Communicantes: April 2002
Dossier: CamposJanuary 16, 2002, Feast of Saint MarcelOn 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 FellayLetter of the Priestly Union of Saint Jean-Marie Vianney, to the Pope (excerpts)Dated August 15th, 2001Most 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, 2001To 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 BishopsNomination 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 Rangel18th of January 2002I 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 householdInterviewed by Avvenire - Zenit News Agency, Rome, 20 of January 2002ROME, 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 XRegina 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 CamposFr. 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 DomGerard 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 BenedictinesFather Thomas Aquinas, O.S.B.
Prior of Holy Cross Monastery, Nova Friburgo, Brazil4 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 FathersCatholic, March 2002 - Golgotha Monastery Island, Papa Stronsay, Orkney Isles, Scotland, UK KW17 2AROn 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
This document, dated March 1, 2002 is published by D.I.C.I., a news agency set up by the Society of St Pius X and posted on the Internet. D.I.C.I, is for now available only in French (wwvv.le-combat-catholique.com). It is possible also to send them mail at the following address: Service de Presse DICI, Schwandegg CH - 6313 MENZINGEN. Communicantes translated this important message of Bishop Fellay for you. It specifies and completes the declaration dated January 16.The coincidence, not many days ago, of the recognition of Campos by Rome, which some think was a recognition of Tradition, and of the meeting at Assisi, which is to an extreme degree opposed to Tradition, presents such a contradiction that it obliges us to give it our profound attention; the systematic demolition of all that is traditional in the Church since the Second Vatican Council implies a logical coherence in the task undertaken. Before hailing the recognition of Campos as a return of Rome to Tradition, we are obliged to ask ourselves if this event could not also, must not also, be inserted in the post-conciliar logic: and precisely the meeting at Assisi furnishes a convincing argument in favour of this possibility. If post-conciliar Rome is capable of reuniting so many religions, one could even say all the religions, for a common religious cause, why couldn't it also find a small place for Tradition?Should we see in this a dilemma for Rome: resolve the "schism of Tradition" in accepting it, whereas the latter has proved itself until now exclusive and condemning (and thus accept that they are right as opposed to modernist Rome) or continue in the line of the reforms? Quite obviously, the line of the reforms is maintained as an intangible and irreversible principle. Thus, the condition that Rome must set down for the acceptance of a traditional movement is the general accepting of the Council (one could discuss the nuances and certain conclusions). It is the necessary step. It is the entering into pluralism under the appearances of being recognised by Rome, that is imposed, and not the return of the conciliar Church to Tradition. Cardinal Castrillon reproached me for this argument. It would not be in the name of pluralism that Rome desires our return, they would not wish to place us in a pluralistic situation. But nevertheless.The conditions for the realisation of this new prodigy had been expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger, acting in the Camposian agreement from before the beginning of the discussions, first in an article of 30 Days in autumn of 2000, then in the Nef, and finally at Campos, during a press conference, January 19, 2002. Moreover, the papal theologian, Father Cottier, had not used any other argument: the acceptance of the Council is manifestly the major and determining point (afterwards will come the acceptance of the New Mass). It is the principle from which started the revolution in the Church, and in fact all the rest follows. In view of this fact, it seems to me that we find ourselves before another ambiguity with regard to the conciliar Church: when we declare to accept the Council with restrictions (to refuse that which is contrary to perpetual teaching, to interpret the ambiguous in the light of Tradition, to accept what was always taught) it highly appears that we say something completely different than what is understood by the Romans. Because fundamentally, we consider the Council as the great catastrophe of the 20th century, the cause of immeasurable harm done to the Church and to souls, while they see it as the great miracle of the 20th century, the revitalising of the Church.All the rest follows: Father Cottier announces the next step that "they" expect from Campos: the concelebration of the New Mass, of course. And Mgr. Perl says that this will be done piano piano, little by little. Piano piano, the priests and the faithful of Campos will return to the diocese and to the post-conciliar "Church". He also foresees that this will be done rather quickly, however. We cannot attribute these thoughts of Mgr. Perl as being solely inspired by a vengeance for having been excluded from the negotiations: it is the prevailing thought of conciliar Rome.Campos does not wish to see this. The reality will present itself very soon, probably too late. They still think that on the part of Rome, it is the recognition of Tradition. Whereas the opposite has just happened. A part of Tradition, a traditional movement, has accepted, with some reserve, of course, the post-conciliar reality. Rome considers the step sufficient. It must also be remarked that for the first time, a non-dogmatic Council has been set up as criteria for determining catholicity.We await the publication of the definitive statutes of the apostolic Administration, which have not yet been given to those concerned. Having been read the eve of January 18th to the priests of Campos, the text was brought to Rome for amelioration. One thing was missing, only the traditional Mass and breviary had been provided for, there remained the sacraments.Concerning the nominations of the bishops of the Administration, it is dealt with by common law. For the nomination of diocesan bishops, the Vatican is not obliged to choose a priest of the diocese. For an administration consisting of 25 priests, one can easily understand that Rome does not wish to be bound by such a limitation. If the immediate successor of Bishop Rangel would be chosen again from amongst the members of the priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney, which is not certain, it would come from a special "mercy" and would be diplomatic. It should also be noted that the territorial limits of this personal apostolic Administration are very restricted: the diocese of Campos. So the return to the diocese, that was predicted by Mgr. Perl, will not be difficult.We avow that we do not understand, in the situation in which we live, how Campos could have so rashly launched into this venture, without requesting or taking the least protective measure.Whatever one may say to praise the advantages acquired through this new canonical structure, for example the right to the traditional Mass, a traditional bishop, also, the fact that on paper, nothing substantial would have been abandoned: the fragility of the Administration on the one hand, the stability of the reforming Vatican system on the other hand are sufficient arguments to predict the fall of Campos in spite of all the declarations of the best intentions. Furthermore, one must clearly distinguish between a lack of the virtue of faith itself, and a failing in the public confession of faith which is so necessary in certain circumstances, as Bishop de Castro Mayer so well remembered on the day of the episcopal consecrations. And yet a prevarication such as that of Assisi calls for this public confession... which we have not heard coming from Campos.The situation will not regain a particular interest for us unless all of a sudden they begin to resist and arrive therefrom at a confrontation with modernist Rome.