|
The situation
in Campos
All the while, things had begun
to happen in Campos with the Priestly Union of St. John Baptist Mary Vianney. In June, 2001, Campos
sent me a letter asking, "Please, please, don’t break with Rome. You have to
study what they propose to you." I answered, "We never broke off: We just said we suspended discussion. We are going to wait, that’s all."
Campos replied, "You are better positioned than us. You know what’s
going on, so we will follow you."
On July 15th, however, one of the members of Cardinal
Castrillon’s Congregation for the Clergy, a Brazilian Redemptorist named
Guimaraes, paid a visit to Campos and proposed a separate agreement. A separate
proposal was obviously a device to separate Campos and the Society. I did not
want that; I wanted to have one package. We are much stronger with one front
than with diverse ones.
Rome advanced a proposal to give them a bishop to be
consecrated in the Cathedral of Campos by Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos with
co-consecrators Bishop Rangel and the local bishop, whose name is Guimaraes (the
same as that of the member of the Congregation of the Clergy). Castrillon’s
envoy promised that the bishop will be one the members of the Priestly Union,
that it will have him as an auxiliary, that it would get the same deal as the
Society of St. Pius X, for all of Brazil.
In a letter dated 18 July, Campos wrote me:
"Listen, the pope wants to give us a bishop. If we oppose this, we are schismatics! We have to accept this will of the pope." This letter, however, was
hand-delivered to me by Fr. Rifan on September 12th! In the
intervening seven weeks, the deal was sealed. The letter requested my approval
for what Campos was planning to do. By the time I got the letter, the deed had
been done. In any case, my answer would have been,
"No, I cannot in
conscience agree with what you are doing. You are very imprudent. You don’t look at all the circumstances. You are now dividing Tradition. You don’t pay attention to what’s happening in the Church. You are
crushing yourself."
In September, 2001, I asked Bishop de Galaretta to visit
Campos and speak with the Priestly Union, which he did, but without any fruit.
The priests were already absolutely decided and there was nothing to do. They
defended themselves by saying it was a question of prudence. Period. End of
discussion. End of October, I go there also. I speak with Bishop Rangel. I try
to tell them, "What are you doing? Look at what is being done to the
Fraternity of St. Peter right now!" Nothing. Nothing! They did not want to
talk with me. They had decided. It was very clear. They said, "Well, you
don’t trust them. We do." What can you say?
During all these months - September, October, November
- Fr. Rifan was in Rome, but he told me that all he did was give the Campos proposal
to Rome, that’s all. There were different rumors, contradictory. Some said that
the thing was done; some said that nothing had happened. Crazy! I asked Bishop
Rangel, "What’s happening?" He said they had given their
proposal to the pope for him to approve. Once the pope okayed it, it was transmitted to a
commission of cardinals who studied the matter and said, "Okay."
Then it was sent to the Secretary of State who studied it and made
difficulties....You see how everything is upside-down. I thought, when the pope says okay, it should
be okay; but, obviously it’s not. Common sense tells us they would start with
the lower authorities and proceed up to the head, not the contrary. It was
foreseen that the Holy Father would sign the agreement before his departure for
Kazakhstan on September 25th, but it was actually signed on December 25th!
What kind of
an agreement?
What was signed? There was initial confusion. Cardinal
Castrillon called Fr. Simoulin on December 26th to say the pope had signed an
agreement with Campos to establish something like a military ordinariate
[which would give the Priestly Union its own bishop with true jurisdiction over
his subjects - Ed.]. But it’s not true. The agreement is to establish an
apostolic administration [which receives only an auxiliary bishop while
the local ordinary retains all episcopal jurisdiction - Ed.]. So Cardinal
Castrillon, who is the one who is supposed to know what is happening, one day
after the signature, tells us something wrong! This was curious. According
to what I heard, however, Cardinal Castrillon went over the head of Cardinal
Sodano, the Secretary of State, who wanted to grant to the Priestly Union only
what was granted to the Fraternity of St. Peter [which is neither a military ordinariate nor an apostolic administration, having no bishop whatsoever
- Ed.].
Cardinal Castrillon went to see the pope and got the apostolic administration
for the Priestly Union. However, the arrangement is now restricted to only the
diocese of Campos, and is no longer for all of Brazil as was first promised.
What about the bishop that was promised? On paper it’s
still promised. The letter of the pope says, "You will have a successor."
But the agreement only speaks of an auxiliary, somebody to help Bishop
Rangel now while he’s sick, without any guarantees for the future!
During his telephone conversation with Cardinal Castrillon on December 26th, Fr.
Simoulin asked about this new bishop. The Cardinal replied, "Well, they will
have to follow the normal law of the Church. They will have to ask the
Congregation for bishops." This Congregation, by the way, is the one under
which Campos has been placed. It is headed by Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, the
one of whom I spoke earlier, who in 1986 said that the Latin Mass is only
temporarily granted, that the general law of the Church is the New Mass, and we
will have to go back to it. Campos is under this head!
In any case, the normal law of
the Church for the nomination of a bishop is to choose from among the priests of
the entire country, not just the diocese. The pope is free to choose anyone. So
when the cardinal says that the choice of a bishop for the Priestly Union will be bound
by the normal law, it means that Rome will not necessarily choose anyone from
the apostolic administration of St. John Baptist Mary Vianney! Msgr. Perl has
already said it very clearly: "The bishop will not be Fr. Rifan; it will be a
bi-ritual bishop," that is, a bishop who celebrates both old
and new Masses. "This bishop," said Msgr. Perl, "will little by
little bring the priests of the apostolic administration to the New Mass, and so
also the faithful. This administration will have only a temporary existence and
the whole will be re-integrated into the diocese." That’s what Msgr. Perl
says.
Bishop Rangel has been given the titular diocese of Zarna,
in North Africa, as part of his title. Zarna is the old Carthage - Carthago - the famous enemy city of old Rome. In fact, the old Romans had a saying: "Carthago
delenda est - Carthage has to be destroyed." You can be sure this choice of
title for Bishop Rangel was not by coincidence. Rome likes to make this kind of
play on words.
Fr. Georges Cottier, the pope’s personal theologian,
commented that the important step here was the acceptance of the Council. Now
that this was done,
Little by little we must expect other steps: for
example, that they also participate in concelebrations in the reformed rite
[the New Mass - Ed.]. However, we must not be in a hurry. What is important is
that in their hearts there no longer be rejection. Communion found again in the
Church has an internal dynamism of its own that will mature.
Rome expects the entire administration to go over to the New Mass.
What does the SSPX say about the Campos-Vatican
agreement?
There are two reproaches we make against Campos.
The first is that they did not
request any preliminaries from Rome as the Society did. That first step was
necessary. Before you build the span of a bridge you must build solid footings
on the banks to support it. Campos dismissed this step because they were in a
hurry to have the thing. Now it has its beautiful car, and the nails are on the
road.
The second reproach is the affair of the second Assisi
Prayer Meeting [January 24, 2002]. This affair of Assisi is such a scandal that it
requires anybody who cares about the salvation of souls to stand up and say,
"No way." Bishop Rangel did not stand up. The priests of St. John Baptist
Mary Vianney did not stand up; they did not make any statement about Assisi.
Do you know what happened there? The different groups were
asked, "What kind of room do you want?" So, for example, the Zoroastrians
said, "We need a window because we are going to make a fire." So they got
their room with a window. The Moslems wanted a room facing Mecca. They got it.
The Jews said, "We want a room that has never been blessed." This is a
direct denial of Christ because anything which is blessed is always blessed in
the name of Christ. To say, "We want a room that has never been blessed,"
means, "We want something which has nothing to do with Christ!" What did
Rome do? I don’t know, but they got their room.
|
|
What kind of Rome do we have when
it can sign an agreement with Campos and in the same week can do something like Assisi II? They
definitely will not say "We recognize Tradition" in any universal sense.
But Campos is contented because Rome has recognized Tradition in Campos. But has
it, really? If Rome truly recognized Tradition anywhere it wouldn’t be
able to have an Assisi II, the very contrary of Tradition. It is
impossible to see in the recognition of Campos a recognition of Tradition.
On the contrary, Assisi II was extended to include
Tradition! Rome is saying: "We have a place for the Zoroastrians, for Jews,
for Moslems, for animists, Buddhists, Hindus, ...and we have a place for you!"
That’s it. Rome has a place in the zoo for Tradition.
But that’s not the position of the Society of
St. Pius
X. Our position is that there is only one truth, the eternal truth. This truth
is exclusive. Truth will not allow its contradiction to be made equal to it. In
mathematics, it’s clear. Any student who would say, "Two plus two equals
five," would fail, but ecumenism says, "It is whatever figure you like."
We say, "No, it is four, period." Only one number is the true one. We say
all the other religions are wrong, only one is true. This truth is exclusive. It
is the only one by which we can be saved. All the others are just cheating the
people. They cannot lead to God. And, I may say, just looking at Assisi II helps
us to see the enormous problem in the Church today. The Society is not the
problem; the problem is in Rome.
Which is the
real Rome?
Rome is not to be considered
more traditional just because they made this move towards us. Events of last
year prove otherwise.
An
undermining of sacramental theology
On July 20, 2001, the Pontifical
Council for Promoting Christian Unity under Cardinal Kasper issued a notice
regarding the intercommunion between the Chaldeans - an Eastern rite of the Catholic Church
- and the Assyrians, who have the same rite but are not Catholics. The Assyrians
are the modern-day Nestorians, heretics claiming Christ is two persons
[in opposition to Catholic teaching which is that Christ has two natures
in His one person - Ed.]. So you have 400,000 Catholic Chaldeans and
300,000 non-Catholic Assyrians. The Assyrians are spread across the whole world;
their center is Iraq. They have very few priests left. By previous agreement
[1994], Chaldeans and Assyrians can intercommunicate at each other’s Masses. It
is questionable, but the point I want to emphasize is on the side of the
non-Catholic Assyrians.
They have a Mass [called the
"Divine Liturgy" in the Eastern Rites - Ed.] , but it has no words of consecration, no
words of the institution. This Mass is called the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.
Cardinal Kasper announced that after a long study of history and theology,
Cardinal Ratzinger has come to the conclusion that this Mass - without words of
consecration - is valid. It’s absolutely unbelievable. Rome says, "The words
of Consecration are spread around the whole Mass. You find the words here and
there. So you have a Consecration." The Society, however, claims it’s a
demolition of the whole theology of the Catholic sacraments (especially as
regards the form of the sacrament). Imagine if a priest here at St.
Vincent’s eliminated the Consecration. For all of you it would be clear that
there was no Mass. Now Rome tells us it is a Mass!
Rome bases itself on the excuse that if you examine the
texts of the Assyrian rite, you won’t find words of Consecration. But, it says,
you won’t find words of Consecration in many of the early texts of approved
Catholic rites either. However, Rome’s logic is faulty. The Catholic Church’s
perennial explanation of this is as easy as it is true: Manuscripts from the
first century for the Latin rite in France and Spain, for the Mozarabic Eastern
Rite in union with Rome, etc., all are missing words of Consecration
because the words were considered so holy that they shouldn’t be written so they
might not be polluted or profaned by contact with pagans. It is a law called
the law of the arcane [the law of keeping these words secret - Ed.].
But the priests knew them and said them. It’s not because they weren’t
written that they weren’t said! That is the big error that they introduce now.
In 1954, a top progressivist liturgist (who wrote one of the four Eucharistic
Prayers of the New Mass), the French priest Fr. Louis Bouyer, used the
Anaphora of Addai and Mari to claim that though words of Consecration were
missing, enough meaning was intact throughout the Mass to make the Consecration
in the Assyrian Rite valid.[4] Today, Rome is agreeing that the
Consecration is valid without the words of Consecration! That’s absolutely
unbelievable! But it fits with Rome’s Modernism.
If you look at the
traditional altar missal of the priest, you will see the words of
Consecration are clearly made separate from all the rest. The words of
the institution - Qui pridie quam pateretur - appear as
the rest of the Canon, but at the end of the Qui pridie, you have a
period. You don’t have a colon; this would imply the words of Consecration
which follow are simply running narrative.
Often in hand-missals [i.e.,
missals published for the faithful - Ed.] you have a comma or a colon, but not
in the traditional altar missal. You have a period there because it’s not
merely a story; it’s not a narration; it’s not just about what Our Lord said at the Last Supper. It’s an action.
These are the words of Christ pronounced by the priest in the person of
Christ. Hoc est enim Corpus meum - This is my Body. In the altar
missal of the New Mass the typography is the same for the Qui pridie quam
pateretur, that is, from the beginning of the institution, all the way
through the words of Consecration, making you believe that the form of
the sacrament is not strictly the words of Consecration but everything else
around them. And now Rome is using the example of the Anaphora of Addai and
Mari to say that the form is the whole Mass! The evolution is very
clear.
The strategy of the modernists to
destroy theology has always been to initially cause confusion by eliminating
precision. Look at Cardinal Ratzinger’s new concept of "Church," for instance. He recently said in
a conference in Ancona, Italy, what amounts to:
The word for the ‘Church’ was,
before, the ‘Mystical Body of Christ.’ But we see that this means either you are
a member or you are not a member, and that does not fit with reality. That is
why theologians have made studies of Holy Scripture to find a word or concept
that would better fit with the reality, and they have found ‘People of God.’
You see how clear precision is removed? Before, you were either a
member or not a member of the Catholic Church. But the modernists want a gray
zone, and so they invent "People of God" so no one knows who’s in, who’s
out!
This is the strategy now seriously touching the
consecration and all of sacramental theology. The result will be its demolition
by the modernists. They say, "Ah, finally it’s the end of this medieval
theology of the magic words."
Canonizing a
condemned priest?
In July [2001], the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a scandalous finding about Fr. Antonius de Rosmini-Serbati
(1797-1855), the Italian priest whose 40 propositions were condemned
posthumously [DZ §§1891-1930a] by the Holy Office in 1887. Despite
this, Pope Paul VI began to work for the beatification of Rosmini and
established a commission to study this problem, because you cannot canonize
somebody who has been condemned by the Church. That commission returned its
finding: "No, you can’t beatify him." Pope John Paul II called
a new commission to study the same problem, and it returned the identical
finding. So what did the pope do? - He says, "Go ahead." The problem remains that
Rosmini, however, is condemned.
Then Cardinal Ratzinger comes to help:
Well, you know,
when he was condemned, that was fine. But now, it’s no longer like that. At the
time when he was condemned, the Vatican used Thomistic glasses to make its
judgments. Now it’s no longer Thomism. If you use Thomistic glasses, he’s
condemned. If you use the glasses of Rosmini, then there is no value in the
condemnation. In any case, the condemnation can be contested.
What is Cardinal Ratzinger saying?! He is putting truth on
a slippery slope. And once again, the modernists have understood what’s happened
very well. They say it’s the first time the Vatican has made use of the "historico-critical
method" regarding a condemnation of the Church. This "historico-critical
method" is a well-known tactic of the modernists who claim that truth evolves,
that dogmatic truths of yesterday are different from today’s, that what was
considered false yesterday might be considered true today. This case of Rosmini
is going to foment enormous confusion.
An
undermining of the Holy Scriptures
Another striking development
is the decision of the Biblical Commission this past autumn [2001] which is
under the control of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It published a
book in French dealing with the Jewish vision of the Christian Bible. It deals
with the modern-day Jewish interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Commission
concluded: "The Jewish interpretation has developed in parallel to the
Christian interpretation and both are valid. It’s wrong to say that prophecies
speak of the coming of Christ, so it’s wrong to say the Jews are without excuse
when they don’t see Christ in the Holy Scriptures." But Our Lord Himself
said, "Read the Scriptures. They speak of Me." He said it! The people of
the Commission contest the words of Our Lord. Isn’t that something? How do the
modernist exegetes interpret away Our Lord’s words, "Woe to you, Pharisees"? They say, "The evangelist is reflecting the discriminatory attitude of
the Christian community, which had problems with the Jews!" So, do these
words come from Jesus Himself, or not? Are these words truth or not? This new
book concludes they are not. This is directly against Catholic dogma teaching us
that the Holy Scriptures tell the truth, are authentic, written by inspired
writers and not by people of the second or third century. All of Scripture is
discredited now. With little notice, atomic bombs against the Church have been
quietly dropped here for years.
The road
ahead
On quite another level, something
is moving within the Church. A number of bishops and priests are turning towards
Tradition, who would like to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Until now, obviously, individual priests
have been more courageous than the bishops. But bishops come to us and speak
with us. Whether they will one day have the courage to stand up and to join
clearly in this enormous fight against enemies of the Church who try to destroy
it, God knows. We will see.
How long will this fight last? I
don’t know. The only thing I know is that the Catholic Church is our Church, and
that those who stick with Our Lord, who is the true Captain of the fleet, will
win. So we are sure that we will win as long as we stay faithful, as long as we
stick to all our duties, even if we are beaten, even if we receive bad blows.
The important thing is to stay faithful.
It has happened that the Society
has in its hands the Mass and the Priesthood, the greatest and most precious
treasures of the Church. We can’t help it; it’s like that. Now, I say these are
the Society’s because we are Catholic, but, of course, they belong to the
Catholic Church. But the Society is like a man to whom something very precious
has been entrusted. Now what is the duty of such a man? It’s very simple: He has
to conserve this good until the real owner takes it again. He does not have any
right to dispose of it nor to cut a part of it. No, he must keep it faithfully;
that’s all. That’s the duty of the Society of St. Pius X. It has to safeguard
these goods until the time Rome will again make use of them, and have the whole
Church share it and enjoy it. That’s all that we must do.
In all our discussions with Rome, it was never a matter of
negotiating, of trading anything with Rome. From the start I said to Rome,
"You have to take us as we are." I told Cardinal Castrillon the first
meeting, "We will never say the New Mass! It is out of discussion. We will
not discuss the matter." At first glance, he did not give me the impression
that he wanted to argue about that. Well, he could not because I would
not.
This crisis is such a radical fight between the devil and
his instruments and the Good Lord and His Church, that it is really, really
stupid to think that we could resolve such a crisis with merely human means,
with a human agreement. No. It goes too far. The means by which the fight is to
be conducted are essentially super-natural. They are prayer, the recourse
to Our Lord Himself, and sacrifice. Certainly the true consecration of Russia to
the Immaculate Heart of Mary, when it is accomplished as Our Lady asked, will
play an important part. It is with these means that the crisis will be overcome.
The matter is more than the label "excommunicated" being
retracted. It does not change anything in the crisis of the Church. The state of
the Church is horrible. For example, there is obedience. People in Rome tell us
disobedience is out of control within the Church. A few years ago, Cardinal Ratzinger was asked, "How much power do you have?" to which he answered,
"Very little." In this last book he said, "The concept of authority
has disappeared." He means nothing remains. They have lost control in Rome.
They are no longer obeyed; that
is the terrible situation in which they are. Of course, when Rome issues
statements contradicting itself, the Catholic Church is further crushed. The
Romans will not regain any power or anything good with their behavior. Humanly
speaking, it’s hopeless. We know, however, not to look at the Church with only
human eyes. The Church is supernatural. It is the Church of God, of Our Lord.
The gates of hell will not prevail against it, but, humanly speaking, we are
dying.
Two years ago, I reviewed a
directory of religious for Ireland: 10,000 religious brothers; in the brothers’
novitiates, four. That means it’s the end. Sisters? 32,000; in the novitiate,
150. Will 150 replace 30,000? No way. It’s the end. Here in the US, figures say
active priests will be reduced by 40%. By 2005 in France, the number of priests
will drop from 17,000 to 8,000. That’s more than half the number within three
years. We are heading into the desert. This is a disaster without any name.
So for us, it is very, very simple: We just continue. We
pray for the day when Rome will not only say that the fruits of the Society are
good, but will also say, "It’s the way we have to go." In the meantime,
the Society will do its work; it will not be inactive. It will help priests to
understand the problems within the Church. I have assigned several of our
priests to conduct some theological studies and prepare some publications. You
may call them missiles, if you want. We hope Rome will finally say, "It’s
true, there is a problem." I tell you, people inside Rome ask the Society
for this, people who say to us, "Please, don’t give in. Continue. Insist on your prerequisites!"
There are at the same time so
many blessings, so many consolations from the good Lord, so many signs of His
grace in our work. Everyday, we walk within miracles, even, I think, miracles
from the Archbishop [Lefebvre - Ed] - he is at work - even miracles that show to people where they
have to go. Let me tell you a story about a lady from Paris which was told to me
by the lady herself, so, once again, it is not hearsay.
She was going to the New Mass and was not at ease there.
Something was wrong there, but she didn’t know exactly what. She asked the
priest, "What’s going on?" She got no reasonable answer, so she continued
going, but was very bothered.
One day she was chatting with her aunt. For little
apparent reason, the aunt made an off-hand comment that the Blessed Virgin Mary
spoke to little children. A few weeks later, this popped into the head of the
lady and she exclaimed, "I have an eight-year-old daughter. Maybe she
can get an answer!" So she and her daughter drove to the Rue de Bac where
the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Catherine Laboure to give her the
Miraculous Medal. Arriving there, she instructed her daughter: "You ask the
Blessed Virgin Mary where we have to go to Mass." The lady told me there was
so much traffic that it was impossible for her to park and go in with the girl.
She stayed in the car and circled around. After 10-15 minutes, the girl came out
to the car and told her mother, "We have to go to St. Nicholas du
Chardonnet." "St. Nicholas!" said the mother, "That’s the Lefebvrist
church! They are schismatics! ...Why? Ask the Blessed Mother why!" So the
girl went back into the chapel, and after a while came back to the car with this
answer (I don’t invent anything): "Because there is the true Church." "What’s
that?" asked the mother, "What’s the true Church? What is it that you
say, daughter? I don’t understand." So the girl went in again, beginning a
series of question-and-answer sessions with the Blessed Mother which lasted for
the next three weeks. For three weeks, this lady would pose questions for the
girl to ask Our Lady. The girl would return speaking of Quas Primas, of
Mortalium Animos, of Vatican I, Vatican II, and so on. The lady read the
encyclicals and her share of serious books. At the end of three weeks, she
surrendered and ended up at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet.
I know several similar stories
which show very clearly something: the good Lord is not going to abandon anybody
who wants to stick to the truth. God is going to help those who want to serve
Him even if it takes a miracle. We must trust God. We must give Him this trust,
that He is really our Father, and that if we really, really, really want to be
His sons, He will care, whatever happens. Of course, we must be serious in our
will to be Catholic and to behave as though we mean it. If we are serious and
sincere, God is not going to cheat us.
We know we live in different and
difficult times. But God is God, He is Almighty, now as before. He has not
changed. He’s not been diminished in His powers. He could end this crisis in the
Church with one word. If He doesn’t, that’s His affair. He will give all the
necessary help we need to sanctify ourselves here and now. We may have to suffer
martyrdom. I cannot exclude that possibility, my dear brethren. When we see the
seriousness of this fight, we have to envisage this possibility. We have to pray
the good Lord will give us the grace when it will be time for it. In the
meantime, let’s everyday do our duty of state. It’s not complicated. Trust in
God. Don’t invent problems for yourself, just do what you have to do. Stay
Catholic, keep your faith, keep your hope, keep your charity. We have the Ten
Commandments. We know what we have to do. Even if it is hard, we know. And
that’s it, and that’s what we want to do, what we will try to continue to do.
I end with a prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary
and a blessing.
|
