SSPX's 2012 Doctrinal Declaration

[Stone]

It has been nearly six years since Bishop Fellay signed and offered to Rome his Doctrinal Declaration. Since that time we have seen many changes in the SSPX: its [/url]re-branding, the SSPX in Argentina is formally recognized by the conciliar church, the SSPX asking the local diocesan priests to hear the marriage vows of SSPX parishioners, Fr. Paul Robinson preaching evolution with the full support of the SSPX, etc. to just name a few.

These do not include those events that are antecedent to the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration but which also speak to a shift away from the guiding principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, events such as the GREC meetings, the asking by Bishop Fellay of Pope Benedict XVI for the lifting of the excommunications in 2009 and the praise for the Motu Proprio of 2007.

But these antecedent events culminate in the Doctrinal Declaration. And by consequence, the fruits of the that Declaration are seen in the many errors and changes since that its signing in 2012. It is for these reasons that we are once again looking at that document. They say that hindsight is twenty-twenty. How much clearer things appear when in their proper context. The purpose of this thread is to serve as a reminder of WHY that Doctrinal Declaration has spewed so much error. And how the events that are unfolding and continue to unfold in the betrayal of the SSPX, the Chronology of its Suicide, are typified in this document:

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble

Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012

Translated from the text on La Sapiniere.

I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.


II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)


III

1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.

2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)

3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).

4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).

5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.

6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).

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.

8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.


Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.

(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.

(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”

(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.

(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
[url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012]www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012

[Stone]

For many souls, the ambiguous language of this Declaration has left them unclear as to what Bishop Fellay has really agreed to. Here are two very good, simple explanations of exactly what Bishop Fellay has done:

Part I:

The SSPX's New Doctrine - A Problem which won't go away!

“The greatest misery, for a century or for a country, is to abandon or to diminish the truth. We can get over everything else; we never get over the sacrifice of principles. Characters may give in at given times and public morality receive some breach from vice or bad examples, but nothing is lost as long as the true doctrines remain standing in their integrity. With them everything is remade sooner or later, men and institutions, because we are always able to come back to the good when we have not left truth. To give up the principles, outside which nothing can be built that is strong and lasting would take away even the very hope of salvation. So the greatest service a man can render to his kinsmen, in the times when everything is failing and growing dim, is to assert the truth without fear even though no one listens to him; because it is a furrow of light which he opens through the intellects, and if his voice cannot manage to dominate the noises of the time, at least it will be received as the messenger of salvation in the future.”
- Mgr. Charles-Emile Freppel (1827-1891), Bishop of Angers



“The imperative duty and the noble custom of holy Church is to pay homage especially to the truth when it is ignored, to profess it when it is threatened. There is a mediocre merit to claim to be its apostle and its supporter when all acknowledge and adhere to it. To make so much of the human state of the truth and to love it so little for itself that we deny it as soon as it is no longer popular, as soon as it does not have number, authority, preponderance, success : would that not be a new way of doing our duty, and of understanding honour ? Let it be known: the good remains good, and must continue to be called as such, even when “nobody does it” (Ps. XIII, 3). Furthermore, a small number of persons putting forth claims is sufficient to save the integrity of the doctrines. And the integrity of the doctrine is the only chance for the restoration of order in the world.”
- Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitiers


Introduction

In February 2015, Bishop Fellay visited the SSPX seminary in the United States, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota. Although, as it happens, Bishop Athanasius Schneider happened to be visiting around that same time, nominally Bishop Fellay was there to confer tonsures on the seminarians. One of the faithful present at the ceremonies had the opportunity to speak to Bishop Fellay face to face. The following brief account was recounted first-hand by the gentleman himself, a close personal acquaintance of this author and a man of unimpeachable integrity whose word is above suspicion and beyond question.

Given the crowds, the short time available, and the very likely possibility of interruption, he asked the Superior General what he considered to be the one question that matters most: your Excellency, do you stand by the contents of your Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012, or do you consider that it contains anything wrong, anything which might need correcting?

The question was simple and clear, the immediate answer equally so: There is nothing wrong with my Doctrinal Declaration; I stand by what it says.

As noted above, this story cannot be kicked into touch with the usual accusations of “hearsay,” “rumour” and the like. Furthermore it comes as no great surprise anyway, being already confirmed by several different things heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay across the globe over the past two years. It is therefore beyond serious dispute that Bishop Fellay stands by the content and substance of his Doctrinal Declaration. He regards it as wholly orthodox and free from any error, heterodoxy or diminution of the truth in any form - in short, an accurate reflection of his own doctrinal position and that of those with him.

It need hardly be said that this is a very serious matter indeed concerning as it does Catholic doctrine and teaching, a matter which is of profound and lasting consequence to every priest of the SSPX and the faithful with them, whether they realise it or not. To understand why, it suffices to consider the reality of which Bishop Freppel reminds us in the quote above. Even a fairly cursory glance through Catholic history will suffice to show that the Church can and has weathered storms of scandals involving bad morals even amongst the highest ranks of the clergy: from concubinage to simony, from clerical sodomy to lay investiture. One need only mention the name Borgia to immediately conjure up an image of what he means. And yet, as Bishop Freppel notes, such problems, however gravely scandalous, however much harm they do to the apostolate and to souls in their own time, are nevertheless of secondary importance in the long run because the Church can and will always overcome them, “as long as the true doctrines remain standing in their integrity.” On the other hand, the one thing which deals a mortal death blow is any tampering with true doctrine, be it ever so slight. We would do well to note that Bishop Freppel does not content himself with talking about straightforward “denial” of Catholic teaching, rather he makes a point of saying that the worst calamity is to “abandon or diminish the truth.” And, as Cardinal Pie notes in the second quote, it is whenever the truth is attacked or diminished or threatened that it becomes especially important to kick up a fuss in defence of that same truth. Even “a small number of persons” who refuse any compromise when it comes to doctrine is sufficient “to save the integrity of the doctrines” - but refuse they must! It must also be appreciated that from Catholic doctrine flows Catholic liturgy, Catholic piety and spirituality, Catholic education, Catholic law and justice, Catholic culture, in short everything which might be identified as “Catholic.” Without true doctrine, the Church, and consequently all of human society, is as nothing; therefore, “the integrity of doctrine is the only chance for the restoration of order in the world.” Nothing is more important.

Many people have heard of Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration, but not all of them have read it and of those who have, they may not have read it for quite a while, or they may have become lost in some of the document’s vaguer or wordier passages. For this reason we feel it a good use of time to go back and look at it again, and study it closely to discern what it means and what it says, and what the implications of that are for us. The document was signed and presented in an official capacity, not as a private letter of Bishop Fellay, but (as its title suggests) as something which officially represents the SSPX. Aside some verbal equivocation on the part of Bishop Fellay on a personal level, there has been no official document signed and handed over to Rome in the name of the SSPX with the intent of correcting and repealing its offending passages. Therefore the document itself, and more importantly the doctrine that it represents, still stands, and remains the official doctrinal position of the SSPX to this day. This is not to say that there are not some within the SSPX who seek to play down the significance of the Doctrinal Declaration - we can benefit a great deal from trying to understand why that might be.


Background

In March 2012, Bishop Fellay wrote to all the priests of the SSPX in the Society’s internal newsletter ‘Cor Unum’ suggesting that perhaps the time had now come for an agreement with Rome. Following this, the other three bishops of the SSPX wrote to him expressing their alarm and begging him not to go ahead with it. Bishop Fellay replied in a letter co-signed by Frs. Pfluger and Nely (his First Assistant and Second Assistant). In that reply, Bishop Fellay did not tell the other three bishops that they had got the wrong idea, that it had all been a misunderstanding, that he had no intention of making any agreement with Rome. His reply shows beyond doubt that the worst fears of the other three SSPX bishops were confirmed. The reply accused them of an “absolute hardening,” which, “will in the future end up in a true schism.” Bishop Fellay’s letter of reply to the three bishops is dated 14th April, 2012. His Doctrinal Declaration was signed and handed over to Rome the following day, 15th April, 2012.

For a while, little enough was known about the Doctrinal Declaration or its contents. After a short while it became known that Bishop Fellay had sent some sort of doctrinal formula to Rome as a sort of ‘credo’ or statement of belief, representing a summary of where the SSPX stood in relation to the Council and the conciliar ‘reforms’, the idea being that, if both the SSPX and the Romans could agree upon it, it could serve as the official basis of the agreement that was being planned. A few weeks later, in May 2012, Bishop Fellay told a meeting of Dominicans and laity in Brignoles, France that he thought the Doctrinal Declaration would be accepted by the Romans. He also hinted ominously that, once its contents became clear, it would require a certain amount of effort in presenting it to the faithful, implying that it might be thought that the SSPX had changed its position:

“Amongst ourselves, I think it will have to be explained properly because there are in this document expressions or declarations which are so very much on a tight rope that if you are ill disposed or whether you are wearing black or pink tinted glasses, you will see it as this or as that. So we shall have to properly explain that this letter changes absolutely nothing of our position.”


As to its contents, the following month Fr. Pfluger revealed one paragraph which, it was reported, stated something to the effect that the Council must be viewed in the light of Tradition, which in turn must be viewed in the light of the Council. There were those who refused to believe such a thing could be possible and put it down to hearsay.

By February 2013 the one year anniversary of the Doctrinal Declaration was fast approaching and still the priests and faithful were none the wiser as to what it contained. At that point a letter was sent by Fr. Thouvenot, the SSPX Secretary General in Menzingen, to all SSPX priests stating that some wicked priests were planning to leak the Doctrinal Declaration, and hence Menzingen (in an attempt to take the wind out of their sails, and because they could no longer prevent it from becoming public anyway) had decided to publish it in the next Cor Unum, for the benefit of SSPX priests. The following month, March 2013, the Doctrinal Declaration was indeed published in Cor Unum by Menzingen, but only after it had already appeared on various resistance websites. Its contents made clear why it had been kept secret for as long as possible. We might well wonder how long it would have remained secret had it not been leaked.


Contents

We will deal with the paragraphs in the order in which they appear.


Paragraph I

“We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.”

It might be objected that the SSPX has always been faithful to the Catholic Church and Roman Pontiff, and that to promise to do something in the future might imply that we were not doing so all along already. Furthermore, the distinction between conciliar church and Catholic Church (or “Eternal Rome” and “neo-modernist Rome” of Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 declaration) is conspicuous by its absence, leaving the phrase “Catholic Church” open to dangerous ambiguity, given that each side is known to understand it to mean something different. That said, in itself there is nothing actually erroneous or doctrinally unsound in this statement, even if it ought arguably to have been made in a clearer, less ambiguous language.



Paragraph II

“We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)”

Footnote (1) - Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.

As noted above with the phrase “Catholic Church,” there is likewise a dangerous ambiguity present in the phrase “Magisterium of the Church”, since we know that the writings and judgements of the modern Popes (John Paul II’s opposition to the death penalty, for example, or the new Code of Canon law’s permission for non Catholics to receive the sacraments) are understood to be “the Magisterium of the Church” by the modern conciliar churchmen.

But far worse than mere ambiguity, dangerous though that is, is this paragraph’s acceptance of Lumen Gentium 25 by Bishop Fellay on behalf of the SSPX. It is the first breach in the wall, so to speak, because one cannot reject Lumen Gentium if one accepts one of its paragraphs and makes it the basis for one’s own declaration of doctrine. Likewise, one cannot maintain an uncompromising rejection of Vatican II if one has accepted one of Vatican II’s documents and claimed it as a source for one’s own doctrine. This is not the only part of Lumen Gentium (or indeed of Vatican II) which the Doctrinal Declaration explicitly accepts, as we shall see, but even if it were, then this paragraph alone would still suffice to destroy any stance of rejecting Vatican II outright.

Amongst other things, Lumen Gentium is the document which states that the “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”, that the Muslims “together with us adore the one and merciful God”, that the Holy Ghost gives his gifts to, and is operative among, those in non-Catholic sects outside the Church (Protestants and others), that those same sects are joined to us “in some real way” in the Holy Ghost; and that “many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside” the Catholic Church.

Lumen Gentium 25 in particular seems to suggest an equivalence between papal infallibility and the authority of a local bishop (it is phrased in a way that tends to be more suggestive than explicit). It states that the faithful are to submit to the teaching of a local bishop with “religious submission of mind and will”. (Just think for a moment what the implications of that would be!)

The footnote attached to this part of the Doctrinal Declaration signifies the SSPX’s acceptance of the new Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity, composed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1989, and was published with an introduction (available on the Vatican website in Italian, though not, interestingly enough, in English!) which states explicitly that its purpose was to take previous oaths and bring them into line with the Council.

As soon as it appeared, this very same Oath of Fidelity was condemned in the very strongest terms by Archbishop Lefebvre:

“What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council.

. . .

As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison is in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops.

. . .

No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the [1988] protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favour in Article III, because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.

. . .

And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.”

(“One Year After The Consecrations”, Fideliter, 1989; See also: [/url]www.therecusant.com/sheer-trickery )


Finally, we note that the footnote also cites various canons from the new code of canon law, and is thus the first signal of the SSPX’s acceptance of that New Code (1983) over the old (1917) code.


Paragraph III, 1.

“We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.”

The two sources cited here as being “acceptable” to the SSPX (“we”) are in fact rather different from one another. Pastor Aeternus from the First Vatican Council would have done fine on its own, but since Bishop Fellay says that “we” also accept Lumen Gentium Chapter 3, it is as well acquaint ourselves a little better with what that text says. Lumen Gentium Chapter 3 comprises Paragraphs 18 – 29 and is infamous for being more contradictory to Pastor Aeternus than supportive of it. It is where the modern conciliar phenomenon of so-called “collegiality” first raised its ugly head (paragraph 22). Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of the past opposed collegiality, in this paragraph Bishop Fellay says explicitly that “we” accept it. Notice that even the paragraph’s first sentence begins by talking about: “the doctrine…regarding the college of bishops.”

So quasi-heretical was this part of Lumen Gentium that Paul VI himself had to have an explanatory note inserted into the final draft to the effect that the authority of the “college” of bishops is not equal to that of the Pope and cannot be used against him. This is the “nota explicativa” to which Bishop Fellay refers. That such a thing should have been thought necessary by even Paul VI ought to give us some sort of an idea as to the (un)orthodoxy of the rest of the document!

As it happens, Lumen Gentium Chapter 3 also calls for priests to act as quasi social workers in helping to bring in the New World Order:

“Because the human race today is joining more and more into a civic, economic and social unity, it is that much the more necessary that priests … wipe out every kind of separateness.”

Note, priests are to spend their time not just eradicating doctrinal “separateness” (as in, converting souls to the true doctrine of Christ’s Church) but every kind of difference, especially those which occur in the pursuit of “civic, economic and social unity.”



Paragraph III, 2.

“We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that ‘the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith.’(3)”

Footnote (2) - Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

Footnote (3) - Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.

Bishop Fellay would later claim that this paragraph, with its quote from Pastor Aeternus about not making known a new doctrine, is what saves the rest of the document from error or compromise. Quite apart from the implicit admission (that other parts of the document are unsound) entailed by such a claim, the claim itself is simply untrue. Firstly, it is the number of lies told, not the number of truths told, which determines a man’s (or a document’s) truthfulness. Secondly, stating that the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter so that they could pass on Tradition faithfully, while true, in no way automatically saves one from acceptance of novelty. Many modern Catholics, for example, who accept some forms of modernism might easily agree with the above quote from Pastor Aeternus and see no contradiction in their so doing. They would claim that they too accept only what is in line with Tradition - they just happen to regard Lumen Gentium, the new Code of Canon Law, the New Mass (or whatever else) as being in line with Tradition.



Paragraph III, 3.

“Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque ad nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).”

Footnote (4) - Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

Footnote (5) - Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

Footnote (6) - Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”

Footnote (7) - Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

Of the four footnotes cited in this section, numbers 4 and 6 are unobjectionable - the other two are not! The second footnote indicates that the statement: “Tradition progresses within the Church” is a quote or paraphrase from another Vatican II document, Dei Verbum. It sounds harmless enough at first, but the more one pauses to consider it, the more modernist and heterodox it sounds. “Tradition progresses in the Church”? The original text of Dei Verbum 8 makes clear that this “progression” involves the laity coming to a better understanding through “contemplation and study” and through “the spiritual realities which they experience” (whatever that means!)

Finally, it need hardly be said that, once again, “we” have given “our” assent to another document of Vatican II, one shot-through with errors, heresies or, at best, modernist-sounding ambiguities. And that since we have made part of that document the basis of our profession of doctrine, we can hardly then go on to totally reject that same document.


Paragraph III, 4.

“The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).”

Footnote (8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.

This is the infamous paragraph which Fr. Pfluger let slip in 2012, a few months after the signing of this document. The idea that “the Second Vatican Council … enlightens” anything at all is, to put it charitably, highly problematic. This one sentence destroys any and all opposition to the Council, and thus it destroys the very purpose of existence for the SSPX and justification for its apostolate. Fr. Pfluger appears not to see that, however. Nor does Bishop Fellay, who signed his name to it in his official capacity as Superior General of the SSPX, on behalf of the SSPX, making this the official position of the SSPX.


Paragraph III, 5.

“The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.”

This paragraph, at one fell swoop, accepts explicitly the “social gospel”/“liberation theology” nonsense, religious liberty and ecumenism as being reconcilable with Catholic teaching. It talks about “the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church” instead of simply saying “Catholic teaching” (why?) and – perhaps most importantly – it says that there cannot be any “rupture” between Catholic Tradition and the modern conciliar teachings, which it refers to either as “Catholic doctrine” or “this Magisterium” (see if you can work out which it is!). This is classic Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger theology, the idea being that what came before the council and what came after have to be understood as being part of one, uninterrupted Tradition. If it turned out that the council contradicted Catholic teaching, you see, then a lot of important people would have some serious problems of conscience to face. So we resolve things by claiming, through a sophism and a suspension of reason, that the contradiction between pre– and post-conciliar is only apparent and not real. This is precisely what is meant by the “hermeneutic of continuity” - a dishonest rhetoric designed to mask a contradiction and to pretend that there is continuity when in fact there is none. Needless to say, this involves the mixing of truth and error (the result of which can only ever be new error!), and the jettisoning of objective truth, not least the principle of non-contradiction.


Finally, by talking about Catholic teaching in terms of what “interpretation” one might make or accept, the paragraph does tend to relativise and trivialise Catholic teaching by implying, whether consciously or otherwise, that it is all a matter of interpretation anyway.


Paragraph III, 6.

“That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).”

Footnote (9) - There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.

Following on from the previous talk of not allowing an appearance of rupture between post- and pre-conciliar, this paragraph posits the solution. We just need to “dialogue” more. The purpose of “theological discussions” is to explain how Vatican II is really traditional after all. Notice also that the phrase: “in the case where they don’t appear reconcilable” implies that any contradiction is a matter of appearances.


Paragraph 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.”

With this paragraph Bishop Fellay declares that the SSPX accepts the legitimacy of the New Mass and other New Sacraments. Some, notably Fr. Daniel Themann, have tried to claim that it means only that the Pope has authority to promulgate, that the authority promulgating the New Mass is what is legitimate, and not the new Mass itself. But the text clearly says that the New Mass was “legitimately promulgated.” If I say that I am “legitimately married” it means that my marriage is legitimate and not merely that I have the authority or power to get married should I so choose.

The 1988 protocol given to Archbishop Lefebvre to sign shortly before the consecrations, contains a paragraph which says exactly the same, word for word, no more or less, with one difference: the word “legitimately” is missing. Why bother to add that one word, and given that it was deliberately added, how can anyone claim afterwards that that one word does not really signify? It is an exercise in obfuscation. At Lille in 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre condemned the New Mass as a “rite bâtard” (“bastard rite” or “illegitimate rite”). If on the other hand the new Mass was legitimately promulgated then its promulgation was legitimate, making it a legitimate rite of the Church. This would mean that we cannot refuse to attend it on principle.


Paragraph III, 8.

“In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.”

Not only do we accept the New Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect it, which in context must mean to abide by it. This would include, presumably, respecting the law which allows the giving of the sacraments to non-Catholics, and the law which reverses the ends of marriage. And even if we make sure that we in the SSPX are “special”, at the very least this would still mean that we are happy to watch the rest of the Church live by this new conciliar Code of Canon law, since we have our little side altar in the cathedral of pluralism. This will, of course, all be done “following the guidelines laid out” in paragraph III,5 - in other words, it will be done according to the idea that there can by definition be no contradiction between old and new, Catholic and modernist, and that wherever a contradiction presents itself, we side with the new, with the modernist, and tell ourselves that it is not modernist but Catholic after all.


Summary

Bishop Fellay, in the name of the SSPX, formally and officially, first in secret and then in public, accepts the documents of Vatican II, Collegiality, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, the legitimacy of the New Mass and the New Code of Canon Law. He accepts that those things can be reconciled to Tradition, and that where they do not appear to be reconcilable, the solution is “discussions and study” to show that they are after all reconcilable.


Conclusion

The title of this document tells us a lot. “Doctrinal Declaration”. Its purpose is to declare doctrine. This is the doctrine which it declares. Bishop Fellay himself, through his actions (which speak louder than words!) has shown that he knew from the start that this would be unacceptable to a great many priests and faithful in 2012. That is why he kept it a secret for as long as possible (does it make any sense to have a “secret doctrine”? Has anyone but the Secret Societies ever taught a doctrine in secret?)

God blessed the SSPX only due to its fidelity to Tradition and its refusal to compromise with Vatican II. If we see now a loss of unity, of purpose, of holiness and of fruitfulness in the apostolates of the SSPX, this must surely be because that fidelity to Tradition is gone, and therefore God’s blessing is gone too. If God is Truth, then a denial of Catholic truth means separating ourselves from Almighty God. This is why the Holy Ghost is no longer making use of the Society which denied Him by denying His truth. Bishop Freppel’s words have come home to roost in the SSPX – it survived incompetence, immorality, bad priests, bad examples and bad decisions. It cannot and will not recover from its abandonment and diminution of the truth.


Practical Consequences

Catholics wishing to support Tradition need to realise that Tradition and the Council are simply incompatible. Vatican II is toxic: everything it touches, within a short time, withers and dies on the vine. It reduced the church of the 1950s and 1960s to her present state in little more than a generation. If we support Vatican II or give our approval to it in any way, then we cannot claim to be supporting Tradition, since the two are incompatible. If we are to totally and not just partially or symbolically support Tradition, then we must totally and not just partially or symbolically reject Vatican II.

This, far above any considerations of “validity”, “novus ordo hosts in the tabernacle” or “dubious sermons” is the real reason why Traditional Catholics knew that they ought to avoid the “approved” Masses of such groups as the Society of St. Peter, which accept Vatican II and which offer a “pre-conciliar taste” within a conciliar framework. For that very same reason, we ought to avoid the Society of St. Pius X. We want nothing to do with the council, therefore we will have nothing to do with the Society of St. Pius X which has accepted it. The sacrament of confession is something more personal, but the Mass is a public act of worship on behalf of the Church, and we cannot assist at the public act of worship offered by priests who officially accept the Council.

A public departure from, diminution of or undermining of the Faith requires a public response. Every priest of the Society of St. Pius X has a duty to make public where he stands in relation to this grave insult to Our Lord. It was written and handed over in his name: it is up to him to tell the world that this is not the case, to confess Our Lord “before men”. We are well aware that there are many priests remaining in the SSPX who privately disagree with the Doctrinal Declaration, but our confession of the Faith has to be public, not private, especially (as Cardinal Pie says) when the truth is attacked.

Archbishop Lefebvre gave the faithful Catholic Tradition, and the faithful were justified in more or less assuming that the priests united with him taught the same. Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration is another doctrine than that which we received from him. To those who say that we err, that we go too far, we reply that we prefer to err on the side of being too zealous on behalf of Tradition, of opposing Vatican II and its novel doctrine too strongly, than the alternative. Our Lord warns us against being lukewarm, and experience teaches us to beware above all a slow, subtle danger to our faith.

In the meantime, whilst we await the ministrations of the far smaller number of priests who have declared themselves against this new doctrine, Almighty God will surely reward our sacrifices which are made out of love for Him and fidelity to Catholic Tradition.


St. Pius X, pray for us!

[url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.therecusant.com/sspx-new-doctrine]www.therecusant.com/sspx-new-doctrine

[Stone]

Part II: Adapted from the Cor Mariae forum

SSPX Doctrinal Declaration: is it Official Policy?

We have been hearing from a few that the SSPX Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 is not Official Policy; and if it was, it was “withdrawn” by Bishop Fellay.

Such a statement would attribute the SSPX Doctrinal Declaration to be a political circumstance in a given time.

What is contrary from that particular thought is that the ACTUAL value of the said SSPX Doctrinal Declaration is just that: a DOCTRINAL DECLARATION. The contents manifest an explicit intention to declare Doctrine; thereby to receive agreement in the format that it was sent by delegation to conciliar Rome as a Preamble for an agreement of wills.

It needs to be understood that when one declares Doctrine, especially a Catholic Bishop, that one has their salvation on the line to merit grace if it is for Truth in honor of the True God, or to merit damnation in being an agent of the devil to deceive another, knowingly or unknowingly.

Archbishop Lefebvre had made several Doctrinal Declarations to conciliar Rome, such as his famous 1974 Doctrinal Declaration that he died with, and the old-sspx still maintains. archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm

Bishop Fellay had also made his own Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 that turned the course of the sspx; and which he still maintains today.

From the onset, let there be no mistake, Bishop Fellay's new SSPX Doctrinal Declaration is alive and well, and is carrying its course.


WHEREAS:

• The 3-SSPX Bishops sent an Official letter to Bishop Fellay, the Superior General, and the General Council on April 7, 2012 not to pursue a practical deal with conciliar Rome; that was an official act. [/url]www.therecusant.com/menz-letter-to-3-bishops

• Bishop Fellay and the General Council responded with adamancy and deceit on April 14, 2012; that was an official act.

• The following day, Bishop Fellay’s SSPX Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 was secretly handed to Pope Benedict XVI as a Preamble for a deal with conciliar Rome; that was an Official act. www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012

• That [secret] official SSPX Doctrinal Declaration was leaked to the public in [May] 2012. That was the first time the lower ranks of the SSPX priests had seen on paper the workings of Menzingen betray the old-sspx; to great scandal.

• In July 2012, the SSPX General Chapter was officially in heated discussion over that Doctrinal Declaration, per Fr. Fuchs who was there, and now with the Catholic Resistance. The General Chapter ended without condemnation of that Doctrinal Declaration; therefore in acceptance; that is an official act.

• The SSPX General Chapter wrote 6-new conditions to conciliar Rome for a practical agreement to commence; that is an official act. In a continual line with the Doctrinal Declaration.

• With a height of scandal throughout the world, Bishop Fellay said in a conference in Ireland, that he “said” to the Vatican that he “withdraws” that Doctrinal Declaration.

• A few months later, within the March 2013 CorUnum, the official bulletin of the SSPX to all of their priests throughout the world, Bishop Fellay promoted again for the SSPX member’s attention the full contents of that Doctrinal Declaration being alive and well; that is an official act.

• On June 27, 2013, the remaining 3-SSPX Bishops wrote a compromised Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations stating 12-points in continuance of course with the Doctrinal Declaration; the error is not in the council; that is an official act. www.therecusant.com/27june2013-declaration

• Bishop Fellay conducted a “kangaroo court” against Fr. Pinaud in censoring him with the Vatican II “1983 Code of Canon Law”; of which Code was in full acceptance within that Doctrinal Declaration; that is an official act (though illegal).

• Throughout 2012, 2013, and still in 2014, many SSPX priests are being expelled for calling into question the Doctrinal Declaration; that is an official act.

• Fr. Rioult wrote a book “The Impossible Reconciliation”, Documents of Operation Suicide of Bishop Fellay, with the contents demonstrating that there is a split between Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay; while showing that the Doctrinal Declaration is still in effect within the continuity of later events. Fr. Rioult’s book was refused publication and circulation by Bishop Fellay. Fr. Rioult is now in the Catholic Resistance.


FACTS:

• A Doctrinal Declaration is a testament of one’s belief and creed.
• Catholic Doctrine and Her Creed does not change, nor can be retracted.
• When one is Baptized, that doctrine and Creed remains unblemished.
• Catholic Doctrine is not private; it is public for the salvation of souls.
• When a Catholic states a Doctrinal Declaration, the one is stating a Truth that cannot be changed or disfigured.


In Bishop Fellay’s world he states:

• Bishop Fellay claims that he is of Traditional Catholic origin.
• Bishop Fellay’s intent was to send a Doctrinal Declaration: its purpose is to declare Doctrine.
• That Doctrinal Declaration took months to prepare; with full consent.
• Bishop Fellay had made that compromised Doctrinal Declaration in secret.
• Bishop Fellay officially signed it as the Superior General of the SSPX.
• Bishop Fellay officially sent it to Rome for their endorsement and signature of acceptance of an agreement.
• Bishop Fellay waited 2-months from Rome to see if it had been accepted or not.
• In face of scandal during the summer of 2012, Bishop Fellay said that he “verbally” said to the Vatican that he “withdraws” the Doctrinal Declaration he sent in.
• Bishop Fellay had never RENOUNCED the contents within his Doctrinal Declaration; therefore, the contents are in effect of his belief.


Fact:

• A Catholic Bishop, nor any baptized Catholic, can “withdraw” a Doctrinal statement; it is meaningless. Either one believed in the Doctrine stated, or one was trying to purposely deceive with false Doctrine.

• So if Bishop Fellay is sincere, then he believes what he wrote; therefore, his Doctrinal Declaration is a part of his belief.

• When one sends in official capacity a protocol of signed declaration, or agent of contract, through delegated authority, it is in consent and intention for an agreement. If the document is denied, altered, or withdrawn, it likewise needs the protocol with intent of agreement of both parties to delegate the response in a signed affidavit to endorse the change, alterations, or withdrawal. Bishop Fellay had done none of the above in return of protocol; he stated to us in a conference in Ireland that he “VERBALLY” said to the Vatican that he is “withdrawing” his Doctrinal Declaration; which of course has no weight; it is not legal; nor official; or binding. It only leaves the listener into a mis-direction designed for [Traditional] public consumption.

• Further, if some say that Bishop Fellay “retracted” his Doctrinal Declaration, as stated above, a Catholic cannot “retract” Doctrine. Either it was true when you wrote it, or it was not true. In addition, if he was to retract it, he still cannot do so, because everything in that Doctrinal Declaration was not in error. So if he “retracts” his Doctrinal Declaration, he is retracting the parts that are true also; which cannot be done.


So, what remains is that Bishop Fellay had NEVER himself stated that he renounced and repudiated, along with penance for his scandal, the contents of his Doctrinal Declaration in which he officially sent to Rome; he therefore wishes us to believe as a cover that he had “withdrawn” his Doctrinal Declaration only as a political maneuver.

Therefore, Bishop Fellay in his official capacity as the Superior General of the SSPX, lives what he believes; his Doctrinal Declaration is still official policy within the governance of the SSPX.

It is also endorsed without condemnation and encouraged by silence from the SSPX Superiors and the majority of the sspx priests.

The trail of events that support Bishop Fellay’s intent is manifest in his actions and handling of continued direction towards conciliar Rome with compromise and deceit.

To the unwise, the "Recognition of Tolerance" is the desire for human compassion. For the wise, the Faith is the desire to please God; and needs to be protected…at all costs.

Here is a conference (part 1 and 2) that breakdown the devices of Bishop Fellay and the workings of his practical deal with conciliar Rome.



Machabees, Nov 14, 2014

+++

I have made an important addition to the beginning of the OP to distinguish the difference and nature of Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Declaration. I include it here in blue for content:


We have been hearing from a few that the SSPX Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 is not Official Policy; and if it was, it was “withdrawn” by Bishop Fellay.

Such a statement would attribute the SSPX Doctrinal Declaration to be a political circumstance in a given time.

What is contrary from that particular thought is that the ACTUAL value of the said SSPX Doctrinal Declaration is just that: a DOCTRINAL DECLARATION. The contents manifest an explicit intention to declare Doctrine; thereby to receive agreement in the format that it was sent by delegation to conciliar Rome as a Preamble for an agreement of wills.

It needs to be understood that when one declares Doctrine, especially a Catholic Bishop, that one has their salvation on the line to merit grace if it is for Truth in honor of the True God, or to merit damnation in being an agent of the devil to deceive another, knowingly or unknowingly.

Archbishop Lefebvre had made several Doctrinal Declarations to conciliar Rome, such as his famous 1974 Doctrinal Declaration that he died with, and the old-sspx still maintains. archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm

Bishop Fellay had also made his own Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 that turned the course of the sspx; and which he still maintains today.

From the onset, let there be no mistake, Bishop Fellay's new SSPX Doctrinal Declaration is alive and well, and is carrying its course.


[the rest follows...]
..............
..............

-Machabees, Nov 14, 2014

+++

In an interview on October 6, 2012 with Father Niklaus Pfluger, First Assistant General of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Pfluger stated once again to the unbelievers that the compromised SSPX Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 was in fact an Official, valid, and motivated piece of "common understanding" with conciliar Rome to declare and define as Doctrines of the Catholic Faith that they as SSPX superiors understood and promoted to grant acceptance and reconciliation.

Kirchliche Umschau: Just a few months ago, the Vatican seemed to be on the verge of granting canonical recognition to the Society. It seems now that all efforts were in vain. Bishop Müller, the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, suggested as much in several recent interviews.

Father Niklaus Pfluger: All efforts were not in vain, but an agreement in the near future is improbable [Ed. because of Pope Francis the way he is]. In both our estimation and that of the Curia, any agreement would be pointless unless we are on the same page about what the Faith really means. This common understanding was to be expressed in a “doctrinal declaration”, which we took ample time in drawing up, and in April 2012, Bishop Fellay, our Superior General, presented a preliminary, informal draft. But, to our great surprise, this text was rejected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So we are back to square one.

www.therecusant.com/fr-pfluger-kirch-umschau
www.dici.org/en/documents/interview-with-father-pfluger/



I will repeat, Fr. Pfluger said that the compromised SSPX Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 was a common understanding of the Catholic Faith with modernist Rome!

To wit, Fr. Pfluger said that "...we took ample time in drawing it up"! Yet the day before, April 14, 2012, Bishop Fellay, Frs. Pfluger and Nely [url=https://thecatacombs.freeforums.net/thread/685/sspxs-doctrinal-declaration-2012]wrote a responding scandalous letter to the three SSPX bishops, stating amongst other things, that there is no such present interest and agreement with Rome. Such is the secret nature of the Menzingen group of leaders...which continues on today.

[To see more, here is Fr. Pfeiffer's analysis of Fr. Pfluger's hypocritical interview with other bombs within it.]

Machabees, Feb 17, 2015

+++

Here are the words of Bishop Fellay still validating and authenticating his 2012 Doctrinal Declaration as official policy when asked near three years later in February 2015, while visiting the SSPX seminary in the United States along with the visiting modernist Bishop Athanasius Schneider, from a question asked by a faithful present at the ceremonies to speak to Bishop Fellay face to face.

Q. Your Excellency, do you stand by the contents of your Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012, or do you consider that it contains anything wrong, anything which might need correcting?

Bishop Fellay:
"There is nothing wrong with my Doctrinal Declaration; I stand by what it says." cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/the-sspxs-new-doctrine.3511/


As shown above, in spite of Bishop Fellay saying in later 2012 within a conference both in the usa and in Ireland that he “said” to the Vatican that he “withdraws” that Doctrinal Declaration to please the listeners at the time, we know that five months later Bishop Fellay had published the same 2012 Doctrinal Declaration in its entirety within the March 2013 CorUnum, the official bulletin of the SSPX to all of their priests throughout the world, extending its promotion to the SSPX member’s attention being alive and well; that is an official public act to over 600 priests and bishops.

Doctrine cannot be "withdrawn"; it can only be proclaimed!
 
Machabees, Apr 7, 2015

[Stone]

From the Archived Catacombs:

Criticism of Bp Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration of 15 April, 2012

The following document was read out loud by its author, Father de Jorna, to all members of the General Chapter of the SSPX in July 2012. No objection to it was raised from any member.

Its author is Father Benoît de Jorna (Rector of the St Pius X Seminary, at Econe, Switzerland), ordained by Abp. Lefebvre in 1984. He is one of the best theologians in the Society of St. Pius X. He was a member of the Theological Commission set up by the SSPX for the Doctrinal discussions with Rome between 2009 and 2011.

Fr. de Jorna proves in his document that Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration“ of April 15, 2012 amounts to the “hermeneutic of continuity”' of Benedict XVI.


Fr. de Jorna's Text:

 II. Absolutely necessary distinctions must be made concerning the magisterium. We accept all the magisterium [official teaching] of the Church until Vatican II. But since then, there is a new magisterium, for the most part opposed to the previous magisterium. We cannot, therefore, declare that we accept this new magisterium as magisterium of the Church.

"Either we are with his [John Paul II’s] predecessors who proclaimed the truth of all time, who are consistent with the Church from the Apostles until Pope Pius XII. Or we are with the Council and then we are against the predecessors of the current Pope. You have to choose, there is a choice to be made. It is clear that Tradition is with the 250 popes who preceded Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. That is clear. Or the Church has always been wrong. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We must be firm, clear and determined not to hesitate. "(Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, 14 May 1989, in the French review “Vue de Haut,” no. 13 p. 70).

This distinction is all the more important now that Benedict XVI has declared his intention:

"The issues to be addressed now are essentially doctrinal in nature, particularly those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post -conciliar magisterium of the Popes ... the magisterial authority of the Church cannot be frozen in 1962 and this must be very clear for the Society [of St Pius X]" (Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the world concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops, March 10, 2009).

On the other hand, the 1989 Profession of Faith was consistently rejected by our founder because it required adherence to Vatican II.

On III, 1 of the Doctrinal Declaration [On Lumen Gentium No. 25]

We cannot accept the doctrine of “Lumen Gentium” chapter III. Even understood in the light of the Nota previa, no. 22 to “Lumen Gentium,” it retains all its ambiguity because it still implies that there is in the Church a double subject of the Primacy [the Pope alone, AND the Pope with all the bishops] and opens the door to the denial of the teaching of Vatican I (DS 3054 ).

Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on this error on the occasion of the publication of the new 1983 Code of [Canon Law].

This § III, 1 does not avoid a serious ambiguity in that it declares acceptance of both the teaching of Vatican I on the primacy of the Pope and of Vatican II on collegiality. It is at least seriously questionable whether this is possible. And the Holy See will not fail to see the possibility and even the duty to interpret the first Vatican Council according to Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre would never have signed these statements and there is no reference to ch. III of “Lumen Gentium” in the1988 Protocol of agreement.

On III, 2 and 3 of the Doctrinal Declaration. [Vatican II’s notion of Tradition]

“Tradition” can be understood in three ways:

1) The subject [who does the transmitting],
2) The act [of transmitting]
3) The object [that which is transmitted])

The Modernists play on the ambiguity of this plurality of meanings. Only Tradition in the sense of “subject” and “act” may be called “living”, not Tradition in the sense of “object.” The latter is unchangeable in its meaning. It would have been better to have taken the words from our doctrinal discussions [with Rome] and to have spoken only of “constant” Tradition. The Anti-Modernist Oath (DS 3548-3549) clearly rejects the false notion of the new living tradition when it evokes "the absolute and immutable truth" of Divine Tradition. These clarifications are all the more essential since Benedict XVI develops a false meaning of Tradition along evolutionary lines .

On the other hand, to say [in the Doctrinal Declaration] that "the Church perpetuates and transmits all that she is and all that she believes” is not unambiguous.

Firstly because, for Benedict XVI and Vatican II, the fundamental subject that transmits Tradition is the Church, meaning the whole People of God, a living subject making its way through history, and secondly because the magisterium of the Church does not pass on what the Church “is and believes"; it preserves, transmits and defends the objective deposit of faith received from Christ and the Apostles ? all the truths revealed by God, keeping always the same meaning.

For Benedict XVI, the Church, “People of God,” transmits its belief by which is meant an “experience” of immanentist connotation. It would be better to say that the Magisterium of the Church teaches with authority, in the name of God, the definitive and immutable meaning of the revealed Truth, having recourse to the normative expressions which are the dogmas.

On III, 4 and 5 of the Doctrinal Declaration [Vatican II’s doctrine on religious freedom, collegiality and ecumenism]

We cannot say [in the Doctrinal Declaration], without being more precise, that Vatican II, “enlightens, deepens and clarifies certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church.” For, in the mind of Benedict XVI, Vatican II wanted to redefine the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought.

This led to a contradiction or serious putting into question of the constant teaching of the Catholic Tradition on several key points. Religious freedom is in contradiction with Tradition. Ecumenism and Collegiality also break with Tradition.

Let us remember that in 1978 Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“We profess the Catholic faith fully and completely ... We reject and anathematize all that was rejected and anathematized by the Church ... Insofar as the texts of Vatican II and the post- conciliar reforms oppose the doctrine expounded by those popes from before Vatican II, and give free rein to the errors they condemned, that we feel in conscience bound to make serious reservations about these texts and these reforms. " (French review Itinéraires, n. 233, May 1978, p. 108-109).

It is necessary to repeat that our founder always said:

"…saying that we see, we judge the documents of the Council ‘in the light of Tradition,’ obviously means that we reject those that are contrary to Tradition; that we interpret according to Tradition those which are ambiguous; and that we accept those that are conform to Tradition.” (Vue de Haut, n. 13, p. 57).

These precisions are all the more necessary in that the Roman authorities play on the word Tradition:

"In the mind of the Holy Father [John Paul II] and that of Cardinal Ratzinger, if I understand correctly, it would be necessary to integrate the decrees of the Council into Tradition; make it so they fit in at any cost. This is an impossible undertaking." (Vue de Haut, n. 13, p. 57).

We cannot let it be understood that it is possible and necessary to reconcile Vatican II and Tradition, we would lose the freedom to denounce errors and we would be in a golden cage amid the "spaces of theological freedom” of which Bishop Ocariz speaks of.

On III, 7 of the Doctrinal Declaration [New mass and new sacraments]

We cannot simply assert that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid. The New Mass is bad in itself. It presents an occasion of the sin of infidelity. This is why it cannot oblige under pain of sin in one’s duty to sanctify the Sunday. At a time when Rome recognizes the two rites it is necessary to remember that,

"Concerning the New Mass, let us immediately destroy this absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, you can participate. The Church has always forbidden attending the Masses of schismatics and heretics, even if they are valid. It is obvious that we cannot participate in sacrilegious Masses, or Masses that put our faith in danger." (Abp. Lefebvre, La messe de toujours, Clovis, 2005, p . 391)

III 8 of the Doctrinal Declaration [New canon law]

We have always refused the new Code of 1983. It is:

"Imbued with ecumenism and personalism, it sins gravely against the very purpose of the law." (Abp. Lefebvre, Ordinances of the SSPX, p. 4).

In addition, this new Code conveys the spirit of the new ecclesiology; democratic and collegialist.

Conclusion.

This statement [Doctrinal Declaration] is profoundly ambiguous and sins by omission against the clear and distinct denunciation of the principal errors that are still rampant within the Church and destroy the faith of Catholics. This statement [Doctrinal Declaration], as it stands, suggests that we accept the premise of the "hermeneutic of continuity." Such a document[Doctrinal Declaration], if it were the principle of an agreement, would make such an agreement equivocal from the start and would favour any subsequent drifting away [from our original positions]. [here ends Fr de Jorna's text]

After Fr de Jorna’s presentation, no one contradicted his statement.

*************************

Then Father Pagliarani (Right -Rector of the Argentinian seminary) rose and broke the silence in favour of Bishop Fellay in these terms:

"Dear colleagues! We are surely not going to give a slap in the face to our superior by demanding a retraction from him! This will be done implicitly in the final Declaration of the Chapter."
Then they went on to another topic ... The case was closed.

The “resistant” members were out-manoeuvred. They could not move on to the next phase which would have been the call for Bishop Fellay’s resignation. The Chapter participants were led to believe that the Declaration was “withdrawn” with an “implicit disapproval” of its author.

Bishop Tissier was deceived like the others. In a letter, dated 29 March 2013, he said it was "tacitly concluded that there was no need to dwell on this subject, as it was obvious that the Superior General regretted his ‘faux pas’ and was resolved not to do it again." (Official Bulletin of the French District [destined for priests] No. 251, Annex to the Circular Letter No. 2013-04)

The General Chapter erroneously concluded that Bishop Fellay had understood the intrinsic evil of the Declaration and that he tacitly disapproved of his thoughts. However, since the Chapter, Bishop Fellay has continued to defend the contents of his Doctrinal Declaration.

To do this, he has abused the oath of the Chapter [concerning silence about its deliberations]. Bishop Fellay thought that, since the members had promised to remain silent, no one would dare to contradict the official version of the General House.

The SSPX’s “official version” presents the Doctrinal Declaration as a "minimalist text which could lead to confusion among us" (Bishop Fellay , Cor Unum 102); or, a " sufficiently clear text " ( Bishop Fellay, Écône , 7 September 2012). A Doctrinal Declaration in which "any ambiguity was avoided on our judgment of the Council, including the famous hermeneutic of continuity.” A Declaration which "was not understood by many prominent members of the Society, who saw ambiguity or a rallying to the thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity." (Bishop Fellay , Cor unum 104, Note on the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012).

If Bishop Fellay considered his text to be ‘unambiguous,’

- Why didn’t he help, during the Chapter, the "prominent members of the Society” to understand his statement?

- Why allow Fr Pagliarani to spring to his defence in order to prevent “a slap in the face" and to focus on "an implicit withdrawal," and afterwards to claim that his statement was “too subtle,” no longer useful but basically sound?


Source: cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/criticism-of-doctrinal-declaration-15th-april-2012.167/

For complete commentary and text in French: www.lasapiniere.info/archives/1474

[Stone]

Reply to the above post on the Archived Catacombs:


Bishop Fellay proved he lied with fake tears at that 2012 General Chapter so as not to have the SSPX General Assembly condemn the contents of his 2012 Doctrinal Declaration so he can still use them in an effort as a continual manifesto with rome in foundation for his neo-sspx acceptance of conciliarism.  The new - "Take us as we are".

The proof is Bishop Fellay prominently displayed for consumption that 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (in full) within his March 2013 Cor Unum!  Fr. Hewko drew this out.

“ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”

www.therecusant.com/dont-play-with-the-faith

(...)

4. COMMON OBJECTION: “But the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was ‘withdrawn’! It’s a dead letter!”

REPLY: To “withdraw” (for a time) is not the same thing as to publicly reject, retract and correct. If it is truly withdrawn, in the sense of “withdrawn forever,” then why was it printed in the March, 2013 Cor Unum showing all the priests that it is, indeed, official? Why is Fr. Daniel Themann’s Conference in St. Marys, Kansas on April 16, 2013 that justifies the April 15th 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, still being promoted worldwide? If it is true that “things are back to normal now” then where’s the apologies (or better, gratitude) to the Bishop and priests who were expelled and silenced? At least a home and health insurance can be given back to some of the Resistance priests in their 70’s who warned the Superiors of the SSPX that this is all a danger to the Faith. Where’s the public retraction to the liberal statements in Interviews that continue to be quoted in recent SSPX articles, such as “95% of the Council is acceptable” (on September 3, 2013); or, “Religious Liberty of the Council is limited” (in fact, it’s a heresy condemned many times by the Pre-Council Popes); or “the errors of the Council are not really from the Council but from the general interpretation of it?”

[Stone]

Reply from the Archived Catacombs:


Moreover,  here is another timed piece, the SSPX Internal Document: "Cor Unum" June 2017

This is another manifesto and ralliement of Bishop Fellay towards modern rome and punishment for any dissenters in the ranks rings loud and clear.

Below is the contents written in June 2017 by Bishop Fellay to all of the 600 sspx priests in every country, to every priest friends, and every friendly communities tied to Menzingen. In no uncertain terms, says Bishop Fellay, no priest or bishop will dissent or contradict the superior General; no priest or bishop will announce or pronounce on their own without permission any relation of the sspx and rome on-goings. It is forbidden with pain of expulsion...do not cross or contradict the superior.  This too is set in the minds of their seminarians.

Tough talk. But when priests are buffered when asking simple questions following the proper channels and are cast as reprobates...the water boils.

Too bad Bishop Fellay wasn't on the right side of the debate. He spends more combative energy attacking his brother priests and bishops to be silent than he does against the modernists.

In addition, Bishop Fellay also made the precedent they MUST accept everything from rome less they are "unfaithful" sons of the Church.  So you see how these tidbits and acceptances from rome is the real agenda for full assimilation going around the one document idea everyone is expecting.

There is a lot to flush out; ending the same, betrayal.

Mind you, this was written in June 2017, and Bishop Fellay has been making bolder moves with the Vatican over following months thereafter...to the shackles and silence of his priests.

[I have made some editing in bold highlighting with my comments in [bold].]

SSPX Internal Document: "Cor Unum" June 2017

A Word from the Superior General

Dear members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X,

A few troubles have broken out in our dear Fraternity in recent months. Some members felt that they had to take a position publicly to express their point of view, using the pulpit or their bulletins for that purpose. In this they have acted in disregard of the elementary rules of every organized society, and also of our internal statutes and rules which require that relations with Rome be reserved for the Superior General. This is a provision of our venerated founder. Any article on this subject must therefore receive the approval of the Superior General, after being presented to the judgment of the Superior of the district. [This is a false representation and a distortion of the context.  The sspx priests have been clearly suppressed from their superiors and the superior general within their private pleas and are now informing their faithful from the pulpit what the grave representation, compromises and motives are of the superiors towards modern rome.  This too is in statue and a commandment by the faith to warn of false accounts against the faith.]

We therefore condemn these untimely initiatives, the most serious of which have been sanctioned. Is it necessary to recall that the General Chapter of 2006 included among the grounds for dismissal of the Brotherhood the rebellion and the public dissemination of a dispute with the authority? Let this warning be taken seriously .

As always, these confreres imagine they are defending Tradition. But in fact, the means they use weaken it by seriously attacking the unity of our fraternity, sowing weeds and causing confusion among the members and the faithful. Moreover, they pretend to dictate to the authority what should be its conduct. Whatever the good intention or the quality of the arguments, it is impossible to use an evil and unlawful means without causing damage to the common good. [sic.  Bishop Fellay is essentially saying he is the authority of "tradition" what can be and cannot be "interpreted" as a true content.  If only Peter had done this prior to St. Paul's public rebuke, we would not know the principle to use by God to rebuke our errant superiors.  Moreover, Bishop Fellay is fighting to set the basis of unity is on the superior general and not on the faith.  As with, he has just put a nail in the coffin of Archbishop Lefebvre and the continual resistance against this mindset the old-sspx freely spoke on its pulpits.]

Once again, we take this opportunity to recall the nature of our relations with Rome, since that is what it is all about.

1. The Church is experiencing one of the most terrible crises in its history, both in its intensity and in the extent of the errors spread at all levels of the hierarchy and the Catholic universe. This internal crisis began well before the Second Vatican Council; it goes back at least to the pontificate of Leo XIII and was strongly denounced by Saint Pius X under the name of modernism . It is experiencing a dazzling development on the occasion of the last Council which introduced a number of new principles and "pastoral" attitudes in order to open up to the world. The latter was able to diffuse its spirit in the favor of compliant texts which were matured. If today voices are heard to deplore a false reception of the Council, speaking of a para-council, a council of the media, we must note that the door open to these errors, called false interpretations, is found in the texts and the very atmosphere of the Council. If it is difficult to define exactly "the spirit of the Council", it is in his name that the Church has been seriously wounded a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis ...

2. Faced with this terrible reality, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted by taking the means that had to be used to get out of it. He was able to form priests, while rejecting the new orientations, faithful to all the truths and all that had been transmitted by our Mother the Holy Church;

3. That's what saved us! Moreover, it is this firmness which has allowed us to develop and manifest to the world and to the Church that attachment to Tradition is not a nostalgia for the past; but on the contrary a prodigious manifestation of the action of grace today;

4. Obviously, this way of acting contrasts with the general spirit which reigns in the Church. The Roman sanctions as well as the will of the authorities to impose the post-conciliar reforms, have forced us to live in a certain autarchy. This is the meaning of the survival operation of Tradition ...

5. Monseigneur Lefebvre, however, never wanted to separate himself from the Church . It is with great precaution that in the sermon of the consecrations and in other writings he manifested our attachment to the Church by refusing any schismatic spirit. Both his actions before the consecrations and his remarks afterwards show that for him there was no alternative: the pope remains the pope, the bishops of the bishops, with their prerogatives, even if they make mistakes , even heresies. That is why he always demanded that we appoint them to the Canon of the Mass .

Here we touch on the crux of the problem that affects us all, for it involves our future, and even our existence. How can we concretely hold the principle of obedience to the Church when in the very name of obedience we must reject everything from the errors that destroy it?  [How can Bishop Fellay re-question the Catholic answer in this fight "We ought to obey God than man" as he was consecrated based on that principle and practice as a bishop from ABL?  Unless he is now going to alter it with a neo-answer; as he will do in the following paragraphs.]

A line of action has been defined, in particular at the Chapters of 2006 and 2012. It emerges from a set of principles and practical applications. The principles do not change, but the circumstances in which they must be applied change and require adjustments or clarifications, which was done in 2012 or last year in Anzère . [Here is applied the will of "living tradition" and evolved truth that can change with the times. The Document of 2006 and 2012 is in direct opposition to each other. One (2006) is based on firm doctrinal clarifications and the other (2012) based on canonical favors.  The new injection here is the "practice" that was deliberately changed in 2012.  Interesting this 2012 Chapter document is held by Bishop Fellay as the "light" of tradition as the modernist hold "Vatican II" as their light of tradition.]

The fundamental principle that we follow from the beginning is that of fidelity to the Church and its perennial teaching. For the Church can not change either the faith or the commandments of God. The accidental modifications, the new dispositions which it applies prudently throughout the centuries, must correspond to this first principle: " nihil novi nisi quod traditum est ". That is why we cry out loud and clear that we remain Catholic even if we do not follow the reforms of the last fifty years and refuse to follow the ecclesiastical authorities whenever they wish to impose them. [Ahem..."not following the reforms of Vatican II"? Acceptance and promotion of the 1983 code of canon law, hybrid masses, and legitimacy of the novus ordo mass, etc to name a few is only a literary canard?]This Bishop Fellay contradicts and is betrayed by his new submissions from modern rome creating the sspx-civil war.]  For nothing in the world we do not want to distance ourselves from this line of conduct. [There is the fate of the new-sspx. Bishop Fellay also said in a letter to pope Benedict on June 17, 2012, five years to the date, "I committed myself in this perspective despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications."]

This may give the impression of a certain contradiction: we affirm our submission to the legitimate authority and we almost systematically refuse to follow it. However, with the help of time and human nature being what it is, some of us adopt erroneous attitudes, either by exaggeration, by simplicity, or by intellectual laziness. If we are to remain in the Truth, we must also respect the Reality and verify that our affirmations of the moment really correspond to the facts as they unfold before our eyes. [So in the words of Bishop Fellay...]

It is imperative that the justification of our line of conduct strictly respects all Catholic principles. We can not free ourselves from it. For example, it is false and very dangerous estimations to say : " We do not need a delegation for marriages "; " The substitute jurisdiction for confessions is enough for us ... "; " The acceptance of a delegation for marriages signifies acceptance of the novelties of the Council, " etc. I am afraid that some will end up "dogmatising" prudential action. It is not because we are struggling in an interminable crisis that we should a priori refuse any advance in favor of Tradition [neo-tradition?], free ourselves from any rule, was it established at the Council of Trent, or disregard power of keys given to the successor of Peter. We have never refused in principle to recognize the acts of the Pope when they are legitimate. [Here the question returns, what is "legitimate", from the Eternal Church or "legitimate" from the conciliar church?   Bishop Fellay did not distinguish which one, or was that on purpose?   Instead he made a general admission to be the rule for all advances for "tradition".  Which raises the other burning question, what type of tradition are you speaking about: Perennial tradition or neo-tradition?]

Much good, much work to bring priests or faithful to the Tradition, are thus prevented by cerebral and abstract reasoning that does not correspond to reality. I wonder how some consider the " conversion of Rome ", the return of the Church to its Tradition, while they carefully avoid any action, any contact with the official Church, not to mention the Ecclesia Dei mobility.  [There is the identifier "the Ecclesia Dei mobility" = his intention and living variants of neo-tradition.  This statment reminds us also of the extreme scathing letter Bishop Fellay and Frs. Pfluger and Nely sent to the three other sspx bishops on April 14, 2012.]  Saint Francis de Sales already understood that one did not catch flies with vinegar ...

It is a fundamental mistake to think that there is nothing better to expect from the official Church, purely and simply identified with the modernist or conciliar Church. While we receive everything from the Church even today. All the means of sanctification, all that we bring to the faithful, we have from this Church with its hierarchy, its pope, its bishops, a very real and concrete Church, the one we have before us. To want to identify it with the conciliar Church inevitably leads to a sterile refusal of all initiative, even good, under the false pretext that it would corrupt our work. It is like wanting to convert sinners while avoiding them! [Classic modernism!  Bishop Fellay identified the Official Church as the existence and modality of the conciliar church for his Raison d'etre; which is his foundational error against God in all his relations he does forward.  Archbishop Lefebvre distinguished this error very clearly condemned it: 

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church." (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

"It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)

“It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

“What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

- “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)

-“Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing...” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August 1989)

-“Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)


-“But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, p.547)

“How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 8, 1978)

-“I remark, first of all, that the expression "Conciliar Church" comes not from me but from H.E. Mgr. Benelli who, in an official letter, asked that our priests and seminarians should submit themselves to the "Conciliar Church." I consider that a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the Liturgical Reform as well. Protestants themselves say that it is so, and Mgr. Bugnini himself admits it implicitly when he states that this Liturgical Reform was conceived in an ecumenical spirit.” (Conference, January 11, 1979)

-“The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, July 8, 1987)

-“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible' - these things we do not accept.” (Sermon, July 29, 1976)

-“…since they have put us out of an official Church which is not the real Church, [but] an official Church which has been infested with Modernism; and so we believed in the duty of disobedience, if indeed it was disobedience! To obey, but to obey the immemorial Church, to obey all the popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church…” (Ordination Sermon, June 27, 1980)

-“It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside communion with the Church. But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.” (I Accuse the Council, p. xiii)

-“Henceforth, the Church no longer accepts the one true Church, the only way of eternal salvation. It recognizes the other religions as “sister religions”. It recognizes as a right derived from the nature of the human person that “man is free to choose his religion,” and consequently the Catholic State is no longer admissible. Once this new principle is admitted, then all the doctrine of the Church must change: its worship, its priesthood, its institutions. For until now, everything in the Church manifested that she alone possesses the Truth, the Way, the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom she possesses in person in the Holy Eucharist, present, thanks to the continuation of His Sacrifice. The complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25th, and enter into schism.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)

What more can be said except the present Superior General of his SSPX is sinning gravely against the Catholic Rule and constitution of the Order of St. Pius X!  The punishment and resulting consequence of the sspx-civil war is the manifestation...]

We must maintain the principle according to which we receive from the Catholic hierarchy, especially from the pope, but also from the bishops, the means of sanctification.  [Here Bishop Fellay is stating coyly the sanctification comes from the conciliar church.  (sic) ]  The axiom Ecclesia supplet is valid only in the event of failure of the authorities for various reasons, the main one being the salus animarum , the transmission of integral faith, the communication of grace through sacraments certainly valid. Even in cases where it is outside the normal exercise of authority, the principle of legislative intent must nevertheless be carefully preserved. We are not free to do what we want in the regime of the Church's substitution of jurisdiction - and I fear that we have taken a liking to this false appearance of freedom .

We mistrust the official Church because of the grave deficiencies of disastrous reforms for the good of souls, and rightly so. But to come to the conclusion that " everything is bad " is necessarily exaggerated and false. Especially since it exists today, though imperfectly, a movement of resistance and reaction to the conciliar disaster. [Here again he admits the conciliar church is the Official Church not identifying the abuses are distinct because of conciliarism and not the Official Church's oneness to Christ.]

For several years now, we have witnessed a slow evolution in conservative circles. There is today a real realization of the gravity of the widespread errors, a questioning of certain reforms of the Council. In liturgy as in theology, there is a real desire for a return to much more seriousness. The fact that the dominant line remains strongly progressive and does its utmost to neutralize conservative efforts no longer allows universal assertions such as " everything is corrupt ", " they are all modernists ", and so on.

The same is true of the Ecclesia Dei movements , including in the Fraternity of St. Peter, where there are a number of Nicodemus, convinced that the analysis of Bishop Lefebvre on Vatican II is the right one.

This does not mean that all the prerequisites and requirements for canonical recognition are already met. Nevertheless, progress in this direction is undeniable. Here is, for example, what Pozzo wrote to me in March 2017 :

" I underlined  that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X longs to preserve the spiritual, theological, disciplinary and pastoral identity desired by Archbishop Lefebvre, that is, experience and life of the Catholic Tradition prior to the reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. The pope has not expressed any reservation on this subject. Similarly, with regard to the two points discussed (the possibility of consecrating auxiliary bishops among the clergy of the Prelature and recognition of the clerical state from tonsure and commitment to celibacy as early as sub-diaconate) , His Holiness stated that he had no objection to this .

In conclusion, we believe that it is right to say that we are gradually seeing an improvement in the conditions imposed on us by Rome, [This is a necessary distinction Bishop Fellay just made.  He said improvement in rome is whether how they treat Bishop Fellay and his exploitation and his views into neo-traditon.  NO!  ABL made clear rome must come back to the FAITH; not to the subjective cries of political order.  Where is the pope and rome now in April 2018: with real tradition or fake tradition?]  that this is part of a more general reaction to the objectively more serious situation of the Church in his outfit. But as far as Rome and ourselves are concerned, this situation is not yet satisfactory to conclude. After a short period of exaggerated optimism on the part of Bishop Pozzo, who was pushing, even probable, the date of recognition to May 13 this year [And yet Bishop Fellay condemned anyone with having "rumors" who said the same.], we heard in turn and Pope Francis and Cardinal Müller announce that things would still take time. " To walk, to walk, and then we shall see " the papal will of not rushing. In the same way Cardinal Müller: " We must take the time, (...) we need a deeper heart conversion ".   [And what is not said is the new-sspx will be under complete control within the Vatican II conciliar structure obeying each and every dictum and ecclesiastical discipline if they go against their orders. Who in their right mind makes a contract with an ecumenist thinking they will remain catholic?]

In the present phase, therefore, we need to know whether the Roman authorities will confirm the "revitalization" of the Council in spite of the pressure of the Progressives, and whether the Pope is prepared to make specific or universal laws. which was reported to us by Bishop Pozzo. [BINGO!  Bishop Fellay just declared his intention of "revitalization" is based on the Vatican II council -- NOT the perennial teaching of the Church!]

As for us, we see no other option than to continue to treat with great caution with the Roman authorities, who for the moment have shown benevolence. We have much to gain, both Tradition and the whole Church. [Is that a errant distinction on purpose or his matter of thinking?  Tradition is one with the Church.  It is NOT separate as he just declared.  Again, that is conciliarism...]  Time works for us, and we discern every day in an evident way the hand of Divine Providence .  [And time works for the superior romans -the "carrot and the stick"- the "Walrus and The Carpenter" who is heartfelt to the little oysters.]

Let us look at the history of the Fraternity sub specie aeternitatis. And then the serene and all-powerful protection of the God of peace which it has enjoyed hitherto, should calm the minds of the troubled people of the Church.

May Our Lady, her Immaculate Heart, grant all the members of the Fraternity peace of hearts under her benevolent protection.


On the Feast of the Holy Trinity, Menzingen, June 11, 2017
+ Bernard Fellay

[Stone]

Summary by Fr. Hewko by way of reply to a letter on the SSPX's Change in Doctrine - in 2012:

"Change of Doctrine...? Where...?"
+ PAX +

July 24, 2012
St. Christina, Virgin & Martyr


Dear N., Dear N.,

As N. remarked in his letter, the Second Vatican Council’s great success for the Revolution was in the ambiguous documents.
The same success was accomplished in the Society by ambiguous phrases found in the CNS Interview on May 11, 2012, DICI Interview on June 7, 2012, the General Chapter Statement & Six Conditions of July 14, 2012, the April 15, 2012 D O C T R I N A L Declaration and the June 27, 2013 Declaration.

The change of doctrine is found directly or indirectly in the texts of the above documents & interviews. The new doctrines are:

1. The errors of the Council are surmountable, open to discussion and not really from the Council, “but from the general interpretation of the Council.”

2. Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are surmountable and “limited”. The new, erudite wording fails to condemn these heresies as the pre-Vatican II popes had done, and treats them as occasions of error rather than condemned errors that DIRECTLY attack Christ the King and the Faith.

3. The New Mass is now declared to be “legitimately promulgated” which is equivalent to calling it a legitimate Mass. (See talk of Fr. De La Rocque on May 18, 2012, proving this). This compromise has lead many other groups to accept and celebrate the New Mass. At best, the new Declaration charges the New Mass as “diminishing” Christ’s Reign, it also “curtails” and “obscures” the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, rather than saying that, in fact, it directly ATTACKS and UNDERMINES by omission, these essential qualities of the Mass, which Cardinals Bacci, Oddi and Ottaviani’s Study proves. Furthermore, since “how one prays expresses how one believes” (“lex orandi lex credendi”), for the SSPX to acknowledge as legitimately promulgated a way of prayer that fundamentally attacks what Catholics must believe, is to call that which attacks and undermines the Catholic Doctrine a legitimate prayer, pleasing to God!

4. Consequently, the New Rites and New Sacraments are also considered valid and legitimate. Where does this put our conditional Confirmations and Ordinations?

5. The New Code is accepted, with no distinctions. The New Code is penetrated with the errors and heresies of Vatican II, which must also be implicitly approved by accepting the New Code.

6. The new ecclesiology of recognizing the Conciliar Church as ONE with the Catholic Church of all time is now taught. Abp. Lefebvre always recognized the pope is head of TWO churches, as a result of the crisis; the Conciliar Church by his Modernism, and the Catholic Church by his lawful authority. Faithful Catholics are obliged to acknowledge him and resist him, simultaneously. This state of the Pope’s right to our disobedience exists until Rome returns to Tradition!

7. The acceptance of Vatican II as “enlightening” and “deepening” Tradition as well as admitting that there are doctrines “not yet conceptually formulated” as part of the “living transmission” of the Faith, constitutes a betrayal and unacceptable compromise of the Faith that every Catholic is bound to resist!

This answers your question: “Change of Doctrine? Where?” Vatican II & its Reforms attack the doctrines on:
– The One True Church
– The Social Reign of O. L. Jesus Christ
– The Eternal Priesthood of O. L. Jesus Christ & the priesthood
– The Union of Church and State
– The true and false notions of Liberty & Human Dignity
– The Monarchical Structure of the Papacy
– Outside of the Catholic Church, No Salvation
– The Sacrifice of the Mass
– The 7 Sacraments and their Institution
– The Faith as a whole! (since Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies” and permeates the entire texts of the Council).

To say “the affirmations of Vatican II…must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition” as Bp. Fellay does, is to admit a blatant CONTRADICTION! Why? “…Because I do NOT believe that the Declarations of the Council on Liberty of Conscience, Liberty of Thought, and Liberty of Religion can be compatible with what the Popes taught in the past! Therefore we have to choose. Either we choose what the Popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church OR we choose what was said by the Council. BUT WE CANNOT CHOOSE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME SINCE THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY” (Abp. Lefebvre, Press Conference, Sept. 15, 1976; in a special issue of “Itineraires”, April 1977, p.299).

8. The lies continue perpetrating that “nothing has changed” while the doctrinal compromises, listed above, exist in official documents, officially sent to Rome, in an official capacity! Remember, La Barroux, Campos, Good Shepherd Institute, etc., all boasted that “nothing has changed” and they maintained the right to criticize Modernism & Vat. II! All of them have compromised AFTER their agreements with Modernist Rome. The only difference for the SSPX is that the compromise came BEFORE the written agreement!

9. Tactics are the same as all Revolutionaries; two steps forward, one step back. “…But the annoying thing is that the Liberals themselves practiced this system in the text of the schemas: assertion of an error or an ambiguity or a dangerous orientation, then immediately after or before, an assertion in the opposite direction, intended to tranquillize the conservative conciliar fathers” (Abp. Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. 24,p.168).

10. All the above new doctrines are further confirmed by the silencings, punishments, threats, refusals of Holy Communion, punitive transfers, canonical monitions and expulsions for all those who openly oppose the new doctrines and orientation expressed by the Superior General and official documents.

Moreover, the fact that the Resistance is not a reaction specified to one location, but all over the world, shows it is a universal problem of the FAITH! The 3 bishops, on April 7, 2012, tried to alarm and warn Bp. Fellay, but they were rebuked and ignored. The fruits of the new doctrines have since appeared, as they had forewarned: division, loss of Faith, confusion and loss of trust in the SSPX authorities.
Even if, by a sudden change of mind, a truly solid, Traditional Catholic Declaration appeared from Menzingen tomorrow, it would still not undo the scandal and compromise of the Faith in the official documents expressing the SSPX’s new position! As Fr. Girourd remarked, it would take an equally serious General Chapter and Statement publicly denouncing, rejecting and correcting the scandalous compromises and errors against the Faith, found in the official documents and interviews since early 2012.

The Society would have to simply reaffirm the clear position and mission of its Founder, as before the “Vatican II-B” in July, 2012, and obviously replace the leadership with non Liberals.

“In practice our attitude should be based on a previous discernment, rendered necessary by these extraordinary circumstances of a Pope [or Superior General (addition, mine)] won to Liberalism. This discernment is this: when the Pope says something that is consistent with Tradition, we follow him; when he says something that goes contrary to our Faith, then we cannot follow him! The fundamental reason for this is that the Church, the Pope, and the hierarchy are AT THE SERVICE OF THE FAITH. It is not they who make the Faith; they must serve it. The Faith is not being created, it is unchangeable, it is transmitted.

“This is why we cannot follow these acts of these Popes that are done with the goal of confirming an action that goes against Tradition: by that very act WE WOULD BE COLLABORATING IN THE AUTODEMOLITION OF THE CHURCH, in the destruction of our Faith!
“…Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign, that you accept everything; and then you continue as before!’ (The May 5, 1988 Protocol). NO! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH HIS FAITH!” (Abp. Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. 31, p.229).

I hope this answers your question. How we must pray to the Immaculate Heart to hasten Her hour!

In Christ the King,
Fr. David Hewko


Source: The Recusant