The Catholic Trumpet: Bishop Fellay’s 2013 Note: A Written Admission of Surrender

[Stone]

Bishop Fellay’s 2013 Note: A Written Admission of Surrender

The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted and reformatted] | February 11, 2025

In 2012, Bishop Bernard Fellay submitted the infamous Doctrinal Declaration to Rome, a document that surrendered the SSPX to conciliar Rome—not in mere theory, but in action. Since then, SSPX leadership has attempted to dismiss its significance, claiming it was a mere “misunderstanding” or later “withdrawn.” However, a 2013 letter by Bishop Fellay—his own words, not speculation—confirms that this was no mistake. It was a calculated step toward conciliar recognition.

After our article, we have posted the Google-translated version of Bishop Fellay’s note, originally in French, from La Porte Latine – Note de Mgr Fellay sur la déclaration doctrinale du 15 avril 2012 (Mars 2013)

Key Revelations from Bishop Fellay’s 2013 Letter:

1. Rome threatened canonical sanctions for schism if the SSPX rejected their doctrinal preamble.
→ This confirms that the SSPX leadership knew they were being forced into submission under threat of excommunication.

2. The SSPX attempted to “soften” their resistance by offering a counter-proposal.
→ Fellay admits they proposed replacing Rome’s doctrinal preamble with the Tridentine Profession of Faith, adherence to Pastor Aeternus, and Lumen Gentium #25—interpreted in the “light of the pre-conciliar Magisterium.”
→ This means the SSPX was already negotiating its acceptance of Vatican II on Rome’s terms.

3. The Doctrinal Declaration was designed to refute accusations of schism—not to uphold Lefebvre’s resistance.
→ Fellay states that the April 15, 2012 document was meant to prove the SSPX still recognized Roman authority—confirming that it was an appeasement, not a defense of Tradition.

4. Fellay explicitly acknowledges that his own SSPX priests saw the Doctrinal Declaration as an ambiguity or even an acceptance of Vatican II’s “hermeneutic of continuity.”
→ His response? Rather than retract it, he attempted to clarify it for Rome—not for the faithful.

5. Rome rewrote the Doctrinal Declaration to demand even greater submission.
→ The June 13, 2012 version inserted direct recognition of the Novus Ordo Mass and sacraments, removed SSPX’s reservations about religious liberty, and mandated acceptance of Vatican II in light of Tradition.
→ Fellay’s reaction? He withdrew the April 15, 2012 text—not because it was an error, but because Rome was demanding even more than he was ready to give.

6. Fellay continued negotiations with Rome even after the July 2012 SSPX General Chapter set “preconditions” for an agreement.
→ He personally met with Bishop Di Noia in August 2012 to inform Rome that the April 2012 text had been “withdrawn” and that the SSPX would work with Rome on a different basis.
→ This proves that SSPX leadership never actually rejected conciliar recognition, but merely delayed it.


The SSPX Betrayal is an Ongoing Process

Many have argued that the SSPX’s betrayal was completed in 2012, but Bishop Fellay’s letter proves otherwise.

The formal recognition has yet to take place—but the doctrinal submission already has.

Rome never needed to declare an agreement publicly.
The SSPX leadership already surrendered when they compromised their doctrinal stance in exchange for a seat at the table.


The Marks of the Church Include Persecution

One of the marks of the Church is that it must be attacked. This betrayal is devastating, but it is not the end of the Church—it is the continuation of the Passion of Christ in His Mystical Body.

Our Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail.

Now, the choice is ours:

Will we follow Archbishop Lefebvre’s true resistance, or will we fall into silence and compromise?

The SSPX has already capitulated doctrinally—the only step left is formal recognition.


Date: March 2013

Author: +Bernard Fellay

Source: La Porte Latine – Note de Mgr Fellay sur la déclaration doctrinale du 15 avril 2012 (Mars 2013)

Translation Note: The English translation provided is a Google translation from the original French source.

The context is as follows: this Declaration comes on April 15, after Cardinal Levada's letter of March 16, in response to our letter of January 12. In his answer, Cardinal Levada expresses the refusal by the Roman authorities of our proposal to replace their doctrinal Preamble with the Tridentine Profession of Faith accompanied by the adherence to Pastor aeternus and to No. 25 of Lumen gentium understood in the light of the pre-conciliary Magisterium ("according to the anti-modernist oath"). Cardinal Levada adds that our rejection of the doctrinal preamble approved by Benedict XVI is equivalent to a break in communion with the Roman Pontiff, which leads to the canonical sanctions incurred for the schism.

From the beginning, what guides us in our relations with Rome is the principle of faith: without faith it is impossible to please God (cf. He. 11.6). We cannot accept that we are kidnapped, or even that we weaken our faith received at baptism. If we want to remain Catholic, it is this principle to which we must attach ourselves and on which we base all our action. Balancing this principle to obtain any practical advantage, even canonical recognition, has always been excluded.

Some have obviously not paid attention to the fact that I have always expressed that a practical agreement would never take place if the conditions sine qua non expressed by us several times, both in various positions and in the second response to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (January 12, 2011), which took up the very words of Bishop Lefebvre, were not realized. And that therefore, even if the April document had been approved, it would not have been enough for the conclusion of a canonical standardization. One of the capital points of these sine qua none conditions was and remains the free attack and denunciation of errors in the Church, including those from the Council.

At the delivery of his letter of March 16, Cardinal Levada made us understand that the Roman authorities believed that the Brotherhood had entirely rejected the magistery of all popes, as well as all the acts of the magistery, since 1962. Because according to him, we gave no value to these acts in fact, despite everything we could say. This accusation is false, and it was important to refute it, because as much as we accept to be unjustly condemned for our loyalty to the two-thousand-year tradition, so much we do not accept to be accused of a break with Rome, which our founder has always refused. It is indeed the ridge line that he has set for us, above the temptation of rallying to conciliar errors (what we have ruled out by the letter of January 12, and which did not escape Cardinal Levada), but also above the Sedevacantist temptation (what we have tried to do in this doctrinal declaration).

This context shows that the doctrinal declaration did not claim to be the exhaustive expression of our thought on the Council and the current magisterio. It did not replace our doctrinal position, as it was exposed during the two years of doctrinal interviews, it only wanted to complete them on a particular point: the accusation of schism. This is why this declaration tried to give examples of our submission to the magisterial authority in itself (in se), while maintaining our opposition to many acts currently posed by it (hic and nunc). To show our recognition of the Roman authority, regarding the conciliar reforms, we took up several points of the text of Bishop Lefebvre, in 1988, because we did not want to take up that of "doctrinal preamble" whose content we had rejected in our response of January 12, as Cardinal Levada had taken note in his letter of March 16.

Our position is certainly delicate, because we do not want to be heretic or schismatic, so we have proposed a text divided into two parts, the first setting out the general principles and totally and absolutely conditioning the second part which addressed the particular points of the Second Vatican Council and the main reforms that have resulted from it. To prevent any ambiguity in this second part - ambiguity that we had already denounced in our answer of January 12, 2012 (see Cor Unum No. 103, P.52 et sq.) -, it seemed sufficient to strongly recall that the magistery could in no way rely on itself or on the assistance of the Holy Spirit to be able to teach a novelty contrary to the constant magisterium of the Church.

The possibility of novelty or contradiction with previous teaching being excluded, by the very fact any ambiguity was ruled out as to our judgment on the Council, including the famous "hermeneutics of reform in continuity", unacceptable. With hindsight, we see that our thought has not been understood in this sense by several eminent members of the Fraternity, who have seen it as an ambiguity, even an ally to the thesis of the hermeneutics of continuity, which we have nevertheless always refused.

The Roman authorities, for their part, did not see in this declaration a rallying to the hermeneutics of continuity. That is why, after having established in a working document a precise comparative table of the divergences between their Preamble of September 14, 2011 and our declaration of April 15, 2012, they moved and modified the meaning of the additions that we had made and that we considered essential, then they added passages that we had deleted and that we considered unacceptable. This is the text that was given to us on June 13, 2012.

We can thus note among what has been moved and modified: at No. III - 6, where we recognized the validity of the NAME in itself and the legitimacy or legality of promulgation (as Bishop Lefebvre in 1988), we find in the text of June 13 the recognition of the validity and lawfulness of the NAME and the sacraments since Paul VI and John Paul II.

Among what has been added, we will note the multiple references to both the new catechism and the hermeneutics of continuity; thus in No. III - 5 what we had written about religious freedom: "whose formulation is difficult to reconcile with the previous doctrinal affirmations of the Magisterium" becomes: "whose formulation could seem to some difficult to reconcile...". At the same No. III - 5, the theological explanation of the expressions of the Council that do not seem compatible with the previous Magisterium of the Church becomes an explanation "in particular to help understand their continuity with the previous Magisterium of the Church", thus excluding any criticism.

After sending the texts of the General Chapter of last July to Rome, I met Bishop Di Noia on August 28, 2012, and I informed him that I had withdrawn our April proposal, which can no longer serve as a working basis. The doctrinal preamble of September 14, 2011 taken up in substance on June 13, 2012, and our double answer: the letters of November 30, 2011 and January 12, 2012 on the one hand; the declaration of the chapter of July 14, 2012 with the conditions required before any canonical recognition on the other hand.

+ Bernard Fellay - March 2013