An overture from Cardinal Hoyos and Rome was made to the Society of Saint Piux X.Here is the Reply and position regarding
there situation by Bishop Fellay
SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X
Priorat Mariae Verkundigung Schloss Schwandegg
Menzingen, ZG, CH-6313 SWIZTERLAND
+Menzingen, 6 June 2004
H.E. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos
*Most Reverend Eminence,
*"Your letter of December 30, a letter of greetings with the new proposal of an accord did indeed reach us. We have taken some time to answer because it leaves us perplexed. Allow me to respond with the greatest frankness, the only way of making progress.
We are sensitive to your efforts and those of the Holy Father to come to our aid, and we see that this overture on your part is certainly very generous. Accordingly, we are much afraid lest our attitude and our response not be understood. When we made our request that two conditions be met at the beginning of our discussions, and when we repeated that request several times, we were simply indicating a natural and necessary order to follow: before constructing a roadway on a bridge, one must lay its foundations. Otherwise the enterprise is doomed to failure. We do not see how we could arrive at a recognition without passing through a number of steps.
Among these steps, the first seems to us to be the lifting1 of the decree of excommunication. The excommunication applying to the Orthodox was lifted without their in any way changing their attitude towards the Holy See; would it not be possible to do something similar in our regard, for us who have never separated ourselves from the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, which we have always recognized as defined by Vatican Council I. At the time of our2 consecration in 1988 we took an oath of fidelity to the Holy See; we have always professed our attachment to the Holy See and the Sovereign Pontiff, we have taken all kinds of measures to show that we have no intention of erecting a parallel hierarchy: it should not be so difficult to cleanse us from the accusation of schism…
As regards the penalty for the reception of the episcopate, the
Code of Canon Law of 1983 foresees that the maximum penalty should not be applied in the case where a subject has acted on the basis of a *subjective *necessity. If the Holy See does not want to admit that there was a state of objective necessity, it should at least admit that we perceive things in this way.
Such a measure would be recognized as a real overture on the part of Rome and would create the new climate necessary for any progress.
At the same time, the SSPX would submit itself to what we could by analogy call an
ad limina visit. The Holy See could observe us and examine our development without there being any engagement of the two sides for the time being.
With respect to the formulas that you ask us to sign, they suppose a certain number of conditions that we cannot accept and that leave us very ill at ease.
The propositions suppose that we are guilty and that this guilt has separated us from the Church. In reparation, and to certify our orthodoxy, they ask us for a sort of limited profession of faith (Vatican Council II and the
Novus Ordo).
Most of our priests and faithful have been directly confronted with heresy, and often faced with grave liturgical scandal coming from their own pastors, from bishops as well as priests. The whole history of our movement is marked by a tragic succession of events of this kind up to today, as we are joined by religious, seminarians, and priests who have had the same experience. You cannot exact a justified penalty or contrition because alone, abandoned by the pastors and betrayed by them, we have reacted to conserve the faith of our baptism or in order not to dishonor the divine Majesty. It is impossible to analyze the 1988 Consecrations without considering the tragic context in which they took place. Otherwise, things become incomprehensible and justice no longer has its due.
Furthermore, it is often said that our status would be a concession, and that we would be accorded a situation suitable to our *“special charism.”
*Must one recall that what we are attached to is the **common **patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church? We do not ask nor do we seek a special status as a mark of singularity, but we want a “normal” place in the Church. So long as the Tridentine Mass is considered a particular concession, we remain marginalized, in a precarious and suspect position. It is in this perspective that we claim a
right that has never been lost: that of the Mass for everyone. To reduce this right to an indult (which certain Roman voices hold to be provisory) is already to diminish it. "
This is PART 1 (TEXT TOO LONG)
Kellam
