Number CCC (300)
        
13 April 2013
DOCTRINAL DECLARATION I

The Doctrinal Declaration of April 15 of last year, drawn up by the Superior General (SG) of the Society of St Pius X as a basis for the Society’s reintegration into the mainstream Church, has emerged nearly one year later into public view. It was designed by the SG to please both the Conciliar Romans and Traditionalists (“It can be read with dark or rose-coloured glasses,” he said in public). It did please the Romans who declared that it represented an “advance” in their direction. It did not please Traditionalists who saw in it (what they knew of it) such ambiguity as to represent a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre’s stand for the Catholic Faith, to the point that they considered that the Romans need only have accepted it to destroy his Society.

In fact when the SG met the Romans on June 11 in Rome to receive their decision, he fully expected they would accept it. Numerous observers speculate that if they did not accept it, it was only because the intervening publication of the April 7 Letter of the Three Bishops to the SG warned the Romans that he would not be able to bring the whole Society with him into the bosom of their Conciliar Rome, as he may have given them to understand he would do, and as they wanted him to do. They did and do not want another split to start Tradition all over again.

Be all that as it may, space remains here for nothing but one major argument that the proposal of the Doctrinal Declaration, had it been accepted by Rome, would have destroyed the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre declared, and proved, that Vatican II was a break or rupture with previous Church teaching. On that premise arose, and rests, the Traditional Catholic movement. So, confronted by the on-going resistance of that movement to his beloved Vatican II, Benedict XVI proclaimed at the outset of his pontificate in 2005 the “hermeneutic of continuity”, whereby the Council (objectively) contradicting Tradition was to be (subjectively) so interpreted as not to contradict it. Thus there would be no break or rupture between it and Catholic Tradition !

Now see the seventh paragraph (III, 5) of the Doctrinal Declaration. It declares that Vatican II statements difficult to reconcile with all previous Church teaching, (1) “must be understood in the light of Tradition entire and uninterrupted, in line with the truths taught by the Church’s preceding Magisterium, (2) not accepting any interpretation of those statements which can lead Catholic doctrine to be exposed in opposition or rupture with Tradition and that Magisterium.”

The first part here (1) is perfectly true, so long as it means that any Conciliar novelty “difficult to reconcile” will be flatly rejected if it objectively contradicts previous Church teaching. But (1) is directly contradicted by (2) when (2) says that no Conciliar novelty may be “interpreted” as being in rupture with Tradition. It is as though one said that all football teams must wear blue shirts, but football team shirts of any other colour are all to be interpreted as being nothing other than blue ! What nonsense ! But it is pure “hermeneutic of continuity”.

Now, do the soldiers holding the last fortress of the Faith that is organised worldwide realize what their Commander is thinking ? Do they realize that his solemn declaration of SSPX doctrine shows him to be thinking like an enemy leader ? Are they happy that they are being led to think like the enemies of the Faith ? All ideas must be Catholic, while non-Catholic ideas will be “interpreted” as Catholic. Wake up, comrades ! Enemy thinking is in Headquarters.

Kyrie eleison.

I need some help and I think you guys are a good shot.

What can I say to someone who refuses to believe that this
released Doctrinal Preamble that +Fellay wrote is authentic?  

When I tell him, that all +Fellay has to do is declare that it is
not authentic, he has no response, as if it is not neccesary
for +Fellay to do that.

But I maintain that it IS NECESSARY for him to do that if it
is what he believes, HOWEVER, the reason +Fellay will not
dare to deny this is authentic is, that then he would be obliged
to prove what he says by RELEASING HIMSELF the docuмent
that he believes is authentic, and he WON'T DO THAT, because
then his lemmings will be forced to take a look at it.

He does not respond to this issue in order to maintain a kind
of veil of silence over the matter.


Does anyone have something to say about this???????????????




The man I'm talking to is representative of a lot of Accordistas.