traditional priests today, I think, saying that the New Mass is not valid, that it is intrinsically evil, and that we put our souls in danger by attending it. If so, can it really be “valid?”
In this connection, have Fellay & Co. made peace with the Ratzinger-generated idea that the New Mass should take precedence over the Old Mass? Has Fellay said much, if anything, about “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” forms of the Mass? He may have, but my eyes glaze over reading transcripts of his sermons, and listening to audio copies of them I find unbearable. So my attention span is exhausted pretty quickly, and I tend to miss a lot.

John Grace · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:10:55 PM »

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

John Grace · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:18:39 PM »

Fr Morgan of course attacked the resistance.

Quote

.. a signed ‘Letter of Entreaty’ has appeared on its website which attacks the Society in no uncertain terms. Addressed to ‘Fr Morgan and the Clergy of the British District,’ the open letter, dated 21st May 2013, accuses the Society of having deviated from its essential mission of fidelity to Catholic Tradition and opposition to Modernism due to the betrayal of its liberal leadership!

Ignoring the fact that there has not been a false deal with modernist Rome, and in spite of Bishop Fellay's public withdrawal in Ireland of the questionable April 2012 ‘Doctrinal Declaration,’ the dialectical letter pretends there is no option for us now but to show true leadership and to follow its proponents in seceding from the Society!

http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/26824729-fr-morgan-s-response

Quote

Fr. Morgan's Response
Posted by The Editor on May 28, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Fr. Morgan's response to the Letter of Entreaty can now be read on the SSPX British District website.
.
Whilst we differ with him in some respects, we are pleased to note that Fr. Morgan has now publicly stated that to have made a purely practical agreement with Rome, as was being proposed last year, would have been "false" and that the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was "questionable."
.
Furthermore, we note that he says that he does not believe "'that the SSPX is now a sinking ship' which is beyond repair." Does he mean by this that he views the SSPX as a sinking ship which is not quite beyond repair, as he appears to imply?

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2013, 01:37:06 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Was it an utter rejection of the docuмent’s contents by the sspx SG?

No. At most he said it was subtle and hence hard to understand. He does not fundamentally find anything wrong with it. Here is what he said at the Angelus conference on Oct. 12/13 as reported by John Vennari:

"The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it 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 without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written."

JPaul · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2013, 02:05:18 PM »

Quote

"And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written."

Yes they are ambiguous and unclear because they use "novel" language to refuse novelty. Is you head spinning yet?

Anyway why does it matter? He is irrelevant now.