Thomas A. Droleskey
published interviews with Dario Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos, the Prefect
of the Congregation for the Clergy and the President of Pontifical Commission
Ecclesia Dei, have reflected His Eminence's concern for the treatment
of traditional Catholics. While His Eminence's concerns are no doubt
sincere, the tone of his remarks reflects the yet prevailing Roman view
that a love for the Traditional Latin Mass, while commendable and worthy
of respect and all due consideration from ecclesiastical authorities,
is not essential for the restoration of right order within the Church
and thus the world. This fatally flawed view of things demonstrates
once more the myopia of Roman officials, men who have convinced themselves
that the Novus Ordo Missae is not in and of itself responsible
for the devastation of the Faith throughout the world and that the Second
Vatican Council has not been an complete and total disaster for the
Catholic Church in every respect imaginable.
Hoyos expressed his own personal solicitude for traditional Catholics
and his own appreciation for the Traditional Latin Mass, he did not
address directly the idea of an Apostolic Administration to afford Latin
Rite Catholics their rights under Quo Primum to have unlimited
access to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition without any conditions or
restrictions whatsoever. His Eminence also expressed exasperation with
the criticism directed at Vatican officials by some traditional Catholics,
singling out, for example, the press conference held in Rome four months
ago by His Excellency, the Most Reverend Bernard Fellay, in which the
current superior of the Priestly Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius
X denounced the ecumenical efforts of Pope John Paul II in very direct
and uncompromising terms. Cardinal Hoyos more or less implied that such
criticisms do not help the cause of traditional Catholics and/or the
Traditional Latin Mass in Rome.
With all due
respect to a curial cardinal, this traditional Catholic critic of Vatican
policies must raise some serious objections to the tenor of His Eminence's
recently published interviews. Cardinal Hoyos's failure to see and/or
to admit the reality of our ecclesiastical situation makes it appear
as though those who criticize the Holy See are simply cranks who will
never be satisfied with anything the Vatican does. This is simply untrue.
Indeed, it is an effort to try to put pressure on traditionalists who
refuse to be satisfied with the penurious crumbs offered to them by
Vatican officials into backing off from their criticism lest all olive
branches extended to the cause of the Traditional Latin Mass be withdrawn.
thus several questions I would like to pose to Cardinal Hoyos as a result
of his recently published interviews:
1) Does Pope Saint
Pius V's Papal Bull, Quo Primum, give every Latin Rite priest
the absolute right to offer the Traditional Latin Mass without permission
from any ecclesiastical authority?
2) Does Quo
Primum give every Latin Rite Catholic the absolute right to assist
at the Immemorial Mass of Tradition wherever it is offered by a validly
ordained priest who is not a sedevacantist? Are not the conditions attached
by the Holy See in 1984 to the offering of and attendance at the Traditional
Latin Mass unjust and invalid on their face?
3) Is Mr.
Michael Davies correct when he states that the Traditional Latin Mass
is the baptismal birthright of every Latin Rite Catholic?
4) Has it
not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, especially by the recent
research of Father Romano Tomassi, that Archbishop Annibale Bugnini's
Consilium misrepresented the origins of the component parts of the Novus
5) Is it not
true that the prayers found in the Novus Ordo Missae, both
in the Ordinary of the Mass and in the propers for the Sundays of the
year and the feast days of the saints, express less fully the truths
of the Catholic Faith, especially as it relates to the need for man
to do penance for his sins and the possibility that he could lose his
soul for all eternity--and by refusing to include references to the
miracles performed by the saints?
6) Is it an
act of disloyalty for a Catholic to point out the facts about the Novus
Ordo Missae and the doctrinal problems with documents of the Second
Vatican Council and the postconciliar era?
7) Must Catholics
remain silent in the face of sacrileges such as the one that took place
in the Chapel of the Apparitions in the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima
in Portugal on May 5, 2004, when Hindu "priests" offer worship
to their false gods?
8) Must traditional
Catholics remain silent in the face of sacrileges and offenses to the
Catholic Faith in order to maintain themselves in "good standing"
with the Holy See and so as not to threaten the the highly conditioned
offering of the Traditional Latin Mass under the 1984 indult and under
the Holy Father's 1988 Ecclesia Dei motu proprio?
9) How can
Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X be faulted for
criticizing Vatican policies promoting "ecumenism" when the
very spirit underlying this ecumenism was condemned consistently by
the Church throughout her history right through the pontificate of Pope
10) Must traditional
Catholics suspend their reason in order to accept positivist statements
emanating from the Holy See that are in conflict with the authentic
patrimony of the Church and do not reflect the actual reality of the
Church's situation today?
11) Why is
it that truly schismatic groups (the Orthodox churches, the Chinese
Catholic Patriotic Association) are treated with great deference by
the Holy See while the Society of Saint Pius X, which dissents from
not one whit of anything contained in the Deposit of Faith, and other
traditional Catholics who resist quite openly the regime of novelty
that has devastated the Catholic Faith are considered disloyal and schismatic
for holding fast to the doctrine and tradition the Apostles received
from the hands of Our Lord Himself?
12) Was His Eminence,
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, correct when he called the Second Vatican Council "the
anti-Syllabus of Errors"? Is it therefore wrong for a Catholic
to use Pope Pius IX's compendium of Modernist errors to point out the
problems posed by the language of the conciliar and postconciliar documents
and various papal pronouncements?
many other questions, obviously, that could be asked. The fact remains,
however, that Cardinal Hoyos wants traditional Catholics to accept the
"different sensitivities" that exist within the Church today
without insisting that the regime of novelty responsible for the devastation
of the Catholic Faith cease and desist at once. It is almost as though
His Eminence believes that a sort of "dialectic" can exist
in the Church wherein those of divergent theological and liturgical
bents within the Latin Rite of the Church can somehow produce a synthesis
of "sensitivities" whose fruits will be peace and brotherhood
as we agree to disagree about matters touching upon the Deposit of Faith
and the proper, fitting worship of the Father through the Son in Spirit
and in Truth.
I, for one,
have come to realize that the approach taken by the bishops of the Society
of Saint Pius X, as well as the approach taken by The Remnant
and Catholic Family News and various other publications, including
Father Nicholas Gruner's The Fatima Crusader, over the past
thirty-seven years or so, has been the correct one. That is, it is vital
for lies and misrepresentations to be exposed as such. It is vital for
assaults on the Deposit of Faith and the fitting worship of the Blessed
Trinity be termed by their proper names. This must be done not because
any of us who do these things are one bit better than our ecclesiastical
authorities or that we believe that the sheer force and volume of our
work will somehow repair our problems and restore Tradition to its rightful
place as the only guiding force within the Church. This must be done
if for no other reason than to try to help a few souls here and there
recognize truth for what it is, to say nothing of reminding those possessed
of a spiritual myopia in Rome that Catholics are still able to use the
gift of reason, enlightened by sanctifying grace and by the patrimony
of the Church's authentic tradition, to reject and to resist the Modernist
forces at work within the Church today. Tradition and Modernism cannot
coexist in the Church. The fight for Tradition involves more than the
work of restoring the Traditional Latin Mass; it involves the restoration
of the entirety of the Catholic Faith that is best expressed and protected
in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
We have begun the
Time after Pentecost in the liturgical calendar of Tradition. The great
Feast of Corpus Christi will be celebrated this Thursday, June 10, followed
in eight days by the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. These
are opportunities for us to be reminded of the fact that we must be
on our knees in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, in which beats
the Sacred Heart, to make reparation for our own sins and for those
of the whole world--and to pray most actively and faithfully for the
restoration of Tradition without compromise as the foundation of Catholic
evangelization and worship. Each of us in need of conversion on a daily
basis. Each of us must seek out the graces made available to us in the
Sacrament of Penance very frequently. Each us is in need of increasing
the fervor with which we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion and of making
time to spend adoring Him in His Real Presence. While it is important
to point out the problems we face for the reasons enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, we must also understand that it is only by surrendering
ourselves in prayer to God through Our Lady, who is present at every
offering of Holy Mass and who prays with us before her Divine Son in
the tabernacle (along with all of the other saints and all of the angels),
that we can transcend our human emotions and come to offer everything
about our contemporary ecclesiastical situation to the Blessed Trinity
through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
For this reason,
therefore, it is most efficacious to pray the Litany of the Most Sacred
Heart of Jesus every day during this month of June, dedicated as it
is to the Sacred Heart, but especially in the days leading up to the
Feast of Corpus Christi and the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
All temptations to surrender to bitterness and cynicism will evaporate
if we but trust completely in the Sacred Heart and that heart out of
which It was formed, the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We will never learn
until eternity, please God we die in a state of sanctifying grace, how
our little efforts to intensify our Eucharistic piety and Marian devotions
helped to plant the seeds for the restoration of Tradition, which will
occur fully only when some pope actually does consecrate Russia explicitly
and publicly to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We are meant to be used
as instruments, no matter how unworthy as a result of our sins and selfishness,
to bring about the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart and thus the restoration
of Christendom and the Social Reign of Christ the King.
that Cardinal Hoyos will indeed come to recognize the absurdity of the
conciliarist religion and Tradition coexisting in the one, true Church
Our Lord founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, we must nevertheless
always be conscious of our need to remain faithful to the Deposit of
Faith by cooperating with the graces won for us on Calvary by the shedding
of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood and by beseeching Our Lady to help
us to remain confident in the true Faith no matter the problems that
besiege the true Church at present.
Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Heart of Mary, pray for us.