Dear members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X,
How many important events mark this year, the
first of a millennium seen by some with an astonishing utopia as a millennium of
peace, of the union of people and of religions.
Amongst these events, the attacks of
September 11 against the towers of New York’s World Trade Center are worth
mentioning even in the Cor Unum. Although in itself it does not at all
concern our Society, nevertheless it warrants our reflection, from several
points of view. Those people who made the statement that very day that this
destructive instant had changed the world were not, perhaps, that wrong.
If it has not yet sounded the death knell to
unwarranted security and confidence in an artificial society, entirely founded
on technology and human know how, of which the New York towers, at one moment
the highest in the world, are the symbol, it nevertheless has a profound
symbolic importance. There is a conflict between globalizing western capitalism,
dominating the world, and fanatical Islam. However, above and beyond this, must
be seen the work of divine Providence, which uses one plague to scourge and
chastise another, and at least to warm men that without God nothing good and
lasting can be done on this earth. Could these be the harbingers of a gigantic
conflict that high level Freemasons, such as the Pikes and the Mazzinis at the
end of the 19th century, promise us will precede and prepare the
Antichrist? This is not impossible. But let us be prudent in our affirmations,
at the same time as we consider these developments with great circumspection.
If we could say without fear of being wrong
that we are in the times of the apocalpyse, this ought not to paralyze our
action for the salvation of souls, for the defense of Tradition. Let us avoid
any loss of moral amongst the troops, any movement that would drag us down
either to the panic of despair or to laxity. Pusillanimes, levate capita
vestra. Men need, more than ever, a courageous reminder of eternal truths,
this testimony of the Catholic life, of the true religion.
There can be no doubt that God’s enemies are
going to use these events to further advance their projects. They will say, as
we read it on a New Age flyer propagated by World Goodwill: the world’s
great religions failed to deliver on their promises of peace and prosperity
among men. Hence there must be something else, a new religion that will take
from each of the old religions that which is best in it to establish a religion
for the future. Thanks to all embracing relativism, we can well expect that the
years to come will be characterized by a even stronger attack against all
movements that are "intolerant" and fanatical. It is not difficult to predict
that the true Catholic religion will be included amongst the evildoers thus
identified. Must we speak of world war? The future will tell us. There is a
great enough potential for an extended conflagration.
Do not allow all of this to make us forget our
duty of state.
In this setting of war, and of rumors of war,
we must speak of a danger that presents itself on the horizon. It causes us all
the more suffering and concern, as it is a long standing friend: Campos. The
priests of the Priestly Union of St. John Mary Vianney have decided to
separate themselves, and to enter into a separate agreement with Rome. Are they
disposed to let go, to abandon the combat? It is still too early to say it. They
affirm the contrary. Here is in summary the story of the events, and what makes
us fear for them.
During the month of June, the priests from
Campos wrote to me a letter in which they requested and begged us not to break
discussions with Rome. They explained that it is a duty in the present
circumstances for us to examine thoroughly Rome’s proposition, and for this they
requested that a special commission be established by us to discuss the details
of Rome’s offer to us. They finished by reiterating their unity with our
Society, and especially that they would follow that which we judged to be the
right thing to do.
During the month of July, one of the members
of the Congregation for the Clergy visited them and proposed a separate
agreement for them. On July 18, Bishop Rangel and the Council of the Priestly
Union wrote me a letter. This letter was personally handed to me, but only on
September 16. It requested our acceptation of their project for a separate
agreement. In the meantime, however, the accomplishment of this project seemed
already to be in its final phase. On August 15, all the priests from Campos sent
a letter to John Paul II, in which they express their desire to be recognized
and ask for pardon. The letter is skillfully written, but nevertheless very
sentimental.
During the month of September, Fr. Rifan
traveled to Rome "with the mandate from Campos to finalize an agreement, that
he hoped to bring back to Campos by October 11". He explained to Fr. Simoulin that it was indeed appropriate that he inform me "as a courtesy"
of what was going on. "Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 did not inform us either
of his discussions with Rome" was his remark. He soon left our house in
Albano, without saying a word, to establish himself in Rome. Since then, we have
had no further contact with him, and do not even know where he is living.
I asked Bishop de Galarreta to go immediately
to see Bishop Rangel, in an attempt to halt this arrangement, so doubtful,
hidden and accomplished behind our back. Bishop de Galarreta had two meetings
with the Council of the Priestly Union. They are united, have an answer for
everything, are no longer even willing to discuss it and simply justify
themselves.
Bishop Rangel said:
"That is your opinion. We have another opinion. It
is a question of prudence. We have another point of view. But do not give Campos
too much importance".
They insist that they plan to continue the same combat, and that they will
remain our friends. But nevertheless, a coldness can already be felt between us.
When our priests visit Campos they are not invited to the priestly meetings.
Everything was hidden from Fr. Berrou, who is right there. They do not speak
to him as beforehand.
Amongst the arguments given to justify their
separate path, everything can be heard, including arguments that we are not used
to hearing from these priests who are otherwise so remarkable. "We ought not
to love the Society more than the Church"; "The Society does not possess
more infallibility than the Church"; "We must accept with docility that
which comes from Rome", which means that we must have the will to see good
in it. "It is not only on paper that we must refuse to be sedevacantists; it
is not only in principle that we must be obedient, but also in fact…":
"It would be schismatic to refuse the offer from Rome".
We sent them two letters, in an attempt to
dissuade them from this new idea, and to remind them who they are dealing
with…to remind them of the gravity of the crisis in the Church, which does not
just concern Campos, and to indicate the foreseeable consequences of their
solitary action on the traditional movement. Nothing made an effect.
On my return from my visit to the seminary in
La Reja, accompanied by Fr. Lagneau, I made an additional effort to convince
the priests of Campos. Bishop Rangel and the priests received me with their
usual kindness. However, during the closely argued discussion that lasted all
afternoon, they showed the determination that Bishop de Galarreta had already
seen. All the arguments based upon facts, and upon Rome’s declarations and
actions, for example with respect to the Fraternity of St. Peter met with one
firm response: "We are different from St. Peter’s"; "We have
confidence in Rome".
More than anything else, it is the attitude
of a priori confidence, in the middle of the combat, which we find very
concerning. Without a doubt they are cunning, few in number, and solidly united
amongst themselves. But will this suffice to resist when it will be necessary to
do so? Will the magnificent defenses of our position, that they wrote even quite
recently, be their guide in the future? We fear that they are influenced by a
too narrow-minded legalism that will prevent them from adopting a just attitude
with respect to Rome, which is far from having returned to Tradition.
One thing, however, is certain: the least
attack against them from us that would depict excessively their present attitude
or real intention would push them even more into the arms of Rome. This is the
impression left by our meeting. Let us consequently be prudent in our
declarations with respect to them. Will events bring about a separation? Let us
prefer to follow Archbishop Lefebvre, who did not pursue with condemnations
those who abandoned him in the midst of the combat, but who nevertheless clearly
cut off contact with them. Videbimus ["we shall see"].
What Rome proposes, inasmuch as we can know
it, is a personal prelature, an additional bishop, coadjutor to Bishop Rangel,
who is sick with cancer, along with the exclusiveness of the traditional rite
(1962), but the obligation of obtaining from the local bishop permission
whenever the Mass is celebrated extra muros proprios or for the opening
of a new place of apostolic work. The project received the pope’s support, and
then that of a commission of Cardinals. It was then sent to the Secretary of
State, where it was entrusted to canon lawyers to put the finishing touches to
the agreement.
Inasmuch as is possible, we will follow
closely the developments in this new phase of the history of Tradition. We can
be sure that Rome will be extra prudent in this agreement, for they will not
lose sight of us. Must we necessarily draw the conclusion that this demonstrates
a new maliciousness from the Vatican? Here also, we ought to be extra prudent in
our affirmations, for there is at least just as much desire of an agreement from
Campos as from Rome…
As for us, we will calmly continue our work.
The graces received every day, the obvious daily blessings from Heaven upon our
work, a work of sanctification and of keeping the Faith, and the drawing near of
many priests, do not permit us to doubt the correctness of our attitude in this
hour which is so serious for the Church. It is our duty before the Church, we
who almost without willing it having been entrusted with the Church’s most
precious treasures, to faithfully preserve them, without compromising or
squandering them, without exposing them to any dealings that would place our own
interests over and above the Church’s common good.
May the Holy Ghost deign, by the intercession
of Our Lady of the Rosary, to constantly directly us, and all the Society, in
this fidelity to the very end, which is the guarantee of life everlasting.
May God bless you.
+ Bernard Fellay
Superior General
