Dossier:
Campos
1- Declaration of Bishop Fellay concerning the
priests of Campos
January 16, 2002, Feast of
Saint Marcel
On January 18, 2002,
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos will read, in the cathedral of Campos, various
documents by which Pope John Paul II erects an apostolic administration for the
(traditional) priests of Campos and the faithful who are associated with them.
Bishop Rangel is recognized as a Catholic bishop and named as the head of the
new administration. This administration will have the right to use the 1962
liturgical books, that is to say the Tridentine Mass. The censures "possibly
incurred" (sic) will be lifted. The Pope accepts the offer from the priests
of Campos to combat heresy in the Church.
Bishop Rangel will make a
profession of Faith, in the name of everyone, and a declaration, in which he
recognizes John Paul II as Pope, the bishop of the diocese as the legitimate
bishop and Vatican Council II as a council of the Catholic Church. He will
nevertheless state that he reserves the right to criticize in a positive way
that which is not in conformity with Tradition. Likewise for the New Mass,
recognized as valid in itself, but which also is subject to constructive
criticism.
The Society of Saint Pius X
remarks that this outcome is the fruit of a peace worked out in separation. In
order to obtain it, the Campos priests had to separate themselves, to some
extent, from the Society of Saint Pius X. The Society takes note of the
hastiness and the partially hidden character of the negotiations that preceded
the present recognition. They have abandoned, for example, the condition
concerning the Tridentine Mass that would have granted every priest in the world
the right to celebrate it freely. All of this is not good, for strength
lies in unity. We cannot say either that by this act the crisis in the Church
has been overcome. It could be a step in this direction. The future will tell
us.
The Fathers from Campos
affirm that they will continue the combat for Tradition. It must also be
acknowledged that no substantial concession on a doctrinal level has been made.
Time alone will determine how Rome permits the development of this work. With
respect to this, the choice of the successor for Bishop Licinio Rangel will be
of great importance. This question is not decided. The same can be said for the
juridical status of the administration, also not decided.
What will be, henceforth,
their relations with Rome and with us? It is again time that will determine
this. The new situation that has been created will be a test for the future.
The Society remains very reserved, and watches apprehensively as close as
possible the development of the work, while waiting to see its fruits. It is by
its fruits that a tree is to be judged.
It must be acknowledged
that, for the first time, a diocesan kind of structure has been granted to
Tradition. A traditional bishop is now recognized as such, as fully Catholic.
We pray that all this work
together for the good of Tradition and of the Church, despite the mixed
feelings that we experience for the time being. We only desire to continue our
work in the spirit and according to the principles handed down to us by
Archbishop Lefebvre.
On the feast of Saint
Marcel,
+ Bernard Fellay
Letter of the Priestly Union of Saint Jean-Marie Vianney, to the Pope
(excerpts)
Dated August 15th,
2001
Most Holy Father,
In the name of our
Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Faith, we have endeavoured to hold fast to the
holy doctrinal and liturgical Traditions which the holy Church has handed down
to us, and, according to our feable strength and with the help of God's grace,
to resist against what your predecessor of illustrious memory, Pope Paul VI has
called the "autodemolition" of the Church. This is how we hope to
best help your Holiness and the Holy Church. (...)
We have always considered
ourselves to be in the Catholic Church, from which we have never had the intention
to separate ourselves, notwithstanding the situation within the Church and the
problems which have affected traditionally-minded Catholics, problems
well-known to Your Holiness which, we believe, fill your heart as ours with
sorrow and with anguish: and yet juridically we have been considered to be
living at the margin of the Church.
Here, then, is our request:
that we might be accepted and recognised as Catholics.
Your Holiness has preceded
our desire in charging His Emminence, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the most
worthy Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Clergy, to proceed with the
juridical recognition of our position as Catholics in the Church. How grateful
to Your Holiness we are for this!
We request, officially, to
be able to collaborate with Your Holiness in the work of the propagation of the
Faith and of Catholic doctrine, with zeal and for the honour of the Holy Church
- 'a standard set up unto the nations' (Is. XI: 12), in the battle against the
errors and the heresies which threaten to destroy the Barque of Peter - though
in vain, since the 'gates of hell shall not prevail against it'.
We place our profession of
the Catholic Faith in the august hands of Your Holiness: we profess perfect
communion with the See of Peter, of whom Your Holiness is the legitimate
successor. We recognise your primacy and government over the Universal Church,
its pastors and its faithful. We declare that we do not wish to be separated
from the Rock upon which Jesus Christ has founded His Church for anything in
the world.
(Asking the Apostolic
blessing, etc.)
Reply of John Paul II to Bishop Rangel (excerpts)
Dated December 25th,
2001
To our Venerable Brother
Licinio Rangel,
And to the dear sons of the
Sacerdotal Union Saint Jean-Marie Vianney of Campos, Brasil,
With great joy we have
received your letter of 15 August whereby your entire Union renewed its
confession of the Catholic Faith, signifying its full communion with the See of
Peter, acknowledging his 'primacy and government over the Universal Church, its
pastors and faithful', and declaring that they 'do not wish to be separated
from the Rock upon which Jesus Christ has founded His Church for anything in
the world'.
With the greatest pastoral
joy we accept your desire to cooperate with the successor of Blessed Peter in
the propagation of the Catholic Faith and its teaching, zealous for the honour
of the Holy Church, which is the standard raised amongst the nations (Is.
11:12), and fighting against those who, to no avail, endeavour to shackle the
boat of Peter because "the gates of hell will not prevail against
her" (Matth. 16:18).
We give thanks to the Lord
One and Triune for such good sentiments!
Having considered all these
things for the glory of God, the good of the Holy Church and the supreme law
which is the salvation of the souls (cf. can. 1752 CIC), and accepting
sincerely your request to be admitted to full communion with the Catholic
Church, we recognize that you belong to her canonically.
At the same time we inform
you, Venerable Brother, that a legislative document will be prepared, which
will determine the juridical form by which your ecclesiastical goods will be
confirmed and by which the respect of your proper goods will be warranted.
That document will erect
canonically your Union as a Personal Apostolic Administration which will be
submitted directly to the Apostolic See and whose territory will be the diocese
of Campos. The question of the cumulative jurisdiction with regard to the
diocesan Ordinary will be dealed with. The government of that Personal
Apostolic Administration will be confided to you, Venerable Brother, and your
succession will be provided.
The Apostolic
Administration will be given the faculties to celebrate the Eucharist and the Liturgy
of the Hours according to the roman rite and the liturgical discipline
promulgated by our predecessor saint Pius V, and as revised by his succesors
until blessed Pope John XXIII.
With great gladness, and
that your full communion might be rendered certain, we declare the remission of
the censure in your regard, Venerable Brother, foreseen by can. 1382 CIC, and
simultaneously the remission of all censures and the pardon of all
irregularities which the other members of this Union have incurred".
(Apostolic Blessing, etc.)
Decree from the Congregation of Bishops
Nomination of the Apostolic
Administrator to the Personal Apostolic Administration "Saint Jean Marie
Vianney".
To provide for the
government of the personal Apostolic Administration "Saint Jean Marie
Vianney" in Campos (Brazil), by the present decree of the Congregation of
Bishops, the Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, pontiff by the Divine Providence,
appoints and establishes as Apostolic Administrator His Excellence Licinio
Rangel, granting to him at the same time the episcopal title of the Church of
Zarnen, with every right, power and duties established in the decree creating
this Apostolic Administration.
Rome, Act of the
Congregation of the Bishops, January 18th, 2002.
Declaration of Mgr Licinio Rangel
18th of January
2002
I declare, jointly with the
priests of the Apostolic Administration of Saint Jean-Marie Vianney of Campos,
Brazil, the following:
- We recognise the Holy
Father Pope John Paul II along with all his powers and prerogatives, promissing
him filial obedience and offering our prayers for him.
- We recognise the Second
Vatican Council as one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church,
accepting it in the light of Sacred Tradition.
- We recognise the validity
of the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI, whenever celebrated
corretly and with the intention to offer the true Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.
- We engage ourselves to go
into all yet open questions profoundly, taking into consideration canon 212 of
the Code of Canon Law (CIC) and in a sincere spirit of humility and fraternal
charity towards all. "In necessary things, unity, in doubtful things,
liberty, in all things, charity" (St. Augustine).
*Canon 212 of the Code of
Canon Law (revised version , Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae
Leges, January 25th 1983):
§1 Christ's faithful,
conscious of their own responsability, are bound to show Christian obedience to
what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith
and prescribe as rulers of the Church.
§2 Christ's faithful are at
liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their
wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
§3 They have the right,
indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and
position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which
concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views
known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect
the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take
into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
3 -
Commentary of Father Georges Cottier, O.P., theologian of the papal household
Interviewed by Avvenire
- Zenit News Agency, Rome, 20 of January 2002
ROME, JAN. 20, 2002
(ZENlT.org-AvvenireV John Paul II's decision to allow a formerly schismatic
fraternity to celebrate Mass according to the St. Pius V rite should not be
seen as a setback for Vatican Council II, says the theologian of the Papal
Household.
"Good news -- a break
that is healed precisely in the Week of Christian Unity," said Father
Georges Cottier, commenting on the return to the Church of the schismatic St.
Jean Marie Vianney Fraternity. The fraternity had been sympathetic to French
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Father Cottier, a
Dominican, said: "From the beginning, the possibility was foreseen in some
cases -- for example, for elderly priests -- to continue celebrating according
to this rite [of St. Pius V]."
He continued:
"Following Lefebvre's schism, permission was granted to St. Peter's
Fraternity to maintain this tradition alive. Moreover, the Pope requested that
at least in large cities there should be a place where Mass in Latin would be
celebrated, perhaps even with the Pius V rite."
Question:
What is novel about this event, then?
Father Cottier: There is much more behind Lefebvre's schism: There is the rejection of
the Council, of ecumenism, of the principle of religious freedom —a global
rejection of which the liturgy was only the flag, although many people went
with Lefebvre precisely for this reason.
Since the rupture [in 1988]
until today, other followers of his have already returned to full communion
with the Catholic Church. However, the principal condition has always been
the full recognition of the authority of Vatican Council II. And this is
what the principal group, the one of Ecône, has never accepted up until now.
Question: One
of the pillars of Vatican II, however, is "Sacrosancturn Concilium,"
the constitution on the liturgy.
Father Cottier: It is one of the most beautiful texts of the Council, but it must not be
identified with all the ways in which the liturgical reform has been put into
practice.
We cannot forget that in
the first years, especially in some countries, there was much disorder. Let's
take an example: the Gregorian. In a certain phase it was violently rejected,
but to substitute it with what? Sometimes with songs that had little that was
religious about them, or with a "chatting" liturgy where there is no
room for silence.
Some people have suffered
because of this, and some faithful have gone over to Lefebvre perhaps without
clearly seeing the problem that was emerging.
Question:
Yes, but by extending the use of the Pius V rite, is not the risk of confusion
increased?
Father Cottier: The differences have always been allowed. I am a Dominican: Until the
Council we had a Dominican liturgy that was a variation of the Roman rite.
However, unity was not compromised because of this.
"Sacrosanctum
Concilium" can be very well accepted even while maintaining one's own
specificity. Let us recall that the Council itself did not think of the whole
celebration in the vernacular tongue: The canon should have remained in Latin.
The liturgical reform took
an additional step and, looking at the majority of Catholics, it was an
appropriate option. However, this does not mean that the desire to find again
in the tradition a more profound sense of interiority, of silence, of beauty
is, in itself, inadmissible.
Question: How
can this specificity be reconciled with effective communion with the whole
Church?
Father Cottier: Many Lefebvrists maintain that "our" Paul VI Mass is not valid1 . At least now this-group will not be able to think such a thing. Little
by little we must expect other steps: for example, that they also participate
in concelebrations in the reformed rite. However, we must not be in a
hurry. What is important is that in their hearts there no longer be rejection. Communion
found again in the Church has an internal dynamism of its own that will mature.
Question:
With last Friday's action, has the implementation of the Council taken a step
forward or backward?
Father Cottier: Certainly forward. There was no wish to
create ruptures in Vatican II. Its intention was to place the Church in greater
consonance with pastoral challenges, with the mission, with divine worship
itself.
There was a very strong
sense in the Council of the centrality of the liturgy in the life of the
Church. And, if there is a privileged place of communion, it is, precisely, the
Eucharist. We must rejoice over this reconciliation.
I hope it will open the way
to others. In this process, communion with Peter's Successor is fundamental.
Also in the liturgy: Until now, in the Mass celebrated by Lefebvrists there was
no "communication" with the Pope. Now, at least in Brazil, it will no
longer be like this.
1. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre never stated that the New Mass is, in
itself, always invalid, (that would mean: not realizing the real
Presence as a Victim of Our Lord on the altar at the Consecration). But he did
always say that the New Mass, through its rite, is bad in that sense
that it favors protestant heresies and the ruin of the Catholic Faith.
Commentary of Father Peter Scott, District Superior of the USA for the
Society of St Pius X
Regina Coeli Report, Letter to Friends and Benefactors, February 2002 (excerpts)
The theme of this joint
ceremony between modernists and
traditionalists was "unity in diversity". In
fact, such is the basis of the Indult Mass, as contained in John Paul IPs Motu
Proprio of 1988 Ecclesia Dei adflicta, and such is the basis for
this reconciliation as described in the joint statement of Bishops Rangel and
Guimaraes:
"We further remember
the invitation of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II: 'All pastors and other
faithful must have a new consciousness not only of the legitimacy but also of
the riches that the diversity ofcharisms, traditions, spirituality and
apostolate represent for the Church. This diversity also constitutes the beauty
of unity in diversity: this is the symphony that, under the action of the Holy
Ghost, the earthly Church elevates to heaven'
(Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei
adflicta). It is thus with intense
happiness that we communicate to all this gesture of kindness of the Holy
Father, the Pope, wishing an ever-increasing union among Catholics -'unity
in diversity' -as the Holy Father wishes, for the greater glory of God and
honor of the Holy Church".
We must certainly respect
the good intentions of the priests from Campos, who have not attacked the
Society's refusal to make a deal, but simply stated that their situation is
different, given that they are all in one diocese. We also must acknowledge
that they have not compromised in the same way that the priests of the
Fraternity of Saint Peter, who have accepted in principle the celebration of
the New Mass and the post-conciliar theology.
Nevertheless, it certainly
saddens us that they have backed down on the clear position so well expressed
in their 1999 book Catholic, Apostolic & Roman, and that this rift
in tradition has come about for the sake of a canonical status, and that the
priests of Campos have opted for the easy way out, the path of least
resistance. So different were the heroic words of Bishop De Castro Mayer in a
similar situation, on June 30, 1988:
"I want to manifest
here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency
Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries.
Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic
Apostolic and Roman Church" (Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican p.
124).
Different also were the
words written by the same priests on the occasion of the episcopal consecration
of Bishop Rangel:
"Given the present
situation of extraordinary crisis through which the Church is passing, with its
hierarchy directly and indirectly bringing about its destruction -'auto-demolition'
— and for this very reason systematically naming bishops that have compromised
with progressism, this extraordinary episcopal consecration is imposed upon us
as an act that we call 'Operation Survival of Tradition'".
Furthermore, we cannot
help but deplore their implicit acknowledgement that they were outside of full
ecclesial communion until this ceremony took place. The Society had
insisted, as a matter of principle, on a statement that the excommunications
were null and void, that Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient reason to
consecrate bishops and that we are and have always been Catholics in good
standing, as a pre-condition for any arrangement to be even discussed. This
principle has been abandoned. Moreover, the modernist concept of degrees of
communion has been accepted in the place of the traditional teaching of
being either inside or outside the Church contained in the dogma "Outside
the Church no salvation ". Before Vatican II, there was no such thing
as perfect or imperfect ecclesial communion. One was either a Catholic, inside
the Church, or excommunicated, outside the Church, on the way to eternal
perdition. There is no in between. However, for the modernists, other
Christians and other believers are in various degrees of imperfect communion
although not actually members of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the concept
that destroys the whole idea of one true Church that underlies the statement
that the Campos priest are only now in full communion.
However, worst of all is
the acceptation of the Indult principle of "unity in diversity",
namely that we can be one with other "Catholics" in their diverse
expressions of religious experience, including charismatics and modernists of
all kinds. The principle of unity is not diversity. This is a pure
contradiction for anybody who does not hold to the modernist conception of
religion being the collection of everybody's personal experiences from within.
To the contrary, the principle of unity is Catholic Tradition, as expressed in
the catechism, namely, "to profess the same Faith, have the same
sacrifice and sacraments, united under one and the same visible head, the
Pope". We are only one with Novus Ordo Catholics inasmuch as they hold
fast to these truths, despite the revolutionary direction given by the
modernists in the Church, and we are certainly in no way one with any that
knowingly and willingly depart from any one of them.
The coincidence of Assisi
II, last month's world prayer meeting for all religions, with this ceremony of
regularization, just adds to our sorrow. If it was Assisi, in 1986, that
convinced Archbishop Lefebvre of the destruction of the sense of the Faith and
the gravity of the crisis in the Church and decided him to consecrate bishops,
it is Assisi II that is our wake up call that ecumenism is still alive and
well, that it continues to destroy the Church within, at its very marrow, and
that it is our duty to stand firm and make reparation for it. It is certainly
not by accepting to be united in diversity with ecumenists that we will do
this. It is for this reason that Bishop Fellay has asked that in our priories
and principal chapels a day of reparation be held.
Open Letter to the Priests of Campos
Fr.
Lourenqo Fleichman, O.S.B.
This letter was written on
October 30th ,2001, before the reconciliation between Campos and the
Vatican, and was posted on the Internet. It was printed also in the Angelus,
February 2002. Fr Fleichman was a monk at Le Barroux, France, when the accord
was signed in 1988 between Dom
Gerard Calvet and the
Vatican. In conscience, he left the monastery in order to remain faithful to
the combat for the Faith. He now serves an independent chapel at Niteroi, near
Rio de Janeiro.
(...) Here is the first
similarity I see between Dom Gerard's attitude and yours: Archbishop Lefebvre
had just refused an agreement because he had not been able to perceive in the
Vatican's intentions the guarantees that would be necessary to assure the
survival of Catholic Tradition. Dom Gerard, placing the particular interests of
his monastery above the Church's good, accepted a separation from Archbishop
Lefebvre in order to "normalize" his juridical and canonical status,
thereby letting fall the sword of combat.
Today, equally, the Society
has just rejected an accord for the same reasons as Archbishop Lefebvre, and
you prefer to consider your particular interests and not the common good of the
Church. You have grown weary of the daily fight and of being marginalized.
(...)
I said in 1988 to Dom
Gerard what I repeat to you today: thousands of the faithful anxiously wait for
you to confirm them in the Catholic Faith, in the combat that divine Providence
requires of us, without our succumbing to fatigue, weakness, or the siren song
of legality. What our Lord requires is martyrdom endured drop by drop, and a
clear and simple profession of Catholic Faith without compromising with the
modernists in the Vatican. The Pope, yes; legality, yes; but above all,
respond to God's clear call to the combat of the faith. The day the Pope really
converts, it will appear more clearly than the light of day. Obviously, it is
not by kissing the Koran or by going to pray in a mosque that he manifests this
conversion. (...)
Reaction of the Traditional Benedictines
Father Thomas Aquinas,
O.S.B.
Prior of Holy Cross Monastery, Nova Friburgo, Brazil
4 December 2001 - Bulletin
No. 23.
We share entirely the fears
of Mgr Fellay and of the whole Society of St Pius X as well as of the whole
family of Tradition throughout the world as we see our friends in Campos
engaged in coming to an agreement with Rome without the doctrinal question
having been resolved. That which Mgr Fellay refused is about to be accepted
or has already been accepted by Campos. The Society of St Pius X has had ample
opportunity to learn the ideas and intentions of Rome. If it wanted to, Campos
could profit from this experience. But it must want to do so. Let us pray for
our friends, our brothers-in-arms in so many battles. Have they forgotten these
words of Mgr Lefebvre: 'Prepare yourselves for a combat which will last a long
time?' The combat will be long. 'Rome' is not yet converted. Pius XII predicted
that the principal temptation for Catholics in the years to come would be
weariness. Let us not become weary of the fight that we might be able one day
to say with St Paul: 'I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I
have kept the Faith' (2 Tim 4: 7). Nor should we weary of praying for Campos,
for its priests and its faithful, that their combat might be equally marked by
zeal and prudence."
Comments by the traditional transalpine Redemptorists Fathers
Catholic, March 2002 - Golgotha Monastery Island, Papa Stronsay, Orkney Isles,
Scotland, UK KW17 2AR
On 22 August, 1999, the
priests of Campos declared:
"There is not, on our
part, a systematic refusal of submission to the pope and the bishops. We
absolutely reject any intention, desire for, or spirit of schism. We constitute
no 'Lefebvrist' or 'traditionalist' party. We are apostolic Roman Catholics. We
repeat: our resistance to the ecclesiastical authorities is circumstantial,
temporary, and limited to those points on which those same authorities distance
themselves from the doctrine of all times. When the ecclesiastical authorities
return without condition to teaching and doing that which the Church has always
taught and done, we ... will all be at the complete disposition of those same
authorities." (Catholic, Apostolic and Roman, 43).
These words could not
better sum up our own position and that of all Traditionalists.
The ecclesiastical
authorities have not returned "without condition to teaching and doing
that which the Church has always taught and done"; Assisi II is proof
enough of that. And yet, we are saddened to note that the authors of this
declaration have now put themselves at "the complete disposition of those
same authorities".
We do not think that their
case can be compared adequately with that of Dom Gerard and Le Barroux, or of
Fr Bisig and the Society of St Peter. (...) We share wholeheartedly the views
expressed by His Lordship, Bishop Fellay in his statement of 16 January. Only
time will tell whether the Priestly Union of St Jean-Marie Vianney will remain
true to the principles of Bishop de Castro Mayer or simply come to guarantee
the pluralism in the Conciliar Church.
5 - Superior General's Message of March 1st, 2002
