+
JMJ
A friend recently brought this letter to my attention.
One aspect that I found interesting was the reference to
One aspect that I found interesting was the reference to
SUPERIOR GENERAL’S
LETTER TO FRIENDS AND BENEFACTORS #73
Society of Saint Pius X
Priorat Mariae Verkundigung
Schloss Schwandegg
Menzingen, ZG, CH-6313
SWITZERLAND
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
In
this letter, I would have liked to give you first of all some news
about the internal life of the Society. However, current events in
the Church at large and especially concerning the developments in
favor of Tradition compel us to dwell longer upon these topics of a
more external nature, because of their importance. Once again, it
seems to us necessary to tackle this subject, so as to express as
clearly as possible something which might have caused some concern at
the beginning of the summer.
As
the media related in a rather surprising manner, I must say, we did
receive an ultimatum from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.
But the thing is rather complex and needs to be clarified in order to
be well understood. A glance back at recent past events will help us
to grasp things a little more clearly.
1.
Our Pre-conditions
From
the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions,
that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly
stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the
problems raised by those who desired to attempt
the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in
us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the
issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since
that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for
concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions
towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal
of the decree of excommunication. These two measures were not sought
directly in view of gaining some advantage for ourselves, but to
re-instill into the Mystical Body a breath of traditional life, and
thus, indirectly, help to bring about a sound rapprochement between
the Society and Rome.
The
first responses were hardly engaging and were rather a confirmation
of our misgivings: it was not possible to grant freedom for the Mass,
because, in spite of the realization that the Mass had never been
abrogated, some bishops and faithful thought it might be repudiation
of Paul VI and of the liturgical reform… As for the
excommunication, it would be lifted at the time of the agreement.
In
spite of this demurrer, we did not cut the slender thread of fairly
difficult relations, aware as we were that what is at stake
far exceeds our own plight. It is not a matter of persons, but of an
attitude which for centuries has been that of all the members of the
Church, and which remains ours, unlike the new spirit, called “the
spirit of Vatican II.” And it is obvious for us that this new
spirit is at the root, and is the main cause of the present
misfortunes of Holy Mother Church. Hence, the basic motivation behind
our actions and our relations with the Roman authorities has always
been to do prudently all we can to bring about the return of the
Church to what she cannot deprive herself of without rushing headlong
to suicide.
Our
situation is very delicate: on the one hand, we recognize both the
Roman authorities and the local bishops as legitimate.
But on the other hand, we contest some of their decisions, because,
in various degrees, they are opposed to what the Magisterium always
taught and ordered. In this, there is no pretense on our part of
setting ourselves as judges or of picking and choosing. It is nothing
more than the expression of an extremely painful observation of a
contradiction which goes against both our Catholic consciences and
faith. Such a situation is extremely grave, and cannot be treated
with levity. This is also the reason why we move only very slowly and
with the utmost prudence. If we are obviously greatly interested in
obtaining a situation which is concretely livable in the Church, the
clear awareness of the much more profound key issue which we have
just described, forbids us to place the two issues on an equal
footing. It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the
spirit of faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a
practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. Holy
Mother Church always taught us that we had to be ready to lose
everything, even our own life, rather than lose the faith.
The question is there only one form of doctrinal agreement possible or more than one?
Can a canonical regularization be effected without a danger to the Faith?
I would affirm that this is possible, echoing Archbishop Lefebvre:
<<< Tradical >>>
I want to draw the reader's attention to what could be construed as a 'no regularization without a doctrinal agreement"statement. The question is there only one form of doctrinal agreement possible or more than one?
Can a canonical regularization be effected without a danger to the Faith?
I would affirm that this is possible, echoing Archbishop Lefebvre:
Accept us as we are!
The narrowing of the perspective leads to the elimination of other viable solutions.
<<< >>>
What
is strange is that the blows are now coming from within the Church,
and that is the stark reality of the drama through
which we are living.
2
– In 2007, One of the Pre-conditions was Fulfilled, the Motu
Proprio
In
2007, the new Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI finally granted the
first point we had requested, the traditional Mass for the priests
all over the world. We are deeply grateful for this personal gesture
from the pope. And it causes us a great joy, because we have a great
hope that we can see in this a renewal for the whole Mystical Body.
Yet, the motu proprio has
become (because of the very nature of what it states and gives back,
i.e., the
traditional Mass), the object of the fight we mentioned earlier in
this letter because the traditional worship is opposed to the cult
which meant to be “new”, the “Novus
Ordo Missæ”.
It
has become an occasion of fight between the progressivists, who give
lip service to their full ecclesial communion while they more or less
openly oppose the orders and the dispositions coming from the
Sovereign Pontiff, and the conservatives, who consequently find
themselves in a situation where they resist their bishops… So whom
are we to obey? The progressivists know quite well that what is at
stake is much more than a liturgical dispute. In spite of the efforts
of the motu proprio to
minimize opposition by affirming continuity, what is at stake is the
very fate of a Council which meant to be pastoral, and which was
applied in such a way that Paul VI already could speak of the
“self-destruction of the
Church.”
3
– Hope of a Rapid Fulfillment of Second Pre-condition
This
first step of Rome in our direction gave us to hope that a second
would soon follow. Some signs seemed to point this way. But, whereas
we had long ago proposed the itinerary we had mapped out, it would
seem that Rome has decided to follow another route. In spite of our
reiterated request for the withdrawal of the decree of
excommunication, and as it seemed that there was no longer any major
obstacle to prevent the accomplishment of this act, we witnessed a
sudden turn of events: Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos wants to impose upon
us conditions before going any further, even though we had clearly
said that we expected a unilateral act. Our attitude seems to him
ungrateful towards the Sovereign Pontiff, and even worse: haughty and
proud, since we continue to openly denounce the evils from which the
Church is suffering. Our latest Letter
to Friends and Benefactors particularly aroused his
displeasure. This earned for us an ultimatum, the precise conditions
of which we still have not yet been able to figure out. For either we
accept the canonical solution, or we will be declared schismatic!
When
we take a stand this is interpreted as a delay, a voluntary
procrastination. Our intentions and our good will to really discuss
with Rome are doubted. They do not understand why we do not want an
immediate canonical solution. For Rome, the problem of the Society
would be resolved by that practical agreement; doctrinal discussions
would be avoided or postponed.
For
us, each day brings additional proofs that we must clarify to the
maximum the underlying issues before taking one more step toward a
canonical situation, which is not in itself displeasing to us. But
this is a matter of following the order of the nature of things, and
to start from the wrong end would unavoidably place us in an
unbearable situation. We have daily proofs of this.
What
is at stake is nothing more nor less than our future existence. We
cannot, and will not leave any ambiguity subsist on the issue of the
acceptation of the Council, of the reforms, of the new attitudes
which are either being tolerated or fostered.
Confronted
with these new difficulties, we take the liberty of appealing once
more to your generosity. Given the success of our first Rosary
Crusade to obtain the return of the Tridentine Mass, we would now
like to offer to Our Lady a new bouquet of a million rosaries (5
decades) to obtain the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication
through her intercession.
From
November 1st until the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord, we will
take it to heart to pray with renewed fervor that,
in these difficult hours of history, the Holy Father may fulfill with
fidelity his august functions in accordance with the wish of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus for the good of all the Church. We are utterly
convinced that such a gesture coming from the Sovereign Pontiff would
have as profound an effect on the Mystical Body as the freedom of the
traditional liturgy.
Indeed,
the excommunication did not cut us off from the Church, but it has
driven away a good number of her members
from the Church’s past and from her Tradition. And she cannot
deprive herself of them without suffering serious harm. It is truly
obvious that Holy Mother Church cannot ignore her past, since she has
received everything and is still to this day receiving everything
from her divine founder, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Through
the excommunication, what has been censured and penalized is the very
attitude which specified the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, i.e.,
this relationship to the Church’s past and to her Tradition. Since
then, because of this reprobation, many fear to come to the sources
of living water which alone can bring back the good old days of Holy
Mother Church. Yet, Archbishop Lefebvre did nothing more than adopt
the attitude of St. Paul, to the extent that he requested that the
following words be engraved on his tomb: “Tradidi
quod et accepi”—I
have handed down what I have received. Did not St. Pius X
himself write that the “true
friends of the Church are not the revolutionaries, nor the
innovators, but the traditionalists”?
For
this reason, dear faithful, we launch again this Rosary Crusade on
the occasion of our pilgrimage to Lourdes for the 150th anniversary
of the Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin. We thank the Mother of God
for the maternal protection she extended over us during all these
years, and especially for the twenty years since the Episcopal
Consecrations. We entrust to her all your intentions for yourselves,
your families and your work. To her we entrust our future and beg for
this fidelity to the faith and to the Church without which no one can
work out his salvation.
I
thank you wholeheartedly for your untiring generosity which enables
us to continue the magnificent work founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.
We ask our good Mother in Heaven to protect you and to keep you all
in her Immaculate Heart.
Menzingen,
October 23, 2008, on the feast of St. Anthony Mary Claret
+
Bernard
Fellay
Superior
General
Comments
Post a Comment