From http://eccehomocatholic.blogspot.com/2012/...ble-leaked.html

Who knows to what degree this is true - perhaps it is yet more internet hearsay. If it is true, IMO it is in line with what the SSPX has held all along, but being sedevacantist this is where I see problems. My question for the SSPX has been what does the SSPX want Novus Ordo to convert to, given that the Novus Ordo recognizes, as sedevacantists do, Vatican II to be a binding council of the Church. From this summary it would appear that the Novus Ordo is willing to let the SSPX have their perspective re: Vat. II, but it still begs the question, are the SSPX priests and laity obliged to recognize it in toto? For me it points out the fundamental theological problem with the SSPX position in the first place re: the Ordinary Magisterium. Regardless, as the author of the quote above states, it does seem like something that the SSPX could accept. Now, there is only the issue of the practical side of the personal prelature which could lead to far more problems than consent to the supposed Doctrinal Preamble would.

Even if this were true don't forget there were the clarifications of the clarifications, of the clarifications.

After that follows the unexpected "modifications" which came onto the scene June 13th.

The modifications, at least to my way of thinking would supercede the preamble.

What it is saying without saying it is that Vatican II means whatever WE say it means. And the unsaid "WE" is certainly not the SSPX. It's Rome.

It's basically Rome telling the SSPX: "we know what Vatican II is all about and you don't" so, "be quiet, be prayerful, be sheeple" and "we'll fill in the blanks, don't worry yourself over it"

"which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it" -- goodness!
I could build a dozen more time bombs with a statement like that!!!
It's a beautiful modernist construction meant to convey whatever they like. It's a way of saying: "trust me, this is not a trap". :wacko:


:flower:

Absolutely true. Firstly, however, we do not know if this is quite the text or a summation. We do know that Rome itself rejected Bishop Fellay's text and any talk of the errors of the Council. Now, of course, this mentions no errors. This already destroys the entire position of the Archbishop. But let us look at what this supposed text is saying:

1. It says that the Council must be interpreted in the light of of the whole Tradition of the Church. It sounds nice, but it is totally false, since it is, in fact saying that it CAN be interpreted in such a light. The Archbishop said that receiving the Council in the light of Tradition meant that those things that were incompatible with Tradition must be rejected. There is no rejection of any of the Council in this text. Therefore, the assumption certainly is that even though Tradition is the criterion of the interpretation, this Tradition is capable of bringing everything in line with Tradition. This is false. There are things in this Council that are absolutely irreconcilable with Tradition. Thus the assumption favors error.

2. The Council, thus, does not contradict Tradition but in fact brings to light aspects that are implicit in Tradition. No. Religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality are radically opposed to Tradition and the Catholic Faith. They are not implicit in Tradition only waiting to be brought to light.

3. The last statement is the silliest of all. Relations of the Catholic Church with the non-Catholic bodies are to be understood in the light of Tradition. Really? The Church anathematized the heretical sects. End of story in every Council of the Church. Not only that, but they were brought before the inquisitors, some of whom were saints, and asked to recant. Refusal brought death by burning. Is that how we are to understand the Church's relation to non-Catholic sects now? Are any of the Church's traditional responses to heretics or schismatics compatible with the new concept of the nature of the Church that excludes its definition being the visible hierarchical society holding the same Faith? No, now it is communion based on baptism. This last section says nothing at all except that 2+2=5 must be understood in the light of the Church's teaching that 2+2=4. This all means less than nothing.

This article is based in a conference that Fr. Pfluger gave on France (l'école Saint-Joseph des Carmes) june 5, 2012.

The conference is posted here.

If you don't want to waste your precious time, don't hear it. He makes the same kind of statements as Bishop Fellay on CNS.
The Pope needs us, we have to restore tradition in the Church, if the Pope calls us we can't say no, he lifted the excommunications, he restored the Traditional Mass, etc.etc.etc.etc.
:gag:

:ill:

Yes, indeed.

Fr. Pfluger's conference is from june 5, things changed on june 13th...

If that is the same conference, then this is certainly not part of the new preamble. That would have been dated one week ago.

My translation of your translation: "Our hermeneutic of lying faggot manure trumps any pre-Vatican 2 Tradition."

Yet you post it and many are all to happy to comment upon it.

Cristera: "This article is based in a conference that Fr. Pfluger gave on France (l'école Saint-Joseph des Carmes) june 5, 2012.

The conference is posted here. "

@ Theophane:

Yes, it would be much better to not post it. In fact, everyone should just sit and wait until the official deal goes through and we are told the facts. :blink:

I suppose it wouldn't hurt, but maybe it would. I wonder to what extent, if any, the recent lay "uprising" against Fellay has affected his decisions. To pretend that something of such concern to the entire trad world, as the Doctrinal Preamble is, won't be a point of interest, and desired to be shared, seems insincere (as in, I can't pretend that I don't care, or that I woudn't wish to discuss it with other trads).

I take it with a grain of salt because it is internet rumor...on the other hand, certain internet rumors haven't been AS unreliable as we supposed, hence my sharing it.

Since this summary is based off of something which is outdated anyway, given the modifications as pointed out above, it would seem the OT is pretty much a moot point.

trent, what is an OT? I am familiar with OP meaning Original Poster or Original Post, but not sure what OT means. :unsure:

OT: Original Topic

My short hand forum stuff isn't great, so don't be surprised if I flounder. :D You should see my texting!

I have listened to the whole conference. Fr Pfluger read part of the letter sent by bp Fellay to Cardeinal Levada on the 15th April 2012, ie his latest proposition. Whether or not this was accepted by Rome can only be speculation. What is sure is that the SG has proposed a text that BXVI himself could have written; pure ambiguity, no clear condemnation of error, no definition of Tradition. Here is the transcription of the original in French. :

Transcription de certains passages
de la conférence de monsieur l’abbé Pflüger, le 5 juin 2012

1h 07 mn : On nous reproche d’abandonner la Foi. Alors cette déclaration doctrinale, peut-être le titre est mal choisi, elle dit justement que :
« nous promettons d’être toujours fidèles à l’Eglise catholique et au Pontife romain, nous déclarons accepter les enseignements du magistère de l’Eglise en matière de foi et de morale »
- si un jour il faut confesser je crois la liberté religieuse on ne va pas le faire, mais si on dit le credo pendant la messe on dit le credo de toujours donc pourquoi exiger de nous quelque chose qui n’est pas de foi, et ce qui est vraiment nouveau, si on compare, si il y a quelque chose qui a changé, on établit maintenant dans cette déclaration de Mgr Fellay du 15 avril il définit comme un principe général comment il faut juger ce concile Vatican II et il semble que le pape, on attend la réponse, il accepte ce texte qui dit :
« l’entière tradition de la foi catholique doit être la critère »,
- donc la tradition comme disait Mgr, il faut voir le concile Vatican II dans la lumière de la tradition, ici on dit –
« l’entière tradition de la foi catholique doit être le critère et le guide de compréhensions des enseignements du concile Vatican II lequel à son tour éclaire certains aspects de la vie et de la doctrine de l’Eglise implicitement présents en elle non encore formulés, les affirmations du concile Vatican II (ainsi de suite) et du magistère pontifical postérieur relatives à la relation entre l’Eglise catholique et les confessions chrétiennes non catholiques (ainsi de suite) doivent être comprise à la lumière »,
- donc les textes difficiles, on énumère plusieurs problèmes -,
« doivent être comprises à la lumière de la tradition entière et ininterrompue de manière cohérente avec les vérités précédemment enseignées par le magistère de l’Eglise sans accepter aucune interprétation… »
- donc c’est clair pour dire le principe c’est qu’il faut juger, comprendre ces textes qui sont difficiles dans la lumière ou dans l’esprit, dans la compréhension de la Tradition.
« C’est pourquoi il est légitime de promouvoir par une légitime discussion l’étude et l’explication théologique d’expressions ou de formulations du concile Vatican II, du magistère qui a suivi dans le cas où ils n’apparaissent pas conciliables avec le magistère antérieur de l’Église. »
On change rien, on n’abandonne rien, mais il semble, en tout cas le pape il ne faut plus avaler le concile, il faut aussi pour la messe les autres choses, il ne faut plus faire une profession de foi pour le concile Vatican II, il suffit, et encore une fois ils connaissent notre position sur ce concile, il suffit qu’on est catholique.

Translation of the extracts of bp Fellay's letter to Card Levada:

We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criteria and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself [the council] and not yet formulated.

The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.

That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulas of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.

Fr. Domenico your posts are the best! :nw:

dulia, please. Not latria! :D

Was this thread relating to this?

[I am partly trying to get things organized in my own mind, and partly trying to bump threads that actually have some info in them, in a (no doubt vain) attempt to smother at least a little of the nonsense threads going on.]

If anyone thinks Vatican II is binding, they are deceiving themselves.

I think that BXVI believes that TRADITION includes everything said about a few seconds ago. So 40 years is practically an EON !!!

Stop bumping old threads, this is old news! V)

This statement is designed to soothe the conscience of the SSPX. Rome isnt changing.

For those of you distressing over the words contained therein the document, I have the synopsis, courtesy of pablo the Mexican productions:

"We Surrender"

signed, the Regime

*

[dohtml]<object id="mediaplayer2344991087" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="320" height="240"><param name="movie" value="http://www.gloria.tv/media/301352/embed/true/controls/false" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.gloria.tv/media/301352/embed/true/controls/false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="240" flashvars="media=301352&amp;embed=true&amp;controls=false" quality="high" scale="noborder" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" /></object>[/dohtml]

Woooeeee!

What were you smoking/drinking, +Bernie?!!!!!

Inspired by a post by John McFarland, I was re-reading the interview of the Archbishop, One year after the Consecrations, & I found some comments on VII's document on Religious Liberty:

Thank you, Berengaria, for re-posting Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble. The name given to that document has been a bit confusing. Because I think the document presented originally to +Fellay in 2011 was known simiply as "The Preamble." It morphed slightly to "Doctrinal Preamble." But when Menzingen made amendments to the instrument and sent it back to Rome, it was called then, I believe, "The Doctrinal Declaration." Sometimes, in my mind anyway, those two documents, viz. the one prepared and sent from Rome in 2011, and subsequently, the document, corrected and amended, then sent back to Rome in 2012, wind up becoming one and the same. But they're not.
In any case, can one even imagine for a milli-second that the Archbishop would have agreed to such a declaration? Even Old, apparently, can't believe that +Fellay did this. ABL would never have been a party to this Doctrinal Preamble- never in a thousand years. This is a proposed agreement that can only come out of neo-sspx which has abandoned the principles set forth by the Society's founder. So we must "resist" it with all our might.

By the way, possible reasons projected for the Doctrinal Preamble being rejected by Rome seem to be basically two in number:
1) Rome sees that there is a significant resistance out there now. Roman officials want to wait until the resistance furor abates, then they'll be more accepting of Fellay's proposal, after the resistance movement has lost steam.

2) To have immediately accepted the terms of Fellay's DP, a good number of truly Lefebvrian-oriented priests in the Society might have bolted and run. Let the thing cool down a bit, and most of those disgruntled priests will rationalize the situation and once again make peace and with the Society.

Dear Berengaria,

I certainly agree with the remarks of the Archbishop that you quote. So does the SSPX and its leadership.

But why do you not talk of the Archbishop's remarks on the prospects of relations with Rome after the consecrations, which are quite obviously inconsistent with the Resistance line?

As the post-1988 interviews and any number of other statements of the Archbishop attest, he constantly denounced Rome, but was prepared to talk with Rome, and even to make a non-doctrinal deal with Rome.

Here are some quotes I posted the other day.

May we see these "any number of statements" post 1988 where ++Lefebvre declared himself willing to make a non-doctrinal deal with Rome? Non-doctrinal means, of course, with an unconverted Rome holding fast to the errors of VII.

Give us just ONE quote sustaining this. While you're at it please reply to my previous requests that you provide proof for your novel assertions.

I third this request; I meant to request this myself last night when I posted.

Yes John, please do respond with the appropriate quotes which will confirm with surety your assertion.
You can clear this up for all of us.

Per this suggestion, I have been re-reading a lot of post-1988 material, as I can. I am already familiar with them, and have posted much from them, but anyway... At the 2010 Angelus Press conference, Bishop Fellay recommended we not only read but meditate on every line of the Archbishop's last book, Spiritual Journey. So I've been perusing that for a few minutes this morning. Let's all meditate on this one:

***THE GREATEST DANGER BY FAR ***

In order to attain eternal salvation, a Catholic must remain united to the CHAIR OF SAINT PETER with one's full will.

It becomes extremely dangerous, regarding one's spiritual good, to quickly use personal judgment to decide that one must reject the authority of Rome - because it is dangerous to one's FAITH.

To too quickly presume that one can freely quote the Archbishop 20 years ago, as yet retaining full authority for one's personal freedom, to make that judgment, is very dangerous.

No one of good sense should presume to rely on one's own judgment - whereas to follow the SSPX, which exists as a united body, trying to be obedient to the mindset of the Archbishop, and also to the will of the Holy Spirit, as things have changed, within the Church - IS QUITE WISE.

May we take your post to mean that you disagree with the Archbishop that "it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people."?

Am I reading you right, that freely quoting Archbishop Lefebvre from 20 years ago is "very dangerous"?

Please clarify: Do you agree or disagree with the Archbishop's words here?

John, your public is waiting eagerly for post-88 quotes which prove that the Arcbhishop was willing to sit down with the Romans, " and even to make a non-doctrinal deal with Rome." Please don't keep them waiting. :P