September 2007 Print

Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum

Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum

Explanatory note on Summorum Pontificum

Press Release from the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay

Letter of Bishop Fellay to the Faithful Concerning Summorum Pontificum

Bishop Williamson Comments on Summorum Pontificum

Editorial: The Obedience of Archbishop Lefebvre

Summorum Pontificum and the Traditional Catholic

Interview with Bishop Fellay

Can traditional Catholics avail themselves of Summorum Pontificum to attend the traditional Mass?

 

Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI To the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum   On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970

 

My dear Brother Bishops,

 

With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions–the liturgical reform–is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form–the Forma ordinaria–of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites." Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (July 2, 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The Ecclesia Dei Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to make it possible for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return...widen your hearts also!" (II Cor. 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.

Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).

I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.

Given at Saint Peter's, July 7, 2007

 

 

BENEDICT XVI

 

Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI

 

Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, "to the praise and glory of His name," and "to the benefit of all His Holy Church."

Since time immemorial it has been necessary–as it is also for the future–to maintain the principle according to which "each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith."¹

Among the pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their Rule that "nothing should be placed before the work of God." In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.

Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and "renewed in accordance with the norms of the Fathers," and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times.

"It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform."² Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X,³ Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that "this kind of liturgical edifice...should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony."⁴

But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.

Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following: Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the "Lex orandi" (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same Lex orandi, and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church's Lex credendi (Law of belief). They are in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by the earlier documents Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei are substituted as follows:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Art. 3. Communities or Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or the entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in Art. 2 may–observing all the norms of law–also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Art. 5. §1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

§3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g., pilgrimages.

§4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.

§5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in Art. 5, §1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission Ecclesia Dei to obtain counsel and assistance.

Art. 9. §1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

§3 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with Canon 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, erected by John Paul II in 1988,⁵ continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

Art. 12. This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed," and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

From Rome, at St. Peter's, July 7, 2007, third year of Our Pontificate.

 

BENEDICT XVI

¹ General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, No. 397.

² John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus, December 4, 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.

³ Ibid.

⁴ St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Abhinc Duos Annos, October 23, 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus, No. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.

⁵ Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, July 2, 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.

Explanatory Note on Summorum Pontificum

The Press Office of the Holy See published an "Explanatory Note on the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum" which was hardly mentioned in the media. We read in the Note that the four liturgical books necessary for the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy will have to be reprinted, for practical use, by publishing houses specialized in this type of work, with the "recognitio" (recognition) of the competent pontifical Commission.

The Note specifies that these books include the Missale Romanum (Roman Missal), 1962 edition in which is inserted the Ordo Hebdomadæ Sanctæ, updated by Pius XII in 1955. John XXIII reformulated the prayer "Pro Judaeis" (for the Jews) in the liturgy of Good Friday. For this reason, the use of the liturgy of Holy Week previous to the 1962 edition, which calls the Jews "perfidious," is not authorized but only the prayer "for the conversion of the Jews" as in the 1962 Missal.

The three other books are the Rituale Romanum (Roman Ritual) for the sacraments of baptism, marriage, penance and anointing of the sick, the blessings and other prayers; the Pontificale Romanum for the bishop who decides to confer confirmation with the old rite to a group of faithful who desire it, as well as the sacrament of holy orders according to the old rite; and the Breviarum Romanum (Roman Breviary) for priests who wish to recite the Office according to the 1962 Missal.

 

Commentary from DICI. DICI is the press bureau of the Society of St. Pius X (www.dici.org). (Sources: VIS/Zenit/Apic.)

Press Release from the Superior General of the SSPX

By the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated the Tridentine Mass in its rights, and clearly affirmed that the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V had never been abrogated. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X rejoices to see the Church thus regain her liturgical Tradition, and give the possibility of a free access to the treasure of the Traditional Mass for the glory of God, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, to the priests and faithful who had so far been deprived of it. The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X extends its deep gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this great spiritual benefit.

The letter which accompanies the Motu Proprio does not hide, however, the difficulties that still remain. The Society of Saint Pius X wishes that the favorable climate established by the new dispositions of the Holy See will make it possible–after the decree of excommunication which still affects its bishops has been withdrawn–to consider more serenely the disputed doctrinal issues.

Lex orandi, lex credendi–the law of the liturgy is that of the faith. In the fidelity to the spirit of our founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the attachment of the Society of Saint Pius X to the traditional liturgy is inseparably united to the faith which has been professed "always, everywhere and by all."

 

Menzingen, July 7, 2007

Bishop Bernard Fellay

Letter of Bishop Fellay to the Faithful Concerning Summorum Pontificum

Dear Faithful,

 

The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007 re-establishes the Tridentine Mass in its legal right. In the text it is clearly acknowledged that it was never abrogated. And so fidelity to this Mass–for the sake of which so many priests and lay people have been persecuted, or even severely punished, for almost forty years–this fidelity was never disobedience. Today it is only right and just to thank Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for having maintained us in this fidelity to the Mass of all times in the name of true obedience, and against all the abuses of power. Also there is no doubt that this recognition of the right of the traditional Mass is the fruit of the vast number of rosaries offered up to Our Lady during our Rosary Crusade last October; let us not forget now to express to her our gratitude.

Beyond the re-establishment of the Mass of St. Pius V in its legitimate right, it is important to study the concrete measures issued by the Motu Proprio and the justification given by Pope Benedict XVI in the letter which accompanies the text:

 

•    By right, the practical measures taken by the Pope must enable the traditional liturgy–not only the Mass, but also the sacraments–to be celebrated normally. This is an immense spiritual benefit for the whole Church, for the priests and faithful who were hitherto paralyzed by the unjust authority of the bishops. However, in the coming months it remains to be seen how these measures will be applied in fact by the bishops and parish priests. For this reason, we will continue to pray for the Pope so that he may remain firm following this courageous act.

 

 

• The letter accompanying the Motu Proprio gives the Pope's reasons. The affirmation of the existence of one single rite under two forms–the ordinary and the extraordinary forms–of equal right, and especially the rejection of the exclusive celebration of the traditional liturgy, may, it is true, be interpreted as the expression of a political desire not to confront the Bishops' Conferences which are openly opposed to any liberalization of the Tridentine Mass. But we may also see in this an expression of the "reform of the reform" desired by the Pope himself, and in which, as he himself writes in this letter, the Mass of Saint Pius V and that of Paul VI would mutually enrich one another.

 

 

In any event, there is in Pope Benedict XVI the clear desire to re-affirm the continuity of Vatican II and the Mass which issued from it, with the bimillennial Tradition. This denial of a rupture caused by the last Council–already shown in his address to the Curia on December 22, 2005–shows that what is at stake in the debate between Rome and the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is essentially doctrinal. For this reason, the undeniable step forward made by the Motu Proprio in the liturgical domain must be followed–after the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication–by theological discussions.

The reference to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X made in the accompanying letter, as well as the acknowledgment of the testimony given by the young generations which are taking up the torch of Tradition, clearly show that our constancy to defend the lex orandi has been taken into account. With God's help, we must continue the combat for the lex credendi, the combat for the faith, with the same firmness.

 

Menzingen, July 7, 2007

+ Bernard Fellay

Bishop Williamson Comments on Summorum Pontificum

After many false reports of an imminent publication of Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio on the pre-conciliar rite of Mass, at last it appeared on July 7, under the title of Summorum Pontificum.

Amongst Catholics holding to Catholic Tradition, it has in the last week met with a mixed reception. On the one hand throughout the Society of St. Pius X, for instance, a Te Deum was sung out of gratitude for everything in the document which favors and to some extent sets free the old rite of Mass. On the other hand Catholics who distrust anything and everything coming out of conciliar Rome, some to the extent of disbelieving that Benedict XVI is even Pope, have little difficulty in discovering in the Motu Proprio the numerous contradictions which reflect Pope Benedict XVI's vain attempt to reconcile Catholicism with the intrisically anti-Catholic modern world.

Now the contradictions are certainly there, because while the Pope cleaves in his heart to the old liturgy of his pre-war Bavarian childhood, he believes with his conciliar mind in the reconciliation of irreconcilables, such as Catholicism and the revolutionary world all around us. However, as the proverb says, Rome was not built in a day, and Catholic Rome will not be re-built in one day. In fact will it take anything less than a flood of the wrath of God to wash the modernism out of this Rome's Augean stables¹? One may wonder. Kyrie eleison!

Nevertheless "The journey of a thousand miles" begins with the first step. Given the terrible official persecution of the true rite of Mass ever since 1969 when the Novus Ordo was introduced, surely two things at least in the Motu Proprio were worth a Te Deum. Firstly, the official, Papal, public recognition that the old Mass was never truly suppressed. We always knew it, but now every Catholic knows it in the Universal Church. What a change of perception that must entail! And secondly, a certain definite freedom for Latin rite priests to celebrate the old Mass, at least in private and to a greater extent than before also in public.

Let us pray as much as ever for the Pope, if not more, that his Bavarian heart continue to push his conciliar head in a Catholic direction! –Bishop Richard Williamson La Reja, Argentina

 

¹ From Greek mythology: The stable of Augeas, king of Elis, contained an enormous number of oxen, and was uncleaned for many years. Hercules cleaned it in a day by diverting through it the rivers Alpheus and Peneus.–Ed.

The Obedience of Archbishop Lefebvre

Now that Summorum Pontificum has acknowledged that the Missal of St. Pius V was never abrogated, it is only right and just to recall to mind what Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, he whose fidelity to the Mass of all times was dismissed as disobedience.

 This Mass is not forbidden and cannot be forbidden....¦If a priest were censured or even excommunicated on this ground (i.e., for saying the Mass of St. Pius V–Ed.), the sentence would be absolutely invalid....We can celebrate it and the faithful can attend it with complete peace of mind, knowing furthermore it is the best way of maintaining their faith. (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Chapter 20)

 I would say that we have to choose between an appearance of obedience–for the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith–and the preservation of our faith. Well, we choose not to abandon our faith. (Ibid., Chapter 18)

 We do not want to break away from the Church; on the contrary, we want the Church to continue. A Church which breaks away from her past is no longer the Catholic Church....We are certain that the truth will come back. It cannot be otherwise. The Good God does not abandon His Church. (Homily, Geneva, May 15, 1978)

 

–Fr. Alain Lorans

 

Editorial from DICI 158. DICI is the press bureau of the Society of St. Pius X (www.dici.org).

Summorum Pontificum and the Traditional Catholic

In an article published on Sunday July 8, Vittorio Messori, journalist for Corriere della Sera [an Italian daily newspaper–Ed.], presented Bishop Bernard Fellay's reaction to Summorum Pontificum released the day before. He repeated the words of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X:

"This is a truly historic day. We extend our deep gratitude to Benedict XVI. His document is a gift of grace. It is not a step, it is a leap in the right direction." For the Lefebvrite Superior, the "normalization" of the Mass "not of St. Pius V," he specified, "but rather of the Church of all times," is an act of justice, and is an extraordinary supernatural help in a time of serious crisis in the Church.

And the author of The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church commented:

To reach this result, the resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers proved decisive. Cardinal Ratzinger already thought he was indebted towards these brethren who expressed an uneasiness which he himself shared, at least partly. Bishop Fellay, it is true, admits the role of the Society, but he is looking further: "Yes, Providence allowed us to be instruments goading the Church of Rome to reach this day. But we are also aware of being only the thermometer revealing a fever demanding adequate remedies. This document is a fundamental stage in a procedure which will now be able to progress at a greater speed, and we hope with comforting prospects also on the issue of the excommunication."

"So, there is no disillusionment?" asked Vittorio Messori. "I would say no. Even if some passages of the introductory letter, in which we can well see the demands of ecclesiastical politics, seem to us less satisfactory." In any case, the fact is objective, and Bishop Fellay and his followers are fully aware of it: the 40 years of opposition, in spite of certain aspects which were at times very harsh and open to criticism, have not been useless...

"The protests of some bishops?" wondered the Italian journalist before answering:

Some point out by ominous projections in the future, that in less than twenty years from now, one third of the dioceses in the West–France included, where the disapproval of the Pope's initiative is the strongest–will have to be suppressed because of lack of priests. So it is difficult for bishops who are reduced to their last breath, to speak loud against these "Lefebvrists" who, on the contrary, enjoy an uninterrupted flow of vocations.

In an interview granted to Il Giornale in its July 8 edition, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos declared:

"With the Motu Proprio, we are opening the door to a return to full communion of the Society of St. Pius X. If after this act, they do not return, I would not be able to understand it."

The Colombian Cardinal specifies, however, that the pontifical document was "not made for the Lefebvrist," but

"because the Pope is convinced of the necessity to underline that there is continuity in tradition, and that in the Church, we do not progress through fracture."

In the July issue of 30 Days, the president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission adds that the Pope has re-affirmed that the "habitual mode for the celebration of the Mass is the Novus Ordo." So, the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre "cannot deny the value nor the validity of the Novus Ordo," he stated. "This must be clear," added Cardinal Castrillon, for whom the decree is "in no wise a return to the past."

He revealed besides that "thousands of letters had arrived in Rome to ask for the freedom to attend the Tridentine Mass and" that "John Paul II wanted to prepare a Motu Proprio similar to that released today."

Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, in an interview granted to La Croix of July 7, answered the question as to whether the claims of the traditionalists were satisfied:

It is true that the door has been opened wide....But the Motu Proprio also lays down conditions for this liberalization. The priests who desire to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal must acknowledge the riches of the conciliar liturgical reform. They will not be allowed to deliberately exclude their celebrating according to the Missal so-called of Paul VI–in this case we may wonder what becomes of the "exclusive" use of the old form of the rite, granted, for instance, to certain institutes.

To the question: "Is the liturgy the right means to bring back unity with the Lefebvrist tendency?" the president of the French Bishops' Conference affirms:

The Pope wanted to answer in first place a request concerning the liturgy: he wished to allow a wide celebration of the old Missal to persons who do not for all that reject the Second Vatican Council. But he also knows that many other issues cause difficulty to the members of the Society of St. Pius X, and these are not settled by the Motu Proprio: the Catholic commitment to the ecumenical movement and the interreligious dialogue, religious liberty, etc. This document is a step forward, but we have not reached the end of the road. Benedict XVI knows that discussion must be resumed on all these other issues. He will not barter anything of the Council. This can be seen clearly in the importance he never ceases to attach to all these domains. He will not yield there.

In an interview dated July 7, and made by I.Media Agency and the French weekly Famille Chrétienne, and distributed by CIPA, Cardinal Ricard made the following clarifications:

On the one hand, the Holy Father is addressing all those who appreciated the enrichment brought about by the liturgical reform. He asks them to accept that the treasure of the Church is much larger than what they think they perceive. And that people today can be nourished by the Tridentine Mass, which sustained the Christian life of the faithful for centuries. Secondly, the Pope also tells the people attached to the 1962 Missal that they must acknowledge the benefits of the conciliar reform. There is no contradiction between the two forms of the Roman Missal. The Holy Father understands the Council as a continuity, an enrichment and not as a rupture. He reminds them that we cannot deny the legitimacy of the 1970 Missal in the name of our attachment to the 1962 Missal. "In order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books." To me, this disposition seems incompatible with the statutes of various institutes in which is inscribed the exclusive use of the Tridentine form. I think that this can no longer stand after the Motu Proprio.

Here it would seem that the priests of the SSPX (excluded from the dispositions of the Motu Proprio by Article 5, §4: "Priests who use the Missal of Blessed John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded") are paradoxically the only ones able to claim the exclusive use of the Tridentine Mass. This "exclusion" which we contest by right guarantees exclusivity in fact for us.

To the question: "When he published the document, was the Pope also thinking of the faithful of Archbishop Lefebvre?" the archbishop of Bordeaux, Cardinal Ricard, answered:

This is not said explicitly in either of the two texts. But in a broader way, Benedict XVI is also thinking of the SSPX. He told us so himself (on the occasion of the presentation of the Motu Proprio to some cardinals on June 17–Ed.). But, in my opinion, this Motu Proprio will cause them difficulty, especially with regard to all that pertains to the authority of the liturgical reform which the priests and faithful of this Society refuse to acknowledge.

We understand why Bishop Fellay, in his letter to the faithful dated July 7, strove to underline "the clear desire [of Benedict XVI] to reaffirm the continuity of Vatican II and the Mass which issued from it, with the bimillennial Tradition." This denial of the rupture caused by the last Council–already made manifest in his address to the Curia on December 22, 2005–was contested by the Society of St. Pius X, and, after the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication which affects the bishops of the Society, it is on this point that a doctrinal discussion must take place.

 

From DICI, the press bureau of the Society of St. Pius X (www.dici.org).

 

^{interview by Brian Mershon}

Bishop Fellay On Summorum Pontificum

"Very Significant Historical Event"

Pope Benedict Affirms Cardinal Castrillon Interviews: SSPX Within the Church

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), said at least three of the four SSPX bishops were satisfied with the contents of the Motu Proprio, confirming that the traditional Roman rite of Holy Mass (extraordinary form of the Roman rite) has never been abrogated. By interview time, he had not spoken to the fourth bishop, but said he expected that bishop to also be pleased with the document. "The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X extends its deep gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this great spiritual benefit," read a July 7, 2007 news release from the SSPX. The SSPX also released a more detailed letter to its Catholic lay faithful.¹

Bishop Fellay said the document gave priests much more freedom to offer the traditional rite "than any expectation" he had in advance. He also said that that the Holy See "considers [the lifting of the decrees] of excommunication less difficult than the Motu Proprio." This was communicated to Bishop Fellay in the accompanying letter of the Motu Proprio he received from Dari­o Cardinal Castrillon, Prefect of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Cardinal Castrillon said in an interview with Il Giornale, "With this Motu Proprio, the door is widely opened for a return of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to full communion."

The document gives freedom to all Latin-rite priests to choose either missal in offering their daily Mass. While there are some restrictions on the celebration of the Mass publicly at a regular time, the Pope wrote that in parishes where there is a stable group of faithful desiring the Mass regularly, "the pastor should willingly accept their requests." For Masses "without the people," such Masses may be attended by the faithful who request to be admitted.

This document is the fulfillment of the first of the three preconditions of the SSPX before coming to a full canonical regularization with the Holy See. The second request is for the Holy See to rescind the decrees of excommunication, similar to the removal of excommunications for the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople by Pope Paul VI in 1965.

Bishop Fellay said the recently released Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," only proved the necessity of the doctrinal discussions between the SSPX and the Holy See prior to a final practical canonical agreement. Bishop Fellay said that "this document...¦is telling us that a circle is a quadrangle."

What seems to be at issue is the newer, post-conciliar ecclesiology as the Church as "sacrament," which defines Christians as having "degrees of unity" of communion with the Church instead of the more juridical understanding of "membership" in the Church and a Christian being "inside" or "outside" the Church. Bishop Fellay affirmed that the SSPX holds the pre-conciliar theology.

The irony is that many Catholic bishops, priests, and faithful who hold almost exclusively the sacramental ecclesiology are often those to claim the SSPX is "outside" the Church, while at the same time calling Protestants "separated brethren" and refusing to use the terms "schismatic" or "heretic" for those who are further away from the body, heart, and soul of the Church. In other words, they will often engage in ecumenical events and worship services with those who don't share the same Faith and sacraments and no ordained priesthood, but will be the first to warn Catholics against attending Mass at an SSPX chapel with other Catholics.

Your Excellency, what is your personal reaction to the long-awaited and much anticipated Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum? What is the general reaction you have heard from other Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) bishops and priests?

Since I have just returned from a trip, I haven't heard much of anything. So I don't have many reactions [from priests] yet.

However, I know that at least three of the four bishops are satisfied with the Motu Proprio. The other probably is also, but I don't know because I haven't gotten his impression yet.

I would insist on two things. The first is the Motu Proprio itself. It is very clear that the Motu Proprio does open–much more than any expectation–the celebration of the Tridentine Mass and all of the previous liturgies. That is, not only the Mass, but the Breviary and the Rituale.

I think we have to salute and to greet this date and this Motu Proprio as a very significant historical event in the history of the Church and in post-Vatican II history. This has to be noted. I think it is very important.

Nevertheless, this does not mean it is perfect–especially when we link the Motu Proprio with the letter [to the bishops]. The letter is, if I may say it, the usual Vatican language. It is very unfortunate.

There are some interesting things in this letter like the quote where the Pope says the reason for his action is for an internal reconciliation within the Church; which means that we are not outside of the Church. That is very interesting.

But nevertheless, this letter has to be understood as a political letter which most surely does represent his personal thinking. Nevertheless, it is more than unfortunate in many ways, especially where he insists upon the necessity to recognize the value and the holiness of the New Mass. He plays both sides against each other. And the modern bishops that are progressive–they will jump on that point immediately, trying to dismantle the Motu Proprio.

With this first precondition met for the good of the Church overall–the freeing of the Traditional Mass–what is your outlook on the possible lifting of the decrees of excommunication against the SSPX bishops? Have you had any correspondence with the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei since January 2007?

I have had no conversations, no discussions, and no relations. That is the first point.

The second point on the Roman side: as far as I know, they consider the [lifting of the decrees] of excommunication less difficult than the Motu Proprio. That's the only answer I can give you.

Your Excellency, this is quite surprising. What indication do you have from the Holy See that this is the case?

It is the word of Cardinal Castrillon [in the letter] when he sent me the Motu Proprio [the week before Summorum Pontificum was issued]. That is the first contact of the Cardinal with me since the 15th of November 2005.

Do you believe the Holy See might possibly be awaiting a private letter or move by you on behalf of the SSPX requesting the lifting of the decrees of excommunication before they consider possible action?

I have no idea [chuckling]. I don't care about public or not public. Certainly, after this [freeing of the extraordinary Roman rite], there will certainly be an expectation of some contacts–definitely. But our line is very clear, so I don't think there is much to expect new or surprising.

Your Excellency, just to clarify: Based upon the letter you received last week from Cardinal Castrillon along with the Motu Proprio, was there any indication from the good Cardinal that he expected any follow-up action on the part of the Society?

No. It was just a very broad expectation that this would open the way to reconciliation, which can be understood in many ways.

Just this morning, July 10, 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a document defining the meaning of subsistit in and the doctrinal development on the ecclesiology of the Church. The document is entitled, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." The secular media is reacting like two nuclear bombs have gone off around the world within three days with the freeing of the Traditional Mass on Saturday, July 7, and today with the reaffirmation on the Catholic Church being the one, true Church, and the defects in the Orthodox Churches and Protestant ecclesial communities. This document seems to be geared specifically toward attempting to clarify some theological concerns with certain passages of the Second Vatican Council's key documents. What is your initial reaction?

My reaction? In the declaration about the Motu Proprio, we insisted on saying that the confused excerpts of places in the letter show that the need to enter into theological discussions was reinforced very, very strongly by this document which is telling us that a circle is a quadrangle.

You have a perfect illustration of what we have said for six years, that is, that Rome is continuing in a confusing way because they don't seem to give much care to contradiction and non-contradiction.

This document seems to be a clarification of nothing but assuring once again that "Yes" means "No."

Your Excellency, can you give us an example?

Sure. One example is precisely the question about subsistit. The question is "Why use the expression "subsistit in" and not "est"? You read the answer and you conclude nothing.

They say it is "est" and that there is an identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, and there is no change of doctrine. And then the next phrase is precisely a change in doctrine. So...it is a contradiction. In his sermon in Econe, Bishop Williamson said that in Rome they say something like two plus two makes four, but maybe it also makes five. And here you have a perfect illustration of that.

The only positive thing [in the document] is about the Protestants which are now barred from the title of Church. Great! [Editor's Note: This doctrine on Protestant "ecclesial communities" has already been outlined previously by Dominus Jesus and other authoritative Church doctrinal clarifications.]

Besides that, it is a confirmation of what we say. This text tries to tell us that there is no contradiction between the doctrine of the Church of the past and of Vatican II. And we insist by saying that Vatican II is in disharmony–is in contradiction–is even teaching error opposed to the traditional teaching, especially on ecumenism. And here [in this new document on ecclesiology] you have both sides put together; that is, the past and Vatican II.

Two traditionalist priestly societies–most recently with the Institute of the Good Shepherd in France–and the apostolic administration of the priests of St. John Marie Vianney led by Bishop Fernando Rifan, have reconciled with the Holy See. The Holy See has allowed these traditionalist groups to continue to hold fast to the expressions of the Catholic Faith used prior to Vatican II, while accepting that Vatican II was a real and valid Ecumenical Council, while allowing constructive theological study on possible ambiguities in the documents. What keeps the SSPX from doing the same?

This text is a confirmation of all of our reproaches against the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II [documents]. It is a superb example of ambiguity, and maybe it has never gone so far by trying to put together what cannot be put together; by pretending that there is no position which is a clear position.

So the question of the necessity of having doctrinal discussions prior to coming to any sort of practical agreement is very well documented in this new document [as an example]. It is a beautiful expression of the necessity, of the need and the importance of dealing with these matters before going any further.

Archbishop Lefebvre signed all 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council. After the Council, he was very critical of the documents and even sent a dubia to the Holy See requesting clarification on religious liberty. However, Archbishop Lefebvre never rejected all the documents of the Second Vatican Council in totality.

And we don't do so either. It is not a matter of rejecting or accepting. The questions are, "Are these documents good? Are these documents nurturing the Faith? Are they good for the survival of the Church or not?"

And the more we go on, the more we see the ambiguities in the Council'which at a certain time seemed to be reconcilable to be correctly interpreted with Tradition, not including the very obvious errors–the further we go on, the more we see that this is an impossible job.

Your Excellency, do you believe the destruction in the Church has been caused by not following the letter of the documents or by possible errors or ambiguities in the documents themselves?

I would say that not all of the documents, but most of them, are full of ambiguities. The more we study them, the more we see that according to the letter, you have these ambiguities.

Ambiguities mean that you have at least two ways to understand them or to interpret them. This is terribly damaging for a document that is supposed to be from the highest solemnity in the Church–a document which comes from an Ecumenical Council. It is a great tragedy.

These ambiguities, I must say, you find them almost everywhere. In addition to these three major errors of ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality, you have all these ambiguities everywhere.

It is not in the Catholic spirit. It is this modern, progressive spirit which has partly been condemned by Pope Benedict XVI, but which also basically and fundamentally has been approved by him. We're going around in circles there.

And I must say once again, this document ["Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church."] is a perfect illustration of this ambiguity and of contradictory statements.

Cardinal Castrillon's Sunday, July 8, Il Giornale interview spoke specifically about the SSPX, saying the following: "With this Motu Proprio, the door is opened wide (si spalanca la porta) for a return of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to full communion. If, after this act, the return does not take place, I truly will not be able to comprehend. I wish to clarify, though, that the papal document has not been made for the Lefebvrists, but because the Pope is convinced of the need to underline that there is a continuity in the Tradition, and that in the Church one does not move forward by way of fractures. The ancient Mass has never been abolished nor forbidden."² What is your reaction?

Certainly, this Motu Proprio is a step in our direction. It is most probably the will of Rome to answer to our first precondition. It is nice.

Is it enough to say, "We can now just go ahead?" Well, we can just look at this text published today [on the nature of the Church from the CDF] and you have the answer.

Look. It is a good step forward, but that does not mean that everything is solved. Absolutely not.

In numerous public interviews over the past two years with both the secular and Catholic media, Cardinal Castrillon continues to repeat that the SSPX is not in formal schism, but that has unfortunately often fallen upon deaf ears with many Catholics within the Church. What do you think motivates this new attitude?

It shows that Rome wants to end this apparent split in the Church. It is a thorn in their side because on the one side, they want to have unity. They want to work all this ecumenism toward unity, but there is an apparent division within at the closest level. So how can you pretend to make unity with people who are outside when you are not capable of doing it with those who are inside?

It's a contradiction.

And so as they try to do this ecumenism; it is a duty for them to stop this interior division. Now, the problem is that the means they use are much too superficial. It's fine if they want to use these means, but it will not end the cause of it [the division].

Your Excellency, what do you mean by "superficial"?

If you say, "Let's sign a paper [a practical agreement]," that is superficial. Merely signing a paper is superficial.

If you say, "Let's agree on a formula that is acceptable to both parties, but both continue to think their own ways, that is superficial."

The real thing is when you agree on truth. That is not superficial.

Some within the Church continue to state the SSPX is in schism; how do you answer to the following question? When was the last time 6,000 schismatics prayed in Rome during the Year of the Jubilee in 2000? When was the last time schismatics sent a spiritual bouquet of 2.5 million rosaries to the Holy Father?

And we have an even better argument in the [Pope's] letter that accompanies the Motu Proprio on the Mass where the Holy Father says it is an internal matter within the Catholic Church–in the Church.³

It clearly states that it is not about a schism. It is about an interior dispute which requires an interior reconciliation within the Church.

So we have it from the word of the boss. Our Pope says it is not a schism.

Many Catholics who are enamored with solely using the newer ecclesiology of "partial" and "full" communion (and call Protestants our "separated brethren" and would never dare call them "schismatics" or "heretics") are the same people who are the first to continue to call the SSPX "schismatics" and claim they are outside the Church.⁴ But they use the pre-Conciliar juridical ecclesiology of "outside" and "inside" the Church while describing the SSPX, thus showing a notable inconsistency. Is there an irony here? Your thoughts on this, Your Excellency?

Exactly. For us, we still use the old weapons.

In the CDF document clarifying the nature of the Church, in answer to a question about the use of the proper use of the term "Church" for the Eastern Orthodox, using the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism as a reference,⁵ the following answer is provided: "It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature." Taking into account how explicitly positive and encouraging this text is for the celebration of the Eucharist (and by extension, the other sacraments) for the Eastern Church, which is not in full communion with the Holy See, nor believes all the dogma or morals of the Catholic Faith, isn't it ironic that so many Catholic bishops, priests, and laymen will not extend this same positive and charitable attitude to "the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord" when offered by priests who are within the Church and believe all its faith and morals? Can you imagine the majority of Catholics dutifully adhering to the following? "It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these SSPX chapels that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature." Is this but another irony?

Sure. You could say this is an ad hominem [an argument made "against the man," that is, a logical fallacy that seeks to divert attention from the issue or principle and focus on the shortcomings of the individual maintaining a principle–Ed.] argument. I want to state that very precisely.

We could very easily say that in the Society, we have the celebration of the Eucharist. We have apostolic succession. So definitely, according to that statement, we contribute to the edification and glorification of God. Definitely.

We are in the Catholic Church–period. We have never pretended to be an independent body (in other words, a separate "Church" in the sense used with the Eastern Orthodox).

Do you have any closing remarks?

I think, first of all, all of these documents should never be read just as an absolute. They have to be put in their context. The current context is that we still have a tragedy and a tremendous crisis in the Church.

And that means that even with something that tends toward the good, that will definitely be for the good of the Church–like the document on the Mass–we cannot expect that suddenly things will be perfect. I don't want to give any illusions.

So as we greet this courageous act of the Pope at this time–and we greet this great act, that's the first step–at the same time, that does not mean it is the end of the fight or the crisis. What is very important is to see how this document will be applied in reality.

Now that it has been said that the Mass has never been abrogated and that every priest has the right to say it, will they be able to do so? Practically speaking, who will care about granting this freedom and assuring this freedom of celebrating the Tridentine Mass? That will be very interesting. How will the bishops react?

I think this is very important for the future. If I may say here, this kind of fight is so overwhelming; the crusade of rosaries we started, and which seems to bring some good fruits, has to be continued.

 

This interview originally appeared in the July 15, 2007, issue of The Remnant. Contact and subscription information is available at www.remnantnewspaper.com. Brian Mershon has a master's degree in theology and bachelor's in journalism.

His articles and columns have appeared in Catholic and other media, both

print and online. He and his wife Tracey raise their six children and homeschool them in Greenville, South Carolina.

¹ Statement by Bishop Fellay, p.10 of this issue of The Angelus.

² Thanks to "New Catholic" at http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ for the French to English translation.

³ "We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level." Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops (in this issue of The Angelus, §2, p.7). See also §6, pp. 7-8.

⁴ Editor's note: Compare the following address: http://www.renewamerica.us/ columns/mershon/051212...

Fr. Jay Scott Newman, JCL, pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., asked the following question in this "Lecture Addressed to the Theological Students Association of the Catholic University of America," in Washington, D.C., in 2001. While it is clear that Fr. Newman did not have in mind the Society of St. Pius X's situation when he authored this lecture, I believe its contents are instructive. We must remember that when Edward Cardinal Cassidy, the former prefect for Ecumenism, was questioned as to why theological dialogue did not take place regularly with the Society of St. Pius X if they were indeed in schism, Cardinal Cassidy replied that the situation was an "internal matter" of the Catholic Church. Fr. Newman opined:

Expanding on the precept of St. Augustine that unless he persevere in charity, a Catholic can remain bound to the Church in body but not in heart, I wonder if it is not now possible to describe circumstances in which some non-Catholic Christians have a greater degree of fullness of communion with the one Church of Christ than do some Catholic Christians because of their stubborn refusal to believe doctrines of the faith which must be definitively held. I suspect that such a prospect is a logical consequence of the substantial newness of ecclesiology in Vatican II, namely, that one is not either in or out of the Church, but rather that all the baptized are joined in real communion with the Church by some degree of fullness. In other words, it is now clear that the road of communion with the Catholic Church by degrees of fullness is a two-way street.

...to this June 24 bulletin letter authored by the same priest, online at http://stmarysgvl.org/ourparish/2007-the-birth-of-john-the-baptist

 

Dear Friends in Christ,

Pope Benedict XVI has often written about the reforms of the sacred liturgy which began at the Second Vatican Council, and since his election to the papacy, there has been speculation that the new pope either would begin to make changes to our present liturgy or would make it easier for priests to use the old liturgy. In recent weeks there have been reports that the pope is preparing to publish a document about the Tridentine Mass, and when or if that document should ever be published, I will take great care to explain what it means for the liturgical life of the Church. For now, however, I write to warn you about a group of renegade bishops and priests who are leading people out of full communion with the Catholic Church in the name of the old liturgy.

In 1970, a French bishop named Marcel Lefebvre formed the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as a group of priests dedicated to preserving the form of the Mass codified by the Council of Trent, and for five years, the SSPX functioned within the Catholic Church. In 1975, however, the Society lost its canonical standing, and in 1976 Marcel Lefebvre was suspended from all priestly faculties. For twelve years, authorities in Rome worked with Lefebvre to prevent a permanent rupture, but in 1988–against the specific instructions of Pope John Paul II–Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops for the SSPX, and by that act both Lefebvre and all four new bishops were excommunicated. This was an act of schism, a grave offense against the unity of the Catholic Church, and from that day in 1988, the bishops and priests of the SSPX have been in a state of schism and have incurred the penalty of excommunication. Moreover, the Holy See has made it clear many times over that it is morally illicit for any Catholic to attend Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX or to receive any sacrament from one of these priests.

If the anticipated papal document is published, there will be considerable attention given in the media to the Tridentine Mass and to the Catholics who prefer to pray according to the Missal of 1962. And it is possible even now to participate lawfully in this Mass when it is celebrated with proper permission, as is done here in Greenville (sic: Taylors, SC) on the first Sunday of each month at Prince of Peace Church. There are even entire communities of priests within the Church which are dedicated to preserving the old Mass, and it is lawful to receive the sacraments from those priests. What is never lawful, though, is for Catholics to attend a Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX or to receive any sacraments from priests of the Society. The SSPX maintains chapels in Mt. Holly, NC, and in Atlanta, and you may have heard of Catholics attending Mass in these places while offering a variety of bogus justifications for this disobedience. As your pastor, I must warn you that it is gravely immoral to participate in any way in these illicit and schismatic acts of worship, and I urge you in the Name of God not to do so or to encourage others to do so, even by your silence. Our constant goal must be to live and die in full communion with the Lord Jesus and His Holy Church, and that cannot be accomplished by acts of schism. –Fr. Newman

⁵ Unitatis Redintegratio, §15.1 online at http://212.77.1.245/news _services/ bulletin/news/....