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.

Dear narses,

"Once they are regularized, the opening for the Tridentine, no matter how regulated, will create a firestorm amongst the liberals."

It doesn't matter. The liberals are not superhuman. They can't do what cannot be done. Should our Holy Father dramatically liberalize the rules governing the Tridentine Rite, the liberals cannot use that at this time to go into open schism. If they do, they will be walking out onto the tenderest parts of the limb, and using a band saw to cut it off. Should they go into open schism at this time, mark my words, they will vanish without a trace, and only academics will remember them 50 years hence.

I would still appreciate comments about the latter part of my post, discussing the difficulties inherent in liberalization of the use of the old Mass. Do you see that there is an inherent tension between granting to each individual priest the right to celebrate the old Mass, and the need for discipline and order at the parish and diocesan level? How does one resolve that tension? How open is SSPX to a resolution that might stop short of an absolute right of an individual priest to celebrate the old Mass? Not rhetorical questions. They are really fuzzy in my own mind.

sitetest

After these events, in noting your good will and based on the fact that your Fraternity certainly was not spreading any heretical doctrine and did not maintain schismatic attitudes, I had dared you to propose, without consulting anyone first, to set a possible date for reintegration.

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

I cannot fail to note with sadness that this tone, concerning the intentions of the Holy See, does not help toward reconciliation, since it is not in line with the superior gift of charity, as St. Irenaeus taught: "He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it,--men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. ... True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."
St. Thomas writes on what follows the suffering that schism causes, in commenting on a passage of St. Paul: "Et, similiter in ecclesia, imperfectionibus sunt magis consolationes adhibendae, quibus perfectiones non egent. Unde dicitur Is. 11, 11: in brachio suo congregabit agnos, et in sinu suo levabit, foetas ipse portabit, et, 1 Petr. III, 7 dicitur: viri quasi infirmiori vasculo muliebri impartientes honorem. est notandum quod triplicem defectum circa membra notavit, scilicet inhonestatis, ignobilitatis et infirmitatis. Quorum primum in membris ecclesiae pertinet ad culpam; secundum ad conditionem servilem; tertium ad statum imperfectionis. secundo ponit causam finalem, dicens ut non sit schisma in corpore. Quod quidem sequeretur, si defectui membrorum non subveniretur. Hoc autem schisma quantum ad membra corporis mystici manifeste vitatur, dum pax ecclesiae custoditur per hoc, quod singulis ea quae sunt necessaria attribuuntur. Unde et supra dictum est cap. I, v. 10: idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata."
Excellency, my sincere frankness regarding the beginning and course of our history is not intended in the least to vex or embarrass you. I consider total sincerity in relations a necessary condition of a true agreement and success of our project.
Excellency, I beg you to consider me truly as a brother who loves you and who desires the good of the Church, its clear unity, witnessed by the unity of Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the face of the world. You know that I have never wanted to promote the division of the Society of St. Pius X and its bishops, 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.

These are hard words, coming from a Roman diplomat, but they are deserved given how, when the Vatican most generously offered an apostolic administration, the Society reacted in such a bitter, angry, and distrustful manner.

Frankly the highest court in the Catholic Church has found that attending Mass at a SSPX Chapel is valid and not an occassion for discipline (the Hawaii case).

Your not being at all precise here either. The Church found that the Bishop of Hawaii did not have valid grounds for excommunicating the four individuals. The Church has also found that the Masses offered by the SSPX are generally valid, but that they are illicit and that the faithful may not attend them unless no valid Mass in communion with Rome is available.

Rome has offered to remove the excommunication and give full faculties to all of the priests and bishops of the SSPX in an Apostolic Administration that would open the potential for a world wide Tridentine Rite availability.

Which they rejected. Shows how schismatic they are.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

The fact which trads cannot accept is that most Catholics are tranquilly happy with the Novus Ordo.

I agree with you here. And why are we happy? Because most of us are just happy to follow where the Vatican leads. If they say it's ok to say the mass in English, French, Italian, etc., then it's fine with most of us. However, the Vatican also says that the old forms should be retained. The use of Latin should be allowed and used frequently. Many of our bishops disagree with this, but you don't see too many members of the laity expressing an abhorrence for the Latin mass. My guess is that if the Bishops made it available, say one mass per Sunday at every parish, that mass would attract a large audience. I know I would prefer it over the vernacular mass.

My own mother, age 72, never "liked" the Tridentine Mass, but finds the new Mass more meaningful. Trads who insist on this make up less than 1% of Catholics in the world.

So does my mother, age 63. However, myself -- age 31, my wife -- age 33, my brother-in-law -- age 38, my sister-in-law -- age 37, my other brother-in-law -- age 41, my business partner -- age 31, and his fiancee -- age 26 all prefer the Latin mass. If you look at the attendence at our local Latin mass parish, it's about 60/40 young families vs. older folks. Does that tell you something?

To blame all the ills of the Church on a rite of Mass is naive at best.

I don't believe so. I think what has happened to the Mass is part and parcel of the attempts to deconstruct the Catholic Church by certain liberal/dissenter groups. Removing nearly all sense of the sacred, the mysterious, the profound from the mass and turning it into a party-like celebration does spiritual damage to the congregants, in my opinion.

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.