|
BISHOP FELLAY’S LETTER TO
CASTRILLON HOYOS
June 22, 2001
Most
Eminent Lord,
It
is with my eyes fixed on the Sacred Heart, whose feast we celebrate
today, that I implore, according to his own desire, of His mercy, that
it might deign to impregnate the lines that follow with his light and
his charity.
The
Jesuit, Bishop Pierre Henrici, at the time secretary of Communio,
said in a conference on the development of the Council that at Vatican
II two theological traditions, that are deep down incomprehensible to
one another, entered into collision.
Your
letter of May 7 caused me similar sentiments of incomprehension and of
disappointment.
We
have the impression that you are trying to force us to make a choice:
either we are to enter into full communion, and then we must be silent
concerning the great evils that afflict the Church, that is in the
absence of a golden cage, we must accept a muzzle; or we are to stay
"outside".
We
refuse to be forced to chose between each of these alternatives. On the
one hand, we have never left the Church. On the other hand, our present
situation that is, without a doubt, uncomfortable, is not the effect of
any culpable action on our part, but the consequence of a disastrous
situation in the Church, against which we have striven, as far as we
could, to protect ourselves. The various decisions made by Archbishop
Lefebvre were dictated by the determination to not lose the Catholic
Faith and to survive in the midst of a universal rout that involves even
Rome. We call this a "state of necessity".
If
we desire to advance beyond the deadlock to which your letter leads, we
must change rather profoundly the perspectives, the questions to be
asked.
In
effect, for Your Eminence:
-
We
have broken communion.
-
The
reasons that we give to justify our actions, and in particular the
episcopal consecrations, are entirely insufficient. For since the
Church is holy and the Magisterium is always assisted by the Holy
Ghost, the deficiencies that we complain about either do not exist
or are simply limited abuses. Our problem comes from the fact that
our vision of the Church’s history and crises is much too fixed
and limited, preventing us from understanding the homogenous
evolution brought about by the Council and the subsequent
Magisterium, necessitated by different adaptations to today’s
world.
-
Rome
has been exceedingly generous in offering us the structure that
was proposed to us. It would be abusive for us to ask for more,
and even perhaps injurious towards the Holy See in these
circumstances in which Rome took the initiative. No preliminary
can be granted, and especially not the Mass, for it would cause
trouble in the Church.
It seems to me possible to affirm, from our point of view, that,
following popes Pius XII and Paul VI, the Church is presently in a
literally apocalyptic condition. It cannot be denied that the
dysfunction of the Catholic hierarchy —Cardinal Seper said "the
crisis of the Church is a crisis of bishops" –omissions,
silences, deceptions, tolerance of errors, and even of positively
destructive acts even in the Curia, and unfortunately even in the Vicar
of Christ. These are public facts that can be seen by ordinary men.
The affirmation of the existence
of these facts is not in contradiction with the Faith in the holiness of
the Church, nor in the assistance of the Holy Ghost. But here we draw
near to the mystery of the Church, of the joining together and
coordination of the divine and human elements in the Mystical Body. In
order to remain with the truth of the reality we must hold just as much
to the affirmations of Faith as to the acknowledgement of the facts.
The
First Vatican Council, in the affirmation of the infallibility of the
Sovereign Pontiff, explicitly gave the limits to the assistance of the
Holy Ghost:
The
Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His
revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they
might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles
and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth. (Db
1836 in The Sources of Catholic Dogma, p. 456)
Obviously, we adhere with our whole heart to the paragraphs of Pastor
Aeternus [Vatican I's Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church of Christ; Ed.]
that follow, as well as to Dei filius [Vatican
I's Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith; Ed.].
But
it is precisely here that we draw closest to the heart of the present
mystery. For it is in this regard that can be found the novelties of the
new theology, that were condemned by the Church under Pius XII, and that
were introduced into Vatican II. How can we explain that the Council’s
great names, its expert theologians, were all sanctioned under Pius XII?
De Lubac, Congar, Rahner, Courtney-Murray, Dom Beaudoin (who died just
before the Council), and to go back a little further Blondel, Teilhard
de Chardin...
They would have us believe today
that these novelties are but a development in conformity with the past.
They were already condemned, at least in their principles. Cardinal
Ratzinger himself called Gaudium et Spes a counter-Syllabus.
(Theologishce Prinzipienlehre, p. 398, Erich Wewel Verlag, Munchen,
1982). We have therefore necessarily to make a choice.
To
make these doctrines acceptable, it is not enough that they were
afterwards approved by a Council that chose not to be dogmatic. The seal
of a vote does not transform an error into infallible truth. In fact we
have only to read Cardinal Felici’s response to the Council on the
question of its own infallibility (Notification of November 16, 1964, DH
4350-4351).
Furthermore,
the problem of the Council is not primarily one of individual
interpretations. It comes as well from its lack of precision in the use
of terms, and its willful ambiguities (as one of the Council’s experts
said), that make several differing interpretations possible. It also
comes from certain interpretations given by the Holy See itself. If one
were to follow the Holy See’s own directions, one would end up with
Assisi, in the synagogue or the sacred forests of Togo (Pope John Paul
II, Audience of August 22, 1986: "Seeing Assisi in the light of the
Council").
How
does one explain in the light of the Catholic Faith this key phrase of
John Paul II’s theology, that clarifies many passages that would
otherwise have been incomprehensible: "man is the path of the
Church" (in the light of which this passage from Gaudium et
Spes §22 can be understood: "For, by his incarnation, he,
the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man"
Cf. Flannery, Vatican Council II, p. 953; Ed.)
Likewise:
In the Holy Ghost each person and each people have become, by
the cross and the resurrection of Christ, children of God,
participating in the divine nature, and heirs of everlasting life. (John Paul II,
"Message to the Peoples of Asia", February
21, 1981, DOC 1894, March 15, 1981, 281)
A
Magisterium that contradicts the teaching of the past (for example,
between today’s ecumenism and Mortalium animos) is a
Magisterium that contradicts itself (See the Joint Declaration on
Justification and the preceding note from Cardinal Cassidy, where is
to be found the condemnation and the praise of the term "sister
churches") —here lies the painful problem.
This
crisis in the Magisterium constitutes a problem that it is practically
impossible to resolve practically.
How
are we supposed to have the discernment necessary to distinguish between
that which truly belongs to the Magisterium and that which only gives
the appearance of doing so?
Moreover,
the nightmare concerns also the Curia and the residential bishops. Here
are two very recent examples, taken from a thousand.
Was
Bishop Tauran faithful to the Catholic Faith when he declared in the
Philippines on June 4, 2001:
It would be erroneous
to consider the faithful believer of another religion as someone to be
converted. He is rather someone to be understood, leaving to God the
role of enlightening his conscience. Different religions ought not to
enter into competition with one another, but should rather be like
brothers and sisters who walk hand in hand to construct the channels
of brotherhood, building up a good world in which it is possible to
live and to work.?
Did Cardinal Kasper express the Catholic Faith, and was he faithful to
St. John, to St. Paul, and to Our Lord Himself, when he declared in
New York:
The old theory of substitution is no longer relevant since
the Second Vatican Council. For we, today’s christians [sic], the alliance
with the Jewish people is a living heritage…There cannot be a simple
coexistence between two testaments. Jews and christians, by their
respective specific identities, are intimately bound to one another.
The Church believes that Judaism, that is to say the faithful response
of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, has the effect
of saving them, for God is faithful to his promises.?
However, the first of
these is a close collaborator of the pope, and the second a prince of
the Church, recently honored by receiving the red cardinal’s biretta,
becoming an elector of the future Vicar of Christ. It is impossible to
be in communion with them. They no longer have the Faith.
We
could quote dozens and dozens of statements of bishops that are equally
shocking. What are we to do when the guardians of the Faith fail? Are we
to follow them blindly? Do they not merit the same descriptions that
St. Catherine of Sienna used for certain prince of the Church of her
time?
Such declarations do not place us
in the good graces of the Holy See. However, we have much more serious
concerns. Thousands and millions of Catholic faithful are losing the
Faith and damning themselves on account of Rome’s failures, this is
our concern.
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat
catholicam fidem: nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit,
absque dubio in aeternum peribit. —Whoever wishes to be saved,
needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves
this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. (Athanasian Creed, Ds 75; The
Sources of Catholic Dogma, p. 15)
A
distinction must be made between Rome and Rome. This is what we strive
to do.
Pius
XII’s words, while yet Secretary of State for Pius IX, ring loud in
our ears:
Suppose, my dear
friend, that communism is only the most visible of the organs of
subversion against the Church and against the Tradition of divine
Revelation. Then, we are going to see the invasion of everything that
is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the press,
literature, the theater and religion. I am obsessed by the Virgin’s
words, that she entrusted to the little Lucia of Fatima. Our Heavenly
Mother’s standing up against the danger that threatens the Church is a
divine warning against the suicide that an alteration of the Faith
would mean to its liturgy, its theology and its soul…
I hear around me those
fascinated with novelties who would like to dismantle the Sacred
Chapel, destroy the Church’s universal flame, reject its vestments,
and make it regret its historical past. Well, my dear friend, it is my
conviction that the Church of Peter must assume its past, or it will
dig its tomb.
…the day will come when
the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as
Peter doubted. It will be tempted to believe that man has become God,
that His Son is only a symbol, a philosophy as so many others, and in
the Churches Catholics will seek in vain for the red lamp where God
wait for them. (Bishop Roche and P. St. Germain; Pie XII devant l’histoire, pp. 52 &
53)
Paul VI said, in effect, to
his friend Jean Guitton, that there is in the Church a type of thinking
that is non-Catholic, and that although it is possible that it may
become prevalent, it will never be the Catholic Church (Jean Guitton,
Paul VI Secret).
Faced
with this catastrophe, how are the faithful supposed to react? Is it
permissible for them to react? We follow quite simply the counsel given
by St. Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium (N3):
What will the Catholic
Christian do if some part of the Church happens to separate itself
from the communion of the universal Faith? What other position could
he hold than to prefer the body as a whole, which is healthy, to the
gangrenous and putrid member. And if some new contagion were to try to
poison not only a small part of the Church, but the entire Church at
the same time? Then still, his great concerns will be to attach
himself to antiquity, which, quite obviously cannot be seduced by any
lying novelty.
These
are the questions that are to be considered if we are to try and find
a solution. We are but a clear sign of the terrible tragedy that the
Church is presently suffering, perhaps the most terrible of all until
now, for it is not just one dogma, but all dogmas that are attacked,
and this from the pontifical universities themselves down to the desks
of elementary schools.
The liturgical problem is rather
similar. The furthermore, the faithful are obliged to take it upon
themselves to find an appropriate liturgy. They can no longer simply go
to the parish. This is a fact that does not just affect traditional
Catholics.
Hence the great transformation in
the Catholic world, at least in the old world. Parish life has fallen
apart. The growth of ecclesial movements is due in large part to the
fact that the faithful no longer find in their parishes the nourishment
of which they are in need to live the life of Faith and of grace. The
New Mass is not without responsibility in this phenomenon.
We cannot sweep this gigantic
problem under the carpet. We desire to work with our whole heart and
our whole soul for the restoration of the Church. However, we cannot
simply pretend that all is well, and that these are but questions of
detail.
We are ready to explain our Faith
to Rome, but we cannot call that which is evil good, nor that which is
good evil.
May Your Eminence deign to excuse
the length of this letter, and the generality of certain statements that
ought to have been much better back up. We are entirely willing to
continue this work, if Rome desires it…
We
desire to remain Catholic, we desire to conserve our entire Faith,
without abandoning anything. This is the cause of our combat, of our
sufferings, and of the opposition that we meet with. We are convinced
that we cause no evil to the Church by doing this, even if appearances
speak against us.
May Your Eminence kindly accept
the expression of our devout and religious affection in the Hearts of
Jesus and Mary,
+Bernard Fellay
|
