Newsletter of the District of Asia  Jan - June 2006 AN INDIAN TRAGEDY Asian vocations to the SSPX are sent to our Australian Seminary of Holy Cross. The following letter of Ft Peter Scott, the seminary’s Rector, recalls a tragedy which took place in the seminary last December concerning three of our four Indian Seminarians. It only highlights the gravity of the crisis not only in relation to the young men aspiring to the priesthood but also in the Vatican, and particularly in relation to Cardinal Hoyos’ unreliable attitude. May it serve also to encourage the fourth seminarian to remain faithful to his vocation as he has done so far. HOLY CROSS SEMINARY P.O. Box 417 Goulburn, N.S.W. 2580 Australia AN INDIAN TRAGEDY J.M.J. May 22, 2006 Dear friends and benefactors of Holy Cross Seminary, (...) DEPARTURES I had not mentioned in this newsletter the departure of three of our four Indian seminarians at the end of last school year, just three weeks after having sacrilegiously renewed their engagements in the Society of Saint Pius X for one year, and just a few days after having received Minor Orders under false pretenses. I call it sacrilegious, since they admitted afterwards having secretly planned for many months to rejoin their Novus Ordo diocese, that is they planned all along to break their promises solemnly made before the Blessed Sacrament and in the presence of the whole community, and they falsely requested in writing the reception of Minor Orders as a step towards the priesthood in the Society of Saint Pius X with which they had evidently no intention of continuing. It is difficult to understand the deviousness underlying this secrecy, since they would have been most welcome to leave at any time. One cannot help but think that this was to keep both options open, in case they were not received back by the diocese of Bombay, as they were. The reason that I bring it up now is not just that their departure was a sword of betrayal rending the heart of our little community, united in mutual confidence and trust, but because it has now become a public issue, and so much so that it has even been praised by none other than Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos himself, President of the Ecclesia Dei Pontifical Commission, and supposed intermediary for the Society of Saint Pius X with Pope Benedict XVI. How, you might think, could a Cardinal of the Church praise such deviousness? Could they have become a pawn in the politics of the modernists? This is what Cardinal Castrillon had to say in a letter to Cardinal Ivan Bias, Archbishop of Bombay, dated February 24, 2006: “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 Arcbdiocesan 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. lam 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 even 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...” The accusations made by the Cardinal are the gravest possible. He who last September publicly stated that the Society “did not formally constitute a schism” and on November 13 last “they are inside the Church.... because communion exists”, apparently in an effort to appeal to traditional Catholics, is now accusing us of nothing less than schism in order to appeal to modernist Catholics.   FULLNESS OF CATHOLIC FAITH AND LIFE What is the “fullness of the Catholic Faith and life” that is supposedly lacking in this Seminary. What could it be if not the intense spiritual, disciplined life of a Seminary whose rule was praised by Rome (February 18,1971), or perhaps the daily and even twice daily attendance at the Mass of all time, or perhaps the thrice-daily common prayer of the Divine Office, or perhaps the strict common life, the Gregorian Chant and solemn ceremonies, the constantly ongoing series of Benedictions, Processions, Ways of the Cross, Rosaries and devotions that punctuate Seminary life? What could it be if not the study of the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, so often commanded by the Church (e.g. Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII) and yet of which these young Indian seminarians in 5 - 8 years each of Seminary life before coming to Holy Cross had learnt nothing? Or could this “fullness of the Catholic Faith and life” possibly be the following description of the Bombay Novus Ordo Seminary made by one of three after leaving in 2002... and to which he has now returned: “The theology in the Bombay Seminary is far from being the supernatural science as has been well defined by the Angelic Doctor. It is completely naturalised and horizontalized, to began and end in ‘this-worldly’ experience of ‘this-life’ (with eternal life forgotten, if not erased). And therefore the modernists talk of ‘doing theology’ and as a natural consequence of such a ‘doing’, seminarians are sent to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) to get ‘in touch with reality’, to mingle with those non-Catholic atheistic, sometimes perverse social workers who themselves have loose morals and broken, disintegrated family life. The seminarians are then fed with the Marxist agenda of’classless society’ with rebellion against legislative authority in the Church as well as in the State, sowing in them the seeds of the ‘revolution’against God’s natural order. Peace and serenity of recollected religious life is now replaced with agitation and dissipation of mundane concerns of the world in the disguise of striving for social justice and ecumenism, supposedly to create ‘communal harmony’ - another proof of the depravity of the modernist mind. I shall provide a few samples of modernists academics that demonstrate clearly the complete loss of faith and movement towards the Great Apostasy...” (Mr. D’Souza). Or could it be, to quote another of the three, describing the “moderator groups” that exist in the Bombay seminary: “Each week the mass was said by the priest in his room. As a priest of inculturation, he said it by squatting on the floor. A lot of novelties were introduced at this mass, which included substituting the prayers from the missal by spontaneous prayers, a group sharing on a topic after the gospel, passing of the paten and the chalice for the receiving of communion under both species individually by each member and a replacement of the proper mass vestments by a shawl.” (Mr. Rodrigues) Make your choice. There seems to be no doubt as to where the “fullness of Catholic Faith and life” lies, and yet Holy Cross Seminary is condemned out of hand, precisely for living up to its mission as received from the Church. Cardinal Castrillon’s letter further accuses Holy Cross Seminary of not being in “the bosom of the Catholic Church”, of not “being in full communion with the Successor of Peter”, on account of its “separatist mentality”. These false accusations derive from the statements of these seminarians of a “practical sedevacantism” and of a “critical reaction towards the Papacy”. The further accusation of a “separatist mentality” stems from the Rector’s decision not to allow the Seminary to public participate in a Eucharistic adoration in a local Novus Ordo church. SEPARATIST MENTALITY? Yet these seminarians all know full well that there is no practical sedevacantism here, and that Pope Benedict XVI is prayed for publicly and by name at every Mass, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Rogation days and whenever the liturgy calls for it. They also know very well that the Society lays no claim to ordinary jurisdiction, which can only come from the Sovereign Pontiff, who has by divine institution the fullness of the power of government over the universal Church. Accusations of not being in full communion are consequently based in part on the imaginary “excommunication” of Archbishop Lefebvre and in part on our 35 year old refusal to accept the modernist spirit of the post-conciliar Popes. Yes, we are obliged to have a critical reaction towards such Popes, and to separate ourselves from those of their guidelines that undermine and destroy the “fullness of Catholic Faith and life”, such as the post-conciliar liturgy and ecumenism. Yes, we are bound to separate ourselves from the Novus Ordo Missae, which is insulting to God Our Lord and undermines the Faith. Yes, we owe it to God to be logical with ourselves, and we must refuse the fruits of this Mass - namely Holy Communion from hosts consecrated at such Masses and public participation in the adoration of these hosts. Indeed, if we were to do these things, we would thereby participate in a protestantizing, modernist worship and show our approval of it. If this is what is meant by having a “separatist spirit”, then we make no apologies for it. We want to be separate from the Novus Ordo and to have no part in it. It is the whole reason for our combat. However, this does not in the least mean that we deny the validity of such Masses, or that we judge the intentions of those who perform or participate in such ceremonies, or that we fall into a critical bitterness. Having understood by a special grace of God what is required to maintain and live the Faith, we have the obligation to state so, loud and clear, without ambiguity of any kind. This precludes even a distant participation in the New Mass. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has clearly not understood the principles, and is fact committed to undermining them. Hence his blistering attack on the Seminary. It is difficult to understand how he can be an effective intermediary with the Pope, given that he believes that all these compromises are necessary “to save their vocations”, whereas in fact these principles are the guarantee of perseverance in our holy vocation as Catholic priests. INDOCTRINATION? Allow me to quote also from the public statement of Cardinal Ivan Bias, Archbishop of Bombay, dated March 25, 2006. He has this to say of the three seminarians: “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 silmt apostasy’), the New Mass introduced by Pope Paul VI, the Divine Mercy devotion, the Catholic Church’s ecumenical and interreligious diubgue etc... They were further told that the Holy See is vacant...” The most preposterous aspect of this mixture of truth and falsehood was the use of the emotive term “systematically indoctrinated”. These young men would not have been accepted in the Seminary if they had not already shared our convictions, as they most assuredly did, and as the following passages demonstrate amply. One of the three wrote this in his Seminary application: “To my sadness, I found, once again by God’s grace that the mission of the Novus Ordo Church was for the glory of’man’. Divine Providence, once again through our Blessed Mother, led me to the Sacred Tradition of the True Priesthood”. (Mr. D’Souza) The same seminarian had this to say, describing his meeting with Cardinal Bias on December 7, 2001, and is included in his testimony of why he had turned to Tradition and left the post-conciliar Seminary: “His Eminence, the Cardinal, welcomed me warmly and then disclosed to me his plan. He intended to give me a Jesuit priest as a counselor to clash down all my funny ideas (of faith) and during this period of one or two years, I would have to work and ‘rub shoulders with Hindus, Moslems, and all types of people of various religions and then realize that they too possess the truth’. In this way I would be purified of all old and outdated ideas of faith, and accept Vatican II with all its ecumenical orientations. He demanded complete obedience to his authority. He himself would then come to my parish and lay his hands on me and so that I would climb up the ladder’. – This phrase demonstrates the Masonic technique of luring souls to the vanity of this world. Here is was as though I came face to face with the devil who was saying to me “I will give you all this, if you bow down and worship me.” I went back home with a heavy heart, only trusting in God’s providence....The next day... a friend... introduced me to the Society of St. Pius X. Thanks be to God, for at last after a long journey through heresy and so many traps of the devil, He led me to the Truth.” (underlining & bold in original text). EXPLANATION It seems to me that any objective person can see that these are not men who have been indoctrinated or forced in any way to adopt traditional positions. The very fact that they chose to abandon Holy Cross Seminary is proof enough of this. It is not the Society of Saint Pius X that has changed - but these three seminarians - and I fear greatly lest they discover that Cardinal Bias has not changed either. This leaves the curious question of how three young men, who were fully aware of the evil and destruction being wrought in the post-conciliar church, and who had the advantage of nearly four years formation in a traditional pre-Seminary and Seminary, four years daily attendance at the true Mass, four years intense prayer life, including a 30 day Ignatian retreat, four years study of traditional spirituality and philosophy, would return to the humanist, indifferentist, inculturationist confusion of the post-conciliar church. The only answer is a spiritual one. The devil attacks the priest and the priest-to-be on every side, fully aware that if he can destroy any one of us, he can cause many hundreds and thousands of souls to be lost. In the midst of the abundance of spiritual treasures of a traditional Seminary, it is very easy to start taking graces for granted. Presumption sets in, then the critical spirit, then a naturalistic attitude, and finally the vanity of this world, the devil saying: “I will give you all this, if you bow down and worship me”. Such departures are, alas, not uncommon in the Society. You cannot begin to understand how entirely dependent we are on your prayers and sacrifices. The Seminary is not just a training ground; it is a spiritual battlefield, and every soul must be fought for and won. Nor is this battle a one time event, but rather a constantly recurring struggle. The fight is against indifference, luke warmness, intellectual pride, self-centeredness, abandonment of the spirit of mortification. God has sent us some very good and extraordinary men, but we need to always be on the lookout, for the devil, like a lion seeking whom he may devour, is already to catch us out on a curved ball. In our inadequacy, we commend ourselves to your prayers, and beg that you would think of offering up at least a decade of the Rosary every day for the perseverance of priests and seminarians, and for vocations, as well as reciting these prayers requested by our Superior General: 0 Lord, grant us priests; 0 Lord, grant us holy priests; 0 Lord grant us many holy priests; 0 Lord grant us many holy religious vocations; St. Pius X, pray for us. Yours faithfully in the Immaculate Heart of our Heavenly Queen, Father Peter R. Scott First Mission in Sabah, East Malaysia, June 6-9, 2006. Fr. D. Pagliarani imposing the brown scapular after Mass. contents