Rorate Caeli

"Great concern about the separatist mentality"

This is the complete text of the letter written by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, as head of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', to the Archbishop of Bombay, India, Ivan Cardinal Dias, regarding the return of three of four diocesan seminarians who had gone to a Seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX) in Australia (the Holy Cross Seminary) and then returned to Bombay.


PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO
ECCLESIA DEI

No. 260/91
Rome, 24 February 2006

Your Eminence,

I wish to acknowledge with gratitude your kind letter to me of 5 February 2006 regarding the return to your flock of three seminarians who had left your Archdiocesan Major Seminary in 2002 to enter to the seminary of the Society of St Pius X in Goulburn, Australia. I am particularly appreciative of the memoranda by these seminarians which you have enclosed and I rejoice with you that they have responded to the grace to return to the fullness of the Catholic faith and life in India. I am very pleased to know that they have found in Your Eminence a paternal welcome back to the bosom of the Catholic Church and I pray that their experience will make them value ever more the importance of being in full communion with the Successor of Peter.

The testimony of these seminarians gives reason for great concern about the separatist mentality which surrounded them in the seminary in Goulburn and which they finally had the grace to reject. I sincerely hope that it will be possible to save their vocations. Their testimony could be a powerful apologetic argument in favour of Catholic unity.

I believe that in dealing with these seminarians, Your Eminence has found a sound way to proceed in any similar cases in the future.

Grateful to your kindness in sharing this information with me and assuring you of my sentiments of fraternal esteem, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos


The implications of the contents of the letter are unknown, as the FSSPX is indirectly accused of harboring a "separatist mentality" in its seminaries -- or at least in its Australian seminary. Three of the four seminarians had written some strong testimonies in 2004 regarding what they had considered doubtful and unorthodox practices in the Diocesan Seminary of Bombay [it is not clear if the three who wrote the testimonies are exactly the same three who returned, but at least two of them are, naturally].

26 comments:

  1. Rome is the one with the "separatist mentality". They have separated themselves from the Tradition of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tony,
    Your ignorance of Catholic doctrine is profound. What do you mean by "Rome", surely not the gnostic version that is at the heart of the SSPX idea of the "eternal Rome"? The Churc h is not an idea or a set of ideas or truths. It is the continuation of the saving work of Christ. To be a catholic one not only has to profess the catholic faith and live it , but accept the governance of the Church "sub Petro et cum Petro". But maybe you believe God has left his Church without a pope?
    Fr. JW

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is far from the usual conciliatory voice that Cardinal Castrillon usually displays. The general tone of the letter tells me that the "agreement" is now completely off the radar. That's a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe the pope is the pope because I have no formal proof that he is not the pope. However, the Novus Ordo sect that is run by the pope is not Catholic. It is a schismatic sect because it is a break from the Church founded by Christ.

    An analogy is that of a father who by adultery has two families, but loves more those offspring of his adulterous union and persecutes those offspring of his Holy Union. Just as the father in the analogy has abandoned his true family, so the Pope has abandoned his true children.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Al,

    I think you are on to something.

    If the the Archbishop of Prague, Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, is to be believed, there is further support for the beleif that Cardinal Castrillon is singing a different tune. Cardinal Vlk, in a condemnation of Michal Semin's TE DEUM publication, was quoted as saying: "I rely on the opinions of the other cardinals, and have personally discussed this association (FSSPX) with Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, who has warned against this schismatic group." (http://www.christorchaos.com/CheckOutThatWolf.html)

    Just out of curiosity, if the SSPX is not in the "bosom of the Church," just which part of the Church is it in?

    QA

    ReplyDelete
  6. The testimonies of the seminarians suggests a thorough corruption in the Bombay seminary. Is this being investigated by Cardinal Castrillon? Are these testimonies true? Whatever separatist aberrations SSPX espouses, they can hardly be worse than what those poor lads were allegedly subjected to in Bombay. The radicalisation of third world churches in the name of inculturation and social justice needs urgent attention.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A google search turns up this cached page.

    http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:zQvhPMCFfNgJ:www.archbom.org/official.htm+return+of+four+bombay+seminarians&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

    THE LEFEBVRE MOVEMENT IN THE ARCHDIOCESE

    Three years ago, four students of St. Pius X College in Goregaon left the Diocesan Seminary to join the schismatic movement of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. They were sent to a seminary in Goulburn (Australia), where they were systematically indoctrinated against the Second Vatican Council, the “modernist” Popes John XXIII and his successors, including Pope Benedict XVI (Pope John Paul II being accused of “silent apostasy”), the New Mass introduced by Pope Paul VI, the Divine Mercy devotion, the Catholic Church’s ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, etc. They were further told that the Holy See is vacant and that the validity of the ordinations of bishops and priests after Vatican II, and the Sacraments performed by them, was to be seriously doubted. In fact, the Sacrament of Confirmation was conferred again on the four seminarians conditionally (i.e. if perchance they did not receive it validly before), and if a priest joined the movement, he would have to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders again conditionally.

    Disillusioned by the above, three of the four aforementioned seminarians have decided to return to full communion with the Catholic Church, notwithstanding the pressures being exerted on them by a small group of diehard Lefebvrists in our Archdiocese. I welcomed them fraternally and, after interviewing them individually, have granted them permission to receive the Sacraments. Their future will be duly monitored by the Archdiocesan Team of Bishops.

    This consoling turn of events confirms the fact that many members of the Lefebvre movement are returning to the Catholic fold. Already in 2002, Lefebvrian Bishop Licinio Rangel of Campos, Brazil, together with his flock sought for and was granted communion with the Vicar of Christ, despite the hostile reactions of the movement leaders. There are many seminaries the world over which receive candidates to the Sacred Priesthood who have left the movement and wish to continue their training in the Church of Rome.

    I deem it opportune to inform the faithful in the Archdiocese that the members of the Lefebvre movement and their Masses – though valid, as are those of some other non-Catholic Christian communities – are not in full communion with the Holy See. May I also recall that, since 2001, for the benefit of those who desire to attend the Tridentine Latin Mass of St. Pius V – so much hyped by the Lefebvrists in opposition to the post-Vatican II Mass introduced by Pope Paul VI – I have authorised its celebration on the first Sunday of every month at the Church of Our Lady of Victories, Mahim.

    Some of the problems inherent to the Lefebvrian movement were mentioned in my Official which appeared in The Examiner on February 11, 2002. The observations made therein are still valid. I request the Clergy, Religious and the Lay Faithful in the Archdiocese to pray that the misguided members of the Lefebvre movement may soon return to full communion with the Church of Rome under the guidance of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

    ReplyDelete
  8. just adding - searched for "return of four bombay seminarians" in google, and clicked on the "Cached" link.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here are the comments from Fr Peter Scott, scroll down to January 2006:

    http://www.holycrossseminary.com/recent_events.htm

    ReplyDelete
  10. "For the benefit of those who desire to attend the Tridentine Latin Mass of St. Pius V – so much hyped . . . I have authorised its celebration on the first Sunday of every month . . ."

    I'm afraid the Archbishop is showing his stripes here. If true, these accusations about the SSPX are disturbing, but so long as the powers that be in the Church refuse to admit the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo regime -- and continue to disaparage the Church's traditional mode of worship -- they themselves constitute the primary cause of the division that exists (be it schism or not).

    I'll pray for the SSPX, but not without praying for our bishops, cardinals, and Holy Father.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Al:

    I think there's a middle ground. And I think the long excerpt posted in the comments by Norman--thank you!--shows what it is.

    The SSPX is not one thing. There are tendencies in it that are marvellous and salvific and tendencies that are destructive. There are some SSPX members that veer toward schism and crypto-sedevacantism and some who are right in the heart of the Church.

    That means that sometimes, we're going to have to criticize the SSPX or her spokesmen. And we can't somehow feel as though it's an act of impiety to contradict--even strongly--some of the things SSPX spokesmen say. Even if they aren't in absolute schism, that doesn't mean that some of the things SSPX authorities or adherents say or do may not be rebellious or worthy of condemnation. Rome can't simply cede to them the job of deciding what's okay and what isn't. And Rome can simultaneously pursue regularization with the group as a whole and encourage individual members who have crises of conscience to regularize their situations on a case-by-case basis. That's how the FSSP was formed, after all, and one of ITS members is a contributing blogger.

    I mean, what should a Bishop do if SSPX seminarians come to him and say, "Your Excellency, we don't like what we're hearing at the SSPX seminary. It seems to us unCatholic. We think we've made a mistake. Can we come back and continue our studies under your authority?" Should he say, "No! Go away! Go back to your SSPX seminary!"? That's absurd. And what should Cardinal Castrillon do if a Bishop reconciles with such seminarians? Should he condemn the bishop? Many bishops would have simply sent the seminarians packing: "We don't need your kind in the seminary. You have a pre-Vatican Two mentality."

    Perhaps the return of these seminarians will be an INSTRUMENT for the rectification of the problems in these seminaries. Patience and hope; Patience and hope. We can all get caught up in these local and incidental troubles and these quarrels over single events. The Holy Spirit will never abandon us. Don't despair!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Seminarians have been migrating and reverting since the year dot. Anyone who attempts to capitalise on their fulminations on behalf of one camp or the other today is risking serious embarassment tomorrow. Half-a-dozen hotheads flee the Jansenistic separatism of Econe to present themselves at Wigratzbad armed with freshly minted tales of cryptosedevacantism and spiritual tyranny. On their way they pass another six making the reverse journey, barely able to contain their outrage at being force-fed rank modernism and naturalistic psychobabble.

    Young men in their twenties...

    ReplyDelete
  13. "[T]he Novus Ordo sect that is run by the pope is not Catholic. It is a schismatic sect because it is a break from the Church founded by Christ."

    I get it now; the pope is in schism with himself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mr. Alexander,

    You are incorrect. The pope is NOT the Church. He is its servant. Therefore, the pope is not in schism with himself. Rather, he is in schism (materially) with the Church, especially for celebrating that abomination called the Novus Ordo Missae.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tony:

    I was making a joke.

    The problem with being "more Catholic than the Pope," is that one can never be Catholic enough for them. Whatever one thinks of the reformed liturgy, the position you aspire is a dead end. If Peter is outside the Church, then where is Peter? Where is the Church?

    Anyway, I'm letting Jeff speak for me, cuz he's much better at it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, David, I'm not teasing Tony any more! I'm sure he's doing his best in a confusing situation.

    Anyway, I would surely never claim to speak for the one-and-only David Alexander!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mr. Alexander,

    We have to distinguish between material and formal.

    If a pope were to say, "In accordance with Catholic Tradition, the Eucharist does not truly contain the Blood of our Lord, but only His Body", then he would be pronouncing material heresy because he thinks that what he is saying is true in that it is consonant with Tradition. On the other hand, if the pope were to say, "Contrary to the Council of Trent, I tell you that the Eucharist does not truly contain the Blood of Our Lord, but only His Body", then he would be pronouncing formal heresy because he is making it manifest that he is contradicting a dogmatic council.

    In the same respect, Pope Benedict XVI has pronounced heresies in the past, but we can only say that he has pronounced material heresy because we have no proof that he actually knows otherwise. Therefore, his material heresy places him materially outside of the Church (i.e., material schism), but he does not lose his authority as pope. If he were to pronounce formal heresy and make this manifest, then he would lose his office and cease to be pope.

    A validly elected pope has never formally placed himself outside of the Church in its 2,000 year history. I personally believe the Holy Ghost would never allow this to happen.

    Nevertheless, we must still resist the pope even when we pronounces material heresy for the good of souls.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Did Joseph Ratzinger really spout heresy in the past, or was it (1) the propaganda of the SSPX, or (2) a lack of understanding of what he said? Maybe some examples will be useful.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not sure if this accusation of having a "separatist mentality" is the same as being critical of the NOM and certain texts of Vatican II, something which the Campos priests says they will continue to do when signing the accord with Rome in 2002, but also something which I have not seen since then (unless someone can show me otherwise).

    ReplyDelete
  20. The accusations made by the seminarians should not be lightly dismissed. They have the ring of truth about them - I can vouch first hand for similar things in other places. The ultra-traditionalism of a Pius X seminary seems to me less of a threat to salvation than the denial of the theological, liturgical and moral order which has been the standard fare in most other seminaries for many years. It is getting better now, but only by increments and only in some places. (Seminaries should be bulldozed anyway - locking poor lads up for seven years is a nasty Counter-Reformation idea anyway. It is no wonder heresy and immorality thrive in such an unnatural, power-driven environment). Until Hoyos cleans up the seminaries he can hardly blame people for looking for something else better.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tony:

    What a man says or does as a priest or bishop is one thing, but what he says as Successor to Peter is another. I would concede that the former Professor Ratzinger dabbled in some radical speculation before the late 1960s. I've read some of it. I'm also aware of the transformation (as would anyone be who has read any bio of his) he experienced while on a troubled campus in 1968, and how that affected his writings and teachings from that time forward.

    I brought up the example of Peter denying Christ for the same reason. I also submit, that when a man denies that a Pope serves legitimately as a Successor to Peter (and no one is putting words in your mouth, sir; that is the inevitable conclusion), the burden is on him (and not the rest of us) to answer the question: "Where is Peter? Where is the Church?"

    It's not based in Econe, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Peter is in Rome. The Church is with the Traditionalists.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You asked so I answered.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ...in a manner that begs to be reconciled, with the axiom attributed to the saint in question. For the rest of you, that would be:

    "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesiam."

    ReplyDelete
  25. IT IS A JOKE, ST. THOMAS MOORE WAS KILLED OVER THE STUPID ISSUE OF DIVORCE,ANNULMENT RE-MARRAGES. THE NEW CHURCH MARRIED MY BROTHER TO A GIRL WHO WAS GRANTED AN ANNULMENT. NOW MY BROTHER DEVORCED HER AND SHE JUST RECEIVED HER SECOND ANNULMENT. NOW SHE, WITH THE HELP OF THE NEW V2 CHURCH IS ON TO HER THIRD HUSBAND, HE ALSO WAS MARRIED AND DEVORCED AND GIVEN AN ANNULMENT. GREAT NEW CHURCH YOU PEOPLE HAVE. GET MARRIED GET AN ANNULMENT GET MARRIED AGAIN GET AN ANNULMENT. DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CHURCH THAT CHRIST GAVE PETER THE KEYS TO WOULD WANT PEOPLE TO STAY MARRIED IF THEY ARE NOT "HAPPY". LEAVE THE DUMB TRADITIONALISTS ALONE THEY STILL BELIEVE IN HAVING JUST ONE WIFE OR ONE HUSBAND, THEY ARE SILLY, LEAVE THEM IN THERE IGNORANCE.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!