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.

"One used to be able to go to a Roman Catholic Church anywhere in the world and experience the same (universal) Mass.

They still can. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. It is the action of Jesus offering Himself as a Sacrifice of propitiation to God on our behalf through the Priesthood He established. What has changed is the Language of the Mass. Remember, Latin was the vernacular of the day. Pope Siricius changed the Greek Mass into the Latin he loved and we retained only the Kyrie from the Greek Mass. Unity is about worship, doctrine and authority and there is nothing sacred about Latin

That is bad form, uncharitable, and frankly psychologically unstable

And labeling him "psychologically unstable" is charitable and good form?

I missed all the fun on this thread but I would like to note that I have disagreed with him previously and he didn't call me an enemy of the Pope or an extreme Trad or any of things you claim he calls folks when a disagreement arises.

He wrote the 7 part series in the Wanderer about all the errors of the integrists/traditionalists.

Bishop Bruskewitz wrote the forward to that series and praised Mr. Hand for writing it. Does that make Bishop Bruskewitz insane and hateful also?

And labeling him "psychologically unstable" is charitable and good form?

Probably not. I was just regretting posting that comment, as I lowered myself to his level in doing so. I'm easily baited when I am tired. Mea culpa.

(But then again, since you came to this late, you missed his posts. I missed most of them too, fortunately, but to be booted on the religion forum --for which Jim Robinson recently said he's "taking a hands off approach"-- his posts must have been exceptionally offensive, even if not "psychologically unstable".)

Boy, I missed reading much of the battle here, drat!

Glad to hear the boy you have been so concerned about seems to be pulling himself (with the grace of God) up out of the abyss.

Thank goodness he has people like you to turn to.

"One used to be able to go to a Roman Catholic Church anywhere in the world and experience the same (universal) Mass.

You miss the point, I think. The Mass is NOT the same from place to place now, even here in the USA. See all the posts here about the Rubrics being ignored. The inculturations (Hula Masses!) and deviations (some inconsequential -- omitted prayers, others fatal -- the use of PITA BREAD as a "host"!) make for a very different and potentially dangerous world. Worse, since Latin is a "dead" language, there is no question as to the meanings of the words, whereas the ICEL (mis)translations lead, at least on occassion, to error.

Wonderful news! Bless his heart, and God Bless you, Brian, for interceding for this fellow.

As my Mom would always say, you'll get an extra diamond in your crown when you get to heaven :o)

Since Holy Thursday, the Mass has been the Mass and it continues to be so today. There have been many Liturgies, or settings, of the Mass but the Mass is always the same.

I don't deny that abuses occur - who does? But, they have occured before and I think the vernacular Mass is an improvement. I think it, as St. Martha would say, "a good thing."

Latin is fine and I used to be a regular Indult denizen but Latin is not sacred and a language does not preserve the Doctrinal truth - Holy Mother Church does and the Holy Spirit directs her in all her Doctrinal glory.

Being stupid and young (at least relative to some of you) I have to say I don't know anyone who knows the Tridentine mass, let alone hates it.

I don't, my vague recollection was that He spoke Araimic. But the Latin translations of the early centuries (St. Jerome, for example) are almost certainly better than any we could do today, as they had contemporary Araimic texts and speakers to rely on, we do not. Why must we reinvent the liturgy? Was it broken?

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.