The 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay:
Proof of Treason
Lest we forget…!
Much has been said and written in recent times about the Doctrinal Declaration (DD) presented to Rome by Bishop Bernard Fellay on 15 April 2012 on behalf of the Society of St. Pius X.
Nevertheless, it seems to us that it would be important to make a detailed study of the text itself and the circumstances surrounding it. We will also compare it to other similar documents.
The following study of the document does not claim to be exhaustive. The only goal is to contribute to the search for truth and to open a frank and honest debate on the consequences of this text.
Furthermore, this study has become necessary in order to respond to all those who have recently taken up the defense of this Declaration—not only Bishop Fellay himself, but the other SSPX bishops, priests, and laity as well.
In order to better understand the evolution of the circumstances which surround the composition of the Doctrinal Declaration, we are going to divide our study into three parts:
Part I: Before the Declaration;
Part II: Analysis of the Declaration;
Part III: Response to the Objections.
Part I should not be neglected, because it serves to situate the different stages through which Bishop Fellay passed before writing his Doctrinal Declaration.
Part II, which is longer, will analyze the Declaration itself and the circumstances which immediately preceded it.
Part III will mainly expose the consequences and reactions following the publication of the DD and will respond to the arguments of those who take the defense of its author.
CONTENTS
PART I: BEFORE THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I. Why talk about it?
II. The Situation Before the Preamble of 15 April 2012
1) Bishop Fellay began by ignoring what Archbishop Lefebvre had always hold..
2) Next, bishop Fellay decides to ignore what the 2006 General Chapter had clearly decided.
3) The letter of the three Bishops of the Society, Bps. Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais and de Galarreta.
4) Finally, Bishop Fellay has contradicted himself!
III. The First Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) of Rome, 14 September 2011
1. The “Preliminary Note.”
2. The Doctrinal Preamble [DP1] of 14 September 2011.
A. The Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 in general.
B. The Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 in particular.
IV. The Double Response of the Society (30 November 2011 and 12 January
1. The first response, dated 30 November 2011, with a proposition for a new Doctrinal Preamble [DP2].
A. The Preliminary Note.
B. The Doctrinal Preamble 2 [DP2].
2. The second response, dated 12 January 2012 to Cardinal Levada [addendum to DP2, dated 30 November 2011]
A. On the subject of the Preamble in general.
B. On the subject of the Preamble in particular.
a. On the subject of “criteria of interpretation”:
b. On the subject of the “progress of Tradition”
c. On the subject of a practical application.
PART II: THE 15 APRIL 2012 DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I. The circumstances surrounding the declaration
1. Cardinal Levada’s Letter dated 16 March 2012.
2. Bishop Fellay’s reaction to Cardinal Levada’s Letter.
a. An optimism without foundation: Rome has changed!
b. The dilemma of making the good choice.
(a) The option to reject.
(b) The option to continue.
(c) The decision is made: let’s continue!
II. The 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (DD) of Bishop Fellay
A. Analysis of the Declaration in general.
1. Bishop Fellay’s Introductory Note in Cor Unum No. 104.
2. The Ambiguity of the Doctrinal Declaration
3. Bishop Fellay’s Reasons Advanced to Justify This Declaration
a.) The fear of possible sanctions from Rome.
b.) The desire to join the official Church.
B. Analysis of the Doctrinal Declaration in Particular:
1. The text of the Doctrinal Declaration.
2. Suppressions and additions in Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration (DD).
a. Suppressions compared to the Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) proposed by
Rome.
b. Additions in comparison with the Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 (DP1) proposed by Rome.
3. Internal analysis of the 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
A.) Paragraph I, speaks about the fidelity to the Church and to the Pope:
B.) Paragraph II speaks of submission to the teachings of the Magisterium, according to the conciliar doctrine of number 25 of Lumen gentium:
a.) No. 25 of Lumen gentium.
b.) The new Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity of 1989.
C. Paragraph III is indisputably the worst part of the whole document.
o No. 1: The Authority of the Pope and the Bishops
o No. 2: The Authority of the Magisterium of the Church
o No. 3: The “Progress” of Tradition:
o No. 4: The criteria of interpretation between Tradition and the Second Vatican Council texts in general.
o No. 5: The Criteria of Interpretation Between Tradition and the Second Vatican Council Texts on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty
o No. 6: The Opportuneness of the Doctrinal Discussions.
o No. 7 : On the “Validity” and the “Legitimacy” of the New Mass and the New Sacraments
o No. 8 : The Acceptance of the New Code of Canon Law.
CONCLUSION OF PART TWO.
Source:
Wayback Machine