Letter of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to Mgr. Fellay

Una Voce` ^

[narses]

And Rome speaks with more than one voice too. Kasper writes a book where he doubts the Miracles of Our Lord in the Gospel, he promulgates decisions accepting heretical liturgies as valid. Your point?

[ELS]

I suspect (and this is a gut reaction) that there are graces in the universal saying of the latin Mass that we have been shorted. There might be special graces we gain from the saying of the new Mass in vernacular too but Latin is the official language of the Church ...

Interesting idea, I never thought of it that way. One used to be able to go to a Roman Catholic Church anywhere in the world and experience the same (universal) Mass. IMHO, that has been a great loss.

[Domestic Church]

That's too harsh. For good or bad, it is second nature to use psychology in our culture these days in understanding life and I don't think it is meant as pretense. It isn't just the bastion of the traditionalist or whatever group of society, it is intrinsic in our culture. My point is that it is time to place spiritual understanding over this secular perspective, to give the spiritual viewpoint greater emphasis. Rascals of all sorts use psychobabble but I would imagine a traditionalist would be less likely to rely on this modern social science.

[sitetest]

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

[Domestic Church]

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

Think of the perspective of God in this...from the CCC, "To God all moments in time are present in their immediacy." The latin universal Mass had a language unity that encompassed more than one moment,it transcended time as every Mass does. The Mass I received my First Communion in was said in the same Latin as the one St. Therese received her First Communion in, think of all the voices saying that together (over time but in God's timelessness.) When we say our vernacular Mass, the prayers are the same and are joined but they aren't in the language of the Church and the language our Saints prayed in for centuries. Try to picture all the different languages at once for the thirty some years.

I am not saying we should just go back to the Latin Mass but even in my area, the Philadelphia Archdiocese, there is only one Church that I know of where it is being said. That seems odd to me.

[Domestic Church]

You aren't making any sense to me, just throwing labels out. Please define these. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[patent]

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

[patent]

The Pope doesn't want to be the Pope. He has done nothing in the last 25 years to preserve the faith.

He has done far more than you have. Your version of reality is sadly lacking.

Most Catholics are tranquilly happy with the Novus Ordo because they are brain dead.

A yes, everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Great rhetorical device.

I woke up and asked myself: "Is all this nonsense pleasing to God?" The answer was No.

Are you calling the Mass nonsense? The Sacrifice of the Mass, in a liturgy approved by the Church, the Novus Ordo? I think Trent had something clear to say about that. What is the word, anathema? Perhaps I am brain dead and just can’t recall it right now.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Pope John Paul II has agreed that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated.

My understanding is that it is abrogated as the normative Roman Rite, but that it remains a valid Mass where said in accordance with proper jurisdiction. Is that your understanding?

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[Antoninus]

The Vatican is not going to "split heads," and you know it. No bishop in his right mind would put a bunch of ex-SSPX priests in Novus Ordo parishes unless he had a death wish for his diocese.

The first part of this statement is a correct interpretation of my perhaps overly optimistic wishful thinking. The second part is a nice demonstration of your perhaps overly pessimistic wishful thinking. Hate to tell you, but the Latin mass generates a lot of interest among young people -- particularly those of us who grew up in the era of gross liturgical "innovation." I believe our diocese could support several Latin mass parishes. We already have one...

[patent]

>>>>It's always valid,

Presuming a couple things, you and I couldn't go say it and claim its valid, for an extreme example.

patent

[Antoninus]

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.

[Romulus]

I think your FR screenname is a weird choice, but I'd still like to be on your ping list. Thanks.

[Antoninus]

"Just allowing it (which is the last hurdle to reconcilliation) could drive the liberals to schism."
This may turn out to be an auspicious time to allow it.


An excellent idea. I like your theorizing on this point.