こんなこと言って不謹慎と思われるかも知れませんが、今、聖ピオ十世会が非常に面白いのです。皆さん、｢一致｣のために祈りましょう。伝統的ラテン語ミサを捧げる権利が実はどの司祭にもあることを公に認めさせたい聖ピオ十世会と｢今更それはできない｣とを拒むバチカン…｢破門｣を解くのでなく、｢破門｣宣言の撤回を要求する聖ピオ十世会…その他…英語が分かる方はCTNGregメーリングリストがお勧めです。

その後、バチカンとの話し合いは一時中断になっています。しかし、双方とも決して希望を捨てたわけではありません。

ルフェーヴル大司教とその精神について知りたい方は以下のサイトを見て下さい。日本語訳はまだありませんが、どなたか是非協力して、訳して下さい。現代カトリック教会がどのような状態にあるか、また、その原因がどこにあるかが非常によく分かります。http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/At-the-priestly-ordinations-of-Oct-19-1983.htm

　　 For the month of the tenth anniversary of the great Archbishop Lefebvre's death, we have the pleasure of offering you not only the enclosed portrait of him (from Virginia), but also good news of the Society of St. Pius X which he founded; it is standing firm in the face of Rome's recent efforts to buy it back into the Conciliar Church. One may never put one's trust in man, as last month's letter sternly recalled, following Jeremiah (XVII, 5-8). But one may, and must, put one's trust in God, with whom the Archbishop will certainly have been interceding for us.

　　 Here is the sequence of events. In early December of last year, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, with a mandate from the Pope to bring to an end the 13-year old "schism" (as Rome seems it) of the Society of St. Pius X, invited Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Sociey's Superior General, to Rome to see the Pope. On December 29 and 30 the Cardinal had two long talks with Bishop Fellay, including a brief encounter with the Pope where New Year greetings were exchanged, and little else. On January 13, SSPX leaders met in Switzerland to consider the Cardinal's generous-looking proposals, decided that Rome must first liberate the Tridentine Mass and null the 1988 "excommunication" of the four SSPX bishops, before the SSPX will ever sit down to negotiate with Rome and end to the "schism".

　　 A few days later Bishop Fellay conveyed this decision to the Cardinal. A few weeks later the Cardinal replied verbally (not in writing!) to an SSPX priest in Rome, firstly that the Tridentine Mass is not banned but that Rome cannot be expected to say so in public (!); secondly, that the "lifting" of the "excommunication" would form part of a package deal re-integrating the SSPX into the mainstream Church.

　　 On February 19, two SSPX priests, mandated by Bishop Fellay, gently but firmly brought the Cardinal to understand that the SSPX had meant what it said when it said one month previously that EITHER Rome must liberate the Tridentine Mass for all priests, OR the SSPX will not even sit down to begin negotiating. The Cardinal has the reputation of a powerful negotiator who gets what he wants, and in a variety of ways since last summer he has made it clear that he and the Pope want to get the SSPX "back into the Church" (as Rome sees it). That is why he did not want to accept that the Society was taking such a principled stand on the Mass of the old religion, hated by all Conciliarists, but after three and a half hours of talking, he had to accept that that was the Society's pre-condition for any further negotiations.

　　 One need wish the Cardinal no ill. Bishop Fellay's spokesman at this February 19 meeting commented that in any normal circumstances the Cardinal's loyalty to the Pope and his desire to serve him would be touching. Cardinal Castrillon surely desires to bring the SSPX "back into the Church" and he may even sincerely wish the Society well. But so little does he (or the Pope, then) grasp the issue at stake that our spokesman was at a loss "in what language to speak to him". And it was horrifying, he said ("effroyable" in French), to realize how the highest of churchmen in Rome today could be so ignorant of the essentials of the true Faith!

　　 We are reminded of the carefully weighed words of Archbishop Lefebvre before the "excommunication" of June, 1988: "I do not think we can say that Rome has not lost the Faith". Also of what he said more than once after the "excommunication", namely that Rome having thereby given final proof of its unwillingness of inability to look after the Faith, then from that time onwards any discussions with Rome could no longer be juridical or canonical, they would have to be dogmatic. In other words, the problem between the SSPX and Rome was no longer a question of legal nuts and bolts, it was a question of basic doctrine, and could only be handled as such. The February 19 meeting in which the Cardinal insisted on nuts and bolts, shows how right the Archbishop was. Coming out of three and a half hours with the Cardinal, our spokesman said he was more convinced than ever that the Society's firm stand was the right one. But how few Catholics can yet see that! The BASIC THEOLOGY of Conciliarism, that infernally subtle falsification of Catholicism emerging from the Second Vatican Council, is the real problem between this Rome and the Society.

　　 However, Cardinal Castrillion is not a man easily stopped. On February 19, he told our priests that four new members would be added to the Ecclesia Dei Commission (set up to handle the 1988 refugees replace Ecclesia Dei as soon as (!) there is an agreement with the SSPX. On February 24, these four names were publicly announced by Rome, and they are heads of the four departments that will be most concerned by a Rome-SSPX deal: Cardinal Ratzinger (Doctrine), Cardinal Medina (Liturgy), Archbishop Herranz (Canon Law), and Cardinal Bille (primate of the French bishops).

　　 Now these are four heavyweight churchmen being added to a lightweight Commission, given the fact that important Congregations or dicasteries of the Roman Curia rarely include more than one Cardinal. But when we add Cardinal Castrillon, here there will be four! There are two opposite interpretations of this unusual move.

　　 Either, as I was told by an English journalist who claims to have contacts high up in the Roman Curia, these four celebrities are being added to Ecclesia Dei in order to put brakes on Cardinal Castrillon, who is moving towards a Rome-SSPX deal altogether too fast for the liking of Conciliar Romans who fear the SSPX acting like a Trojan horse if it is given re-entry within the walls of their official Church. Or, on the contrary, as Cardinal Castrillon told our two priests on February 19, these powerful men are being brought on board in order to make the supposedly imminent Rome-SSPX deal work. In this case, the unusual move corresponds to the Cardinal's expressed desire to have the agreement concluded by Easter!

　　 Such a hurry may also correspond to Rome's public announcement on February 26 of an extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals to be held things, the Petrine ministry and episcopal collegiality." A Roman newspaper interprets this announcement as meaning that the Cardinals will study "the role and functions of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as well as...the ministry of bishops united among themselves and in communion with the Pontiff".

　　 In plain English, the Conciliarists in Rome are planning, in accordance with Vatican II, to do away with the Pope, and replace him by some committee of cardinals and/or bishops. But the Conciliarists are well aware that for many Catholics still within their Novus Ordo, this might prove the last straw. If, in addition to everything else Catholic which "the spirit of Vatican II" has taken away from them, Catholics lost also their Holy Father, then they might really look for some Catholic refuge in which to ride out the storm. At which point, if there simply was no longer any such refuge, many could lose heart and feel obliged to go along even with the destruction of the Papacy. But if there was still in existence a refuge like the SSPX, proclaiming itself the staunch defender of the old-fashioned Catholic Papacy, then such distressed Catholics would have somewhere to go, and the numbers and strength of the SSPX might grow alarmingly.

　　 If the Cardinal has his foot on the accelerator, then he must come up with new enticements to draw the SSPX out of its Traditional fortress, and we must continue to trust God and to pray to the Archbishop that the Society neither flinch nor waver. On the other hand, if the Cardinal's colleagues have their foot on his brakes, then Rome must fall back on its 13-year old policy of smothering the SSPX in silence, a silence so remarkably broken by the recent initiatives of Cardinal Castrillon. And in that case, we clergy and laity of the Society must possess our souls in patience, and continue to practice humbly and steadily the Catholic Faith of all time. But if quiet does return, for sure and certain it is simply a matter of time before another Cardinal Castrillon will be coming back to busy himself with the Society! Roman error cannot leave the Truth alone.

　　 Inevitably, our thoughts come back to the great Archbishop Lefebvre. Ten years since he died! But as we always knew, he is the master of Rome. What a man of God! What a man! He is by no means yet generally vindicated, but by his magnificent fidelity to the Truth when everyone else was, in a collective madness infecting even Cardinals and Popes, abandoning it, he sits astride the Catholic Truth for all future generations, so that tomorrow or the day after, all Catholics without exception will be profoundly grateful to him.

--- In ctngreg@y..., bbasile@n... wrote:
>>Such is the sacred heritage
> > which the founder of our Priestly Fraternity of
> > Saint Pius X, Archbishop Lefebvre, has entrusted to
> > us: "It is clear, it is evident that the entire
> > drama between Ece and Rome is due to the problem
> > of the mass. (.) We are convinced that the new rite
> > of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not
> > ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith; (.)
> > that this new rite is misleading and, if I may say,
> > supposes another conception of the Catholic
> > Religion. (.)

I would like to point out in a little stronger terms that the above
quote is very problematical and one could easily say that it was
pointing to the notion that the Novus Ordo is heretical (and
therefore the statement would be a denial of the indefectablity of
the Church).

I think part of the problem is that Bp. Fellay uses a statement of
Abp. Lefevbre as the thesis for their book on the liturgy, but Abp.
Lefevbre was known to make some rash statements which he corrected
later, and the above does not state (as it should) that Abp. Lefevbre
accepted that the Novus Ordo was a valid Catholic rite of Mass.
There certainly could have been a better statement about the New Mass
that could have been used.

But to say that the New Rite expresses a "new faith" could easily be
(mis)understood to mean that the text of the Novus Ordo is heretical.
It not possible to believe that the Pope and all of the bishops of
the Roman rite could formally accept a heretical rite of Mass,
without believing that the Church has been entirely destroyed and
that the Faith has been lost.

Aside from the fact that Our Lord taught that the Church would never
fail in the Faith, there is nothing in the text of the Novus Ordo
that can be construed as heretical anyway.
So, it is not correct to say that the Novus Ordo expresses a "new
faith", unless one means that "elements of the New Rite seem to
express ideas that are contrary to the Roman tradition, and thus can
indirectly result in a loss of faith".

Bill Basile

--- In ctngreg@y..., jfmmersch@a... wrote:
> This article was yesterday also printed int the official daily
bulletin of
> the vatican secretary of state, who used in the curia and from the
papal
> nuntio`s.
> It means no confirmation by the secretary of state, but I seems a
serious
> "news" for the papal stuff.
>
> J. Mersch
>
> ATICAN UPDATE FROM CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS FOR MARCH 28, 2001
>
>
>
>       Pope, Cardinals Meet To Discuss SSPX
>
>       VATICAN, Mar. 28, 01 (CWNews.com) - Pope John Paul II brought
together
> the heads of the curial dicasteries on March 22 to consult with
them on the
> possible results of the dialogue started with the Society of St.
Pius X,
> according to the Milan newspaper Il Foglio on Tuesday.
>
>       Il Foglio said the Pope and cardinals spoke about the
possibility of
> rescinding the 1988 excommunication of the Lefebvrist movement. Two
solutions
> were presented, that of a personal prelature identical to that of
Opus Dei or
> that of an apostolic vicariate which would offer the movement
almost total
> autonomy from diocesan bishops.
>
>
>       Two cardinals were apparently opposed to the idea, according
to Il
> Foglio, namely Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical
Council
> for the Promotion of Christian Unity, and Cardinal Mario Francesco
Pompedda,
> prefect of the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature. These two
cardinals
> reportedly renewed the arguments of certain French bishops who were
opposed
> to a rapprochement with the Lefebvrist movement.
>
>
>       In addition, a book originating with the Society of Saint
Pius X
> recently republished in France and entitled, "The Problem of
Liturgical
> Reform, A Theological and Liturgical Study," was reportedly, during
the
> meeting, a significant point in favor of those who would like the
current
> situation to remain in place. Indeed, this book includes in its
foreword the
> "Address to the Holy Father," written on February 2, 2001 by Bishop
Fellay,
> superior of the society, which recalls point by point criticisms by
> Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of the "new liturgy."
>
>
>       Il Foglio said that after this consultation the final
decision, which
> remains with John Paul, could be announced at any time.