Letter of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to Mgr. Fellay

Letter of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to Mgr. Fellay (English translation by Mr. Ken Jones, Una Voce St. Louis)

Since the beginning of our fraternal contacts to find a way toward full communion, I believe that we have experienced the solicitude of our merciful Lord: truly he has not spared us His aide and His support, to gather together all the good things that unite us and overcome what still divides us.

I read at the time attentively, in prayer and not without suffering, your letter of last June 22. I have also studied certain documents concerning our conversations, written by members of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, published on the Internet and disseminated by other means of communication. I have also reread the letters of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, the interviews granted by Your Excellency and the letters that you have sent me.

Until today, for my part, I have never agreed to grant interviews on the subject, in order to maintain the privacy of the details of our dialogue: for me they have always had a provisional and discreet character, because of the great responsibility that I feel in conscience for this matter. It now seems to me opportune, for the love of truth, to clarify here several aspects of the development of this reconciliation, with the intention of imparting a new impetus, to be frank, to move beyond possible suspicions and misunderstandings that compromise the outcome that, I have no doubt, Your Excellency also desires.

The subject that we are considering will have, in fact, particularly important historical consequences, because it touches the unity, the truth and the holiness of the Church, and it is necessary therefore to treat it with charity but also with objectivity and truth. Our sole judge is Christ the Lord.

First of all, I must reiterate a historical truth, at the root of everything. My first initiative was not the result of a Pontifical mandate and was not the fruit of an agreement or project of some other person from the Apostolic See, contrary to what has been written and rumored, as if it was a matter of a definite strategy. As I have already had the occasion to say several times, the dialogue was completely my own personal initiative.

In the second week of August 2000, on returning from Colombia, I learned through the media that was available on the airplane, and only through it, that the Society of St. Pius X was participating in the Jubilee. On my own initiative, and without speaking to anyone about it, I decided to invite the four bishops of the Fraternity to a private dinner with me. The meeting with brother bishops would be a gesture of fraternal love, the occasion of a reciprocal exchange. I therefore had the joy of meeting Your Excellency, as well as Their Excellencies Tissier and Williamson. As you will recall, we did not discuss any subject thoroughly, even if, naturally, we did speak about the liturgical rites, and I was able to become familiar with several aspects of the current life of your Fraternity. I manifested publicly the good impression that the aforementioned Prelates made on me.

I subsequently gave an account of this meeting to the Holy Father, and I received from him words of encouragement. I expressed a desire to maintain contacts to explore the possibilities of this much hoped for unity. The Sovereign Pontiff asked me to continue, and he manifested his clear will to accommodate the Society of St. Pius X, by promoting the conditions necessary for this accommodation. Some time later I read, with a private satisfaction, the interview granted by Your Excellency to the magazine 30 Days. The journalist put these words on your lips: "If the Holy Father calls me I come, or rather I run." I had occasion to speak with the Holy Father about this interview, in which Your Excellency expressed freely and spontaneously his thought: the Holy Father indicated to me, one more time, his generous will to accommodate your Fraternity.

As a result, I contacted Cardinals Angelo Sodano, Secretary of State for His Holiness, Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Jorge Medina Estevez, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, as well as with His Excellency Mgr. Julian Herranz, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. All manifested their satisfaction with a view to an eventual solution of the difficulties. I also consulted Cardinals Paul Augustin Mayer and Alfons Marie Stickler, who were of the same opinion. It is thus that we studied the fundamental theological problems, already present in 1988 when an accord with His Excellency Mgr. Lefebvre was prepared. It did not seem to us that there have been any new problems. Then we began studying several juridical forms that would make a reintegration possible; this appeared very much desirable. Throughout history, the desire for unity has always been a constant for the See of Peter.

To all it seemed appropriate, if Your Excellency agreed, that the undersigned could proceed to a new dialogue of a provisional character. It was not a matter of discussing theological problems in depth, but preparing the way for reconciliation.

I therefore invited Your Excellency by letter; you amiably accepted the invitation and the meeting took place on Dec. 29, 2000.

As Your Excellency knows well, we then studied the possibility of reconciliation and of the return to full communion, as a very concrete and special fruit of the Jubilee. We concluded with a dinner at my residence, attended also by the Rev. Michel Simoulin, in a very cordial and fraternal climate.

Informed of this new reunion, and despite the amount of work he had in the last days of the great Jubilee, the Holy Father received you with the Abbe Simoulin on Dec. 30, 2000 in his private chapel. After a few minutes of silent prayer, the Holy Father said the Our Father, followed by those present, then he wished them a Holy Christmas. He blessed them by offering several rosaries and encouraged them to continue the dialogue undertaken.

In the same Apostolic Palace and in the presence of the personal secretaries of the Holy Father, I read to Your Excellency a Protocol regarding the dialogue of the preceding day, which would be sent to the Sovereign Pontiff. You have expressed your agreement by specifying two points: 1) the prayer for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass was not your decision but was a prior provision of Mgr. Lefebvre; 2) reservation about Vatican II especially regarding religious liberty, since the rights of God over the public order could not be limited. The secretary took notes in order to make a report to the Holy Father.

It is impertinent and impudent for the SSPX to make any "demands" of the Pope regarding how they should get out from under excommunication, especially when the Pope has sought patiently to reconcile them like a father going after strayed sons. The Roman Catholic Church is not a smoking club where, like Fems, demands are made to get in, it is the Way of salvation. Obedience is better than sacrifice, humility better than cleverness, etc.

Yes, that's all well and good, but you didn't answer the question.... here it is again. Care for a second try?

If the Vatican and SSPX were to reconcile on exactly the terms the SSPX has demanded, what would your reaction be?

As I told patent, I don't have the citation at my fingertips for the survey that I read that said most Catholics today don't believe in the Real Presence. Since most Catholics today attend the New Mass, I think there is a direct relation.

You apparently presume that I was glad to read that survey result. I assure you I was not. That was why I remembered the essence of it.

I took undergraduate courses at the Catholic University of America from pontifically-licensed Catholic theologians

The same theologians who publicly dissented from Humanae Vitae and told American Catholics that they could, too? Um, OK.

Dear ELS,

"As I told patent, I don't have the citation at my fingertips for the survey that I read that said most Catholics today don't believe in the Real Presence. Since most Catholics today attend the New Mass, I think there is a direct relation."

You're missing the point. I've seen similar studies. I've also seen studies that indicate that 60+% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. How to tell which is right?

I look at the methodology. That is, in part, what I went to school for. I have a basic understanding of social science methodology, and can make a pretty good determination of which of two methodologies ought to work better. The studies that indicate relatively low belief in the Real Presence, to my reasonably well-informed mind, are flawed. The studies that show a relatively higher belief in the Real Presence seem to have better methodology. As I explained in my last post. Which you haven't shown that you understand. Perhaps you didn't read it. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You are in error to think that a majority, even of self-identified Catholics, no less actual practicing Catholics, do not believe in the Real Presence.

Thus, your conclusion is incorrect.

As to the professors who taught me at the Catholic University of America, some were orthodox and some were not. But all were honest. If they believed what was not orthodox, they said, "Here is the teaching of the Church. Now here is what I believe." And they made it quite clear where they disagreed.

Of course, honesty isn't alway coincident with fairness. More than one professor gave me a less than stellar grade, in part because I dissented from their own personal views of what should be Church teaching.

But, of course, you've missed the point again. My point was that even with a Catholic education denied to most, the details of the doctrine of transubstantiation can be difficult to grasp, and after 20+ years, I'm sure that I'm quite hazy about some of the technical terms of the metaphysics. And thus, one might judge me heterodox if I fail to accurately remember the right answer to some aspect of the teaching.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in the Real Presence. So it is for Catholics with lesser educations.

sitetest

Whatever...

Why are you being so rude?

my initial question wasn't to you anyway.

Are you suggesting that I cannot reply to you unless you first post to me? Does that standard cut both ways or does it apply to me alone? You have joined into discussions I was having with others, and replied to my posts to them. I hardly think I am out of line to reply to your post.

I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one. I'm sorry I can't express myself well enough to meet your standards.

Being a lawyer has nothing to do with it, nor does expressing yourself.

You are sufficiently familiar with math and statistics to know that my criticism is a valid one. If you want to show a real decline in belief in the Real Presence, and then blame that decline on the Novus Ordo or whatever you would like to blame it on, then you need to show an actual decline. You cannot do that by posting one data point.

This point is such a simple one I'm a bit shocked you fight admitting it, it pretty much kills your credibility.

If you are truly interested, I'm sure you can find the info on the Web.

I tried. I could not find any pre 1960 stats on belief in the Real Presence. If you can, post them. If not, you should have the good grace to admit you can’t prove an actual decline. based on this.

patent +AMDG

My screen name is to glorify the Theotokos by reminding the unorthodox Catholics here of her and by emphasizing faith in the promises of her Son to the Vicar of Christ. Thus your command is rejected forthwith and fifthwith.

Well then, it would make sense to have someone with a screen name of "Jesus Christ" or "God" posting here, in order to remind the "unorthodox" Catholics on FR of the promises of Him to his faithful believers.

I must admit that I was a bit disconcerted when I saw your screen name - maybe you could keep Theotokos and add "for the glory of" or something along those lines? Then I'd stop imagining you with a veil covering your head and with stars at your feet.

You say it isn't fair -- I posted the link so that all could read the entire, enormous letter.

"That isn’t a fair quotation when you neglect the tons of stuff that was said after that."

Let's look to the end of the letter then:

"I know that many people, lay, priests and religious of the Society of St. Pius X, want to find peace of mind, in full reconciliation with the Church."

The fact is there are issues of trust on both sides that need resolution. It is also fact that the SSPX is certainly NOT heretical and arguably not schismatic.

Again, "...based on the fact that your Fraternity certainly was not spreading any heretical doctrine and did not maintain schismatic attitudes,...", according to the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

It is also fact that the SSPX is certainly NOT heretical and arguably not schismatic.

I would agree that as a body it is not heretical, but I would not agree that as a body it is arguably not schismatic. The Pope excommunicated the Bishops - the Bishops are therefore not in communion - and, as the Cardinal mentioned, those excommunications are still in force, and they are currently undergoing negotiations to restore them to communion. Why would they negotiate if they weren’t schismatic? That would be nonsense. As the Cardinal said his opinion early in these negotiations was that “your Fraternity . . . did not maintain schismatic attitudes.” This does not mean that, in his opinion, they didn’t once maintain those attitudes, or that they are no longer in schism, nor does it even imply such. If they weren’t in schism, his later references to that subject would be silly, and I suggest to you that you should not think this man makes such references, even as diplomatically as he does here, lightly.

Regardless, you keep quoting an opinion of his from early in the discussions, as if that is still his opinion. You need to look at what he has to say after he has spent more time with them:

even if today I am convinced that there are those in your ranks who no longer have the true faith in the authentic Tradition of the Church; those who, without a conversion caused by the Holy Spirit, will return with difficulty to unity, it seems to me.
What has urged me on from the beginning, and causes me to write to you today, is the charity of Christ which compels me not to neglect a single attempt to make unity, a true mark of charity, triumph. Today, more than yesterday, I suffer and carry the weight of knowing you are in a situation of excommunication, whereas all the faithful of Campos have henceforth happily passed from this situation, under the leadership of their pastor.

I don’t see how you can think they are anything but schismatic given those words, nor how you can deny that in his view there are those in the Society who clearly have a schismatic mentality.

You can repeat his early words all you like, and ignore his later ones, but they are rather clear and forceful for a Roman diplomat.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

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.