Posted on 07/18/2002 3:10:53 PM PDT by narses
Letter of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to Mgr. Fellay (English translation by Mr. Ken Jones, Una Voce St. Louis)
The Vatican, April 5, 2002
Dear Brother in the Lord:
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.
Permit me now to give a brief historical overview of our journey:
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.
For further clarity, permit me to transcribe here the aforesaid protocol:
More (27 pages more) at the link.
I think this discussion is spent. Time to move on into the real storms, even if others flee into their private utopias and dreams of a yesterday which rejects the 'now' of the Gospel, the substance of Tradition which perdures. I don't say this to be sarcastic or harsh. It is truly painful to behold the persecutor's of the Holy Faith. The only "Voice" that speaks for the Church is the Holy Father and living magisterium. To miss that is to miss everything and to reject the cornerstone of the divine Builder.
Cc.TCRNews.com editor
I can assure you that polycarp i.e., myself, and narses are two different people.
Most of the Catholic Caucus here knows who I am.
I'm pretty sure that the admin moderator can tell us if "narses" and myself use the same ISP.
Likewise they can tell us if "StillSmallVoice" is using the same ISP as either "EditorTCRNews" or "Cathway."
I have only one screen name.
Using more than one is a violation of FR rules.
Do me a favor: In the future leave me out of your paranoid conspiracy theories, OK?
Dear admin moderator:
Could you kindly straighten out this new poster, tell him I use only one screen name and warn him to stop the personal insults? I don't have time for this BS.
Dear Antoninus:
I don't know who this sanctimonious ass is, and frankly I have not reviewed enough of this thread to care to figure it out.
Clearly he is a "Catholic" attempting to sow discord among the Catholic Caucus here and is obsessed with maligning me for some reason. His screen name is relatively new, but it sounds like he's been here before.
Anyhow, you know me and what I do here and what I stand for as a Catholic.
I'd recommend avoiding this "newbie."
Not to worry. As I said earlier, this conversation with narses / polycarp is over.
Members of the Catholic Caucus here already, in this short period of time, understand that Theotokos/StillSmallVoice are the same two posters as Cathway/EditorTCRNews.
Most of them know that I am Dr. Brian Kopp, and they know my track record here as a Catholic apologist and pro-lifer. I had to change my screen name because of harassing phone calls at my office from one or several FReepers. I had always assumed those FReepers were anti-Catholics or homosexual/abortion advocates.
Maybe I was wrong on that.
Regardless, I will not tolerate two "newbies" coming on thuis Forum and personally insulting me and sullying my good name. I am pinging other members of the Catholic Caucus here, who know me quite well from my work and witness here, simply to warn them that we have folks trying to sow discord among the Catholic Caucus here.
This is not TCRNews.com.
You are on Freerepublic.com. This is our turf, not yours.
Take your hatred and troublemaking elsewhere.
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.