In a related vein, I received the following in an e-mail message:
An interview with Bishop Fellay in the Fall 2001 issue of The Latin Mass Magazine
During this past summer, The Latin Mass had the opportunity to speak with the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay. During a three-hour conversation, Bishop Fellay explained how the recent discussions between the Holy See and the SSPX developed, as well as his view of the details concerning their nature and substance. The following relates the heart of the conversation.
TLM: Your Excellency, what was the genesis of the conversations between the Holy See and the SSPX?
BBF: A signal was given with comments made by Msgr. Camille Perl [of the Ecclesia Dei Commission] in May 2000. He remarked in a publication that for the sake of furthering ecumenical efforts with the Orthodox, a solution needed to be found regarding the situation with the SSPX. Remember, towards the end of April Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos had been appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. He was also made responsible for the Ecclesia Dei Commission. The naming of an active Cardinal to head this commission was a new development.
On June 1, 2000 Cardinal Hoyos sent a letter inviting the SSPX bishops to meet with him. He said, "Now that I am head of Ecclesia Dei, why don't we meet to suppress this rupture. I want you to know that my doors are open and the Pope wishes to embrace you."
At the end of June, all the bishops met during the SSPX pilgrimage to Rome. We decided to signal that if the Cardinal desired to meet, we were ready. By the way, the pilgrimage clearly revealed the hand of Divine Providence. All of Rome came to realize that Tradition was not only alive, but that it was also Catholic! The press made a point of saying that never before in the history of the Church had there been 5,000 "excommunicated" Catholics praying for the Holy Father in St. Peter's Basilica! This was pivotal in breaking the ice.
When in Rome, during the third day of the pilgrimage, our bishops received an invitation to visit Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. When we met, the Cardinal stated, "1 am happy. The fruits are good [referring to our pilgrim- age] and hence the Holy Ghost is there." One of our bishops responded, "But Eminence, these are two religions!" I tried to bring up the subject of the Mass. The Cardinal responded, "1 am not an expert." It was clear that he did not want to discuss the matter. He agreed to receive our dubia [theological objections]. Most of the memorandum we delivered to him dealt with our dubia concerning the Mass [the ancient Mass as found in the Missal of St. Pius V]. Grant every priest the Mass, I implored.
TLM: Your Excellency, why do you consider it crucial that every Catholic priest be given the opportunity to offer the ancient Mass at will?
BBF: If this were granted, it would create a new climate in the Church and in turn would make it easier to speak of the deeper problems, such as those dealing with doctrinal matters. As a first step, this is all we ask.
TLM: What happened after you delivered the dubia?
BBF: I returned to Rome to meet with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in late December 2000. When I arrived he had a proposed agreement in his hand. It was a big surprise, because I thought that many issues first needed to be thoroughly discussed. For instance, I asked him during this conversation about the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). I said, "You crushed them. How do we interpret that?" The Cardinal said that the FSSP had been preparing for its members an oath against the new Mass. The Cardinal does not understand the problem with the new Mass, so I tried to explain it to him.
Then I brought up the Roman attitude toward ecumenism. For example, I told His Eminence that in September 2000 a schismatic [Orthodox] bishop had wanted to convert. He approached the SSPX. We advised him to arrange things directly with Rome. He was put in touch with the secretary to the Pope and told him, "1 want to become a Catholic." Panic ensued. The following day, Cardinal Neves, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, said to the schismatic bishop, "Your Excellency, it is not necessary to convert. Since the Council, things have changed! There's no need to convert anymore." The schismatic bishop then asked Cardinal Neves, "What would you think if I joined the SSPX?" And he replied, "Good heavens, don't do that! They're fossils!"
Bishop Walter Kasper then got involved and told the schismatic bishop to go to Utrecht. [A Modernist segment of the Orthodox] "With all our ecumenical contacts, I have good contacts with them. I think you should join them!"
I told Cardinal Hoyos that these events reflected attitudes that were contrary to the Faith, and that we could not accept them. I pointed out that Bishop Kasper [now a Cardinal] had stated in L 'Osservatore Romano that post-conciliar ecumenism did not have as its goal the conversion of people to Catholicism as in the days of Pius XI and Pius XII. He said that, with Vatican II, things had changed from an "ecumenism of return" to an "ecumenism of reconciled diversity."
After a period of silence, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said, "That's ambiguous."
TLM: Why did you bring these matters to the attention of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos at that time? Some might suggest that you were deliberately putting obstacles in the path of the agreement that you said the Cardinal held in his hand.
BBF: Because I was getting the sense that this agreement was part of a political struggle that is presently going on in the Vatican as the Holy Father's health deteriorates. We do not want reconciliation under these circumstances. We desire a rapprochement on principle, with wide agreement among the Roman hierarchy, not as pawns in a Roman power play during the nadir of an ailing Pontiff.
TLM: Was there further conversation during this meeting?
BBF: Yes. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos responded with the accusation that the SSPX regularly attacks Rome. So I told him that in a war some bullets go astray. He then said, "But we want you to fight Modernism, Liberalism and Masonry in the Church!" So then I was really puzzled. What did he mean? I again attacked liberalism. The Cardinal then said, "1 do the same." He then gave some examples of how he attacked liberalism in the Church. With these examples I realized that he meant moral liberalism. But he offered no examples of doctrinal liberalism to which he was opposed.
Overall, this meeting with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos was very interesting. The Cardinal was very sympathetic and tried his best to smooth over everything. For him it seemed very easy. He said as I left, "When you come back to Rome we'll sign the agreement and be done with it."
TLM: Were you offered the opportunity to meet with the Holy Father?
BBF: Yes, but our meeting was short and uneventful. When the Pope left to attend the daily Angelus, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos remarked, "There are Cardinals and bishops with you and the Pope is with you. We want you to fight liberalism and modernism in the Church!"
TLM: What happened after the meeting with the Holy Father?
BBF: I met with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and relayed to him that all of the bishops of the SSPX agree that we are open to discussion, but that the concerns I had noted to His Eminence needed to be addressed. We do not want to return as a component of some grand design for ecclesial pluralism. I told him that a much better climate for reconciliation would be created if every priest in the world were given permission to say the traditional Mass.
TLM: Did the question of your excommunication ever enter into the discussion?
BBF: Yes. We asked for the lifting of the penalty. We said that dialogue with the Orthodox would be made much easier if this were done. I told the Cardinal that, while the question of excommunication was a non-issue for us, we would ask that it be removed because bishops make use of it to prohibit people from attending our chapels.
TLM: I sense that you remained uncomfortable with the situation after all this.
BBF: We are a sign of contradiction. Wherever we are, we are a source of division, not by our desire, but by force of circumstances. We suffer from the hatred of local bishops and priests. We did not create it; it comes to us because of what we represent. If we receive Rome's approval, this fight will come to Rome and be fought openly throughout the whole Church. We fear that after the agreement, Rome will say to us, "For the sake of peace, make a concession." Truth is not a matter of politics and concessions.
By the way, I learned not long after that Cardinal Lustiger had informed Rome that if the SSPX were reconciled and received the approval to work openly in France, 65 French bishops would enter into disobedience [Cardinal Lustiger is a Jewish convert]. He told this to Cardinal Sodano.
TLM: So you left Rome and awaited a response. When did you get it?
BBF: It was February 12,2001. Cardinal Hoyos said, "Listen, we have a problem. The problem is this permission for the Mass. The Pope agrees to say that the old Mass has never been abrogated and that it is legitimate to offer it. Cardinals Ratzinger, Medina and Sodano all agree. But their secretaries and under-secretaries do not agree. Therefore, we cannot say what you want. Instead, we will say that every priest and every group of faithful who wants the old Mass will have the ability to ask permission from a new commission that will oversee the concerns of the traditionalists." I replied, "Well, that's Ecclesia Dei II!" When the Cardinal relayed this information, I said, "That's it. They don't care about the problem."
Nonetheless, we sent one of our canon lawyers to discuss the proposed canonical structure that we were being offered. The structure being proposed is absolutely splendid. If there were no other problems, it would be perfect. One day, and I think this day will happen very soon, Rome will use a structure of this type to reform the Church.
TLM: What kind of canonical governing structure was the SSPX offered?
BBF: They offered us an Apostolic Administration, a universal diocese. This is excellent because it would preserve a part of the Church that is still sound and give it protection from those who would wish to persecute us.
In the end, I told Cardinal Hoyos that we could not sign the agreement. If Rome was unwilling to recognize openly what it knows to be the right of every priest (namely, to offer the traditional Mass), then we have no reason to trust men who permit and encourage such a deception to continue.
I repeated my discomfort that after all the assurances offered to the FSSP, they had still been forced to accept what most of them did not want [Protocol 1411]. The Cardinal then said that they had never been offered the protection that was being offered now to the SSPX. He said, "They are against the new Mass! The SSPX priests are in favor of the old Mass." What am I to think of such reasoning?
TLM: So you left Rome with the discussions in this state. What happened next?
BBF: We were told that the Pope would speak in favor of the old Mass, but said he would do it at the time when he would erect the SSPX as an Apostolic Administration.
On March 29,2001 I communicated with Cardinal Hoyos. I said that we would never arrive at a solution if we don't first settle the preambles (foundational questions). Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos informed Michael Davies (President of Una Voce International) in a letter that permission to offer the old Mass would be granted only to those who have nothing to do with people who question the authority and legitimacy of the new Mass. Therefore, the only condition for people who say the traditional Mass is that they have nothing to do with us! This is a contradiction. Something is wrong.
I also told him that when he speaks with the SSPX he carefully avoids the word "schismatic." But when he writes bishops he says that we are in schism. Finally, I told him, you say that the FSSP had been chastened because of its position with regard to the new Mass. But our position is much more severe. So what will happen to us? How can we trust so many contradictions?
Some weeks later, we heard that there had been a plenary session of the major dicasteries [offices of the Roman Curia]. Two or three cardinals stood strongly against us. The majority, indeed the great majority, was in favor of reaching an agreement with the SSPX. The same majority refused, however, to consider recognizing every priest's right to offer the traditional Mass. Why? Because there would be too much opposition in the Church. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos told us, "Listen, you cannot speak against the new Mass. We are proceeding with the beatification of Pope Paul VI [who promulgated the new Mass]. You cannot speak against the new Mass."
On Apri1 13, 2001 we were informed that the Pope could not grant the preambles because of the opposition within the Curia. Cardinal Hoyos said to me that the SSPX's requested recognition of the equal status of the traditional Mass with the new was impossible. Such recognition would place the new Mass in jeopardy. Furthermore, he said that we could not continue attacking the Council. He admitted to me that some of the language of the Council was ambiguous, but that under the present Pontiff a greater precision was being achieved.
TLM: How did you respond?
BBF: I told him that his response put us in a dilemma. We are told: "Come in and shut up, or you are outside." You tell us that we will come to an agreement on the Council when we have a broader view of the Church and her history. What's that? So, if we follow Vatican II we end up in the synagogue, and in the forests of Togo and Assisi, and we don't want to go there. How is it that all the experts of Vatican II had all been condemned under Pius XII: Congar, de Lubac, Courtney Murray, etc.? These are the major thinkers of the Council.
TLM: Do you continue to converse with Cardinal Castrillon?
BBF: I have always viewed our desired rapprochement as another part of the war, not as an attempt for a peace treaty. Something has changed in Rome; the attitude has changed. The most probable explanation can be summarized in one word: ecumenism. The SSPX jeopardizes the grand scale of the ecumenism they seek. It seems that some of the Orthodox have said, "As long as you fail to solve the problem of Tradition, we stay back."
Others in Rome are desperate. They see the disaster in the Church and they look at us as a possible counterforce. But at the same time, they don't understand or they don't want to understand the depth of the crisis. To put ourselves now under them with such an agreement as they propose would hurt us. That's why we repeatedly insist that we touch the doctrinal problems. We want to address the roots of our present estrangement. We're not interested in a practical solution that is nothing more than a political game. Rome recognizes in their discussions with us that there is a problem. However, they do not want to touch Vatican II. Until we can break the taboo on discussing the new Mass and Vatican II, any talk of a rapprochement is premature.
The French bishops who threatened their own schism during our discussions well understand the problem. Last year during the meeting of their Episcopal Conference, the Bishop of Poitiers stood up and said that he had a serious problem in his diocese and he knew that he wasn't alone. He said he had twelve priests who wanted to say the traditional Mass and that he was losing control of them. The only way to deal with them, he said, was to isolate them from one another and watch them carefully. He told his brother bishops that unless something was done soon, the problem would be everywhere.
This is happening everywhere among the young priests. They question the fruits of Vatican II. They have this Catholic instinct. They now look for guidance. We must strengthen them and assist them.
TLM: So, Excellency, where do we go from here?
BBF: Where we have always gone: prayer and penance. Our Lord and Our Lady will intervene. All things will be revealed.
TLM: Thank you, Your Excellency.
A one-time bump for an article by Chritopher Ferrara and an interview with Bishop Fellay.
Just a bump from Oschisms to TwoSchisms. :)
I should refrain, but I'm going to comment on this article, at least tangentially.
First, I need to make the distinctions that Steven Hand makes at wwwTCRNews. He uses the term Cardinal Ratzinger uses for schismatic Traditionalists, i.e., "Integrists."
Since he states it well, I'll just recopy parts of it it here:
"Note on "Integrism / Integrists": There are degrees of Integrism, and not all are culpable...since many have no intention of challenging the authority of the Pope and the living magisterium or the Second Vatican Council, but only desire access to the Tridentine rite of Mass. Nothing we say here should serve as any indictment of these. The Integrist's, however, who (exclusively) concern us ...are the extreme, often schismatic, traditionalists who ...violate Catholic dogmatic teachings and then set themselves against the Holy Father, the Second Vatican Council and living magisterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc., in the interests of their private judgment which the Council of Trent condemned as heretical."
I love the Latin Mass and would attend it exclusively if it wasn't so far away from here. I think within several generations the Novus Ordo mass will quietly disappear, and a General Indult will restore the Tridentine Mass to its proper place. That being said I'm very worried about current developments among many conservatice Catholics.
There is only anger, discord, bitterness, and eventually loss of salvation at the end of the path schismatic traditionalists are taking, because the natural conclusion is that the Pope is either a heretic, or not a Pope at all, which is the sedevacantist position, and the Novus Ordo is invalid/illicit, in which case the Church since Vatican II has fallen into apostacy.
The question must be posed: If the schismatic Traditionalists/ Chris Ferrara, Atila Sinke Guimarães, Dr. Marian Horvat, Michael J. Matt, and John Vennari group are right in their interpretations of Vatican II, the current Magisterium, and the words, actions, and prudential judgements of Pope John Paul II, then...
...that means that Pope John Paul II, Mother Angelica, Bishop Bruskiwiecs, Archbishop Chaput, Fr. Fessio, Fr. Baker, Fr. Stravinskas, Fr Groeschel, Fr JOHN HARDON, and all other conservative orthodox Catholics are WRONG!!!
I CANNOT believe that the judgment and interpretations of these nasty schismatic Traditionalists (not to include the Traditionalists in the Church who accept the Indult of Pope JPII) and their interpretation of current events and the writings and actions of Pope John Paul II are CORRECT and that Mother Angelica, Bishop Bruskiwiecs, Archbishop Chaput, Fr. Fessio, Fr. Baker, Fr. Stravinskas, Fr Groeschel, Fr JOHN HARDON, and all other conservative orthodox Catholics are DECEIVED!!!
This is a very dangerous development. There is a real WAR brewing between Traditionalist Catholics and orthodox, conservative Roman Catholics over the real nature of the authority of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium and the orthodoxy of Pope John Paul II and his prudential judgment.
For the faithful Remnant, this battle will be littered with more mortally deadly landmines than the previous battles over liberals versus conservatives, because otherwise loyal Catholics would never fall for the sinister lies of the liberals, but they may very well be deceived by the more subtle and seductive distortions of the schismatic Traditionalists.
I think EVERYONE needs to be forewarned that a major battle is brewing in the Church and we all need to be prepared to discern the truth on these issues. I urge everyone to read those links I posted above on Traditionalists and the errors of the schismatics.
In these debates, start with the most obvious question, to separate the schismatic from the merely Traditional minded Catholic:
Is the new mass valid In other words, is Christ Truly Present?
You will get two answers.
1)Yes, it is valid.
2)No it is not valid.
If they answer yes, they may insist that in many if not most new masses, it is valid but not licit. They are probably correct. But at least they admit it is a valid mass and valid consecration.
If they answer no, they are schismatic. These will actually be a smaller minority. Most traditionalists sit on the fence of the validity question, unwilling to step into open schism on the issue.
For those that admit the new mass is valid but refuse to attend it none the less, a simple question:
"You believe Christ is truly present at the new mass, right? Then why do you refuse to attend it? If Christ's infinite presence is there, who are we to quibble over the accidentals, the discipline, the liturgy by which He came present to us? Is Christ your Lord, or just a mascot you bring forward with the old liturgy? If He is truly present, then its "good enough" for Him. Why isn't it good enough for you? If Christ is still present, then all the other points of debate are moot in comparison.
