The Society Of St Pius X - Further Negotiations with Rome

The Society Of St Pius X - Further Negotiations with Rome - A Summary of a Conference given by Bishop Fellay on 6 May 2002 at St Michael's School

His Lordship began by expressing his initial surprise at the change of attitude towards the Society on the part of the Vatican. Until a year and a half ago, the SSPX was stigmatised as "schismatic" and "excommunicated" (a view still held by many), but now it is being encouraged to enter into dialogue with Rome. The Bishop explained why he was cautious about this sudden "volte face".

Firstly, there was Rome's treatment of the various traditionalist societies (notably the Society of St Peter and Una Voce), that operate under the provisions in the decree "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta" (1988). In 1999, some priests of the Society of St Peter were invited by their local bishops to concelebrate with them at the Mass of the Chrism on Maundy Thursday. Sixteen St Peter's priests complied, in defiance of the wishes of their, then, Superior, Father Bisig. Fr Bisig consequently reprimanded the sixteen. The bishops complained about this to the Vatican, eliciting a Protocol that clarified the situation. The Indult to say the Old Mass did not remove any priest's right to say the new, nor can any Superior prevent him from doing so.

This must be seen against a background of the dismissals of St Peter's seminary professors who were openly critical of the Novus Ordo. The Bishop reported the words of Cardinal Castrillon in the course of the meeting they had on 29 December 2000. The Cardinal made it clear that he had nothing against priests who want to say the old Mass. "What I cannot accept is that someone should write against the new Mass, as Father Bisig did. That is why, when I heard about it, I said that Father Bisig cannot be Superior General." The Cardinal had also dismissed the two Superiors of the seminaries of St Peter.

His Lordship then outlined Cardinal Castrillon's announcement, in a letter to the President of Una Voce, Mr Michael Davies, that the "Indult" priests would now have to adopt the 1965 rubrics, involving a radical modification of the ceremonies of the Mass, the introduction of bidding prayers, the suppression of the Last Gospel and the introduction of new liturgical calendar. Indirectly, the Cardinal implied that it is henceforth prohibited for a priest to refuse Communion in the hand at an Indult Mass. The Cardinal also added that the condition imposed upon those asking permission for the old Mass was that they should have nothing to do with those who question the legitimacy or orthodoxy of the new.

In view of these events, the Bishop was surprised to receive an invitation to meet Cardinal Castrillon, but surmised that some difference has been made by the Holy Year Pilgrimage to Rome in 2000, during which certain prelates realised the absurdity of regarding the SSPX as "non-Catholic". Moreover, Msgr Perle has indicated that Rome's attitude towards the Society subverted its ecumenical approach toward the Orthodox and the Protestants.

His Lordship then summarized the content of his meeting with Cardinal Castrillon on 29 December 2000, during which the Cardinal suggested a personal prelature for the Society (like Opus Dei). Bishop Fellay said that if the Society were to enter into such an arrangement, it would still be obliged to fight against modernism, liberalism and Freemasonry. He also raised the recent treatment of the Society of St Peter as a reason for not trusting the Vatican, and its official policy of not attempting to convert the Old Catholics or the Orthodox.

The Bishop also gave an account of his five-minute meeting with the Pope, in which the latter expressed his happiness about the negotiations.

On his return from Rome, Bishop Fellay called a meeting with all the traditional Catholic bishops (including Bishop Rangel). It was decided that the bishops should request the lifting of the (false) excommunication, and permission for all priests, throughout the world to say the old Mass. This would remove the pretence that the old Mass had been abrogated, make it very difficult (if not impossible) to abrogate it in the future and would cause many graces to flow into the Church because of the increased celebration of the old rite. The answer from Rome to this request was that "Basically, the Pope does agree that the old Mass has never been abrogated and that all priests have the right to say it" but the request was refused because some of the older secretaries (of the Curia) "think that it would be an insult to Pope Paul VI and all the work that has been done for the new liturgy."

In this reply, Rome signalled that it was not prepared to defend the old Mass and so, Bishop Fellay decided to suspend further discussions.

The Bishop contextualized his refusal to continue the current negotiations with Rome, by giving recent instances of how far the Vatican's policies are removed from Catholic tradition. It has permitted intercommunion between the Catholic and non-Catholic Church who use the Chaldean Rite in Iraq (heedless of the fact that one of the masses used by the non-Catholic part has no words of consecration). He went on to give an account of the extraordinary arrangements that were made for the latest Inter-Faith meeting at Assisi, where the Zoroastrians demanded a room with windows in which they could light a fire. The Moslems needed a room facing Mecca and the Jews required a room that had never been blessed. Even more horrifyingly, all the crucifixes in the convent were either removed or covered up. As Bishop Fellay observed: "Remove the essential, remove the truth and then it's possible for all the errors to meet together."

His Lordship spoke about the response on the part of the Vatican, and especially Cardinal Ratzinger, to the Society's recent book, criticizing the new Mass. The Bishop identified the opposition to the book as arising from a different understanding of the notion of "sacrifice". For Cardinal Ratzinger, to judge from a conference he gave at Faucombault last year, sacrifice means "to become better", a view based on the modern idea that sin cannot affect God, it only affects us, hence the punishment is the sin itself.

At the beginning of April, Cardinal Castrillon wrote to Bishop Fellay to say: firstly, the Pope is infallible; secondly, one may not judge the Pope; thirdly, "you are wrong" and fourthly, "I am convinced that many people in the Society have lost faith in the infallibility of the Pope."

The Bishop here reminded the audience, in terms of Pope Pius IX's "Pastor Aeternus", of the Church's teaching on Papal Infallibility which was there to conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of faith that has always been taught by the Church.

Despite the breakdown in the discussions with Cardinal Castrillon, Cardinal Ratzinger has invited Bishop Fellay to doctrinal discussions. Although the Bishop felt that these might be more interesting, there would still be the difficulty of using words like 'truth', 'infallibility' and so on, that have come to mean different things for those in today's Vatican.

Bishop Fellay concluded his talk on a note of cautious optimism. There are today many younger priests desirous of saying the traditional Mass and questioning many aspects of Vatican II. In France, the Bishop of Poitiers reported that he had twelve young priests who wish to say the old Mass, and in France as a whole a petition from over three hundred and twenty diocesan priests have made a similar request.

I agree with you HM-BA. The Latin Mass is tough to come by in most places. I live within the Archdiocese of Boston and there is only one Latin Mass available (and it is not widely known about) - and we are in a very large Catholic area.

I'm not sure why the Cardinals are rather miserly with the Latin Mass, but I do think it is an important part of our Catholic heritage that would be terribly sad to lose altogether. It may be somewhat of a logistical problem? In a lot, if not most, Catholic churches, the altar rails have been taken out and the Tabernacle is no longer on the center altar.

If you read the history of the Novus Ordo, you find that the Traditional Mass was simply "elbowed" out without ever being formally abrogated. (How could the Church outlaw a Mass of over 1500 years of tradition?) Nonetheless, bishops told priests that they could no longer say this liturgy. Most priests think that it has been outlawed except in special indult cases. But legally, any priest ordained in the Roman Rite, with faculties, ought to be able to say this liturgy of the Roman Rite.

When Rome approached the SSPX for reconciliation, the SSPX bishops said that one condition for their return is that Rome acknowledge that every Roman priest has the right to say this Mass. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos agreed that they do have the right, but hedged that the Vatican could say so.

Why not? One reason would be that it would mean admitting some duplicity when they have told priests since 1969 that they could not say this Mass, or could say it only under special conditions. Another reason would be that bureaucrats dislike trouble, and they can anticipate that an eruption of fervor would break out if every Roman priest could freely choose which of the Roman liturgies he would say. They would rather have all of those priests in lockstep, even though their rights are curtailed. Another reason is that they would claim that permitting both Masses would cause "confusion" among the laity. (But they don't mind the laity being confused when it suits their purposes.)

Hey, I merely mentioned once in conversation(at the Jesuit university I attended) that I liked aspects of the Mass in Latin and this lib prof. began spreading the rumor I was an SSPX schismatic (entirely untrue). These types are ruthless kooks. I can only attribute these emotional outbursts to the Devil's interest in disturbing Catholic worship and sacramental life. No secret why that should be troubling to the Prince of Darkness.

Remember the heat I took for suggesting the following might be true?

His Lordship then outlined Cardinal Castrillon's announcement, in a letter to the President of Una Voce, Mr Michael Davies, that the "Indult" priests would now have to adopt the 1965 rubrics, involving a radical modification of the ceremonies of the Mass, the introduction of bidding prayers, the suppression of the Last Gospel and the introduction of new liturgical calendar. Indirectly, the Cardinal implied that it is henceforth prohibited for a priest to refuse Communion in the hand at an Indult Mass.

"That's definitely true. I've been subjected to some quite awful bursts of anger by a Benedictine Priest when I expressed my interest in the Latin mass to him."

I've seen this myself and many in the Catholic HSing community have been embattled with DREs over this sort of thing.

It doesn't make any sense unless those liberals have thrown anything preconsiliar out the mental window...in which case are they Catholic?

I would really like to hear a logical explanation which definitively establishes that the optional and/or occasional offering of the Mass in Latin (in the old, traditional, Tridentine style) is bad, harmful, or negative for the spiritual life of the Church? Does that mean that an Orthodox liturgy in Greek is also bad? A Russian Orthodox liturgy in Slavonic? A Jewish Temple service in Hebrew? Are thay all bad too, or is it just Latin? Or just Latin in the Tridentine style? Does that mean our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, etc., were all "bad" Catholics? Cardinal Newman was a "bad" Catholic? Would he really have been better if he said Mass accompanied by music from Godspell, Jesus Christ, Superstar, the St. Louis Jesuits, and Enneagram-hypnotized folk guitarists? Does anyone REALLY believe that? My guess is that if the early Jesuits had started out in the style currently prominent in their ranks, there'd be NO Jesuits now. When the Catholic Church becomes just another mediocre, relativistic Protestant denomination, who is going to make any sacrifices to dedicate their lives to that?

I believe this is Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos' letter.

The Last Gospel is said at the Tridentine Mass that I attend. There are no "bidding prayers", the old Roman calendar is followed and I've never seen nor do I desire to see an " altar girl." I am not aware if anyone receives the Blessed Sacrament in the hand (although I doubt it). I permit no distractions during those few minutes when the Lord is sacramentally present within me.

Some of the things in this article are propaganda.

Pope John Paul ex-communicated the late Archbishop of SSPX for disobedience in ordaining two bishops in DIRECT DEFIANCE OF THE VATICAN.

The late Archbishop always held that he was right and Pope John Paul II was wrong -- including about Vatican II.

One must remember the source of this news letter and understand Canon Law. I do have a friend who will be ordained priest on Saturday who has studied at the Vatican and has studied Vatican law (though he is not an expert.

I guess if any of the late Archbishop's priests would have disobeyed him (as he disobeyed Pope John Paul II), he probably would have kicked them out of SSPX.

There is a Tridentine Mass by a parish that IS NOT SSPX but part of the Archdiocese of Atlanta that is similar to what you are describing.

There are rules in SSPX that were not there before Vatican II. For example, the priest who is pastor at St Michael's (SSPX church) in the Los Angeles will not give communion to those he does not know unless they meet with him before Mass. (That was never a requirement of the Tridentine Mass).

Further, I did query EWTN about the status of SSPX, because of family members attending.

Basically, communion is valid in this church (SSPX) and confessions (if in danger of death) are valid. I don't know what sacraments are not valid.

I think the biggest SNAFU with Canon law is that the bishops that are in control are ex-communicated and were not approved to be ordained by Pope John Paul II, and the late Archbishop is dead.

The SSPX is proximate to heresy in the area of the Council's teachings on religious liberty, but this can be worked out. It is also proximate to heresy in regard to the nature of the ordinary and extraordinary natures of the magisterium (almost identical to NCR liberals in the latter), etc.

But the SSPX is showing positive signs of wanting to work things out. The majority of their bishops anyway.

The SSPX in Brazil has rejoined the Catholic Church. And in the 1990's many of the priests of the SSPX left to re-join the Catholic Church as part of the Fraternal order of St Peter.

There some very positive aspects of the SSPX, as you say.

What does NCR stand for?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.