Author Topic: Letter of Bishop Fellay to cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in Rome June/6/2004: (Read 1940 times)

Hewkonian · « **on:** August 24, 2024, 07:56:54 AM »

Source: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/34/3441805_fw-christian-news-of-this-week-ru-05-2005-.html

"Most Reverend Eminence,
Your letter of December 30, a letter of greetings with the new proposal of an accord, did indeed reach us. We have taken some time to answer because it leaves us perplexed. Allow me to respond with the greatest frankness, the only way of making progress.

We are sensitive to your efforts and those of the Holy Father to come to our aid, and we see that this overture on your part is certainly very generous. Accordingly, we are much afraid lest our attitude and our response not be understood. When we made our request that two conditions be met at the beginning of our discussions, and when we repeated that request several times, we were simply indicating a natural and necessary order to follow: before constructing a roadway on a bridge, one must lay its foundations. Otherwise, the enterprise is doomed to failure. We do not see how we could arrive at a recognition without passing through a number of steps.

Among these steps, the first seems to us to be the lifting of the decree of excommunication. The excommunication applying to the Orthodox was lifted without them in any way changing their attitude towards the Holy See; would it not be possible to do something similar in our regard, for us who have never separated ourselves from the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, whom we have always recognized as defined by Vatican Council I? At the time of our consecration in 1988, we took an oath of fidelity to the Holy See; we have always professed our attachment to the Holy See and the Sovereign Pontiff, we have taken all kinds of measures to show that we have no intention of erecting a parallel hierarchy: it should not be so difficult to cleanse us from the accusation of schism...

As regards the penalty for the reception of the episcopate, the Code of Canon Law of 1983 foresees that the maximum penalty should not be applied in the case where a subject has acted on the basis of a subjective necessity. If the Holy See does not want to admit that there was a state of objective necessity, it should at least admit that we perceive things in this way...

Such a measure would be recognized as a real overture on the part of Rome and would create the new climate necessary for any progress.

At the same time, the SSPX would submit itself to what we could by analogy call an ad limina visit. The Holy See could observe us and examine our development without there being any engagement of the two sides for the time being.

With respect to the formulas that you ask us to sign, they suppose a certain number of conditions that we cannot accept and that leave us very ill at ease.

The propositions suppose that we are guilty and that this guilt has separated us from the Church. In reparation, and to certify our orthodoxy, they ask us for a sort of limited profession of faith (Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo).

Most of our priests and faithful have been directly confronted with heresy, and often faced with grave liturgical scandal coming from their own pastors, from bishops as well as priests. The whole history of our movement is marked by a tragic succession of events of this kind up to today, as we are joined by religious, seminarians, and priests who have had the same experience. You cannot exact a justified penalty or contrition because alone, abandoned by the pastors and betrayed by them, we have reacted to conserve the faith of our baptism or in order not to dishonor the divine Majesty. It is impossible to analyze the 1988 Consecrations without considering the tragic context in which they took place. Otherwise, things become incomprehensible and justice no longer has its due.

Furthermore, it is often said that our status would be a concession, and that we would be accorded a situation suitable to our 'special charism.'

Must one recall that what we are attached to is the common patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church? We do not ask nor do we seek a special status as a mark of singularity, but we want a 'normal' place in the Church. So long as the Tridentine Mass is considered a particular concession, we remain marginalized, in a precarious and suspect position. It is in this perspective that we claim a right that has never been lost: that of the Mass for everyone. To reduce this right to an indult (which certain Roman voices hold to be provisory) is already to diminish it.

In the current situation, where everything of a traditional savor immediately becomes suspect, we have need of a protector and defender of our interests in the Curia. It is more a question of representing Tradition at Rome than of establishing a delegate of the Holy See for traditional matters, as in the case of Ecclesia Dei today. In order for this organization to have some credibility and to correspond to its purpose, it is important that it be composed of members who belong to Catholic Tradition.

To achieve a 'recognition' without having first resolved these questions in principle would be to doom the proposed 'practical accord' to failure, for we hope to act tomorrow with the same fidelity to Catholic Tradition as we do today.

Wanting to maintain the frankness with which we address these questions (which is not a matter of arrogance or of lack of charity), we would be condemned tomorrow as we were yesterday.

At baptism, a contract is established between the Christian soul and the Church: 'What do you ask of the Church?' - 'The faith' - This is what we ask of Rome: that Rome confirm us in the Faith, the faith of all times, the immutable faith. We have the strict right to demand this of the Roman authorities. We do not believe that we can truly progress towards a 'recognition' as long as Rome will not have shown its concrete intention to dissipate the cloud which has invaded the temple of God, obscured the faith, and paralyzed the supernatural life of the Church under the cover of a Council and subsequent reforms.

In the hope that this letter may make its contribution to overcoming the current inertia, we assure you, Eminence, of our daily prayers for the fulfillment of your heavy duty in this grave hour of Holy Mother Church.

+Bernard Fellay."

End of quotation. Thus, the ball in this terrifying debate is again in Rome's camp. May God give to our Holy Father the courage and the force, before appearing in front of the Eternal Judge, to cancel the fatal excommunication pronounced by him in 1988 against the bishops of the Catholic tradition!

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #1 on:** August 25, 2024, 06:24:14 PM »

Quote from: Hewkonian on August 24, 2024, 07:56:54 AM

To achieve a 'recognition' without having first resolved these questions in principle would be to doom the proposed 'practical accord' to failure, for we hope to act tomorrow with the same fidelity to Catholic Tradition as we do today.

Wanting to maintain the frankness with which we address these questions (which is not a matter of arrogance or of lack of charity), we would be condemned tomorrow as we were yesterday.

Lest we forget...

Author Topic: Letter of Bishop Fellay to cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in Rome June/6/2004: (Read 1940 times)

Hewkonian

Letter of Bishop Fellay to cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in Rome June/6/2004:

Plenus Venter

Re: Letter of Bishop Fellay to cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in Rome June/6/2004: