Here you can put to translate into English “Our Little Story in the History of the Church” by the priests of Campos. It was actually translated into Spanish from English. It was praised by sedevacantists as being coherent in reasoning. To these sedevacantists, they claim that Campos preached conherence, they just made the wrong choice because they chose to believe the Conciliar sect was Catholic.
https://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com/p/docuмento-perdido-dos-padres-de-campos.html
https://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com/p/docuмento-perdido-dos-padres-de-campos.html
The Catholic Church here on earth is militant , because it is always in combat against the enemies of God and souls, internal and external, sins and heresies.Having just emerged from the Roman persecutions of the three first siglos, the Church had to fight against the great Trinitarian and Christological herejis that appeared in its sine.
Even at the height of medieval Christianity , a time of great saints, there was no shortage of great heresy, which required intense vigilance on the part of the Church.
As a result of the decadence of the customs of the Renaissance , a moral decadence that reached all levels of the Christian universe, from the simple village to the highest hierarchy, Protestantism arose - the pseudo-reform - which then caused great damage to the Christian pueblo, with errors mainly about the priesthood, the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass. The true reform was founded by the Church with the Council of Trent and the cell of the saints, such as San Ignacio and the Company of Jesus, San Carlos Borromeo and the foundation of the seminaries, San Pío V and the codification of the Liturgy.
At the end of the 18th century, I saw the French Revolution with the proclamation of the rights of men independent of the rights of God, with the secularism of the States and modern liberations, with strong persecution of the Church.
As a result, in the 19th century, liberalism predominated , condemned by the Magisterium of the Church.
At the beginning of the 20th century, modernism in the Church, collector of all herejis, was condemned by San Pio .
Two world wars will serve for greater secularization and dechristianization of society.
And many mistakes, condemned by the Church, began to reintroduce themselves into the Catholic ranks. The Holy Father Pius XII renewed the condemnation of these errors, in several encyclicals, especially the "Humani Generis" and, in the liturgical field, the " Mediator Dei" (1947).
In 1948, I was appointed Bishop of Campos, Dom Antonio de Castro Mayer , professor, doctor in Theology, graduated from the Gregorian University of Rome, very faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. Dom Antonio, through his sermons, articles and above all his brilliant Pastoral Letters, continually warned his priests and diocesans against current errors, condemned by the Church, which had infiltrated everywhere. And in this spirit of loyalty to the Church Dom Antonio formed his priests.
Having participated in the Second Vatican Council , from 1962 to 1965, Dom Antonio sought to give the priests and faithful the legitimate interpretation of the "aggiornamento" desired by Pope Juan XXIII, warning against those who, taking advantage of the Council, sought to revive it in it. Church and modernism and its set of herejis, characterizing what was denounced by Pope Pablo VI as the "self-demolition of the Church".
After the Council, a great crisis , without precedents, was installed in the Church, with large-scale apostasies of priests and nuns, desacralization of the liturgy, laicization of the clergy, diminution of vocations, worldization of seminaries, irenist ecuмenism, religious syncretism, etc. As Pope Juan Pablo II said: "... ideas were scattered among many ideas contrary to the truth revealed and always taught; true herejías were propagated in the dogmatic and moral fields... also the Liturgy was violated" (Discurso en el Congress of Missions, 6/2/1981).
In the midst of the general crisis, Dom Antonio sought to preserve his Diocese in true Catholic doctrine, training priests and guiding the faithful.
After the Council some changes were introduced into the Liturgy of the Mass , which Dom Antonio docilely accepted and adopted in the Diocese. But there are some symptoms that liturgical reform is not progressing well, causing dissatisfaction. El Cardenal Antonelli, member of the Pontifical Commission for Liturgical Reform, is confident that the reform is being carried out by "persons... advanced in the paths of the novelties..., with no love and no veneration for what was transmitted to us " (Il Card. Ferdinando Antonelli and gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica dal 1948 al 1970 - Studia Anselmiana - Rome).
In 1969, I saw the Novus Ordo Missae del Papa Pablo VI , which did not fail to cause perplexity among many Catholics, including important personalities, such as some cardinals of the Roman Curia.
With similar perplexities, Dom Antonio wrote to Pope Pablo VI, exposing his difficulty of conscience in accepting the new Mass. This is an excerpt from his letter: "Having carefully examined the 'Novus Ordo Missae',...after praying a lot and reflecting, I judge that I must, as a priest and as an obispo, present to Your Holiness, my anguish of conscience, and formulate, with the piety and filial confidence that I owe to the Vicario of Jesus Christ, a supplication... I fulfill, therefore, an imperious duty of conscience, pleading, humbly and respectfully, to Your Holiness, be worthy... to authorize us to continue in the use of the 'Ordo Missae' of San Pio V, whose effectiveness in the expansion of the Holy Church and in the fervor of priests and faithful, is remembered, with so much anointing, by Vuestra Santidad" (Letter of September 12, 1969) .
In this way, even though Dom Antonio did not shelter the nadie - and hubo priests who adopted the new mass - he was preserved, officially in the Diócesis de Campos, in the great majority of the parishes, the traditional Mass, called San Pío V, and all the traditional orientation of the apostolate.
In 1981, Dom Antonio was replaced at the episcopal see of Campos. The bishops who succeeded him were not of the same orientation. They had been removed from the parishes, followed by thousands of faithful who wanted the Mass and the traditional orientation of the Church, the "priests of Campos" came in the need to attend to the faithful who sought them, and continued, in new Churches and chapels, administering the sacraments. Thus, the Unión Sacerdotal San Juan María Vianney was created. And, without anyone intending to create any schism in the Church, they requested the Obishops of the Fraternidad San Pio X to consecrate one of their priests, Dom Licínio Rangel, to serve the faithful of the traditional line. Obispo without jurisdiction, alone with the power of Ordinance, without the intention of creating a parallel diocese (1991). It is clear that this emergency situation could not last indefinitely. Everyone longed for everything to return to normal.
In the Jubilee of the year 2000, the "fathers of Campos" participated in the pilgrimage of the Holy Year in Rome, together with the Fraternidad San Pio X.
From then on, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, with the approval and blessing of the Holy Father and Pope Juan Pablo II, began conversations with a view to a legal regularization of the situation of those called priests and faithful of the Tradition.
When the priests of the Unión Sacerdotal San Juan María Vianney wrote a letter to the Holy Father asking that they be "accepted and recognized as Catholics", the Pope responded by kindly accepting them, erecting, on the 18th of January 2002, the Personal Apostolic Administration San Juan María Vianney, with his own Obispo and priests , with personal jurisdiction over the faithful, with the right to have the Traditional Mass as his own rite (thus achieving the official fulfillment of the request of Dom Antonio de Castro Mayer), suspending all censures and penalties in which they could eventually be incurred, regularizing in this way their legal situation within the Catholic Church, canonically recognizing their belonging to it and respecting its ecclesial reality and its peculiar characteristics.
1) Do you have an agreement with the Santa Sede?
If we consider the legal aspect, as far as what was granted to us, we can decide that there is a legal concession on the part of the Holy See.
But, considering the negotiations and conversations, in the center itself an agreement, there is an understanding.
Although the word "acuerdo" has been used in previous negotiations with the Santa Sede, we consider it less appropriate in the present circuмstances. Firstly, because there is no agreement with a superior, much less with the Pope: it is necessary to comply with and obey the rules of the Church. Second, because "agreement" implies concessions and gains, which is really not the hub.
The word that best expresses what hubo is "understanding".
In truth, we were known for our negative and caricatured part: the "Campos priests", "traditionalists", were those who absolutely did not accept the Pope and did not recognize the Second Vatican Council in the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae, the Mass of Pablo VI. Therefore, it was necessary to expose our true position, which, once "understood" as it is, allowed our approval and recognition as Catholics, in perfect communication with the Holy Church. Hubo, puts, an "understanding" and, with it, a legal regularization.
2) But what was it that led them to seek this union with the Santa Sede?
That's how Monsignor responded. Licinio Rangel in the international magazine "30 Days": "It was our love for Rome and the Pope, our Catholic sense, the fruit of the formation we received from Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer, who led us to always desire union with Jerarquía of the Holy Church. We have always been aware that our position of resistance to Tradition, and consequent situation of exception, must be circuмstantial, temporal and restricted to precise themes, originating from acute points of the crisis, resistance justified by the state of need for las souls, without anyone intending to schism. This is what, after the death of Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, a few years ago when I received the episcopate, emergency and substitute for the faithful of the traditional line, he declared that I hoped that the circuмstances would change and then I would hand over my episcopate to the Pope so that he could dispose of it as he wished. Therefore, nothing of rupture with the Church. So we always yearn for regularization and reconnaissance. The opportunity arose after our pilgrimage to Rome for the Jubilee of the year 2000, when the Holy Father appointed Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos to, in his name, begin conversations with the aim of our regularization. The conversations took place throughout 2001 and, thanks to God, reached a good conclusion, with our full canonical recognition in the sense of the Holy Church."
3) Why was there a need for reconnaissance?
Because the Catholic must be united with the Jerarchy of the Church. Furthermore, it is a dogma of Catholic Faith: "We declare, decimos and define that it is totally necessary for the salvation that all men are united to the Roman Pontiff" (Bonifacio VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Dz-Sh 875).
The Magisterium of the Church (Leon XIII - encyclical Satis Cognitum) teaches us that the unity of government regime is as necessary as the unity of Faith.
Therefore, being separated from the Jerarquía, even materially speaking, and even due to a question of necessity, is something abnormal, temporal, that needs to end.
That was Mons's thoughts. Marcel Lefebvre, when, in conversations held with the Holy See in 1988, he wrote to Cardenal Ratzinger:
"Having been able to follow the work of the Commission in charge of preparing an acceptable solution for the problem that concerns us, it seems that, with the grace of God, we are headed towards an agreement, from which we are very happy" (letter of 15/4/ 1988 - cf. Fideliter - the complete dossier).
Therefore, feeling satisfied with the separation, remaining content and calm with the abnormality, not remaining worried about the problem, not wanting in any way to reach an understanding, refusing a priori every attempt at agreement, is not a good spirit or a feeling Catholic, whose example Mons. Marcel Lefebvre.
4) But was there any danger of schism in this state of separation?
Yes, there really was and there was. It was what the priests of the Unión Sacerdotal de Campos, with Mons. Licínio, after much reflection, on June 5, 2001, he officially wrote to Mons. Bernard Fellay, presenting 28 serious reasons about the need for reconnaissance, warning him of the danger of continuing in this abnormal state of separation: "Considering... that the current situation of separation of Catholics from the Tradition in relation to the Jerarchy, caused by The crisis of the Church, in addition to being abnormal, must be occasional and temporal, therefore demanding from us a desire for regularization and union, and not being happy with the situation; that the negative effects of this abnormal separation can be felt in traditionalist media, provoking a widespread and systematic spirit of criticism, a spirit of independence, satisfaction with the abnormality of the situation and a feeling of personal detention of the exclusivity of the truth; the danger of this separation, with the passing of time , although it does not mean joining any theoretical schism, it can lead to a spirit of schism, given the absence of regime unity...". (Unfortunately, this letter did not obtain a response).
The examples we know of this spirit in traditionalist media have led us to reflect on the danger of this habitual and systematic separation: radicals end up becoming sedevacantists, schismatics or apostates.
Saint Thomas Aquinas says: "They are called schismatics, those who refuse to join the Supreme Pontiff and those who refuse to live in communion with the members of the Church, the subjects" (2a-2ae, q. 39, art. 1).
The famous Spanish theologian Francisco Suárez teaches that there are several ways of acting schismatically: "without denying that the Pope is the head of the Church, which would be herejía, he acts as if he is not the same: this is the most frequent way.. ." (De Charitate, disp. 12, sect. I, n.2, t. XII, p. 733, in Opera Omnia).
Y, as written by Fr. Ugo Carandino, ex-prior of Rimini, of the Fraternidad San Pío (superior of the District of Italy, of the Fraternidad San Pio a "petite eglise", a small Church".
5) But we never had the intention of being schismatics.
We are warning against the schismatic spirit.
Furthermore, the Diccionario de Teología Católica (entry shisme col. 1303) gives three types of schism: the direct one, when the will is directed to the formal refusal of the unit; the indirect, when the volunteer is directed, at the rejection of the communication, means something that involves the rupture of communication; and finally, the schism against the will is less imaginary than it is thought of, when someone does not want to separate from the unit but does things like that in such a way and that he is obstinate in doing them in such a way that the rupture of the unit becomes follows fatally; A typical case is Döllinger, who always protested his willingness to remain in the unit, and never wanted to accept the label of "Catholic old man", and in the meantime he was schismatic, like his small church of "Catholic old men".
6) But where was the irregularity of the situation really?
The main irregularity was in the Consecration of an Obispo, and its conservation, against the will of the Pope. Therefore, at the first possible opportunity, it was necessary to get out of this irregular situation, as there was a serious danger of moving from a state of mere separation to a real schism.
As Pope Pius XII says, in the Encyclical "Ad Apostolorum Principis": "No one has the authority that does not belong to the Supreme Pastor... no one personifies the assembly of priests or laypeople, can assume the right to name Obishops. Nadie can check legitimately the Episcopal Consecration without the certainty of the pontifical mandate. A Consecration as conferred against the divine and human right and which is a very serious attack on the same unit of the Church is punished with an excommunication..."
Furthermore, as time passes, cases begin to appear in which the "power of the keys" is necessary, in which an Obispo without jurisdiction does not have, for example, the declaration of nullity of marriages, the secularization of deacons, the dispensation of public votes, etc. Arrogating such powers would constitute a replacement of the Jerarchy, forming a parallel Church, which would actually be a schism.
7) Pero ustedes no temen alfutura?
So, Monsignor. Licínio and the Campos priests wrote to Mons. Fellay in the letter cited from June 21, 2001, as one of the 28 reasons to accept the proposal of the Holy See: "that we cannot refuse a determination from Rome, in the case of a legal legalization, inserting us into the unit hierarchy, only for fear of the future or for strategy..."
8) But isn't it enough that we are united to the Church for faith and for sana doctrina?
No, because the Catholic Church is not an invisible spiritual society, a gathering of faithful who have the true Faith. This would be a Protestant concept of the Church, condemned by the Magisterium of the Church (cf. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, de Ecclesia Christi , n. 332). Catholic Theology teaches that the Church is visible in a hierarchical society, with unity of Faith and Government.
"The visibility of the Church consists of its external organization, manifested to all eyes; an organization to which all the faithful must belong through the visible bond of its own faith, externally professed, through the bond of its own shared obedience to an authority visible and by the bond of participation in the same sacraments instituted by Christ is the visible element of the Church" (Diccionario de Teología Católica - DTC, v. Église. Col 2144).
This is what Pope Pius XII teaches: "Those who believe they can unite with Christ the Head of the Church, without faithfully adhering faithfully to their Vicario on earth, are in a dangerous error. , obscuring and deforming the Mystic Body of the Redeemer in such a way, that it cannot be seen or found by those who demand the gate of eternal salvation" (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 36).
The First Vatican Council defined that the Pope is the "perpetual principle and visible foundation of the unity of the Church" (Denz-Scho 3051), anathematizing the saying that San Pedro would not have perpetual successors in primacy over the entire Church (Denz - Sho 3058). Always repeating this doctrine, Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer wrote: "The Pope is the leader of the Church and, as such, the sign and cause of the visible unity of the supernatural society, internally directed and vivified by the Holy Spirit" (Instrucción Pastoral sobre la Church, 2/3/1965, chapter II).
9) But we don't always say that we are united with the Pope?
Yes; Therefore, due to a logical question, it was necessary to put into practice what was admitted in theory. It was necessary to adopt in our actions what we defended in principle. However, we began to see a practical sedevacantism, a practical schism, that is, even if it is said that the Pope is accepted, his authority is recognized, etc., in practice it was different. It was necessary to change that. It is necessary to have coherence.
As we quote above, the famous Spanish theologian Francisco Suárez teaches that there are several ways of schismatic behavior: "without denying that the Pope is the head of the Church, which would be herejía, if he acts as if he is not that fuese: he is the more frequently..." (De Charitate, disp. 12, sect. I, n.2, t. XII, p. 733, in Opera Omnia).
And this question of logic has worried some priests of the Fraternidad San Pío 7/2001): "This is the heart of the problem: the Fraternity actually finds itself in a street without leaving, because it continues to want to recognize Juan Pablo II as the legitimate authority of the Church. Now, if Juan Pablo II really is the true authority, then they are presented solely from the possible positions: - or seeking an agreement with this "authority"... (the very terminology of seeking "an agreement with the Pope" reveals an absurdity: the Catholic must submit to the Vicario of Christ in "making agreement "); - the then completely separated from this "authority" constituting a truly schismatic "small Church", where one who is recognized as Pope is habitually disobeyed, to obey only the superiors of the Fraternity, to whom one is attributed kind of "infallibility" that is denied to the setback of the intended (sic) Pope. This second solution is the one that has been consolidated in recent years (and which emerges in this phase of rupture of negotiations)...". Due to a logical question, Fr. Ugo Carandino abandoned Fraternity and adopted sedevacantism.
Fr. Basilio Méramo, current prior of the Priorate of Colombia, of the Fraternidad San Pío faithful to the Church, the Papacy and Rome, and to preserve the Catholic Faith, when in reality the legitimate Pope is the one who should confirm his brothers in the Faith and why does he precisely have the prerogative of infallibility as Roman Pontiff? absurd, stupid and illogical in seeing the great contradiction that is happening, over every day to the height at which the events arrived. Is this the Pope who by his office must confirm us in the Faith? Luego, if it is seen correctly, the only explanation that theologically fits... is that of an illegitimate Pope, that of an Antipope..." (Letter of May 2 2002).
It is clearly seen that habitual and constant disobedience, practical sedevacantism, ends up, by logic, leading to theoretical sedevacantism, which, in turn, ends up leading to schism. This is the realization of San Agustín's phrase: "Whoever lives contrary to what he thinks, he will end up thinking the way he lives".
And everyone ended up being led to the conclusion that the Catholic Church disappeared and the gates of hell prevailed against it, which is a heresy. Therefore, according to them, the Church has been without Pope for 30 or 40 years, all current cardinals and Bishops are false. Who will elect the new Pope? Then the Church had truly disappeared.
Therefore, we repeat once more with Mons. Marcel Lefebvre: "Be careful, be careful, be careful!... Let's not get ourselves into a hellish circle from which we don't know how to get out. In this attitude there is a real danger of schism..."
10) Is the Pope so necessary for the Church?
We explain at the top of the answer. 8.
Mons. Marcel Lefebvre states that there are "three great realities of the Catholic Church, three people through which God manifests itself: Jesus Eucarist, Mary and the Pope". (Ecône, May 1965). Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer, in the famous pastoral letter on problems of the modern apostolate, in directives to priests, wrote: "No opportunity to inculcate true devotion to the Holy Father and the Pope".
Warning about the serious doctrinal and pastoral situation in which the Fraternidad San Pio regarding the Papacy, a new doctrine that separates itself from the Catholic doctrine and that, inevitably, prepares a mentality of a "small Church"... Following this teaching, the faithful can habitually disobey this "Pope" (sic), who It is no longer the next rule of the Faith, but a secondary element of the Church: even though the sane doctrine teaches that a Catholic cannot do without the teaching and government of the Pope. In this new doctrine we find the old error Gallican, ya condemned by the Church, which determines, especially in the new generations, a seriously deformed concept of the Church and the Papacy. instead of fully embracing the Catholic Faith... I believe that the events linked to the agreements highlighted the street without exiting where the Fraternity is found. Indeed, the minority of the clergy of the Fraternity who openly expressed in a negative way the possibility of reconciliation with Juan Pablo II, which came from a biasedly Gallican position. Not by chance, one of the most active defenders of the 'anti-accord' line, was Mons. Tissier de Mallerais, who occupies himself as the first persona of the ecclesiastical courts created by the Fraternity in replacement of the sentences of the Holy Roman Rota, one of the most evident aspects of the practice of the 'small Church', which was consolidated in the interior of the Fraternity (these courts have issued sentences for the annulment of marriages, the reduction of deacons to the lay state, the dissolution of definitive religious vows). The example of the Eastern Disident Churches teaches that it is not enough to preserve the Mass, the Sacraments and the Catechism, but that it is indispensable to be faithful to the institution of the Papacy and therefore, in the current situation of the Church, to clarify the fundamental question of the authority to legitimately exercise the priestly ministry". Father Carandino abandoned the Fraternity, as he did not agree with its lack of logic, defending a theoretical position and practicing another, but, unfortunately, fell to the other extreme, towards sedevacantism, which I found more logical than the practice that the Fraternity adopts. All this confirms what we explained in paragraph 9.
(Note: We quote Father Ugo Carandino, not for agreeing with his sedevacantist position, but for being someone who knows the Fraternity well and inside, as he was Prior of a Fraternity Priory for 11 years, until 2001 P. Carandino knows the Fraternity better than Fr. Cottier and others cited know the case of Campos).
11) "Campos fell... in the clutches of neo-modernist Rome... hundió in the waters of apostasy" (Mons. Richard Williamson, Obispo de la Fraternidad San Pío X, in public letter to friends and loved ones ).
What does this statement mean? Why were the priests of Campos cayeron, because, even though they preserved the Holy Mass and the entire Tridentine Liturgy, the traditional orientation, the Seminary and the traditional parishes according to the Tradition of the Church, they were approved and recognized by Rome? Is being united with the Jerarchy of the Catholic Church falling into apostasy? Therefore, this phrase means that the entire Church has fallen into apostasy. That the gates of hell prevailed against the Church. That Our Señor Jesucristo failed in his promise. (see answer to n.19). It's a sentence with a strong heretical and schismatic flavor.
But then the reverse of the dilemma imposes itself: If Campos is not cayó, then they are the accusers who cayó. He is in serious danger of falling. "Who is on his feet, see that he is not falling" (San Pablo, Epistle).
Let us reflect: Saint Thomas Aquinas says: "They are called schismatics, those who refuse to join the Supreme Pontiff and those who refuse to live in communion with the members of the Church, as subjects" (2a-2ae, q. 39, art. 1). Now, if the opponents refuse to communicate with us, even though they preserve the traditional Mass and all the orientation of the Catholic Tradition, for the simple reason that they have been recognized by the Holy Father, they are trapped in the second half of that sentence. Saint Thomas.
12) But "Rome still hasn't converted." Shouldn't we wait that long before making any agreement?
Being recognized as Catholic and being united with the Catholic Church is a theological necessity, as we explained in previous answers. For this Mons. Marcel Lefebvre sought understanding with the Holy See, in 1988, two years after the "Asís meeting", one year after the "Kyoto meeting" and one year after the response to his "dubia". No "conversion" of the authorities had occurred on that occasion, as told to the objectors. Y, despite eso, Mons. Lefebvre, worried about the problem, sought an agreement, and was happy with what had happened.
Además, his own Mons. Fellay, says that it will take a long time for Rome to abandon the errors made by the Council, probably decades, but each stage poses its importance and now one of these stages seems to be outlined (Fideliter, n. 140 page 7).
13) But "the Romans continued to be wolves, foxes and tigers" (Mons. Williamson)!
Interestingly, as stated in the Diccionario de Teología Católica (place cited), that the orthodox schismatics, when they separated from the Roman Catholic Church and fell into the schism, decided to want to momentarily separate "the papist wolf from the orthodox flock". And "Romans" was and is the despective expression with which Protestants call Catholics.
El Cardenal Mons. Darío Castrillón Hoyos warned in a letter to Mons. Fellay: "No one hereje and schismatic, throughout history, declared to be mistaken. They always thought that it was the Church that was mistaken."
14) But we have nothing of Protestantism. We fight the protestantization of the Church.
But it is good to remember that the main doctrine of Protestantism is the free exam: direct union with God, dispensing with the living Magisterium of the Church. And the path generally ends up being this: independence from the living Magisterium, appealing to the dead Magisterium, jueces instead of the Magisterium and, ultimately, jueces del Magisterio.
The Church, on the contrary, teaches us: "El Salvador does not trust what is contained in the deposit of Faith to private courts of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium" (Carta del Santo Oficio al Arzobispo de Boston, 8/8/949, Papa Pío XII, Denz-Sho 3866).
15) Do we use the Magisterium written by past popes? Is this expression "living teaching" not modernist, contrary to Tradition?
No. It's a perfectly traditional expression.
As Pope Leon XIII says in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum: "It is evident, according to everything that has just been said, that Jesus Christ instituted in the Church a living, authentic teaching and, in addition to that, perpetual, which He invested of his own authority, revised the spirit of truth, confirmed by miracles and wanted and severely ordered that the doctrinal enseñanzas of this magisterium were received as being their own.
Living and perpetual teaching is what is effectively carried out in each era. This is how the theologians explain: "A living magisterium, that is to say, which is continually exercised in the Church by the communication of revealed doctrine. This magisterium is alive while opposing the magisterium currently exercised in the Church by men who will disappear , but their works will survive. Protestants admit well that the magisterium of Despuéstoles is currently being carried out in the Church, but only because of the influence of their writings; they only admit that they put a magisterium, so to speak, posthumous" (Apologetic Dictionary de la Fe Católica, article Tradición y magisterio, by H. Perennes, col. 1786-1787).
"(Magisterium) alive, quiere decir, which always remains in living masters and is expressed through their mouth, and is not this Magisterium, divine without doubt but dead, which Protestants seek in the Scripture" (The Rule of Faith, volume I, ª Goupil SJ, page 20).
"The Magisterium is usually divided into written and living. The purely written Magisterium is the one that an author who works for his books, even after his death. Such is, for example, the magisterium that today Aristotle works for his works. Magisterium is called alive when it is ejerce by vital and conscious acts of men, utilice or not the teacher of writings" (Sacrae Theologiae Summa, BAC, volume I, page 656, De Ecclesia Christi, by Salaverri SJ).
This is what Pope Pius IX solemnly warned, in the Inter Gravissimas letter, of October 28, 1870: "As all those who bring about herejía and schism, falsely boast of having preserved the ancient Catholic faith, while destroying it own main foundation of Catholic faith and doctrine. was instituted by God as a perpetual guardian of the exposition and infallible explanation of the dogmas transmitted by these sources".
The cited Diccionario de Teología Católica (ibidem) says that the source of the perpetually controversial activity of the orthodox schismatic Church is in a static conception of ecclesiastical teaching, the cult of the status quo in all domains.
16) But this reconnaissance was not for eternal Rome, but for modernist Rome!
We must remember the spirit (ad mentem) of the conviction of the Fraticelli and their erroneous theory of the Churches (Denz-Scho 911) condemned as heretical and insane (Denz-Scho 916).
Beware of confusion, which will not happen: Our conversations were with the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, in the persona of Cardenal Castrillón, and with Pope Juan Pablo II. They accuse us of having dealt with modernist Rome and having obtained its recognition. But how do traditionalists from all over the world deal with Rome? How did the Fraternidad San Pío
17) It turns out that today all the Jerarquía is in the herejía and it is not possible to reach agreement with herejes!
This is what San Roberto Belarmino taught: "If all the Bishops err, the entire Church errs, the pueblo is obliged to follow their Pastors, as Jesus says in St. Luke 10:16: 'Who oye them, to me oye' y San Mateo 23,3: 'Haced todo cuanto os dijeren." (Liber III Cap XIV De Ecclesia Militante).
He also taught us our dearest Obispo Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer: "If the entire Church were to fall, it would be the word of Jesus Christ who had already spoken, because the Divine Salvador trusted the Church of the government and the direction of his Church until the end of the siglos and, more, more assistance so that there is no failure" (Monitor Campista, 1/26/1986).
Y Mons. Antonio further states: "It is heretical subversion, due to distrust of the Jerarchy, to habitually follow someone, in the member of the Jerarchy, as spokesperson and arbitrator of orthodoxy".
18) But the parishes of the Apostolic Administration will not be mixed with the Diocese?
The Monsignor himself. Marcel Lefebvre accepted this type of solution: ''It is possible that one day the Bishops, aware of their position, end up deciding: 'It's fine, this parish is now recognized as having passed'; Even though, perhaps, in a slightly hybrid situation, I would say, in the sense that they said: 'the current parishes continue as they have been until today, but we recognize this personal parish for all the people who want to go there and attend and go to the priests, we also recognize them. This would perhaps be a solution... I would say... a stage, perhaps, I don't know the future... But it is possible. In any case, it is necessary to be in these dispositions and not in a disposition of rupture or in a disposition of opposition for the sake of opposition, of opposition to the Church, for nothing in this world." (Mons. Marcel Lefebvre - Ecône, 3/3 /1977- DICI Conf. No. 7, 11/5/2201 - page 17).
19) But this solution given by Rome of an Apostolic Administration "was conceived in a diabolical way as a kind of reserve of Indians" (P. De Tanoüarn, Fraternidad San Pio Diócesis, as "a reservation of Indians" (Fr. Knitel, superior of the District of Mexico, Fraternidad S. Pio X)!
To these criticisms we have the response of the superior of the Fraternidad San Pío X. About the proposal of the Apostolic Administration, Mons. Fellay commented: "This is an extraordinary proposal, and if Rome wanted a true reform, this is the path that would need to be taken..." (interview with Pacte, n. 56, until 2001 - Cf. DICI n. 16 - 13 /7/2001).
And in an interview with the magazine "30 Days", the question: "So, what is what the Vatican could do, concretely, to revive conusted relationships?", Mons. Fellay replied: "In practical steps, on how to solve problems, Rome's wisdom and skill are great. Therefore, I could find appropriate formulas."
It is interesting that Mons. Antonio was always praised throughout the world tradition as having been an extraordinary Obispo who preserved the traditional Mass in his diocese. Nadie accused him of having maintained a reservation of Indians! Now that we have achieved an Apostolic Administration with the traditional Mass officially granted by law, we have become a reservation of Indians?! Do you want to criticize the organization of the Catholic Church in the diocese?
Furthermore, the Administration was created in the Diocese of Campos, as it is the place, in Brazil, where there is the highest concentration of Catholics linked to the traditional liturgy. But nothing prevents the Apostolic Administration from serving the faithful from other places and Dioceses, according to the norms of Canonical law.
And registrations for the Apostolic Administration are open. Any person, who identifies with his traditional orientation and desires the Mass called by San Pío V, can enroll in the Apostolic Administration, now and later. Just want it.
20) But we recognize that before they were out of the Church and now they have entered, forming "unity in diversity"?
In our letter to the Pope we wrote: "Beautiful Father, even though we were always considered within the Catholic Church, from which we never had the intention of separating us, however, due to the situation of the Church and problems that affected Catholics of the traditional line, ...we were considered, legally, on the margins of the Church. This is our request: that we be accepted and recognized as Catholics".
Also Mons. Lefebvre asked rather that he describe the Tradition among many current "experiences": "The Pope Juan Pablo II..., on the occasion of the audience he granted me in November 1979, seemed quite willing, after a prolonged conversation, to I want the freedom to choose in the liturgy, I want to do, at the end of the accounts, what I have been asking for since the beginning: among all the experiences that are carried out in the Church, 'the experience of the Tradition'" (Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, 1984, in Open Letter to Perplexed Catholics, XX). I don't want to decide that Mons. Lefebvre agrees with all the "experiences that are carried out in the Church".
21) But we didn't get it all. They didn't get, for example, permission for the traditional Mass for all the priests of the world!
We really ask, together with the Fraternidad San Pío X, for the granting of the Mass for all priests in the world. The Pope replied that for the moment it would not be possible. We highlight our obligation and our part in relation to the entire Church. But the concession was not within our reach and was beyond our possibilities. Each one fulfills his duty. But we were granted the Apostolic Administration, with the right to celebrate the traditional Mass. And there we can decide in any part of the world. And any priest in the world can say the traditional Mass in our Churches, with our permission. And any priest in the world can say the traditional Mass at any time for which he asks to be licensed at the Holy See.
Además, Monsignor. Lefebvre when in the negotiations of the 1988 agreement, he only suggested to the Santa Sede the liberation of the traditional Mass for the whole world. As I wrote: "On this occasion (this time), would it be desirable that all Obishops and priests be granted the possibility of using the Liturgical Books of Juan XXIII?" (letter of 15/4/1988) (Fideliter, le dossier complet). Language different from the "sine qua non condition" required for any continuation of conversations.
22) But recognition, because of dangers, has a negative side.
We must not stop looking, like pesimists, only at the negative side of things.
Decía San Francisco de Sales: "All things appear yellow to the eyes of those affected by jaundice... The malice of reckless judgment, in a way similar to this illness, will appear all evil to the eyes of those affected by It... If an action is seen in different aspects, we should face it only from the best side..." (Filotéa, III, 27).
Let's look at the positive side. As explained well by Fr Michel Beaumont, of the Fraternidad San Pio
"Against a hostile wall, every breach is welcome. It demonstrates at least that the fight is not useless. A golondrina has just crossed the sky. It is not the spring, it does not replace the spring of the Church, which we desire with all our hearts , and for which we work from our side. But a golondrina announces spring, she can give strength and courage to wait for it" (Fr. Michel Beaumont - See www.le-combat-catholique.com). In this line of thought is very good Mons. Fellay: "If there is an opportunity, a sole, that contacts with Rome can return a little more Tradition in the Church, I think we must take advantage of the occasion" (Mons. Fellay, Fideliter, n. 140, p. 7).
For this reason, Father Pierre-Marie Laurençon, superior of the District of France, of the Fraternidad San Pio for the first time in 20 years, in the (modern) underground Basilica of San Pio X, in the Sanctuary of Lourdes, in the pilgrimage of October 28, 2001. Our faithful cannot criticize us more than we are content with friends, leaving the authorities of Lourdes to confine us in a peripheral room of the sanctuary for our ceremonies!... We must not interpret this beautiful victory as a sign of hope for the return of Rome its Tradition?" (Letter to friends and friends, Enero de 2002).
This is the opening of vision that Mons had. Marcel Lefebvre, to see the benefit to the Church has been in the "Misas del indulto", which were granted, according to it, under unacceptable conditions: "But this first gesture - we fear that there are others of this kind - quit the specha unduly launched about the Mass and liberates the consciences of perplexed Catholics who doubted even while watching it" (Mons. Marcel Lefebvre - Open letter to perplexed Catholics, XX).
So also Mons. Bernard Fellay, at a conference in Campos in November 2000, reported to our faithful, with joy, that the traditional Mass is celebrated in about two dioceses in the United States. "Misas del indulto", in its great majority, promoted by other traditional groups different from the Fraternidad San Pío X.
Also Mons. Lefebvre, in a letter to the priests of the District of France, stated: "It seems to me that we must go over everything where we are called and not give the impression that we have a universal jurisdiction, not a jurisdiction over a country or a region. It would be basing our apostolate on a false and illusory basis. Therefore, equally, if other priests normally satisfy the needs of the faithful, we do not have to interfere in their apostolate, but we are happy that there are other Catholic priests who rise up to save souls" (4/27/1987).
23) Oh! But only a practical agreement will not solve the problem. What was necessary to resolve is the doctrinal question
Fr Philippe Laguérie, from the Fraternidad San Pío . If time is lost - perhaps the soul itself - with these discussions that never reach a conclusion, for the obvious reason that they do not have the smallest common problem. , on the contrary. If a doctrinal agreement will only be possible within 20 or 30 years, that is not a reason to renounce the agreement..." (DICI n. 8, 18/5/2001, page 12).
The Fraternidad San Pío by the local parish priest who spoke words of shelter. It was a practical, fruitful agreement, without having been dealt with or resulting in doctrinal questions.
Así also the same Fraternidad San Pio The Vatican ceded entry into the Basilicas, the use of microphones by the Bishops, but did not permit the Mass. It was a practical agreement, not entirely satisfactory, but the traditional Holy Mass was not permitted, but it had many fruits, even without having been able to resolve the doctrinal question.
But, in fact, there were serious doctrinal reasons that led us to seek and accept recognition, as explained in answers 2, 4 and 5.
Furthermore, in an official letter from the Consejo de la Unión Sacerdotal San Juan María Vianney, Mons. Licínio and the Fathers of Campos insisted with Mons. Fellay:
"What concerns us is this: It is not a simple attraction for regularization or a simple practical agreement, but it is involved in this a serious doctrinal question: the unity of government of the Church (units regiminis), so important regarding the unit of Faith. Because, confirming this proposal of the Holy See, it becomes much more than a simple offer or proposal. It is an explicit volunteer of the Pope, in a very serious question that touches the unit of regime of la Iglesia".
"It is also about the experience of Tradition in Campos. Because if we refuse an obispo appointed by the Pope as is being proposed to us, what reasons will we have to consecrate an obispo without the pontifical mandate? We know that the consecration is against the volunteer of the Pope is only justified in the most serious case of need, when it is impossible to obtain the mandate. Now, the Pope would be offering this bishop to Campos. Therefore, the Fathers of Campos, we are convinced that for a new consecration in Campos, among them circuмstances, there would not be a state of necessity like that of Monsignor Licínio, and it would actually be constituting a formal schism, with its very serious consequences".
24) But why was I separated from the Fraternidad San Pío X?
At the meeting on the 13th of January 2001, at the Casa-Madre de la Fraternidad in Menzingen, on the subject of reconnaissance, one of the members of the Fraternity, considering the difficulties that the Fraternidad San Pío negotiations with the Santa Sede, I propose that the Campos priests achieve the agreement first, by way of experience, and then, functioning, the Fraternidad will also do so. Therefore, the idea that Campos hides the agreement separately from the Fraternity is the wine of the Fraternity itself. We agree to serve as "tests" for the benefit of the Fraternity.
And so we wrote to Mons. Fellay: "Our legalization would be a first step towards the future reconnaissance of the entire Tradition. If Rome respects our doctrinal position and supports us in the possible difficulties with diocesan bishops, it will be an important sign of good will (green sign) for all la Tradition".
Mons. Lefebvre, who then wrote to Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer on the problem of an eventual consecration: "The case of the Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío classic... That's why, in my view, the case of Campos should not be linked to the Fraternity... The cases must be very separate. This is not of any importance for public opinion and for current Rome . The Fraternity should not be surrendered and deja all responsibility, legitimate for the rest, to the priests and the faithful of Campos... This is my opinion; I believe that it is based on the fundamental laws of ecclesiastical right and on Tradition. ...."
25) But I said that ustedes acted hidden from the Fraternity!
That's false. The representative of Mons. Licínio and de los padres de Campos, Fr Fernando Arêas Rifan, was present in the month of money and in the month of April at the Casa Generalicia de la Fraternidad, in Switzerland, explaining Campos' position on the subject. He visited Cardenal Castrillón several times, always accompanied by part of the Fraternity. Mons. Licínio and the Fathers, on June 5, 2001, officially wrote to Mons. Fellay presented him with 28 serious reasons about the need for reconciliation, warning him of the danger of continuing in this abnormal state of separation. This letter left no response. After the rejection of the Fraternity, the Holy See sent us to call to Rome. The council of the Sacerdotal Union, with Mons. Licínio ahead, then wrote once more, officially, to Mons. Fellay communicated this invitation from Rome. This letter was not sent by mail, but for security reasons, as requested by Monsignor. Licínio and one of the priests, it was personally delivered by Fr. Fernando Arêas Rifan, who, before going to the Vatican, stopped by the Fraternidad to communicate the invitation of the Holy See.
According to the instructions of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, Mons. Licínio and the Fathers of Campos wrote a letter to the Pope asking for recognition. This was communicated to Mons. Fellay before the letter was delivered to the Pope. A copy of this letter was delivered to Mons. Fellay was the same day I was handed over to the Pope. Because although the letter was closed on August 15, 2001, it was only delivered to the Pope on September 15, 2001, the same day on which the copy was delivered to Monsignor. Fellay. You're bad. Only after conversations with Mons. Fellay explained the invitation expressed by the Holy See, which conversations with the Cardenal Castrillón were officially continued, now separately from the Fraternity.
In the hub, therefore, no dissimulation of our part and we act hidden from the Fraternity.
Furthermore, we could decide that this is contrary to what is said.
In August 2000, Mons. Fellay, Mons. Tissier and Mons. Williamson met, by invitation, with Cardenal Castrillón to deal with the matter of reconnaissance of the Fraternity.
In September 2000, Cardenal invited Msgr. Fellay to a conversation and prepare a meeting with the Pope.
November 30, 2000, Mons. Fellay visits Campos, holds a conference with the faithful and the clergy of the Unión Sacerdotal San Juan María Vianney, but he doesn't tell us about the conversations between Rome and the Fraternidad San Pio X. Y, in the meeting with the priests, he said There was news that the Holy See had appointed an obispo to deal with the reconciliation of traditionalists. He replied that he didn't know anything. El Fr Fernando Rifan and Fr Helio Marcos, in private conversation, spoke with Mons. Fellay on the possibility that the Campos priests reached an agreement with the Diocesan Obispo, in the sense that he legally recognized the validity of our sacraments and the priests sent the communications of marriages and bautisms. Mons. Fellay agreed.
On December 29, 2000, Mons. Fellay had a four-hour hearing with Cardenal Castrillón, about reconnaissance.
On December 30th, there was a quick audience with Mons. Fellay with the Pope.
Until the year 2001, the negotiations between the Fraternity and the Holy See were held separately and without the knowledge of Mons. Licínio Rangel and de los Padres de Campos.
The question is: Who acted separately and hidden from anyone?!
26) But the recognition could have been achieved together with the Fraternity!
Yes. But it wasn't our fault that didn't happen then. Y esa decision to deal directly with Rome not between us. In truth, the priests of Campos and the Fraternidad San Pío X were together in conversations with Rome. However, since the beginning, we have noticed a great resistance from the Fraternity to continue with the conversations. We insist a lot on them. Los padres de Campos, with Mons. Licíno Rangel, after several discussion meetings on the subject, during which he expressed his opinion to the Fraternity in favor of understanding and recognition, he officially wrote to Mons. Fellay, insisting that conversations not be suspended and that they should be brought to a good conclusion. Unfortunately, our letter did not deserve a response, our personal requests were not heard and the Fraternity rejected the offer from Rome.
At that time, the Santa Sede sent a representative to Campos to invite us to continue the conversations interrupted by the Fraternity, because our case was simpler and easier, as they were diocesan priests, and had the support of the diocesan bishop and the old bishops. Furthermore, as we have seen, Mons. Marcel Lefebvre was of the opinion that we should be guided by the same principles, but each acting under his own responsibility.
The Pope, may, through his representative, call us to Rome.
Then we imitate Mons. Fellay ya Mons. Marcel Lefebvre:
"Si el Papa lama me, yo voy, además corro. Esto es cierto. Por obediencia. Por filial respect para con el jefe de la Iglesia" (Mons. Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Fraternidad San Pío X, interview magazine 30 days , September 2000).
"We want to remain attached to Rome, the successor of Peter... For this reason we never refuse to go to Rome to the call or call of its representatives" (Mons. Marcel Lefebvre).
"The concern with our unit and with our preservation should not make us forget our obligation to serve the Church" (Mons. Fellay, Fideliter, n. 140. p. 7).
For this reason, Fr. Paul Aulagnier, second assistant of the Fraternidad San Pio Fellay: "We complained because the Campos priests acted separately. But what is that fault? We didn't see the lost efforts of Fr. Fernando Rifan in trying to convince us and we didn't witness the tough resistance of Monsignor Williamson and Monsignor Tissier?!”
27) Pero Mons. Fellay and the obispos of the Fraternity imposed pressure on the priests of Campos so that they did not accept the recognition?
They really did not agree that we accepted the recognition. We explained our reasons, we insisted that our case was different from that of the Fraternity, according to the opinion of Mons. Marcel Lefebvre (see answer no. 15). We said that until we understood the difficulty of accepting recognition on the part of the Fraternity, with its 400 priests in 36 countries. But we ask that you understand our position. Furthermore, increase our risk if the serious health condition in which our bishop Monsignor was found. Licinio. For us the situation was urgent, which was not the case of the Fraternity.
Mons. Fellay replied that for lack of Mons. Licínio had no problem and it was not so necessary for us to have an obispo now, so the obispo of the Fraternity could assist us. This response was really a more powerful argument in favor of the acceptance of reconnaissance, because then the state of grave necessity was not configured, which alone would justify having a sacred obispo against the expressed will of the Pope. Therefore, it was urgently necessary to regularize this situation.
Además, Monsignor. Licínio Rangel, substitute bishop for Catholics of the Tradition in Brazil and superior of the Unión Sacerdotal San Juan María Vianney, had the grace of state, and only he, for, knowing well the situation here, with all its circuмstances, known only by his priests, decide whether to accept or not the recognition offered by the Holy See.
28) But I was not ingratitude towards the Fraternity, despite everything she did for us?
Our gifts of gratitude are mutual and equivalent. Of course we owe them a lot. But much more to the Church. But how much does it cost us too?!
Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer, for example, gave his support from the diocesan bishop, which was necessary at the time, so that he could acquire the land for the construction of the La Reja Seminary.
When Mons. Lefebvre needed to incardinate priests in a diocese, without being able to do so in the Fraternity, he asked Mons. Antonio que hiciese in his diocese, which really was hecho. And así several priests of the Fraternity, including Mons. Tissier de Mallerais, was incardinated in the Diócesis de Campos. That's because Mons. Lefebvre, having a Catholic spirit, was concerned and sought, as far as possible, to regularize the situation within the officialdom.
Y Mons. Antonio sacrificed himself and crossed the ocean to support Mons. Lefebvre in the consecrations, with the risk of suffering canonical penalties.
It is true that our seminarians studied in the Fraternity seminaries. But it is good to remember that we paid for our studies there, at a price of 200 dollars per month (about R$ 500.00) for each new seminarian.
It is without counting the retreats, conferences and sermons that we gave at the request of the Fraternity, on several occasions, including delicate situations in which they did not want to expose themselves and asked us that we did so.
29) But this battle with Fraternity is not bad for Tradition?
It's terrible. For this reason we insistently ask Mons. Fellay who understood our different situation as we understood them and who didn't fight with us because it would be ruinous for the Tradition. Unfortunately, our request was not heard. But in our part there is no fight. On the contrary, we want unity for the benefit of the entire cause of Tradition.
And we endured silently and patiently, as far as possible, for the love of the Church and souls, all the offenses and slanders that have been committed against us, in the entire world, in all magazines and on the Internet, publishing openly everything that speaks against us and everything that can raise suspicions about the conduct of Mons. Licínio and the priests of Campos and hiding what would be favorable to us.
That the Fraternity and other groups did not agree with our reconocimiento could not be explained. But why attack us systematically, and try to spread the story among our faithful, to discredit Mons. Licínio ya our priests? It seems that today we are the greatest enemy in the Church. After years of struggle, we achieved an Apostolic Administration with the right to the Traditional Mass, its own bishop, its own seminary, its own parishes, with independence, as a normal diocese, with all the traditional orientation of the Church of all times. Are we treated as traitors, as disputers?! Truly this is not a good Catholic spirit. I was never the spirit of Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, as you can see from these quotes that we are hecho.
This has given the impression that to justify their own unsustainable and unjustifiable situation, some seek to demoralize what others could do well
30) What is the current position of ustedes in relation to the Fraternidad San Pío X?
Mons. Licinio Rangel, in an interview with several international magazines, responded to this question as follows: "We want to continue being your friends. Now that we are canonically regularized, we offer our prayers and help so that you can overcome your peculiar difficulties and can reach this special good of recognition of the rights of the Tradition that Rome granted us. And so, united and perfectly regularized, we will serve the Tradition of the Holy Church. And they would repeat what I wrote to Mons. Fellay, together with the priests of our Unión Sacerdotal, giving reasons so that conversations with the Holy See can continue towards an understanding".
31) But it was not Fr Fernando Arêas Rifan, the spokesperson, who forced Mons. Licínio ya los padres aceptar el reconocimiento? ¿Y eso no fue hecho precipitado?
This is a serious offense to Mons. Licínio and the priests of Campos, as if they were puppets, without conviction, and serviles. Our priests, in addition to being trained in Philosophy, Theology, Canonical Law and Church History, have extensive pastoral experience, in officialdom in a normal diocese, in the episcopate of Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer, and in twenty years of exile, therefore, in unique conditions to analyze the situation well, in truth, the subject was widely discussed with all priests, old and new, in several meetings, for about a year. The conversations with the Holy See lasted from January to December 2001. The priests went on a five-day retreat, reflecting a lot, discussing, studying the proposals together and privately, having time to reflect and give their opinion, and arrive at a favorable conclusion. al understanding with the Holy See and reconnaissance. El Padre. Fernando was just the spokesperson for the general opinion of Mons. Licínio and the priests. And during his stay in Rome, Fr Fernando called Mons every day. Licínio went to the priests, considering them during each negotiation, consulting them, giving them the news, and asking what he should do.
When Fr. Fernando was in Rome, during the negotiations, Mons. Fellay and Mons. de Galarreta was in Campos, and could be heard from Mons' own mouth. Licínio and the priests had a favorable opinion regarding understandings with Rome.
32) But why did I look at how the Reconnaissance closes at the beginning of the Week of the Unit of Christians and the proximity to the Encuentro de Asís?
It was mere coincidence. The letter of approval from the Pope, which was the most important, was dated December 25, 2001, Natividad de Nuestro Señor, when the news was communicated to us. For the public proclamation of reconnaissance, the Cardenal had several locks, and we chose the one of 18 dollars, which was most convenient for us. I have no intention of coinciding with anything. And it was providential, because I left after Mons. Licínio improved his health, and he was unable to participate in the ceremony if it took longer.
33) Why was the reconnaissance ceremony held in the Diocesan Cathedral of Campos?
Because I was chosen by the Cardenal, because it was more convenient, as it was an official recognition, in the official Church, of those called Catholics of the Tradition. The proclamation should be made by the representative of the Pope, in the presence of the Apostolic Nuncio, the diocesan obispo and the obispo of the region. And the Cardenal asked that a ceremony was also held in one of our Churches, which was really successful.
34) Did you recognize the Pope?
In our public declaration, we said: "We recognize the Holy Father, Pope Juan Pablo II, with all his powers and prerogatives, promising our filial obedience and offering our prayers for him".
But we always recognize it. In the hub, there is no news in all our sacristies, as is customary established in all churches, the box with the names of Pope Juan Pablo II and the diocesan obispo named by him is displayed. In our public prayers I always pray for Pope Juan Pablo II and for the diocesan bishop. We never adopted the sedevacantist position nor did we ever want to create a parallel diócesis, contesting the unity of the Church's regime.
Even when, by necessity, and in accordance with Catholic doctrine, we have to resist, and that never means our part in the contestation of papal authority or its recognition. Furthermore, we have always been fully aware of the abnormality, occasionality and exceptionality of resistance, always yearning for complete regularization and normalization.
We always keep present the dogma of Faith: "We declare, decimos and define that it is totally necessary for the salvation that all men are united to the Roman Pontiff" (Bonifacio VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Dz-Sh 875).
Therefore, in our letter to the Pope, we wrote: "In the august brothers of Your Holiness, let us lay down our Profession of Catholic Faith, professing perfect communion with the Chair of Peter, of which Your Holiness is legitimate successor, recognizing his Primacy and government over the universal Church, pastors and faithful, and declaring that, for nothing in this world, we want to dissociate ourselves from the Piedra, on which Jesus Christ founded his Church". The same text of our profession of Catholic faith from 1982, written under the direction of Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer.
It is clear that the filial obedience we promise is governed by the norms of Catholic doctrine and is not about servility.
Besides, our promise is on the same line as Mons' promise. Marcel Lefebvre in his doctrinal declaration of May 4, 1988: "We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicario of Christ, Successor of Bienaventurado Pedro in his primacy and Jefe del Cuerpo de los Obispos" .
35) Did you accept the Second Vatican Council?
In our declaration, we express ourselves as follows: "We recognize the Second Vatican Council as one of the Ecuмenical Councils of the Catholic Church, accepting it in the light of the Sacred Tradition".
We recognize that the Second Vatican Council was legitimately convened and presided over by Pope Blessed Juan XXIII and continued by Pope Pablo VI, with the participation of bishops from all over the world, including Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer and Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, who signed his minutes. Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer wrote several pastoral letters about the Council, especially one, in 1966, about the application of the Docuмents promulgated by the Council.
However, the "pernicious spirit of the Council" emerged, which, according to Cardenal Ratzinger, "is the anti-spirit, according to which one should begin the history of the Church from Vatican II onwards, seen as a kind of turning point" (Card. Ratzinger, Rapporto sula fede, chapter II). Therefore, we say in our declaration: "We recognize the Second Vatican Council as one of the Ecuмenical Councils of the Catholic Church". The Church cannot disconnect itself from its past or contradict it.
But as for the Council's instructions, due to its eminently pastoral character, by it itself proclaimed, of adapting the proclamation of the inmutable doctrine to our times, it is necessary that they be accepted in consonance with the entire body of the Magisterium of the Church, the sea, in the light of the Sacred Tradition.
We say this because many people, taking advantage of the Council, tried and even tried to introduce heretical doctrines into the Church, doctrines condemned by the perennial Magisterium, which constitutes the Tradition. It is clear that they will rely on the language of the Council and its regrettable lack of doctrinal precision on many points, otherwise they would not be able to give the heretical interpretation that gave the Council. Pope Pablo VI spoke of the "humour of Satan" penetrating the Temple of God (Alocution of 29/6/1972) and SS Pope Juan Pablo II lamented: "full ideas were left empty, contrary to the truth revealed and always taught : true herejis were propagated in the dogmatic and moral fields... the Liturgy was also violated" (Discurso al Congreso de las Misiones, 6/2/1981).
Therefore, we use, as an interpretation criterion, the light of the Sacred Tradition.
And accepting the Council in the light of Tradition is what everyone must do, because this was the interpretation criterion indicated by the Popes who convened and presided over it. In the speech of October 11, 1962, at the opening of the Council, Pope Juan XXIII expressed himself as follows: "The essential object of this Council is not the discussion about this or that article of the fundamental doctrine of the Church... Presently, it is necessary that all the doctrine of the Church, without mutilation, transmitted with that exactitude that appears splendidly above all in the concepts and in the exposition with which the Councils of Trent and Vatican I were rewritten, sea, in our time , accepted by all with new, calm and serene adherence...; it is necessary that this doctrine, certain and inmutable to which obsequious obedience is required, be investigated and exposed in the way that our time demands. Because one thing is the very depositum I trust, they are, the truth contained in our venerable doctrine, and otherwise it is the way in which they are enunciated, but always preserving the same meaning and the same reach (eodem tamen sensu eademque sententia)" (AAS, 1962, page. 791-793).
And at the reopening of the Council, Pope Pablo VI confirmed: "It is necessary that the doctrine of the Faith, certain and inmutable, declared and defined by the supreme Magisterium of the Church and by previous Councils, above all by the Council of Trent and by Vatican I, to whom obsequious obedience is due, is expressed in a manner adapted to our times..." (AAS 55, page 742).
And this was precisely the criterion used by Pope Juan Pablo II when speaking of the "integral doctrine of the Council", which meant, he explained, "doctrina understood in the light of the Holy Tradition and referred to the constant Magisterium of the Church itself" ( Juan Pablo II, speech at the Sacro Colegio meeting, November 5, 1979).
And it could not be otherwise, as stated in the First Vatican Ecuмenical Council: "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that they are, under the revelation of the same, predicating a new doctrine; so that, under their assistance sacredly conserves and faithfully exposes the deposit of Fe..." (sess. IV,c.4, Dz-Sch 3070).
Además, Mons. himself said. Marcel Lefebvre: "I accept the Council, interpreted according to Tradition". Y Mons. Bernard Fellay, successor of Mons. Lefebvre declared: "Accepting the Council is not a problem for us. There is a criterion of discernment. And this criterion is what has always been taught and believed: the Tradition" (interview with the Swiss newspaper La Liberté, 11/5/2001).
About how to apply this criterion of interpretation to the Council, in light of the Sacred Tradition, explained well by the famous French Catholic writer Jean Madiran (Itinéraires, November 1966, page 13): "We received the decisions of the Council in accordance with the decisions of previous Councils. If these texts appear, as can happen with every human word, susceptible to various interpretations, we think that the fair interpretation is fixed precisely by the enseñanzas of previous Councils and in conformity with them and with the set of the teaching of the Magisterium... If it were necessary - as some people suggest - to interpret the decisions of the Council in a sense contrary to the previous teachings of the Church, then we would have no reason to receive these decisions and would not have the power to impose them. By definition, the enseñanza of a Council is placed in the context and in the living continuity of all the Councils. , without anyone having authority".
It is thus, with this criterion, that we recognize and accept the Second Vatican Council.
36) But will we preserve the Traditional Misa?
It's obvious. That's why we fought for so many years and that's why we suffered so much. Now, thanks to God, the Holy Father grants us the right to officially conserve in our Apostolic Administration the traditional Holy Mass, codified by Saint Pius V, all the sacraments, all the Liturgy and the traditional discipline.
37) Why do we keep the traditional Misa?
Everyone clearly knows the doctrinal reasons for our attachment to the Traditional Misa and our reservations as far as the new Misa is concerned, reservations that are the same as that of Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer in a respectful and filial letter to Pope Pablo VI, which is shared by many personalities of the current Church, including Cardinals of the Roman Curia.
Thus we preserve, with the blessings of the Holy Father and the Pope, the Tridentine Mass because it is an authentic wealth of the Holy Catholic Church, a Liturgy that sanctified many souls, a Mass that the Saints assisted, a Mass that, by expressing in a clear way Without the ambiguities of the Eucharistic dogmas, it constitutes an authentic profession of Faith, a symbol of our Catholic identity, a true theological and spiritual heritage of the Church that needs to be preserved.
As Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy says: "The ancient rite of the Misa serves precisely many people to keep this sense of mystery alive. The sacred rite, with the sense of mystery, helps us to penetrate with our senses into the enclosure of the mystery of God. The nobility of a rite that has accompanied the Church for so many years justifies the belief that a chosen group of faithful maintains the appreciation of this rite, and the Church, for there voice of the Sovereign Pontiff, he understood it like this, when he asked that doors be open to his celebration... We celebrated a beautiful rite, a rite that was of many saints, a beautiful Mass, that filled the arches of many cathedrals and that made their accents resonate of mystery in the small chapels of the whole world..." (excerpts from the homily during the Mass of Saint Pius V celebrated by him in Chartres, on June 4, 2001).
In the same way, regarding the traditional Mass, Pope Juan Pablo II, proposing it as a model of reverence and humility for all celebrants in the world: "The Pueblo of God has the need to see in its priests and in its deacons a full behavior of reverence and dignity, capable of helping him to penetrate invisible things, even with few words and explanations. and of reverence for the holy mysteries: revealing the very substance of the entire Liturgy" (Juan Pablo II, message to the Asamblea Plenaria de la S. Congregación para el Culto Divino y la Disciplina de los Sacramentos, on the theme "Deepening the liturgical life in the pueblo de Dios", on 9/21/2001).
38) But do we recognize the validity of the modern Misa?
In the hub, there is no news about this declaration, we always recognize this. We say in our declaration that we recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, promulgated by Pope Pablo VI, whenever it is celebrated correctly and with the intention of offering the true Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.
Además, that was Mons’ teaching. Antonio de Castro Mayer and also Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, who, in his doctrinal declaration of the year, revised and signed, declared: "We declare, in addition to this, to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Misal Romano and de los Rituales de los Sacramentos promulgated by the Popes Pablo VI and Juan Pablo II" (Fideliter, the complete dossier).
Why do we continue to reserve "whenever it is celebrated correctly and with the intention of offering the true Sacrifice of the Holy Mass"?
Because, if the Father celebrates the Mass with the intention of having only a communal meal or a simple meeting with the narration of the Scene of the Lord, without the intention of offering the true Sacrifice of the Mass, it is clear that the validity of that Misa will be affected.
And, in addition to this, it is necessary to lament the Misas, even valid, in which "the Liturgy was violated", as said by Pope Juan Pablo II (speech at the Congress of Misiones, 6/2/1981), the in which the "Liturgy degenerates into a 'show', where an attempt is made to show an attractive religion with the help of fashionable tonteries... with momentary successes in the group of liturgical manufacturers", as criticized by Cardenal Ratzinger (Introduction al book La Réforme Liturgique, by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, page 6). And, furthermore, as Cardinal Eduardo Gagnon, president of the Pontific Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses, says, "it is not possible, however, to ignore that the (liturgical) reform gave rise to many abuses and led to a greater extent to the disappearance of respect due to This is sacred. This one must be unfortunately admitted and excuses a large number of these people who have separated themselves from our Church or from their ancient parroquial community" (...) ("Integrismo y conservatismo" - Interview with Cardenal Gagnon, "Offerten Zitung - Römisches", nov.diez. 1993, p.35).
39) But we must ask for forgiveness from the Pope. In what sense?
Having humility and asking for forgiveness for possible errors or offenses are eminently Christian actions. They are only those who are proud and superb, who are always aware, who do not admit the possibility of their mistakes.
San Pío X commented that in the heat of the battle it is difficult to measure the precision and range of blows. From there, faults or excesses occur, excusable and understandable, but incorrect.
Therefore, in our letter to the Pope, we wrote: "And if, by chance, in the heat of the battle in defense of Catholic truth, we committed some error or caused some disgust to Your Holiness, even though our intention has always been there of to serve the Holy Church, we humbly beg your paternal forgiveness."
Even though we were convinced that our cause was legitimate and holy, as we are not infallible, we may have been wrong and also committed excesses in the way we speak or write, a certain spirit of criticism or lack of fraternal charity and veneration and respect owed to them superiors, a certain way of speaking or acting in disagreement with the principles we defend.
This is why we ask for forgiveness, for our loved ones and for all the faithful assisted by our loved ones.
It is clear that we do not need to ask for forgiveness for our Catholic doctrinal and liturgical position, which I have been recognized by the Holy Father, the Pope.
40) But do we continue to fight errors as always?
The grant of the Holy Father and the Pope, giving us the Personal Apostolic Administration, does not mean that the crisis of the Church is over and that our commitment in defense of traditional values will be stopped.
This is how we wrote to the Pope: "In the name of our Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith, we strive to keep the Sacred Doctrinal and Liturgical Tradition that the Holy Church leaves us with, in the measure of our strength and supported by the grace of God , resisting what his predecessor of egregious memory, Pope Pablo VI, called 'self-demolition of the Church', hoping in this way to be providing the best service to the Vuestra Santidad ya la Santa Iglesia".
Now, being canonically recognized, we offer ourselves to the Pope to, officially, collaborate with him in the fight against errors and herejías, which unfortunately exist in the Church's sense.
This is what we said to the Pope in the same letter: "We want, officially, to collaborate with Your Holiness in the propagation of Faith and Catholic Doctrine, in the cell for the honor of the Holy Church - 'Signum levatum in nations' - and in the fight against errors and herejías that intend to destroy the Barca de Pedro, in vain because 'the gates of hell will not prevail against Ella' ".
And the Holy Father kindly accepted our offer: "We take note, with lively pastoral rejoicing, of this great purpose of collaborating with the See of Peter in the propagation of Faith and Catholic doctrine, in the cell for the honor of her Holy Church - which stands as 'Signum in nations' (Is 11,12) - and in the fight against those who attempt to destroy the Barca of Peter, in vain because 'the gates of hell will not prevail against it' (Mt 16,18 )".
Therefore, we conclude with this declaration, saying: "We are committed to deepening all open questions, considering canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law".
This canon recognizes the right and even sometimes the duty to express an opinion, publicly within the Church. The citation of this canon means that we are not committed to complicit silence in the face of errors.
For this reason, wishing to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, with the grace of God, we will continue to combat the errors that the Holy Church has always condemned and fought.
41) Are you going to continue attacking the same mistakes you attacked before?
Yes. We condemn all the errors that the Church has always condemned in its perennial Magisterium. Thus, for example, we condemn and fight:
- Christological herejias, which deny the divinity of Christ, which distinguish the historical Christ from the Christ of Faith, which predicate a revolutionary Christ, etc.
- ecclesiological herejis, which deny that the Catholic Church is the only true religion, which predicate irenic and egalitarian ecuмenism in relation to religions, ecuмenism of unity in exchange for ecuмenism of charity and return, relativism and religious syncretism , pan-Christianity, the Protestantization of the Church, the merely human vision of the Church, modernism, democratic collegiality, etc.
- liturgical herejis such as the denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the transformation of the Mass into a simple scene, the denial or concealment of the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Holy Mass, the confusion between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful, the desacralization of the sacred Liturgy, the lack of veneration, adoration and modesty in costumes in divine worship, the worldliness of the Church, etc.
- philosophical errors, such as truth relativism, agnosticism, subjectivism, gnosticism, inmanentism, etc.
- moral errors, such as liberalism, which predicates moral freedom in relation to religion and the equivalence of the rights of truth and error, moral subjectivism, the morality of the situation, the immorality of dresses, etc.
- errors in spirituality, such as exacerbated sentimentalism, heterodox mysticism, apparitionism, superficiality in doctrine, the worldliness of the clergy, etc.
- sociological errors, such as the secularism of the State, the denial of the social royalty of Christ, the theology of liberation, egalitarianism, "Christian Marxism", etc.
- finally, everything that constituted "Satan's humour in the Temple of God", the "self-demolition of the Church", lamented by Pope Pablo VI.
And we resist these errors forever, where they come from. The doctrine of resistance continues the same: "If an angel of the sky, the one of our same things, teaches them an Evangel different from the one we preached to them, it becomes anathema" (San Pablo to the Galatians 1,8).
It is seen, therefore, that our doctrinal position was and continues to be the same that we have always maintained.
42) But are we going to change the way to attack errors?
It is necessary to always adjust practice with the principles we defend. If we recognize the authorities of the Church it is necessary to respect them as tales, without ever, attacking the errors, discrediting them. If there is any error in the past regarding this, there is nothing wrong with correcting the error. The principles, the adherence to the truths of our Faith and the rejection of the errors condemned by the Church remain the same.
But it is necessary to avoid generalizations, amplifications and undue and unfair attributions. Justice and charity, even in combat, are essential. If someone also fails at this point, correcting it will not hurt anyone. In the end, making mistakes is human, correcting yourself is Christian, and persevering in error is diabolical.
Our combat, therefore, will always be according to the norms of respect, humility and charity, as we said at the end of our declaration: "with a sincere spirit of humility and fraternal charity towards all. In principle unity, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas – In principios unity, in las things libres libertad, in todo caridad (San Agustín).
43) Before the Asís meeting on the 24th of January 2002?
We only speak to our community, in sermons and catechisms, against syncretism and religious relativism, as we put on our website the Catholic doctrine on the subject. So that our faithful are well enlightened and the whole world knows our position on ecuмenism, which is that of the Magisterium of the Church.
Because it happens that the following is considered: San Ignacio de Loyola, in his Spiritual Ejercicios, in the 10th Rule for feeling with the Church, teaches that we must be more ready to support the guidelines and behavior of our superiors than to criticize them. And that, even when they are not good, speaking against them, in public or in conversations, would give rise to more criticism and the scandal that caused them. It would discredit authority. It could be useful to talk to people who can remedy the evil.
Así Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer, in a letter, warned Mons. Marcel Lefebvre: "Attack the errors but not the persona of the Pope".
This is what Santa Catalina de Sena wrote: "It's crazy the one who moves away or goes against this Vicario, who holds the keys of the Blood of Christ Crucified. Even if it was an incarnate demon, I shouldn't lift my head against it, bell I am always humiliated, asking for blood out of mercy. And I don't admire that the demon weighs them down and there is one against them the color of virtue, that is, a justice in wanting to act against evil pastors for their mistakes. Don't believe in the demon, in You want to bring justice to someone who doesn't tell you in this regard. God doesn't want you, in fact, to have justice for your ministers. , we should humbly await the punishment and correction of the Sumo Juez, Dios Eterno"(Epistolario, vol I, Letter n. 28 - cited by el Cardenal Castrillón in a letter to Mons. Fellay, dated 5/4/2002).
So, Monsignor. Fellay, in an interview with the magazine "30 DÍAS", said: "We don't want the authority of the Church to be even more diminished. It was enough: now it's time..."
In addition to this, we must reflect on what the Holy Scripture says: "Todo tiene su tiempo... tiempo de callarse y tiempo de hablar" (Ecle 3, 1 and 7).
For example, Jesus lived at a time when slavery was common in society. Slavery is evil. And Jesus did not once speak against slavery. This would cause social dissolution. But Jesus laid the foundations, - the Christian virtues of justice, humility and charity, - which, with the penetration of Christianity into society, managed to abolish slavery. Sometimes you just have to wait for the right moment. It is necessary to observe the circuмstances and the capacity to receive criticism. Sometimes the positive combat is more fruitful than the negative.
Así la Fraternidad San Pio And the priests of the Fraternity, organizers of the jubilee, asked the priests who spoke in the Basilicas, who lowered the tone and did not speak harshly against the authorities. Y Mons. Fellay, while passing through the Puertas Santas, in the protest for the opening of the Pope accompanied by representatives of other religions. Yes, Mons. Fellay, speaking through microphones in the Basilicas, used a very moderate tone and did not criticize the "Conciliar Church", despite it being a unique opportunity. The same thing happened when he celebrated Mass in the Basilica of Santa María Mayor. Only those people with a bad spirit imagined that he was failing in the profession of Faith and proceeded like this. "All your time".
44) Pero ustedes hicieron concessiones.
That's false. We do not have any doctrinal concessions. There may be some tolerance, due to circuмstances, within the norms of Christian prudence, in view of a good mayor. And this is perfectly in accordance with Catholic doctrine.
It's interesting to judge that what we did is wrong and is a concession, even though it was the same thing they did.
For example, Mons. Marcel Lefebvre declared that he accepted the Second Vatican Council interpreted according to Tradition; he asked the Pope to let him have the experience of Tradition, amidst the many experiences that took place today; he declared to accept the doctrine contained in this no. 25 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the Magisterium of the Pope and of the Obispos and the adhesion that is due, even in the declarations are not infallible; declared that, on certain points raised by the Second Vatican Council, of the liturgical reform or of the Derecho, which seem difficult to reconcile with the Tradition, he committed himself to having a positive attitude of study and communication with the Holy See, avoiding all controversy ; he declared to recognize the validity of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and following the new rites (Novus Ordo Missae and new ritual of the Sacraments); I promised to respect the common discipline of the Church and its laws, especially the new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Juan Pablo II; he praised, as if being a first step, the Misas del indulto.
Mons. Fellay visits the Cardenales de la Curia Romana; the Fraternity visited the Roman Basilicas in the jubilee; the priests of the Fraternity of France asked the Cardenal of Paris who indicated a Church to win the jubilee of 2000, and they were received by the progressive parish priest who directed words of reception and prayed; During the pilgrimage to Lourdes, he received authorization to pray in the basilica (progressive!), and it counted as a great victory, a miracle of the Holy Year; Mons. Fellay declared that accepting the Second Vatican Council is not a problem because we have Tradition as a criterion.
Why is everything so great and perfectly orthodox, if it is for us?!
But if the Campos priests do something similar, there is a concession to progress, they are giving in, but they are no longer the same, they are “rallies”, etc!!!??? Of weights and measures?!
It is worth remembering the Gospel's enseñanza: "...Maestro, ... we prohibit him, because he is not with us. Jesus replied: we do not prohibit him, because he is not against you, he is in your favor" (Lc 9,49- 50).
Comment: "The Señor prevents the disciples, and after them to all Christians, against exclusivism and the spirit of a single party in the apostolic task, which is expressed in the false refrain: "El good, if I don't do it yo , it is not good." On the contrary, we must assimilate this teaching of Christ, because it is good, even though it does not happen to him" (Biblia Sagrada, editions Theologica Braga). (cf Phil 1, 15-18).
This is the opening of vision that Mons had. Marcel Lefebvre, to see the benefit to the Church has been in the "Misas del indulto", which were granted, according to it, under unacceptable conditions: "But this first gesture - we fear that there are others of this kind - quit the specha unduly launched about the Mass and liberates the consciences of perplexed Catholics who doubted even while watching it" (Mons. Marcel Lefebvre - Open letter to perplexed Catholics, XX).
Mons. Antonio de Castro Mayer also warns us against the exclusivist sectarian spirit: "The sect is exclusivist: its members were the chosen ones, they know that they are little of the chosen ones, and they are little ones... they are the depositaries of the truth. Sin them there is no salvation" (Monitor Campista 4/13/1983 and 12/22/1985).
So also Mons. Bernard Fellay, in a conference given in Campos in November 2000, told our faithful, with joy, that the traditional Mass is celebrated in about two dioceses in the United States. "Misas del Indulto", in its great majority, promoted by other traditional groups different from the Fraternidad San Pío X.
Also Mons. Lefebvre, in a letter to the priests of the District of France, stated: "It seems to me that we must go about everything where we are called and not give the impression that we have a universal jurisdiction, not a jurisdiction over a country or a region. It would be basing our apostolate on a false and illusory basis. Therefore, if other priests normally satisfy the needs of the faithful, we do not have to interfere in their apostolate, but we are happy that there are other Catholic priests who rise up to save them. souls" (4/27/1987).
45) But we were so good, before, in the situation of separation!
Regarding the doctrinal aspect of this objection, we answered it before. Indeed, if we went to look at the human and natural side of the situation, the previous position of separation and isolation was more comfortable: being free, not having to give satisfaction to the constituted authorities, acting where we understand, not having to face the progressives en la lucha body to body, etc. The schism would also bring these advantages: that all herejes and schismatics say. But is this really the best position for God and the Church?
Regarding the aspect of the apostolate and charity, Father Alvaro Calderón, professor of the Seminario de la Reja, in Argentina, one of the great theologians of the Fraternidad San Pio X, commented on the motto of Mons. Marcel Lefebvre "et nos credidimus caritati" - "we believe in charity":
"We are heirs of his charity... Our members of the Fraternity could easily be tempted to conform to what we have. What's more, if we are good? We keep our little faithful... I'm running out if someone comes to offer me there parroquia de La Reja... But let us be careful not to hide the money that was given to us without letting it fructify, because it will be paid off to us. Yes, today I say this especially for the contacts that I have in the Fraternity with Rome. Of course it is surprising! Nosotros we are good, why do we want more? X, sermon on March 25, 2001).
46) But I say that this Apostolic Administration, the fruit of understanding, is provisional.
This is how the Cardinal Mons responds. Darío Castrillón Hoyos in letter to Mons. Fellay of April 5, 2002, therefore it is the official word of Rome: "... the personal Apostolic Administration of Campos, which is not a transitional solution but which is given stably: of this stability and of this voluntary You can't doubt it in any way."
47) Is the future?
Dios belongs. "Dios providebit", Dios will provide. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. We must always trust Our Señor.
Those who ask this question should also ask themselves: In our future? Will we persevere in the doctrine of the Church? Will we always be with the legitimate Tradition of the Holy Church? "When you're on your feet, watch out so you don't fall", San Pablo, Despuéstol, warned us.
We appreciate the prayers, the incentives for our perseverance and the warnings to be careful. But we dispense with sinister predictions based on pessimism and reckless judgments based on an anti-Roman spirit.
48) Before and the appointment of the new obispo for the Apostolic Administration? Didn't Ustedes have demanded that he go solely from the Sacerdotal Union?
We have the Pope's solemn promise in the autograph letter "Ecclesiae unitas", promising Mons. Licínio Rangel was a successor, a promise he fulfilled by appointing Father Fernando Arêas Rifan as bishop.
As the Apostolic Administration was created for the faithful of the Tridentine Rite and of traditional orientation, it is logical that the bishop will be chosen in the Apostolic Administration.
Furthermore, we cannot limit the Pope's power at this point.
This is what Pope Pius IX says: "While our right to choose a person from the three proposed candidates, we do not believe we must pass in silence... this right and this duty belongs in all its integrity to the Chair of San Pedro In fact, the rights and privileges granted to this Chair by Jesus Christ himself can be attacked, but they will never be withdrawn and it is not in the power of a man to renounce a divine right..." (Enc. Quartus supra, of 6/1/1873)
Topic: Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer (Read 5022 times)