are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick." (Mk ii, 17)
From a November 2011 bulletin of a local house of the French district of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), made available in the district website (tip: Fecit Forum):
Following the consecrations of 4 bishops by Abp. Lefebvre in Écône, on June 30, 1988, the Vatican authorities granted the celebration of the ancient liturgy to some communities. These are particularly the Fraternity of Saint Peter (founded by former priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X in 1988), the Institute of Christ the King (established by Fr. Wach in Griciliano, near Florence, in Italy), the Benedictine abbey of Le Barroux (under Dom Gérard), the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, in Chéméré, France (which suddenly moved from Sedevacantism to Conciliar ralliement at the moment in which Abp. Lefebvre led negotiations with Rome in 1987), the institute of Opus Mariae (father Wladimir), the teaching Dominican sisters of Pontcallec (founded by Father Berto); more recently, the Fraternity of Saint John Mary Vianney, of Campos, Brazil (under Bp. Rifan) and the Institute of the Good Shepherd, founded in 2006 by former priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
Where does the name come from?
These communities bear the generic name of "Ecclesia Dei communities" because most of them depend on the commission (small group of bishops and priests designated by the Pope to take charge of a specific matter) of the same name, founded in Rome following the episcopal consecrations of 1988 in order to receive the priests and seminarians who left the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
The words "Ecclesia Dei" are the title of document of John Paul II that excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre on July 2, 1988: we can thus say that all these communities are established on this excommunication and, therefore, benefit from the heroic act performed by Abp. Lefebvre on June 30, 1988. If the founder of Écône had not first announced (May 29, 1987) then proceeded (June 30, 1988) to the consecration of bishops, the Roman authorities would never have granted the traditional liturgy to all these communities.
Does the Vatican ask these communities for assurances in order to grant them the right to celebrate the ancient liturgy?
They must in fact recognize the new Mass as a fully legitimate rite; because the so-called traditional liturgy is considered by the Roman authorities as only an "extraordinary rite" of the Mass, compared with the new Mass, which is the "ordinary rite", that is, the usual way of celebrating Mass. Moreover, in 2000, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos reminded this to the superiors of the Fraternity of Saint Peter regarding a group of their priests who also wished to celebrate the new Mass.
The members of these communities must therefore abstain from any criticism regarding Vatican II; they must specially accept - or, at least, they must not criticize - religious liberty and ecumenism. That is why they are so disturbed by these inter-religious ceremonies as practiced in Assisi: it devastates them, undoubtedly, but they cannot protest publicly.
Why isn't the Society of Saint Pius X part of these communities?
The 1988 consecrations helped save Catholic Tradition not only by ensuring the transmission of the sacrament of Holy Orders - and, therefore, of the Traditional Mass and sacraments -, but also by protecting a small part of the Church's flock from the errors of Vatican II. Alas, these conciliar errors still devastate the Church, and rule even in Rome. In order to protect oneself efficaciously, it is therefore necessary to keep one's distances from the Roman authorities.
Can you give us an analogy?
In times of an epidemic, the most basic prudence demands one to separate the sick from the healthy. Some contact remains indispensable in order to care for the sick, but it is limited to the smallest possible [level] and surrounded by great precaution. The same goes for the current situation: one cannot visit in a habitual manner the conciliar authorities without exposing oneself to catching their errors. The example of the Ecclesia Dei communities is the manifest evidence of that.
Have the members of the Ecclesia Dei communities truly admitted the conciliar errors, or are they satisfied with keeping silent about them?
Without the intention of judging the internal dispositions or possible exceptions, it seems that most of their members have ended up, unfortunately, adhering to the Conciliar errors. They began with a silence that they considered prudent. They have had to increasingly show signs of good will regarding the Roman authorities. They have been placed in submission, without even noticing it, to the pressure of Liberalism - which is more efficacious when it seems less forceful. They have ended up forbidding themselves to think differently from what they said and did. In short, they have been completely swallowed by the machinery in which they had imprudently placed their finger.
Is this acceptance of the conciliar errors common to all Ecclesia Dei communities?
There are nuances, certainly, but, in a general fashion, all these communities currently adhere to the conciliar errors. At the moment of the ralliement of July 1988, Le Barroux had publicly posed as a condition, "that nothing liturgical or doctrinal be demanded from us in return, and that no silence be imposed to our anti-Modernist predication." However, in the following month of October, a monk noticed "a certain relativization of the criticism of religious liberty and of the meeting of Assisi" inside the abbey. Le Barroux would even try to publicly justify the errors of Vatican II. The Fraternity of Saint Peter, which intended, at the beginning, to carry on the inside of the Church exactly what the Society of Saint Pius X did, has suffered the same fall.
Have not these communities remained firm, at least, on the liturgy?
Far from resisting firmly, they have all more or less accepted the new liturgy, which they avoid attacking frankly, in any event: Dom Gérard, the former abbot of Le Barroux, had to concelebrate the new Mass with the Pope on April 27, 1995. Father Wach, the superior of the Institute of Christ the King, had already to do the same on Decemver 21, 1991. Bp. Rifan also concelebrated the new Mass on September 8, 2004. The Fraternity of Saint Peter has had to accept the principle of concelebration of the Chrism Mass of Holy Thursday with the diocesan bishop.
In return for these concessions, do these communities at least receive vast possibilities for their apostolate?
The situation varies widely according to the countries and the dioceses, but most bishops remain very restrictive regarding these communities. Even those who are not hostile to them hesitate to receive them, for fear of their clergy and active laymen. Rome fears, from its side, the reactions of the bishops. The situation of these communities would be of an extreme fragility without the counterweight of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
