Bishop Bruskewitz to the Society of St. Pius X: "You can't have it both ways!"

St. Joseph Foundation ^ | August 22, 1996 | Charles M. Wilson

[NYer]

Bishop Bruskewitz to the Society of St. Pius X: "You can't have it both ways!"

By Charles M. Wilson

The Foundation has received more compliments on the lead article in the last issue than any article which has appeared in CHRISTIFIDELIS since the newsletter began publication in 1984. The Diocese of Lincoln has received thousands of letters expressing support and gratitude for Bishop Bruskewitz’s action and only an insignificant number criticizing him, so I am not surprised that our readers would react as they did. Even so, there is one category of criticism received by the Diocese of Lincoln and the Foundation which deserves a response. I am referring to the members and sympathizers of the Society of St. Pius X (hereafter the Society or SSPX) who objected to the Society’s being named at all and its being lumped together with such groups as Call To Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood and the Freemasons.

For an organization to be included in Bishop Bruskewitz’s legislation three conditions must be present: (1) It must have members in the Diocese of Lincoln; (2) membership therein is deemed by the bishop to be perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith; (3) it asserts falsely that membership does not contradict membership in the Catholic Church.

Let me state my position right off the bat. There is no doubt in my mind that conditions (1) and (3) apply to the Society and there is persuasive evidence that condition (2) also applies. I support Bishop Bruskewitz’s action and offer the following article in support of my conclusions.

 

Archbishop Lefebvre

 

Over 90% of the people who will read this article are Americans. Yet I hope that our good readers in Canada and other countries outside the United States will appreciate the use of some analogies drawn from American history which seem singularly on target. In the first place, some incidents associated with the birth of our country might give rise to a certain special sympathy for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. We revere Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and many, many others who stood up to their lawful king, his ministers, his legislature and his army and navy rather than compromise their principles. The signers of our Declaration of Independence mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in a cause history would now regard as a foolhardy rebellion against a duly constituted regime which by eighteenth century standards was most benign, had it been General Washington instead of Lord Cornwallis who was forced to surrender at Yorktown in 1781. It is then understandable that we would instinctively feel some degree of admiration toward a man who in our own time stood up for what he sincerely believed was right in the face of powerful opposition.

Faithful Catholics of all nationalities who embrace the teaching of the Church and love the beauty of her traditional liturgy are as well inclined to have feelings of sympathy and gratitude toward Archbishop Lefebvre. We sympathize because we agree with much of what he said and we are grateful because the celebration of the traditional Mass would not be possible and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter would not exist save for him. Furthermore, in our constant and frustrating struggle against the kind of atrocities we see in "Straws in the Wind," we know that Archbishop Lefebvre was equally horrified. As the old Arab maxim goes, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Still, the sympathy, admiration and gratitude we may have toward Archbishop Lefebvre must not blind us to our duty toward the Church. It may be all right to consider the archbishop something of a latter day Patrick Henry, but only if we keep in mind that it was not George III who our Lord Jesus Christ was addressing when He said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" and "He who hears you hears me." Similarly, some have cast Archbishop Lefebvre as a modern St. Athanasius, suffering for his opposition to modernism much as the fourth century Doctor of the Church endured persecution and exile for fighting Arianism. This comparison falls short because the historical conditions are not analogous. Most of St. Athanasius’ persecutors were themselves heretics, usurpers or intrusive emperors. One exception was, of course, Pope Liberius, who under duress condemned Athanasius in 357. By contrast Archbishop Lefebvre has defied legitimate holders of ecclesiastical office, including Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. It is beyond question that John Paul II is the legitimate successor of Peter and was not acting under duress when Archbishop Lefebvre manifestly violated the Holy Father’s express, personal command by ordaining four bishops without the required mandate of the Holy See in 1988. Whether the act constituted schism in the strict sense of the word does not change this, nor do the differing opinions proffered by learned canonists.

 

The SSPX Today

 

Returning again to the American analogy, what that loose confederation called the United States of America would become was by no means certain when the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783. There is not much doubt that Washington would have been crowned king had he wanted the job or that he and his generals could have easily established a military dictatorship. Conversely, the nation might just as easily have come apart, as it almost did 77 years later, and what is now the territory of the 48 contiguous states would contain a collection of smaller nations. What the United States was in 1783, what it was at various times between then and now or what it might have become is completely beside the point when one considers domestic or foreign policy matters in 1996. Likewise, what Bishop Bruskewitz had to consider was not what the Society was when Archbishop Lefebvre founded it in 1970 nor what it was when he illicitly ordained the four bishops in 1988 nor what it was at the time of his death on March 25, 1991, but what it is in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska in 1996. It is from this perspective that we consider whether or not the SSPX meets the three criteria set forth in Bishop Bruskewitz’s legislative act of March 22, 1996.

 

Membership and Activities

 

St. Michael the Archangel Chapel in Lincoln is not a building but an association formed for the purpose of providing for the celebration of the Traditional Mass. Ironically, the building it has used is a cemetery chapel which is also the site of Masonic and Buddhist ceremonies. The fact that the SSPX has recently conducted public worship there was acknowledged by the Society’s District Superior, Father Peter R. Scott, in his letter to Bishop Bruskewitz, dated March 27 and since published by the Society.

The subject of membership is less simple. The SSPX does not have lay members in the strict sense of the word and none of its priest-members reside in the Diocese of Lincoln. If being formally enrolled as a member of the Society is what is necessary to incur the penalties legislated by Bishop Bruskewitz, then it is clear that no one in the Diocese of Lincoln has incurred interdiction or excommunication for being a member thereof. However, the obvious intent of the legislation was to deter Catholics from becoming so closely associated with any of the twelve organizations named that they would risk accepting those beliefs and practices which are in conflict with the Catholic faith. This means that what is really at issue is not formal enrollment but adherence. For example, if one were to regularly attend meetings and other public activities of Call to Action, participate in its illicit liturgies, subscribe to its publications, applaud its leaders and support it financially, then one could be considered an adherent and subject to the penalties established by law. The same could be said of the SSPX, so we must then proceed to determine if adherence to the Society is perilous to the faith and if it has claimed that such adherence by Catholics does not contradict their membership in the Church.

 

Perilous to or Incompatible with the Catholic Faith?

 

Some 35 years ago, I worked in the purchasing department of a large corporation. One day we attended a training session where a company lawyer was to instruct us on the discriminatory pricing sections of the Robinson-Patman Act. To do this in an hour was quite a challenge, so he began by saying, with tongue in cheek, "This is a subject on which thousand-page books have been written and most of them are regarded as terse and superficial." Now that I am going to try to deal with a subject far more complex than the Robinson-Patman Act in a few paragraphs, I know just how he felt.

That which God has made known to us in order to be saved is referred to by the Church as Divine Revelation or the Word of God. This Revelation is to be found only in sacred Scripture and that teaching of the apostles which was not recorded in writing at the time. The latter is called sacred Tradition. "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church...But the task of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it." (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, No. 10.) The Magisterium can be exercised in several ways. A solemn definition by the pope alone as well as a definition of a lawfully convened ecumenical council confirmed by the pope are protected by the Holy Spirit and, therefore, infallible. Also infallible is a teaching of the entire college of bishops, even while scattered throughout the world, in union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, when they agree that the teaching must be definitively held.

Anything which contradicts or seriously distorts this Word of God as faithfully interpreted and handed down by the Magisterium can surely be regarded as perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith.

The primary charge is that the SSPX contradicts or seriously distorts the Word of God as interpreted by the Magisterium appears to rest on its alleged non-acceptance of at least three of the sixteen pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council: The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, and the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis humanae. The secondary charge is that, by its defiance of the rightful authority of the pope and the bishops in communion with him, the Society has challenged the doctrine of papal primacy and the rightful authority of the bishops as lawful shepherds of their particular churches.

Bishop Bruskewitz has the authority to judge whether or not these charges are true insofar as they apply to what the Society and its adherents do within the Diocese of Lincoln. I have no such authority at all, either in the Diocese of Lincoln or anywhere else, so all I can do is express a private opinion.

Archbishop Lefebvre engaged in a lengthy dialog with the Holy See over the proper interpretation of Vatican II. Finally, in May, 1988, he signed an agreement with the Holy See in which he accepted Vatican II if interpreted in accord with sacred Tradition. In my view, that is the only way Vatican II or any other ecumenical council could possibly be interpreted. Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre subsequently repudiated his agreement and an examination of recent public statements of the SSPX, including the current exchange of correspondence between Fr. Scott and Bishop Bruskewitz, leads me to conclude that the Society has gone beyond castigating the distortions and spurious interpretations of the Council and has, for all practical purposes, rejected the Council itself.

As far as I am concerned, there is no argument that the SSPX has considered itself absolved from any obligation of submission to the pope or any diocesan bishop. It conducts public worship and administers the sacraments wherever it chooses without so much as a nod in the direction of the competent authority. It reserves the right to alienate itself from the teaching authority of the pope and, in effect, has instituted its own canons of orthodoxy.

If I were serving on a jury trying to decide the Society’s guilt or innocence, the evidence I have seen thus far would cause me to be inclined to vote guilty on the primary charge but I would want to see some more before casting a final vote. As to the secondary charge, I say guilty.

 

False Assertions of Union with Rome

 

In a letter dated May 13 to Fr. Scott, also published by the SSPX, Bishop Bruskewitz states that the Society’s chapel in Lincoln has claimed in advertisements in the local newspaper and telephone directory that it is "in full union with Rome." I would say that such a claim is deceptive, unless you go along with the Society’s definition of what "Rome" is or, more important, what "Rome says." Whenever we hear the term "Rome says," we understand this to mean the official pronouncements of the Holy See. However, judging by a recent promotional leaflet distributed by the SSPX, portions of which appear at the end of this article, it seems that the Society would define "Rome says" as the private statements of current or retired officials of the Roman Curia, observations of canon lawyers living in Rome or elsewhere, dissertations written by individuals studying at pontifical universities or replies of a department of the Holy See to inquiries from members of the faithful.

The leaflet bothers me more than the newspaper or telephone directory advertisements because it went to a lot more people, most of whom live in dioceses where the bishop is not as vigilant as Bishop Bruskewitz. The leaflet’s unmistakable message is that the SSPX and its priests are under no canonical sanction whatever and that the Catholic faithful are as free to attend Society Masses as they are to attend Masses celebrated in diocesan parishes. This is, at the very least, sheer balderdash and is obviously intended to entice the unsuspecting and the uninformed.

 

Some Difficulties with the Leaflet

 

The general difficulty I have with the leaflet is that it employs a non-sequitur which has nothing to do with the present case, i.e., whether or not the ordination of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre without the mandate of the Holy See was intrinsically schismatic, and then leaps to the conclusion that the SSPX is perfectly O.K. Beyond that, I have very serious questions about the use of the statements of three individuals, none of whom has endorsed or is affiliated in any way with the SSPX.

Count Capponi did indeed make the statement the leaflet attributes to him. But he has also said publicly that, while he was a sympathizer of Archbishop Lefebvre, he was not a follower. Moreover, as the SSPX is well aware, in 1994 the "independent" traditionalist chapel of Our Lady of Fatima in Pequannock, NJ, received an offer from the Bishop of Paterson whereby the chapel would be regularized and served by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. A faction of SSPX adherents within the chapel membership wanted to reject the offer and demanded that Masses there be celebrated by Society priests, claiming that they were acting out of necessity according to c. 1323, 4°. In response and at my request, Count Capponi prepared an opinion wherein he said: "If Bishop Rodimer’s offer of reconciliation and the services of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are refused, those who continue to attend the Masses celebrated by priests of the Society of St. Pius X cannot any longer claim to be acting in a state of necessity as foreseen by canon 1323, 4°."

Father Gerald Murray has written a very strong letter to the SSPX pointing out the outright errors made and quotations taken out of context in the extracts from an interview which appeared in The Latin Mass Magazine. The citation in the leaflet would imply that Fr. Murray sees nothing at all wrong with attending SSPX Masses, when in fact he clearly said otherwise in the same article. Incidentally, Fr. Murray has since reassessed the arguments made in his licentiate thesis (not his doctoral thesis, as erroneously stated by the SSPX) and now considers his earlier interpretation of the state of necessity as too broad.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence those six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop’s follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX.

 

The SSPX and the Internal Crisis in the Church

 

I know that the Church is undergoing a terrible internal crisis. So does the SSPX, but I think our common understanding ends there. The St. Joseph Foundation now receives requests for assistance at the rate of over 2,000 per year and we know as well as anyone else just what faithful Catholics have to endure. Still, even if we cannot help them, I am confident that the vast majority will manage to bear their sufferings without refusing "submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (c. 751).

If I may impose on our readers outside the United States just one more time, I will close with a final American example which I personally remember. During World War II, the former heavyweight boxing champion, Joe Louis, was drafted into the army. When the "Brown Bomber" arrived at the induction station, a reporter asked him if he did not think it unfair that he was forced to serve in the army of a country in which his people had suffered and were suffering so many injustices. Louis thought for a moment and said: "There’s nothing wrong with this country that Hitler can fix."

I am by no means equating Archbishop Lefebvre with Adolph Hitler or the SSPX with the National Socialist Party, but the analogy remains an apt one. Terrible things are happening in the Church, but I don’t see anything that the Society of St. Pius X can fix.

    

[BlackElk]

I think that the level of personal hatred of the pope and his authority displayed on this website alone by the SSPX schismatics and their sympathizers would suffice as graver matter than the unavailability in some dioceses of the particular sort of Mass which is your preference (and mine), don't you?

[BlackElk]

Luther claimed to be Catholic too and behaved in just about the same fashion as today's schismatics. He was no Catholic and neither are the SSPX people. If you think so much of Monsignor Perl, try to understand what he is saying: The Mass of an unworthy, defiant, disobedient, schismatic priest is still a Mass so long as his Holy Orders are valid (which no one ever doubted and I think I am a veteran critic of SSPX around here).

Donatism is still a heresy. And if SSPX is attacked for Donatist reasons, it is attacked for the wrong reasons when there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to attack SSPX as the schism that it is. Perl was answering specific questions. He did not suggest that Catholics lie down with dogs or that they get up with fleas but rather that any Mass is better than no Mass on a day of obligation, even an SSPX Mass.

Since you think so much of the authority of Monsignor Perl, however, you should consider heeding his boss, JP II, and returning to the Faith.

[BlackElk]

So, somehow, the rights of SOME of the FSSP priests were denied because it was made clear that they and others were ALLOWED to say the normative Mass of the Church? Not required, mind you, but merely allowed. Thus, if Fr. Black says a Novus Ordo Mass, he will be harming somehow Fr. Brown who does not say the Novus Ordo Mass so long as both are FSSP priests, right? Assuming that absurdity to somehow be true, does the pope himself transgress Fr. Brown's rights when the pope says the Novus Ordo Mass? What sort of gibberish are you promoting? Do you understand that you cause many bishops, including many of the more conservative bishops, to suspect not merely you and your fellow SSPX schismatics but also Tridentine Catholics in communion with Rome to be suspect of harboring schismatic intent and why the bishops see such suspicions to be reasonable?

[BlackElk]

Ah, but not competitive with your magnificent #55 and #56!

[NYer]

Religious obedience has lost its profound meaning. The vows of poverty and chastity, which are more frequently transgressed, and often mortally, have in fact come to the foreground in several manuals; whereas obedience, which is the foundation of the whole edifice, has been placed in the background, because it is rare that obedience is a mortal sin."

In yesterday's church bulletin, there was an open invitation to join the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet at their Provincial House, to pray for the earth! They will be holding this prayer service over the course of 5 weeks, beginning on Sunday, April 27. (That just happens to be the day set aside by the pope, as Divine Mercy Sunday.). The sisters have signed on to the UN's Earth Charter and posted a link to its web site. When I read this, I was enraged!

The following warning about the Earth Charter was issued by the Vatican;

VATICAN, February 12, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers, surprised those who doubt that the Maurice Strong led movement for a new "global ethic" presented a threat to Christianity. In an article published yesterday in the Vatican's L'Osservatore Romano, the Archbishop warned that the aim of the program was to supplant Christian values with a "global ethic."

The "New Paradigm" as it is called in the article is an eco-religion which holds "sustainable development" as the highest good. The Archbishop warns that the New Paradigm manifests itself "as a new spirituality that supplants all religions, because the latter have been unable to preserve the ecosystem." In a word, this is "a new secular religion, a religion without God, or if you prefer, a new God that is the earth itself with the name GAIA," he said.

The influence of the New Paradigm is already felt in the field of bioethics which uses warped interpretations of ethical stands which result in justifying research which offends human dignity such as embryonic stem cell research.

"The different religions existing in the world have been unable to generate this global ethic; therefore, they must be replaced by a new spirituality, which has as its end global well-being, within sustainable development," explained Archbishop Barragán.

[Cap'n Crunch]

LOL, mine are all borrowed words.

Ya' got 'em on the run General, keep up the good work.

[ultima ratio]

I've come to the conclusion you're one of these people for whom evidence is beside the point. You want to be the leader of a club--somebody who decides who's in and who's out. You are impervious to theological argument--you only want to be able to decide who gets to go to Heaven or Hell. Fine. Be my guest. Sing your looney tunes. Nevertheless, I'll give reason one more try--slowly this time.

First, this fantasy about the "normative Mass" needs to go. It's an inaccurate term. There's nothing normative about a Mass that is out of line with the whole of Catholic history. What actually happened was that the New Mass was FOISTED on an unwilling clergy by a Liturgical Gestapo that demanded exclusive use of the new missal. But the Old Mass was never abrogated. If you don't know this, you need to do some more background reading to understand the full implications of this injustice. In any case, the idea that the New Mass is NORMATIVE is a joke. It is a throwback, a variation on a liturgy invented by Martin Luther, complete with a Protestantizing disparagement of the Real Presence and a dumping of the Offertory. The Liturgical Nazis even turned the altar around to face the people, just like good old Martin did.

Second, the Indult letter of JnPII--Ecclesia Dei Adflicta--guaranteed Indult priests exclusive use of the '62 Missal, even carrying with it the admonition this rite was not to be admixed with any other rite. The FSSP Superior General made the bad mistake of believing Rome meant what it had promised, that this Fraternity was to have a unique charism centered on the ancient Latin rite. Instead Rome used the complaints of a few disgruntled subordinates to decapitate the Fraternity and impose its own guy more willing to mix and match--in other words, it staged a coup. Is it any wonder Indult priests are now offering communion in the hand and doing away with kneeling to receive? Give it time, it won't be long before the Agnus Dei gives way to Blowin' in the Wind.

Third, the "harboring of schismatic intent" is a charge I will gladly accept if it means I must choose between the ancient faith and the calamity now passing for Catholicism. I'll take my chances with the Lord and to heck with the rest of the nonsense--including the perverted priests and the sleazy bishops and the corrupted cardinals and the heretical liturgies and the celebrity pope who will tolerate any abomination in the name of Catholicism, yet only remembers the powers of his office when it comes to disciplining those who insist on adhering to the ancient faith. If this is schism, fine, I'll take it.

[ultima ratio]

The emergency was this: he saw that the conciliar popes were intent on inventing a new religion. Paul VI less so, wanting only to attract Protestants by means of radical change; but JnPII, absolutely, recklessly making up new doctrines as he goes along, carelessly ignoring the subversion of old dogmas. The result has been chaos and much destruction. As the poet says, the center does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. Children can't know this: but as an adult you should know better.

[ultima ratio]

Crack down how? Is the next pope going to concoct a new definition of schism the way the old pope did? Is he going to declare black is white and one-and-one-is-three and if you don't agree, you're damned? Does truth play any part in this strange new faith of yours or is it all a matter of using force? Do you really think obedience trumps everything else--even the ancient faith? If so, then what are you worshipping, if not the pope? You have confused him with Catholicism itself--which is the sin of idolatry.

To me people like you are like devout Muslims, full of rage against infidels, but deficient in common sense.

[ultima ratio]

Latin Mass News
Sacred Heart Church
12704 Foothill Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 92739-9764
VOL.3, Issue 25 ---- July 23, 2000



WE TOLD YOU SO


In our July 9 Newsletter we included the following paragraph in reference to the apparent shift favoring the return of the Traditional Mass in some quarters of the Church:

"However; we must be careful in accepting what appears as a favorable shift in the acceptance of the Traditional Mass by high authorities in the Church. We have been through that before and found the rug suddenly yanked out beneath our feet due to the powerful opposing factions in the Church."

Now we do not claim the gift of prophecy for ourselves-we are not charismatic. We only claim common sense. We have watched Rome operate during the past 35 years and it does not necessarily require Divine inspiration to predict what will occur in succeeding days, months, or years in the Vatican. So it was not a complete shock to find the rug yanked out beneath the feet of the Traditional movement by Cardinal Hoyos of the Ecclesia Dei Committee.

Cardinal Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, last week issued! a statement that the head of the Fraternity of St. Peter, Fr. Bisig,, was to he removed as Superior General of the Order; even though Bisig had the overwhelming support of the members of the Fraternity, and was due to again be confirmed in his position by the members.

In addition to refusing to accept the will of the order as to their choice for Superior General, Cardinal Hoyos also removed the very orthodox head of the Saint Peter of Wigratzbad International Seminary (FSSP).

Fr. Bisig was replaced by order of the Vatican with Father Arnaud Devillers FSSP. Father Devillers had been heading the District of North America; and has apparently done a effective job in that position. However, in the past we have noticed a number of comments by Fr Devillers that left us wondering 'Why did he say that?"

When informed of the decision of Cardinal Hoyos that he was to be appointed Superior General of the Order, Fr. Devillers claimed he did not want or desire the appointment. Our question, then, why did he accept?

Fr. Bisig was one of the original groups of priests, who after the Consecration of the four Bishops by Bishop Lefebvre, went to the Pope and requested the formation of a new religious order that would continue to offer the Traditional Mass.

Favoring this request Pope John Paul II established, under his direct jurisdiction, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, with the assurance that the members could continue to offer the Traditional Mass according to the 1962 Missal. He con-firmed the appointment of Fr. Bisig as head of this newly established Religious Order. At the time many people, we included, felt that the establishment of the FSSP was a means to blunt the effective-ness of Archbishop Lefebvre, and not because the Pope had any attachment to the Traditional Mass.

Under the direction of Fr. Bisig FSSP has prospered and has expanded throughout the world. Vocations have overwhelmed the order, and contrary to statement, made by Cardinal Hoyos, these vocations. include many in Europe. In fact the order cannot accommodate all those who wish to enter due to physical limitations of the two Seminaries located in America and Europe.

We plan to publish the lengthy statement of Cardinal Hoyos concerning the changes in the FSSP on our web site in the very near future. We just do not have room for it in a Newsletter. We suggest when you read it, read between the lines and discover the real intent of the Vatican. In fact, some of the claims the Cardinal made in the statement are just not true; such as the stagnation of FSSP vocations in Europe.

Obviously, there has been quite a reaction throughout the world to the unusual interference by the Vatican in the appointment of a Religious Superior. Particularly when that installation runs contrary to the desires of the members of that order. Without question, the Vatican, and we believe the Pope, wishes to weaken the Fraternity by allowing some members to offer the Novus Ordo contrary to the very reason for it's establishment. We believe the success of the FSSP has taken many in the Vatican by surprise, and has led some in very high places in the Church to try to cripple, if not eliminate it.

Naturally, Una Voce International has voiced opposition to the appointment of Fr. Devillier as Superior General. Not because Una Voce questions his qualifications, but because of the imposition of a Superior General contrary to the desires of the vast majority of the FSSP members. Una Voce president Michael Davies will be meeting in Rome with the Ecclesia Dei Commission in the very near future. As most of you know, Michael Davies, has been fighting the battle for the restoration of the Traditional Mass in hooks and publications, ever since the imposition of the Novus Ordo by Pope Paul VI on the faithful. Davies has become one of the foremost authorities on the New Mass in the world.

One of the arguments that Cardinal Hoyos presented for his action was his concerned for those FSSP priests in France who, due to the reluctance of most of the bishops to grant the indult to priests of the Fraternity, sent a request to Rome to be permitted to also celebrate the Novus Ordo. Facts however, indicate that this request did not originate from the FSSP but was in the works within the Ecclesia Commission many months previous. Msgr. Perl appears to be the member behind the deception.

Cardinal Hoyos claims his appointment of Fr. Devillers was "to prevent the disintegration of your Fraternity and the loss of vocations, so precious in these times of ours". On the contrary, it was to deny the majority of members their desire, as they expressed during their Chapter Meeting, to maintain the Fraternity as an Order devoted exclusively to the Traditional Mass.

Everyone must now realize that the overwhelming vocations to the FSSP were and are due to its emphasis on members offering only the TRADITIONAL MASS. To suggest differently is to stretch the truth (to put it mildly). What the majority of members wish is to preserve the very foundation of the Order. Those members who now wished to offer the Novus Ordo can easily join another religious order. But Cardinal Hoyos doesn't see it this way. He says (and he exaggerates) "for you at this time when a not inconsiderable number of seminarians, and even priests, have the intention of leaving your institute if this rule (exclusive use of the Traditional Mass) were to be imposed --which in fact isn't possible."

We ask why isn't it possible for the FSSP to impose a rule to offer the Traditional Mass exclusively? Priests join or establish orders more to their liking all the time. Why cannot those members of the FSSP in France, or anywhere else, who wish to offer the Novus Ordo become incardinated under any number of Novus Ordo bishops and depart the order? Not to do so militates against the unity of the society in terms of its ends. Certainly, those who now wish to offer the Novus Ordo should be free to do so; but as members of other Religious Orders or as secular priests. Not as members of the FSSP.

Fr. Devellier, the new Superior General might be suspect insofar as his attachment to the Traditional Mass. It fact it was rumored he had concelebrated the Novus Ordo. To his credit he denies this rumor: "I have never celebrated or concelebrated the new Mass to date. Actually I said so to Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, a few days before I was asked if I would accept this responsibility. It did not seem to bother him at all." Please note Fr. Devillier's careful use of the words: "to date".

A large number of the FSSP supporting Fr. Bisig sent a statement to Cardinal Hoyos expressing their dismay at his action in replacing this priest (We will publish this statement next week or you will be able to read it on our web site). However, we do have room for the following comment by Peter Perkins of Canada concerning the action of Cardinal Hoyos. It reads as follows:

"Fr. Josef Bisig, F.S.S.P., is an heroic figure who left the S.S.P.X as an act of loyalty to the Holy Father. He was the co-founder of the Fraternity and had been a senior member of the S.S.P.X By leaving the Society and cofounder this new Fraternity, he saw to it that traditionalists who wished to remain obedient to the Holy See had a place where young men could pursue vocations. This was all done for the benefit of traditionalists who are obedient to legitimate authority. But for the Modernists, the one unpardonable sin is the refusal to celebrate the New Order of Mass. If only a traditionalist priest will say it just *once* or if only a traditionalist will attend it just once in a public way, then all is well because this implies that love of the old Mass is merely a preference. Well, it's not just a preference and it represents a threat to a traditionalist charisma of spirituality--one which sees the Mass emphatically as an un-bloody Sacrifice."

We believe there is much more to this move of Cardinal Hoyos then what is contained in his statement. We certainly pray that Fr. Devillers and the Fraternity stand firm and resist all attacks on it from those who wish it's demise. We will keep you up to date on this subject.

It is easy to get discouraged when we witness the attacks and the expressions of hatred for the Mass of our forefathers. But people such as you will preserve the Traditional Mass. It may have to go into hiding as it did in Ireland during the religious persecution, but there will always be those devoted faithful who will sacrifice everything for it's preservation. Stand steadfast and fight for it. Pray for it often! Help us to expand it in this area. Pray for Fathers Bisig and Devilliers. And pray daily that the Pope's actions, as well as ours, will be in conformity with the will of God!



UNA VOCE

[ultima ratio]

A VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE
Michael Davies
President, Una Voce International

I have been asked by Una Voce America to make some comments on recent events concerning the Fraternity of St. Peter. I would have preferred to wait until after 2nd October when a meeting of the Council of the International Una Voce Federation will take place in Cologne. I have convened this meeting so that the Council can decide on the most course of action to take in the light of what must certainly be described as a crisis for the traditional movement. I have written to Cardinals Felici, Medina Estévez, and Ratzinger expressing my indignation at what has taken place, and a number of national associations of our Federation have also written. I have also been in close with other lay organizations, notably Pro Missa Tridentina in Germany, Ecclesia Dei, Australia, and CIEL UK. All have expressed their total support for Father Joseph Bisig in view of the outrageously unjust manner in which he and his Fraternity have been treated as a result of their uncompromising adherence to the undiluted Missal of 1962. Please pray for Father Bisig and the loyal members of his Fraternity.

In a letter dated 29 June 1999, a group of 16 French priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter contacted Cardinal Angelo Felici of the Ecclesia Dei Commission without the knowledge of their legitimate superior, Father Joseph Bisig. They accepted that this was a very grave act contrary to the behaviour normally expected from priests, but justified themselves by claiming that the situation within the FSSP was so urgent that it was necessary for them to go over Father Bisig's head directly to the Holy See. This has brought about the most serious crisis within the traditionalist movement since the episcopal consecrations of June 1988. It is so serious, in fact, that it threatens the continued existence of a traditionalist movement recognized by the Holy See. What a contrast with the optimism generated by the Pilgrimage to Rome in October 1998.

A General Chapter of the FSSP had been arranged to take place in Rome in August 1999, and the "urgent situation" referred to by the 16 priests is that following the properly-conducted preparatory elections for this chapter, all those elected came from "a group strongly opposed to any adaptation of the rite of 1962 to the wishes of the Council Fathers" in favour of "a parallel and marginal ecclesiastical position". This remark demonstrates the illogical thinking that permeates the entire letter, which is also characterized by a very shallow grasp of basic liturgical principles, and the history of the Traditional Mass since Vatican II. The sixteen priests have the temerity to term the majority of incardinated members of the FSSP who do not share their position as no more than "a group" within the FSSP. If we are to be strictly logical the term "group" can be applied, but those opposed to the sixteen constitute the overwhelming majority of the 92 priests and deacons incardinated into the Fraternity. The sixteen claim that they constitute a third of the 92, indicating that their grasp of mathematics is as poor as their grasp of logic and liturgical principles.

And what do the sixteen mean by "the parallel and marginal ecclesiastical position" held by the overwhelming majority of their confrères? In its Decree of Erection given in Rome by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 18 of October 1988, it is stated that "The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, as well as other priests who are guests in houses of the Fraternity or who exercise the sacred ministry in their churches, are conceded the use of the liturgical books in force in 1962." In this decree, which is included in full as an addendum, there is not one word suggesting that the 1962 Missal should be adapted "to the wishes of the Council Fathers", whatever these wishes may have been. In his book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Msgr. Klaus Gamber writes: "One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers."1A similar observation was made by Cardinal Ratzinger in his lecture delivered at the Ergife Palace Hotel, Rome on Saturday 24th October 1998, when he noted that: "The actual Constitution on the Liturgy does not speak at all about celebration facing the altar or facing the people. On the subject of language, it says that Latin should be retained, while giving a greater place to the vernacular "in the first place [in] the readings and directives, and [in] some of the prayers and chants" (SL 36:2).

The so-called "parallel and marginal ecclesiastical position" of the loyal Fraternity priests is simply their decision to remain faithful to the principles and purpose for which their Fraternity was erected, principles and a purpose which the sixteen freely accepted when they were incardinated into the Fraternity. In the decree of erection, there is not one word suggesting that the 1962 Missal should be adapted "to the wishes of the Council Fathers". The sixteen priests are therefore trying to substitute their own view of what the aim of the FSSP should be, an aim which was rejected overwhelmingly in the elections to the General Chapter, in place of the position clearly stated in its Decree of Erection. They all fully understood the aims and ethos of the Fraternity when they joined it, and if they no longer subscribe to these aims and ethos, and are unable to persuade a majority of Fraternity members to accept their position, the only logical and honourable step for them to take is to leave and either found a new fraternity or join one sharing those aims. The Congregation of Jesus and Mary comes to mind in this respect.

As the long and verbose letter of the sixteen proceeds its authors become more and more emotional and irrational. The majority of priests and seminarians who remain faithful to their decree of erection are, ipso facto, infected with "a spirit of separatism". Disagreement with the noble sixteen is tantamount to "a lack of confidence in the Church". The sixteen and the Church have become one. Unlike the majority of their confrères, the noble sixteen are not "priests for a rite but for the Church and for souls." Does this mean that the majority of priests in the FSSP are not priests for the Church and for souls? The fact of the matter is that the FSSP was erected as a priestly society destined to serve the Church and to save souls by, as their decree of erection makes clear, exercising the sacred ministry in their churches by the "the use of the liturgical books in force in 1962." In his October 1998 address, Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

"Ten years after the publication of the Motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", what sort of evaluation can one make? I think this is above all an occasion to show our gratitude and to give thanks. The various communities that were born thanks to this pontifical text have given the Church a great number of priestly and religious vocations who, zealously, joyfully and deeply united with the Pope, give their service to the Gospel in our present era of history. Through them, many of the faithful have been confirmed in the joy of being able to live the liturgy, and confirmed in their love for the Church, or perhaps they have rediscovered both. In many dioceses - and their number is not so small! - they serve the Church in collaboration with the Bishops and in fraternal union with those faithful who do feel at home with the renewed form of the new liturgy. All this cannot but move us to gratitude today!"

His Eminence here is stating that we must be grateful for the fact that there are so many priestly vocations of priests dedicated to the exclusive use of the liturgical books in use in 1962. He does not suggest that these communities need to adapt the 1962 Missal "to the wishes of the Council Fathers", whatever those wishes may have been. The majority of priests who are loyal to their Constitution and to their superior are, the noble sixteen inform us, infected with a spirit of separatism, and, worse still: "One finds, step by step, in this constant march towards a sense of separation, that imperceptible sliding which led, in 1988, the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to refuse the Roman propositions." Heaven help us! But worse is yet to come: "...many of those who had not known the so-called "traditionalist" movement and its history before 1988 are fascinated by the figure of Mgr. Lefebvre and want to make of the Fraternity of Saint Peter an exact replica of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X..."

The noble sixteen are more than willing to provide proof of the separatist mentality which it claims pervades the FSSP. They cite the fact that, horror of horrors, the faithful did not sing the Pater noster during the Pontifical Mass in Chartres Cathedral in 1999. Why on earth should the congregation have done so? In the Apostolic Constitution Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II required, motu proprio, that "respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962. (9)" Footnote (9) specified: " Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos, 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984), pp. 1088-1089." This Letter required that "These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin" and that "There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals." By the two Missals is meant those of 1962 and 1970, but there is no reason to suppose that a mixture of the 1962 and 1965 Missals was authorized. By adhering exactly to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal, the Mass at Chartres was celebrated in obedience to legitimate authority in the Church. Had the Pater noster been sung by the people, as the noble sixteen advocate, this would have been an act of disobedience to legitimate authority, in the tradition of the introduction of Communion in the hand or altar girls by the same rebellious method.2 What is certain about the Mass at Chartres, at which I was present, is that the active congregational participation, stipulated by Cardinal Ratzinger as the fundamental manifestation of obedience to the Council, was implemented to a degree that could not have been exceeded by any celebration in any rite anywhere in the world upon Pentecost Monday.

One might have hoped that upon receiving the scandalous letter of the sixteen, His Eminence, Cardinal Felici, would have replied at once admonishing them for the deceitful and uncatholic manner in which they had gone behind the back of their legitimate superior, and that he would have instructed them to be loyal to Father Bisig and to the constitution of their Fraternity. He did not, alas do this, but actually conceded their outrageous demands, among which were demands that the General Chapter of the Fraternity scheduled for August should be postponed, and that Father Bisig should be replaced by an apostolic administrator who would take the destiny of the Fraternity into his hands. The Chapter was indeed postponed and will be replaced by what is termed a plenary session to be held in November. Father Bisig was not actually replaced by an apostolic administrator, but has been, to all intents and purposes, deprived of his authority by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and thus is unable to expel the disloyal priests from the Fraternity. Worse still, Cardinal Felici did this without even contacting Father Bisig or giving him a chance to give his side of the story. It would appear that since the Second Vatican Council the principle audi alteram partem no longer applies. One wonder what the reaction of any Vatican department would have been had, say, a group of conservative Jesuits or Franciscans made a recourse concerning their superior, claiming that he taught heresy and ignored liturgical norms. Is it conceivable that he would have been deprived of his authority without even allowing him to state his side of the case? The recourse of such conservative priests would not even have been examined, but would have been sent straight to the Modernist superior. Cardinal Felici has accused Father Bisig of lacking confidence in the Holy See. What possible basis could he have for trusting the Holy See after what has happened?

In fairness to the sixteen priests it must be made clear that they did not ask to be bi-ritual, but stated specifically that they did not wish to be bi-ritual. This statement was not included in the original draft of their letter. What they asked for was the right to concelebrate the chrism Mass as they claim that the fact that Father Bisig forbids this is used by some diocesan bishops as an excuse for excluding the FSSP from their dioceses. Had these priests been content to put their case for making this concession to Father Bisig in an informed and respectful manner their conduct would not have been reprehensible, but the fact that they approached Cardinal Felici behind their superior's back, and made so many disparaging remarks concerning Father Bisig and their confrères is not what one expects from Catholic priests, let alone those claiming to uphold the traditional faith. The action of the Ecclesia Dei Commission in postponing the General Chapter and depriving Father Bisig of his rightful authority must be seen as a violation of the integrity of the Fraternity a serious abuse of administrative power, and an offense against natural justice. Furthermore, the letter, protocol 1411, not yet published and therefore not yet official, signed by Cardinal Medina Estévez, has authorized not simply members of the FSSP but of any traditional priestly society or monastic community dependent upon the indult to celebrate Mass according to the 1970 Missal, even if forbidden to do so by their superiors, and their superiors can take no action against them. The entire text of this letter which carried the protocol number 1411 is appended. If this response of Cardinal Medina Estévez is officially published in the journal of his Congregation, Notitiae, it could mean that the Fraternity will be de facto forced to become bi-ritual, contrary to the clear intention of its constitution. On the other hand, it appears that the congregation failed to notice is that the Fraternity is not under the régime of the indult . It has the full use of all the liturgical books in force in 1962, and not only the Missal of 1962 (which is the object of the indult proper) in virtue of the protocol of May 5, 1988 (agreed between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre). For the FSSP the use of the old liturgical books is a particular law and not an indult.

It is not correct, as some commentators have claimed, that 1411 is a response to the letter of the sixteen priests which is dated 29 June. 1411 is dated 3 July, and it is inconceivable that a Vatican dicastery would reply so swiftly to a letter addressed to it, particularly as it consulted other Vatican departments before drafting its reply.3 Furthermore, a representative of the sixteen priests states that when their representatives went to the offices of the Ecclesia Dei Commission to deliver their letter they were immediately shown 1411. This raises the question as to the source of the questions answered in 1411. Suggestions have been made that they originated not from priests in traditional societies but from within the Ecclesia Dei Commission itself. The plot thickens!

In a letter published in The Remnant of 15 August 1999, M. Yarrington makes some important points which must certainly win the agreement of those attached both to the Church and to fundamental norms of natural justice. He writes: "Of course, nothing precludes bureaucrats within Vatican agencies from promoting arbitrary law imposed without a reasonable basis. However, such an abuse is a misapplication of administrative power. That, however, does not make true law, for law must be characterized by what is reasonable and just, and this includes adherence to previously made agreements, along with the promises of those who have freely entered into the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter...If this issue seems trivial to some, including persons who occupy powerful administrative positions within the Vatican, then they should carefully consider what their ambiguous language and actions imply. Canon Law itself affirms (n. 598) that all members of an order must 'organize their life according to the proper law of the institute and thereby strive for the perfection of their state.' This rests on something even deeper­the very nature of promises, truth, and natural law, without which no society and no law can be sustained."

The viability of the FSSP and other traditional priestly societies is now endangered as the thousands of faithful who have given them financial support, often at the cost of considerable personal sacrifices, did so on the strict understanding that these societies were committed to the exclusive use of the liturgical books in use 1962. Such an understanding is in no way rigid or schismatic, but simply conforms to the clearly expressed wishes of the Sovereign Pontiff in Ecclesia Dei. If this is no longer the case, then many will certainly withdraw their financial support. Is it possible that there are those within the Curia who desire this? What is incontrovertible, is that once protocol 1411 appears in Notitiae, and God forbid that it does, it will appear that the only priestly society whose members are certain use the 1962 liturgical books exclusively is the Fraternity of Saint Pius X. Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew for the 1988 agreement with the Holy See because he felt that the Vatican could not be relied upon to keep its promises. It would appear that there are now powerful forces in the Curia determined to prove that he was right. Some of the loyal FSSP priests have organized a Novena Prayer to be said by all traditional Catholics. It can be begun at anytime, and is one composed by Padre Pio

PADRE PIO NOVENA ON BEHALF OF THE FSSP

"O my Jesus, you have said: "Truly I say to you, ask and it will be given you, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you." Behold I knock, I seek and ask for the grace of ... Our Father... Hail Mary... Glory be to the Father... Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in You. O my Jesus, you have said: "Truly I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you." Behold, in Your name, I ask the Father for the grace of ... Our Father... Hail Mary... Glory be to the Father... Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in You. O my Jesus, you have said: "Truly I say to you, heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away." Encouraged by your infallible words I now ask for the grace of... Our Father... Hail Mary... Glory be to the Father... Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in You. O Sacred Heart of Jesus, for whom it is impossible not to have compassion on the afflicted, have pity on us miserable sinners and grant us the grace which we ask of You, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, Your tender Mother and ours. Say the Hail, Holy Queen and add St. Joseph, foster father of Jesus, pray for us." (This novena prayer was recited every day by Padre Pio for all those who asked his prayers.)

Addendum 1
PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI" Decree

This Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", in virtue of the special faculties granted to it by the Supreme Pontiff, and graciously accepting the petition of the Reverend Father Josef Bisig, by this selfsame decree erects the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter as a clerical society of apostolic life with pontifical right, according to the prescribed norms of Canon Law and with all the legal consequences involved. This same Fraternity of Saint Peter proposes the sanctification of priests through the exercise of the pastoral ministry, particularly in conforming its life to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and by observing the liturgical and disciplinary traditions invoked by the Roman Pontiff in the Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei" of 2 July 1988, published "Motu Proprio".

This erection brings with it the rights enumerated in Canon 611.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, as well as other priests who are guests in houses of the Fraternity or who exercise the sacred ministry in their churches, are conceded the use of the liturgical books in force in 1962.

In order that the necessary unity of the Church might be better fostered, the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are with particular diligence to seek communion with the bishop and diocesan priests according Canons 679-683. In the exercise of the pastoral ministry the prescriptions of the law are to be observed, particularly in what concerns the valid and licit celebration of the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, as well as what is laid down in Canon 535 concerning the transcription of these events in the parish registers.

The Constitutions of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, having been accepted by this Pontifical Commission, are approved for three years "ad experimentum".

The Reverend Father Josef Bisig is named Superior General of the same Fraternity, equally for three years.

Bearing in mind what is set out in this Decree, the Priestly Society of St. Peter is under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff as transmitted to this Pontifical Commission for all that concerns it, until otherwise provided for.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in audience on 18 October 1988 with the undersigned Cardinal of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", ratified and ordered, the publication of this Decree, erecting the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter as a society of apostolic life and approving its constitutions "ad experimentum".

Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome, from the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", the 18th of October 1988.

AUGUSTINUS Card. Mayer President CAMILLUS PERL Secretary

FOOTNOTES:
1. K. Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, (Roman Catholic Books, P.O. Box 255, Harrison, N.Y. 10528, 1993), p. 61.

2. An Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, De Musica Sacra (3 September 1958), authorized the faithful to say the Pater noster with the celebrant in Latin during a dialogue Mass, but only in a low Mass.

3. A series of questions arrived at this Dicastery concerning the possibilities and impediments connected to the use of the 1962 missal conceded by indult by the legitimate authority. After proper consultation and with the approval of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of legislative tests, and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, we communicate the response to the questions asked, as follows."

---

[ninenot]

Lays it out clearly. Bisig taught that his priests could NOT celebrate the NO. Wrong teaching.

[BlackElk]

It has taken a while but you at least admit being in schism. I realize that you imagine that it is a conditional admission. You are not choosing between the alternatives you suggest but between your preferred alternative of "Non Serviam" and the Faith.

I am no more interested in the arguments of schismatics than I am interested in the arguments of those in heresy. Rome is right. You are wrong.

Even if occasionally you advance a fact or two, you will certainly ignore the fact that the saying of the normative Mass of the Church by one priest does absolutely nothing to deprive a second priest (who is not REQUIRED to say the Novus Ordo by anyone) of his rights.

In fact, if you check out post #70 herein, kindly provided by Sandyeggo which contains the actual text of the letter of Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos, a man of considerably higher standing in the Vatican than his secretary, you will find the unvarnished truth shorn of the schismatic editorial opinions often substituted for truth by you. You would do well to pay that letter serious heed since Dario Castrillon de Hoyos is a long-time favorite and willing assistant to John Paul II in helping him to crush "Liberation Theology" and since 11 of the 20 voting members of the College of Cardinals appointed at the last consistory were from Latin America as is the good cardinal and since he is considered quite papabile.

As you can see from the letter, Dario Castrillon de Hoyos may well prove to be the pope who deals with SSPX as fully as necessary. It is not difficult to intuit from his letter his concern that the Tridentine MAss itself and some alleged exclusivity by which FSSP priests were not to be permitted to say the Novus Ordo were the targets of his action. Anyone who has listened to you ranting and raving against the Novus Ordo as a Protrestantized Mass, assome sort of work analogous to that of Luther, etc., etc., ad nauseam, should have no difficulty figuring out why the Vatican has had enough with your schism anbd why it will act against a tiny and willful band determined to defy Rome at any cost.

At the Novus Ordo Mass, I hear: This is My Body and I hear This is My Blood. What was that about disparaging the Real Prsence? As to the orientation of the altar, ad orientem is preferable to ad populum but it is hardly a crisis of Faith. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. "Quelle surprise!", as your excommunicated founder might say.

[BlackElk]

Which is why you find yourself in schism.

[ultima ratio]

The reason Rome goes ballistic regarding the traditionalist's rejection of the Novus Ordo, is that it seeks acceptance from those who know what Catholic tradition is precisely because they have lived it without a break the past forty years. Rome wants the imprimatur, so to speak, of all previous popes before the Council. And it wants to beat-down anybody who would affirm an allegiance to the doctrines defined by Trent, rather than to Bugnini's concoction. SSPX in particular has refused to say something that is so obviously Protestant, is Catholic. For this it is persecuted.

I make no concession, therefore, to being schismatic by attending SSPX Masses, but only meant to underscore the absurdity of your charge by using a little sarcasm. But you reply by saying "Rome is right", then turn around and reject whatever Rome is saying to prove my point---namely, that Catholics who attend SSPX Masses are not schismatics. You sniff at this unambiguous declaration and want to pick and choose like everybody else. Not that I blame you--Rome is an unsure guide for certitude these days. It speaks out about a great many things and gets a lot of them totally wrong--which is why it has been obliged to do a lot of back-tracking the past forty years. This is not esepcially surprising for a regime that makes things up as it goes along.

So let me ask you--was Pius IX mistaken when he warned us to disobey any pope who would ask us to follow him into error rather than follow the faith? And how do we judge such a thing in the first place? Easy--when a pope substitutes his own version of the faith for what has been handed-down, he is standing on erroneous ground. That is the bottom line. And there is another test--given by Christ himself who warned us to be wary of false prophets who would look like pussycats--or maybe rock stars. By their fruits we were to know them. Well, we've seen their fruits. The springtime never came.

You see then, it is not I who cry out "Non serviam", but people like yourself who serve a man and not the faith. Non serviam was Lucifer's refusal to serve God, remember, not a mere pope subject to humanity's weaknesses. You have confused the two, then turn around and accuse me of doing precisely what you do.

In any case, it is pointless to track down every give and take of this dispute with Hoyos and FSSP and SSPX. It is to be expected that somebody like yourself, for whom authority trumps everything else--even the facts themselves--would give undue weight to that particular side of the argument, though you ignore this same prefect when it is inconvenient. The bottom line is that the Cardinal acted against FSSP in a way he would never have dared act against even the most egregiously corrupt and apostate churchmen. No one doubts that behind such animus is the Boss himself whose novel policies and highly selective use of discipline speak volumes about the continual rejection of Catholic tradition. Clown Masses, gay Masses, polka Masses, yes. But an exclusive use of the ancient Mass, no. That says it all.

Finally, it is certainly true you may hear, "This is My Body and this is My Blood" at a Novus Ordo Mass, but you can also hear this same invocation at an Eastern Orthodox liturgy--or at a Lutheran Lord's Supper for that matter. What you apparently are not hearing or seeing or thinking is that the Novus Ordo is permeated by Protestant doctrines which continue to undermine the Catholic faith. Pius XII warned us this dark age was coming, that we would some day search in vain for the red sanctuary lamp. That day is now here. Father Jeremy now has center stage instead of the tabernacle, with Sister Stephanie at his side to bathe in the spotlight and perhaps give the sermon or do a dance, and with myriad other ministers to stand around to drink in the applause. Meanwhile Blessed Sacrament is shunted to an obscure church corner and is forgotten. If this isn't at bottom Protestant, nothing is.