With these words, did the General Chapter of 2006 forbid any practical agreement without doctrinal agreement? YES or NO?
9. At the July 2012 Chapter, Fr. de Journa proved that Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration was nothing other than Benedict XVI’s ‘hermeneutic of continuity.’ His conclusion said:
“This declaration is therefore profoundly ambiguous and it sins by omission of a clear and sharp denunciation of the main errors which are still running rampant inside the Church and destroying the faith of the faithful. This declaration, as it stands, allows it to be believed that we accept the premise of the ‘hermeneutic of continuity.’ Used as the foundation for an agreement, such a document would make that same question unclear from the very beginning and would favour all the sliding that would follow.”
His presentation was met with not a single objection from any of the other members. After this presentation, Fr. Pagliarani stood up to support Bishop Fellay with the words:
“Dear colleagues! Surely we’re not going to give our Superior General a slap in the face by forcing him to retract it! The retraction will be implicit in the final declaration of the Chapter.”
Then the Chapter moved on to other business. The General House [Menzingen] gave them to understand that the Declaration had been withdrawn and its author implicitly frowned upon thereby. Bishop Tisser thought so, along with everyone else. In a letter of 29th March, 2013, he said that:
“It was tacitly concluded that there was no need to insist on the issue, since it was obvious that the Superior General was sorry for his mistake was determined ‘not to do it again.’” (Appendix to Circular Letter, 2013-04)
And yet, since then, Bishop Fellay has not ceased from trying to defend the contents of his seditious Doctrinal Declaration. He talks about an “extremely delicate” text which “did not achieve unanimity in the Society” “to such an extent that I said to Rome, that’s it, I’m withdrawing it, it’s not going to be any use if it’s not even understood by our own people, because, well, perhaps it was a bit too subtle. Well, too bad, we’re withdrawing it.” (Bp. Fellay, Lille, 7th May, 2013) “A minimalist text, which could have led to some confusion in our ranks.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum 102) A text which “was not sufficiently clear” (Bp. Fellay, Écône, 07/09/2012) A Doctrinal Declaration which “excluded any ambiguity regarding our judgement of the Council, including the famous ‘hermeneutic of continuity’.” A Declaration which “was not understood by several high-ranking members of the Society, who saw in it an ambiguity, or even a false compromise with the idea of the hermeneutic of continuity.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum 104, ‘Note on the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15th 2012’)
Does Bishop Fellay’s description correspond to reality? YES or NO?
Is it moral to take advantage of the oath of silence sworn by the Chapter members so as to present an ‘official version’ of things which contradicts reality? YES or NO?
Is Menzingen’s official version (‘not understood by our own people,’ ‘too bad, we’re withdrawing it,’ ‘sufficiently clear’) doctrinally satisfactory? YES or NO?
Support Our Apostolate! Please consider making a small paypal donation to The Recusant.
"Viva Cristo Rey!"