Introduction

In the aftermath of Vatican II, when diocesan bishops around the world were abandoning the practice and teaching of the Catholic Faith under the feeble excuse of "updating" to modern times, Bishop Antonio de Castro-Mayer of the diocese of Campos in Brazil resisted this apostasy and guided his diocese without change until his retirement in 1981, and then for ten years afterwards until his death in 1991. A faithful group of priests and laypeople gathered around Bishop de Castro-Mayer in defiance of the officially appointed diocesan bishop who began implementing the destructive reforms of Vatican II in Campos. These faithful priests formed themselves into the Priestly Union of St. John Vianney, and after the death of Bishop de Castro-Mayer elected themselves a new bishop from among their numbers, Licinio Rangel, who was consecrated bishop by the bishops of the SSPX.

These traditional priests of Campos continued to exercise their ministry without compromise with Vatican II or cooperation with the Vatican until Jan. 31, 2002, when Bishop Rangel signed an agreement of reconciliation with the Vatican. Many Catholics now ask: Is this reconciliation with the Vatican good or bad? We will look at the issues involved, beginning with the announcement of the reconciliation, co-signed by the diocesan bishop of Campos, Dom Roberto Gomes Guimarães, and Bishop Rangel.

Announcement of Reconciliation

Here's the official letter announcing the reconciliation of the traditional priests of Campos with Rome, co-signed by the diocesan Bishop of Campos, Dom Roberto Gomes Guimarães, and Bishop Licinio Rangel, Superior Bishop of the Priestly Union St. John Vianney:

The Diocese of Campos and the Priestly Union of St. John Baptist Mary Vianney are happy to communicate to all the priests, the Catholic faithful, and the people in general that the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II signed the letter of entrance into full ecclesial communion of the priests of Campos of the Priestly Union of St. John Baptist Mary Vianney and of the Catholic faithful they assist, being then thus considered perfectly inserted in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.

This entrance will be made official in a solemn ceremony to be held in the Basilica Cathedral of the Most Holy Savior by His Eminence, Dario Cardinal Castrillon, Prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy, in the name of the Holy Father, on January 31, at 6:00 pm, with the presence of the Apostolic Nuncio Msgr. Alfio Rapisarda and the Bishops of this region, in the presence of the priests of the Diocese of Campos and of the Priestly Union of St. John Baptist Mary Vianney.

The ceremony is to be a reading of the official documents and the singing of the Te Deum, the official hymn of thanksgiving. Afterwards there will be a Marian moment in homage to our Lady, at the Church of the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima (Fr. Fernando), assisted by the priests of the Priestly Union.

More detailed information will be given by His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon during the ceremony.

We further remember the calling of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II: "All pastors and other faithful must have a new consciousness not only of the legitimacy but of the riches that the diversity of charisms and traditions of spirituality and apostolate represent for the Church. This diversity also constitutes the beauty of unity in diversity, this is the symphony that, under the action of the Holy Ghost, the earthly Church elevates to Heaven" (Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta). It is thus with intense happiness that we communicate to all this gesture of kindness of the Holy Father the Pope, wishing an ever-increasing union among Catholics — "unity in diversity"— as the Holy Father wishes, for the greatest glory of God and honor of the Holy Church.

Campos dos Goytacazes, January 14, 2002

+ Dom Roberto Gomes Guimarães, Diocesan Bishop of Campos
+ Dom Licinio Rangel, Superior Bishop of the Priestly Union

The End of Schism Due to Granting Marriage Annulments

Bishop de Castro-Mayer was appointed diocesan bishop of Campos in 1949, and so he was given the duty of guarding the Faith in his diocese. He continued to do this until his death in 1991. While he was alive, Bishop de Castro-Mayer saw no reason to "reconcile" with Rome: he was Catholic, and neither he nor those under his charge ever departed from the belief or practice of the Catholic Faith.

After the death of Bishop de Castro-Mayer, his priests, who had formed themselves into the Priestly Union St. John Vianney, elected a new bishop from among themselves to lead them, Bishop Licinio Rangel. Unfortunately, Bishop Rangel decided to co-operate in the SSPX marriage tribunal which granted marriage annulments without the permission of Rome. This fact is attested to in a letter from Prof. Fedeli of the University of São Paolo. Both Prof. Fedeli and others have shown that by setting up an illicit tribunal to grant these annulments, the SSPX placed themselves in schism. Unfortunately, by co-operating with the tribunal, whose existence was a schismatic act, the Priestly Union St. John Vianney have themselves co-operated in the same schism that the SSPX has fallen into.

And so, because of co-operation in the illicit marriage annulments, the traditional priests of Campos fell into schism.

Because they were truly in schism, the Priestly Union St. John Vianney found themselves with a real problem. The only way out of schism is an official renunciation of your schismatic act, and an official reconciliation with Rome.

And so, in terms of ending their state of schism with Rome, the reconciliation of the Priestly Union St. John Vianney with Rome is a good thing.

Possible Compromise in the Future

There is one way in which a reconciliation with Rome can be a bad thing, and that is the very real possibility of compromise in the future. That Rome is still following a destructive path in the wake of Vatican II was very evident only a week before the agreement between Rome and the Priestly Union St. John Vianney was signed. The agreement was signed on Jan 31, 2002, but on Jan. 24, 2002, Pope John Paul II hosted another blasphemous ecumenical gathering of false religions in Assisi.

The mere fact that the Pope was participating in this event, officially sponsored by the Vatican bureaucracy, painfully shows that he is not really committed to being faithful to Catholic tradition, which condemns such events. Instead, the Pope's participation in the second gathering of false religions at Assisi shows quite clearly that the Pope wants a compromising unity, where everyone comes together, but basically ignores that Jesus Christ is God, that He founded only one religion for the salvation of men, and that He established the Catholic Church as the guardian of this religion.

Rome has promised the Priestly Union St. John Vianney that they will be allowed to remain faithful to tradition. Many now ask the question: Can Rome be trusted?

The following commentary on the reconciliation, by  Fr. Georges Cottier, theologian of the Papal Household, is very enlightening, and shows that without a strong Pope who will guarantee fidelity to tradition, the Priestly Union St. John Vianney has good reason to fear that they will eventually be forced to compromise:

John Paul II's decision to allow a formerly schismatic fraternity to celebrate Mass according to the St. Pius V rite should not be seen as a setback for Vatican Council II, says the theologian of the Papal Household.

"Good news — a break that is healed precisely in the Week of Christian Unity", said Fr. Georges Cottier, commenting on the return to the Church of the schismatic Priestly Union of St. John Baptist Mary Vianney. The fraternity had been sympathetic to French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Fr. Cottier, a Dominican, said: "From the beginning, the possibility was foreseen in some cases — for example, for elderly priests — to continue celebrating according to this rite [of St. Pius V]."

He continued: "Following Lefebvre's schism, permission was granted to St. Peter's Fraternity to maintain this tradition alive. Moreover, the Pope requested that at least in large cities there should be a place where Mass in Latin would be celebrated, perhaps even with the Pius V rite."

What is novel about this event, then?
Fr. Cottier: There is much more behind Lefebvre's schism: There is the rejection of the Council, of ecumenism, of the principle of religious freedom — a global rejection of which the liturgy was only the flag, although many people went with Lefebvre precisely for this reason.
Since the rupture [in 1988] until today, other followers of his have already returned to full communion with the Catholic Church. However, the principal condition has always been the full recognition of the authority of Vatican Council II. And this is what the principal group, the one of Ecône, has never accepted up until now.

One of the pillars of Vatican II, however, is Sacrosanctum Concilium, the constitution on the liturgy.
Fr. Cottier: It is one of the most beautiful texts of the Council, but it must not be identified with all the ways in which the liturgical reform has been put into practice.
We cannot forget that in the first years, especially in some countries, there was much disorder. Let's take an example: the Gregorian. In a certain phase it was violently rejected, but to substitute it with what? Sometimes with songs that had little that was religious about them, or with a "chatting" liturgy where there is no room for silence.
Some people have suffered because of this, and some faithful have gone over to Lefebvre perhaps without clearly seeing the problem that was emerging.

Yes. but by extending the use of the Pius V rite, is not the risk of confusion increased?
Fr. Cottier: The differences have always been allowed. I am a Dominican: Until the Council we had a Dominican liturgy that was a variation of the Roman rite. However, unity was not compromised because of this.
Sacrosanctum Concilium can be very well accepted even while maintaining one's own specificity. Let us recall that the Council itself did not think of the whole celebration in the vernacular tongue: The canon should have remained in Latin.
The liturgical reform took an additional step and, looking at the majority of Catholics, it was an appropriate option. However, this does not mean that the desire to find again in the tradition a more profound sense of interiority, of silence, of beauty is, in itself, inadmissible.

How can this specificity be reconciled with effective communion with the whole Church?
Fr. Cottier: Many Lefebvrists maintain that "our" Paul VI Mass is not valid. At least now this group will not be able to think such a thing. Little by little we must expect other steps: for example, that they also participate in concelebrations in the reformed rite. However, we must not be in a hurry. What is important is that in their hearts there no longer be rejection. Communion found again in the Church has an internal dynamism of its own that will mature.

With last Friday's action, has the implementation of the Council taken a step forward or backward?
Fr. Collier: Certainly forward. There was no wish to create ruptures in Vatican II. Its intention was to place the Church in greater consonance with pastoral challenges, with the mission, with divine worship itself.
There was a very strong sense in the Council of the centrality of the liturgy in the life of the Church. And, if there is a privileged place of communion, it is, precisely, the Eucharist. We must rejoice over this reconciliation.
I hope it will open the way to others. In this process, communion with Peter's Successor is fundamental. Also in the liturgy: Until now, in the Mass celebrated by Lefebvrists there was no "communication" with the Pope. Now, at least in Brazil, it will no longer be like this.

(Rome, Jan 20, 2002 Zenit.org news agency)

Alas, when we hear them using phrases like "Little by little we must expect other steps: for example, that they also participate in concelebrations in the reformed rite" it is quite obvious that the modernists in control of the positions of power in the Church expect the priests of the Priestly Union St. John Vianney to compromise eventually.

And so, in terms of the real danger of compromise that the priests of the Priestly Union St. John Vianney have placed themselves in, their reconciliation with Rome is a bad thing.

Conclusion

Bishop Rangel, elected leader of the Priestly Union St. John Vianney and successor of Bishop de Castro-Mayer, is guilty of two grave errors:

1. Participating in the schismatic marriage tribunals of the SSPX, and failing to correct this error immediately when confronted by Professor Fedeli and others.
2. Making a deal with Rome despite clear evidence at the ecumenical prayer meeting in Assisi of the continued apostasy of Roman officials.

Unfortunately, because of his first error, the priests of the Priestly Union St. John Vianney fell into schism, and because of this, it was necessary for some form of renunciation of this error to correct the schism. And so, the first error of Bishop Rangel led to the second.

While we rejoice that the priests of the Priestly Union St. John Vianney are no longer in schism, we nevertheless cannot congratulate them on their "reconciliation" with Rome, and we remain pessimistic about their future fidelity to the belief and practice of the Catholic Faith without compromise.