The November 2000 issue of this journal included an extensive report on the meeting between a delegation from the International Una Voce Federation and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the new President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Mention was made of our considerable concern regarding recent events concerning the Fraternity of St Peter.
The background
What can certainly be described as the crisis within the Fraternity was initiated by a letter dated 29 June 1999 when a group of 16 French priests of the Fraternity contacted the Ecclesia Dei Commission without the knowledge of their legitimate superior, Father Joseph Bisig. They accepted that this was a very grave act contrary to the behaviour normally expected from priests, but justified themselves by claiming that the situation within the FSSP was so urgent that it was necessary for them to go over Father Bisig’s head directly to the Holy See. The "urgent situation" referred to by the 16 priests was that following the properly-conducted elections preparatory to the General Chapter of the Fraternity, which had been arranged to take place in Rome in August 1999. All those elected came from "a group"in favour of "a parallel and marginal ecclesiastical position". This "group" comprised of the overwhelming majority of the incardinated members of the Fraternity and"the parallel and marginal ecclesiastical position" which they held was their desire to remain faithful to the principles and purpose for which their Fraternity was erected, principles and a purpose which the sixteen freely accepted and to which they were morally bound when they were incardinated into the Fraternity. These principles included the exclusive celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. The 16 dissident priests wished to be permitted to use the 1970 Missal, at least for the Chrism Mass each year if requested to do so by a diocesan bishop. The majority realized clearly that once the principle of using the 1970 Missal had been conceded any bishop would be able to insist that Fraternity priests should do so on occasions other than the chrism Mass as a condition for exercising an apostolate within his diocese. It is true, as the Ecclesia Dei Commission has pointed out with no little satisfaction, that the exclusive use of the 1962 Missal was not specified explicitly in the statutes of the Fraternity, but these principles were grounded in the Protocol of Agreement of May 5th 1988 signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre, which included "a priestly ministry exercised for the good of the whole Church through the use of the liturgical books of the Roman Rite in their 1962 edition." It is inconceivable that when Mgr. Lefebvre signed this protocol he envisaged the least possibility of any member of his Fraternity ever celebrating Mass according to the 1970 Missal, and it was taken for granted by the founders of the FSSP that this would apply to their Fraternity.
A letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, dated 3 July 1999, Protocol 1411, stated that every priests of the Roman Rite is free to celebrate according to the 1970 Missal, and that no Religious Superior can forbid this or discipline a member of his Society for doing so. This is now the law of the Church. On the other hand it has been made clear that no member of a traditional priestly society could ever be required to use the 1970 Missal. Needless to say, the Una Voce Federation is deeply appreciative of diocesan priests and members of non-traditional religious orders who celebrate according to the 1962 Missal for our members, although normally using the 1970 Missal. The situation of the FSSP is entirely different as it was established and has expanded with the generous help of the traditional laity who did so ion the clear understanding that its members would celebrate Mass only according to the 1962 Missal.
In a letter dated 30 August 1999, Father Bisig made it clear that he was determined not to compromise in his policy of keeping the Fraternity faithful to its founding principles. It was certain that when the General Congregation took place Father Bisig would be reelected as Superior General and that all those elected to offices within the Fraternity would be loyal to its founding principles. The object of the 16 was therefore to have the General Congregation postponed and Father Bisig replaced as Superior General, and they received the wholehearted support of the Ecclesia Dei Commission in achieving these objectives. Spokesmen for the 16 were received by the Commission and allowed to explain their demands, but when Father Bisig came to Rome in October to explain the majority viewpoint the Commission refused to receive him. It would appear that where the Commission is concerned the principle audi alteram partem no longer applies. It can certainly be argued that the behaviour of the Commission was in violation of Canon #50 of the Code of Canon Law: "Before issuing an individual decree an authority should seek out the necessary information and proofs, and also hear those whose rights can be injured, insofar as this is possible." The treatment that Father Bisig received made clear what many traditional Catholics had already deduced, that there is no sympathy and no understanding of their legitimate aspirations within the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Its permanent members are evidently incapable of understanding why any Catholic should prefer the Missal of 1962 to that of 1970.
Father Bisig replaced
Space will not permit even a summary of events following the postponement of the 1999 General Chapter in accordance with the demands of the 16. It eventually took place in July 2000. The Commission ruled that no Superior General could serve more than two terms, which precluded the reelection of Father Bisig, and the properly elected delegates were not permitted to choose the new Superior General. Father Arnaud Devillers was imposed as Superior by the new president of the Commission, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. It is hardly surprising that following his appointment the Cardinal accepted the version of events put to him by the permanent members of the Commission, and in fairness to his Eminence it must be stated that he did receive Father Bisig. The members of the Federation delegation who met the Cardinal in September 2000 were impressed by his sincerity and his evident conviction that the action that he had been persuaded to take was in the best interests of the Fraternity.
Hope for the future
here are two questions to be asked concerning the present position of the FSSP. Firstly, has the treatment accorded to Father Bisig and the overwhelming majority of Fraternity members been just? The only possible answer is that it manifestly has not and constitutes a violation of natural justice. Secondly, we must ask what our attitude should be in view of the fait accompli with which we have been presented? The answer to the second question is that there is nothing that we as laymen can do to change what has happened and that we should in no way allow the events of the past two years to cause us to withdraw our support from the Fraternity. This is precisely what the enemies of tradition would wish us to do. The outlook is by no means as bleak as it might at first appear. The officers of the Fraternity elected at the July General Congregation are all priests loyal to the founding principles of the Fraternity and most of the appointments made by Father Devillers also come from these priests. I would mention in particular the appointment of Father Paul Carr, an Englishman, as Superior of the American District of the Society. Father Carr is totally committed to the 1962 Missal and I cannot think of any English-speaking member of the Fraternity in whom I could have greater confidence. I spent two weeks in the USA in October, primarily for a convention of Una Voce America, and had the pleasure of meeting Father Carr on three occasions. The American District of the Fraternity is certainly the most flourishing and now seems totally united and without one priest who has the least intention of using the 1970 Missal. The same seems to be true of the German district. It is only in France that serious divisions still exist. Father Xavier Garban, one of the 16 has been appointed District Superior, and other members of the 16 have also been given important appointments. I have been able to discuss this with Father Devillers and he insists that when making appointments his only intention is to choose the priest will occupy the post most effectively. His wish is that the faithful in France should no longer think of the priests as members of the 16 or members of the majority, but some laymen, young ones in particular, insist that it is impossible to put the disloyal behaviour of these priests out of their minds. Father Devillers will have no easy task in effecting a true reconciliation between the priests of the Fraternity and the laity in France. He has assured me that not one member of the sixteen wishes to use the 1970 Missal except possibly at the Chrism Mass. He assured me that if a bishop were willing to invite the Fraternity into his diocese providing that he agreed to use both Missals he would decline the invitation. Father Devillers has never celebrated Mass according to the 1970 Missal, and pointed this out to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos when he asked him to become Superior General. It is also a fact that under the leadership of Father Devillers the American District became the most successful and fastest growing in the United States, with a presence in over twenty dioceses. Rather than seeking invitations from bishops for the Fraternity to enter their dioceses he was receiving invitations from them, some of which he had to decline as he had no priests to send. He was also successful in establishing Fraternity parishes in Vancouver and Melbourne. His most outstanding achievement was the founding of a brand new seminary in Nebraska to cope with the influx of vocations. Two thirds of the building has now been completed and the seminarians and their professors have moved in, the new term beginning on 25 September. The sixty rooms for seminarians have all been occupied. What a contrast with the collapse of vocations in every English-speaking country! In the United States once flourishing seminaries are closing down and the number of seminarians has declined from 45,000 in 1965 to less than 13,000 today.
It is essential for the credibility of the traditionalist movement in the English-speaking world and particularly in Rome that the FSSP seminary is completed in the shortest possible time. This will not be easy as the estimated cost has now passed $14,000,000. It was dedicated by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Nebraska on 9 December. I would urge members of the Latin Mass Society to show the same generosity in donating to this project that they have shown in helping the seminary of the Institute of Christ the King. In the next issue of our magazine I hope to review a reprint of Cardinal Allen’s book, Edmund Campion and his Companions. Our fathers in the faith were willing to make any sacrifice, even that of their lives, for the sake of the very same Mass being celebrated by the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Father Carr writes:
"A seminary, a place set apart for the formation of good and holy priests, is above all a house of prayer. Thus it is appropriate that the week before the beginning of classes, the Ignatian Exercises were preached to the seminarians as they prepared for a year of prayer, work, and study in their new quarters.
The main building of the seminary is still not finished. Although we have enough room for all of our seminarians for this academic year, and perhaps the next, your help is still urgently needed. Before we can accept significantly more seminarians, we must finish work on a second wing of dormitories."
Michael Davies
[Taken from the Latin Mass Society's February 2001 Newsletter.]