http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Aug2001/Our_Hope_After_the_Battle.htm

Accueil   
Communicantes: August 2001   
Our Hope after the Battle


Exclusive interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay

This interview of Bishop Fellay by Father de Tanoüarn in France has just been published in the French bulletin Pacte Nr. 56 – Summer 2001. Bishop Fellay is drawing some conclusions from the six months discussions with the Holy See. It is undoubtedly a lesson of hope. After having depicted the actual deadlock, the prelate looks clearly forwards to the future by stating that the role of the Society of Saint Pius X is to accelerate this “inductive movement which, from particular problems, brings back to Tradition priests and faithful”.

 

Your Excellency, what is the actual state of the negotiations with Rome?

We are, at the moment, in a sort of deadlock. I think that this type of blockage results from the foundations on which the dialogue took place. At any rate it must be recognised that in a certain manner, the present setback allows us to recover our bearings. Now we can hear once again at Rome the language that we’ve been accustomed to hear from conciliar Rome, we see once more the habitual ways of thinking, the habitual restrictions in their dialogue with us. We are well acquainted with the situation we are in, we recognise the never-ending dilemma that they impose upon us: either you return to the bosom of the Church, and we put you in a cage, we muzzle you, or else you remain outside. This dilemma in which they would like to enclose us, we will not accept. It’s clear: we are not outside, and we will not let ourselves be put into a cage either! Notice how after six months of negotiations, it’s once again the hard Roman stand which opposes us; I say that this allows us to recover our bearings.

 

You are telling us, Your Excellency, that these negotiations were a lot of fuss about nothing…

On the contrary, they were not useless. Unquestionably, something has taken place that has modified on a long-term basis the atmosphere of our relations for the future. We are in a period of withdrawal, it’s true, because Rome does not want to have profound discussions with us, but at the same time, something new has happened. In the first place, last autumn, Rome approached us in a manner completely out of the ordinary and made propositions to us that are today still difficult to evaluate completely and to estimate at their just value. In fact, juridically, such possibilities have never been envisaged. We would never have imagined that Rome could offer us such a proposition. You have no doubt heard talk of this idea of an apostolic administration. The Society of St. Pius X would have become incorporated into an apostolic administration. What does this signify? The apostolic administration ordinarily is a diocesan structure, or quasi diocesan, in a time of crisis, over a given territory. Well! For us this territory would be the entire world. In other words, they offered us a structure that covered the entire world, a kind of personal diocese…

Excuse me for interrupting, Your Excellency, you mean a personal prelacy…

Not at all. The apostolic administration is better than a personal prelacy. In the first place, a personal prelacy is not necessarily governed by a bishop. An apostolic administration, which is quasi diocesan, normally would be. Furthermore, and above all, the action of an apostolic administration is not limited to its members. The Opus Dei, which is the personal prelacy that exists today, is not subject to the local bishop in all that concerns its members, but it could not consider any external action without the consent of the bishop. With the apostolic administration, we avoid this restriction. We would be able to take an autonomous apostolic action without having to ask authorisation from the diocesan bishop, since we would have a veritable diocese, whose distinctive characteristic is that it extends to the entire world. It is very important that such a proposition has been made, because after all, this juridical solution has never happened before, it is “sui generis”. Now that it has been established, it can represent for us, from a juridical point of view, a reference, a position of comparison. Especially since it is to the Society of St. Pius X that this possibility has been proposed, which shows just how seriously Rome sees our resistance. It’s not by vainglory that I say that, believe me: symbolically (first of all, it’s not a question of numbers) we represent something very important for Rome, and this also is new.

 

Your Excellency, if this proposition is so extraordinary, and it certainly seems to be – we would like to ask you – why is it that you didn’t immediately accept this practical agreement, which was offered to you on a platter?

You are right, it is an exatraordinary proposition, and if Rome wanted a true reform, it is the way we have just described that would have to be taken. But a true will for reform is necessary. For the moment, it is difficult to know exactly where the signing of such an agreement would have led us. One thing is certain: the known exterior elements were not favourable to an agreement that was made rapidly, without precaution. These elements are known: first of all, it is the manner in which Rome has proceeded with the Fraternity of St. Peter, in imposing upon them the principle of the New Mass, contrary to its constitutions, contrary to what they themselves had conceded to this religious society ten years ago. Besides, a certain number of priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter have come to see us, saying: do not accept this solution, do not sign anything, it would be your ruin… Furthermore, we have seen very quickly the reaction of a number of bishops and cardinals: furious, they were furious, to the point that some of them (I speak of the French bishops) have threatened disobedience. This is not a mere nothing: France, through the intervention of the cardinals, has made an open threat to Rome to enter into disobedience… What would have been the reaction of Rome? There would have been a tremendous combat and we would not have been able to stand unless Rome openly supported us. It was with this in mind that we proposed two preliminaries, which we understood to be as two indispensable signs of the support of Rome. It was not a question, properly speaking, as has been written here and there, of preconditions: a Catholic cannot submit Rome to conditions! No, it was simply a question of obtaining, in the battle that would not fail to ensue, a clear sign of Rome’s adherence to Tradition.

We thus did require these two signs, first the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication and, secondly, the permission for all the priests of the Latin rite, without distinction, to celebrate the traditional Mass. I believe these two steps would have been able to create a truly new climate in the universal Church.

And did you ever believe, in spite of the motives that kept you on guard, which you have recalled just now, that these two preliminaries could be accepted?

First of all, we were not in a hurry. This is, moreover, the big difference with 1988: in 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre needed to rapidly provide for the future of his work. Today this future is not in question, we are living it; we have shown, for more than 10 years, that it is assured. We would therefore like to study, to take the time to study the proposals that have been made to us. For a moment, it is true, we had believed in a true change from the part of Rome. It need be said that a difference in the language was perceptible in all of our interviews right from the start. The 13th of March, for example, they told us: “The Pope holds to this solution (the juridical solution that we have just spoken of), there is nothing to fear. The Church has need of you and asks you to assist in its combat against liberalism, modernism, masonry; you must not refuse your help”. Oh! It is an oral expression; we were always asking ourselves whether the words signified the same thing for the Vatican as they did for us. I don’t think they did.

 

You spoke just now of Archbishop Lefebvre’s negotiations with Rome in 1988. Can we compare the two series of conversations?

They are not at all the same. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre, feeling his end approaching, wished above everything else to ensure the continuation of his Society. Rome wished to prevent the consecrations without its support, and desired to obtain from Archbishop Lefebvre, by means of an ambiguous formula, his recognition of the Council. The discussion, which was hurried, was thus partly doctrinal. What we have just gone through is something entirely different. They came looking for us and the doctrinal problem has been expelled from the start. Rome did not wish to speak of doctrine.

 

Could you briefly recall to our minds the history of these negotiations?

Quite willingly… First of all, the origin of these negotiations: the initiative came from Rome. I received a letter from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos dated November 18, which was an invitation (which came after the interview published in “30 Days”) to meet him in order to prepare a visit to the Holy Father. The cardinal’s visit took place on December 29th… The 30th was the meeting with the Pope, which was very brief owing to a lack of co-ordination: strictly speaking, there was no conversation.

 

The Vatican Agency, Zenit, said that you had assisted at the Pope’s Mass…

Then that is a tall story. I saw the Pope, oh, something like 5 minutes in all, and for a good while we remained in his private chapel, in silence. Then the Pope arose. He wished me a good year, we exchanged greetings; he asked me if we had been able to speak. Cardinal Hoyos told him yes. The Pope said, I am happy. He gave us a rosary, he blessed us and we parted.

 

This interview, therefore, had no immediate consequences…

No. On January 13th, I convoked a general extended meeting with the assistants, the bishops and a priest of the diocese of Campos, in Brazil, representing Bishop Rangel – Father Rifan. On January 16th, I orally confided our decision to Cardinal Hoyos: we ask for two preliminaries, the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication and the Mass for all the priests of the Latin rite.

On February 12th, Father Simoulin, the Superior of the Society in Italy, was informed that they could not accord the second preliminary as such, but that we needed to have complete confidence in the Holy Father.

On February 19th, in response to this response, I delegated Father Sélègny, co-author of the recent book on the liturgical Reform, to simply state that we would withdraw, seeing that we did not obtain the two preliminaries. At the same time, he offered the book, just recently published, to Cardinal Hoyos, as an incentive to find other grounds for discussion, more doctrinal. One could say that since then, the discussions have not reopened, each camp standing their grounds…

On March 13th, a new telephone interview between the Cardinal and Father Simoulin, the day following a plenaria of the Ecclesia Dei, which takes care of the Fraternity of St. Peter. I was aware that from then on, the die was cast. They announced a plenaria of the Curia (a reunion of all of the Roman cardinals) just for our case. Cardinal Hoyos said that they would give us everything at the same time, but not as a preliminary: “The Pope will speak of the Mass, but only at the time of the (new) Motu Propio, so as to explode only one bomb at a time”.

On March 19th, I wrote to confirm the necessity of the preliminaries, as unambiguous signs of the benevolence of Rome, emphasising that a purely practical solution, without dealing with the doctrinal controversies, would be impossible.

On Good Friday, April 13th, Father Simoulin received a telephone call to confirm that it was impossible to grant the preliminary on the Mass: “It is not possible to repudiate the work of the Council and of Paul VI, by giving entire freedom to the traditional Mass”. “The oppositions of the cardinals are very strong, the Pope must take this into consideration”. Admittedly, the traditionalists “may make theological remarks on particular points”, but criticism of the Council is not permitted.

 

All the same, there was a change in the attitudes from this moment…

There is a change in the tone and I believe the underlying reason is the refusal from the cardinals (as far as public disobedience if it were necessary, as I told you). During a courteous visit on May 2nd, Father Rifan and Father Simoulin heard these unconforming words, which give food for thought on the state of the Church: “In the same manner that the Society does not wish to divide itself, so the Pope does not wish to divide the cardinals”… I truly believe that this sentence gets to the root of the problem: a good agreement does not depend solely on the good will of the one or the other. The organisations in the conciliar Church are very unwieldy and the fierce hostility of certain cardinals prevents Rome from considering a true reform of the Church.

 

In any case, hope seems today to go away

Bishop Fellay. While denying us our preliminary requests, Cardinal Hoyos asked that we trusted him: “The problem of the mass will be settled together with the case of the Fraternity, you must trust us”. That meant: no preliminary requests, we will give you all at the same time. The problem for us was to know whether these words meant the same thing to us and to them, and whether they were consistent with previous statements. Reading the Cardinal’s last letter, dated May 7th , which was approved by all the Ecclesia Dei Cardinals, we can see there is no consistency. Consider for example this judgement of Cardinal Hoyos concerning the traditional Mass, who justifies himself not to be able to grant the requested permission for all the priests of the latin rite: “As regards the first condition, a number of Cardinals, Bishops and faithful think that it should not be granted”. This reserve surprised me because we did not discuss with a certain number of Cardinals, Bishops and faithful, but with Cardinal Hoyos himself. And this is the answer he gives us now. At first he had said: the Pope agrees, he will grant you everything. Now he says: it is no more possible. One doesn’t know who governs the Church anymore.

Then, in this same letter dated May 7th, there is this other formula: “This permission could create confusion in many people’s mind who would interpret it as a depreciation of the value of the holy mass that the Church is celebrating today (the Novus Ordo mass)”. As I told you in the beginning, we find here the classic Vatican rhetoric when dealing with the traditional Mass.

“It is not possible to disavow ... the Council by giving full liberty to the traditional mass” (Cardinal Hoyos).

Let us consider this other passage, about the Council: “We must not fall into the error of interpreting it freely or having recourse to non authorized interpretations. The language of the Council is being perfected and made more precise on several points thanks in particular to the interventions and the teachings of Pope John-Paul II”. So there is only one approved way to understand the Council, not according to Tradition, but according to the teaching of the actual Pope. I have a mind to answer: “Well, if one follows his authentic interpretations, we end up with the scandal of Assisi, with the inter-religious summit, with the pagan worship in the sacred forrests of Togo, with the visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє and to the mosque, or whatever. If these are the clarifications expected...”

In this letter of May 7th, we even find expressed, although in a more soft way, but it is there, the famous reproach of the “Motu Proprio” of 1988: “I am sure, writes Cardinal Hoyos, that on this point (of the interpretation of the Council) we will be able to reach an agreement when we would understand the deepest necessities of the Church [he implies here that we don’t understand them], necessities which must be understood basing ourselves on a broader historical perspective”. And he quotes Saint Vincent of Lerins about the idea of progress of Tradition. In other words, according to Rome, we don’t have a proper notion of Tradition, we stick to a frozen conception, and there will be no accord lest we unlock ourselves, grant me the expression. In other words again, the Council must be understood properly, and Rome understands it properly, but we don’t. This is what the Cardinal writes. Is it because we don’t read good authors (which are outdated in the Conciliar Church)? Is it because we don’t understand that there is a legitimate evolution in the thinking? In any case, in this last letter of Cardinal Hoyos, our critique of Vatican II is being disqualified in advance.

 

So you think that we cannot obviously make such doctrinal concessions?

We must start at the beginning: why are we at this point where we are now? Rome leaned towards us saying: listen, you have a problem, it must be solved. You are outside, you must come back in, at certain conditions. It is to us now to answer: no, it is not so. If we are now in this situation (a situation of ostracism and persecution), we are not the cause of it. The cause is in Rome. It is because there are serious deficiencies in Rome that Archbishop Lefebvre had to back off, permitting him to keep certain of the goods of the Church which were being muddled away. Rome gives herself here the nice role, while on the contrary, she is the one owing a “Mea culpa” for this terrible internal crisis tearing the Church apart. Rome acted wrongly and puts the fault on us. The solution, of course, is not to be looked for in us, but in Rome. Rome must put things back into order, Rome must come back to Tradition, to her Tradition. Then everything will be without problem. There will no more be a problem of the Fraternity. We must keep our freedom to act for the good of the whole Church.

 

At the bottom line, you are requesting from Rome a repentance?

This is it, a repentance, but a genuine one, which supposes a theological dialogue. You see, I think that in the recent discussions, we turned a lot in round because the prerequisite which Rome imposed to us (without expressing it as such) was: “no theology”. They wanted a practical accord, a juridical solution right away; theology later. We are saying the opposite: it is doctrine that governs our actions, since the beginning. And I am convinced that now is the time to talk doctrine also to many young priests, and to faithful who start realizing the gravity of this internal crisis in the Church. There is particularily a movement in favour of the Old Mass. We must foster this movement. We must welcome and form those who ask about it. For the time being, however, many people come back to Tradition because of definite problems (the mass, ecuмenism ...). We must foster this movement. On the subject of the Mass, many people are ready to listen to us. On the subject of Ecuмenism, we must work on the problem so that people may understand our analysis. Rome is not ready for such a debate at bottom? Rome doesn’t want to discuss with us? We must then open the debate so that they understand that it is not possible to close their eyes and to ignore the fact that the ship is springing leaks from all around.

 

Excellency, you talk to us about the faithful who still must come back to Tradition, but what about the Traditonalist themselves, those who are already home? Did they understand well your proceedings?

I thank you to ask me this question. I must say that, these last months, many times, before I could speak, I did face a misundestanding on the part of certain faithful who imagined that our proceeding was one of compromise. But this has never been our attitude. We are at war by any means, with any arms, conventional or not conventional. There is no question of compromise, or concessions or even of moderating our position. We do not negociate our rallying. We are trying from our position all that we can to foster a true reform in the Church. For the moment, because this reform is not in our hands, we want to save all that can be saved with any means that the Good Lord has put at our disposal. In this perspective, I think that we did gained lots of ground these last months. We must continue. This is why I do not want to talk about breaking away. We could realize that there is a mutual expectation but we are not tuned on the same wavelenth.

 

And what about the future, Your Excellency?

I would like to utilize a rather bold comparison: the conciliar Church is like a termite house eating itself out from within. Since more than 30 years the same principles are put into practice, with an unshakeable consistency, despite the catastrophic results. These last discussions have created within the conciliar Church itself, great hopes in those who, more and more numerous, want to turn the page of the conciliar revolution. In this context, the propositions offered to us six months ago meant to have us believe that everything would be fine. By proceeding a little forward, we realized that it would be in reality a golden cage for us, since our criticism was not allowed and was not even considered legitimate in the Church. So we prefer to keep our freedom to act for the whole Church, rather than to let us put into quarantine in the zoo of Tradition. One must shake the Catholic world who is paralyzed by this post-conciliar lethargy. One must reopen the debate but without this imposed preliminary requirement of an only practical accord. Certainly this will be a long work, we don’t see the fruits of it immediately, but we must spare nothing to change the atmosphere, so that Tradition regains its rigths in Rome, so that Rome recovers its Tradition.

Home | Contents
Home | Contact | Mass Centres | Schools | Pilgrimages | Retreats | Precious Blood Residence
District Superior's Ltrs | Superor General's Ltrs | Various
Newsletter | Eucharistic Crusade | Rosary Clarion | For the Clergy | Coast to Coast | Saints | Links

Accueil
 

Bishop Fellay 2001:
http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/statement_of_bishop_fellay_jan22_01.htm


Statement of Bishop Fellay
to SSPX Members & Friends
January 22, 2001
In August, at the end of last summer's pilgrimage to Rome, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos had a first direct contact with the Society's bishops.

During the month of November the same cardinal, under a mandate from Pope John Paul II, invited the Superior General to come to see him "to prepare a visit with the pope".

On December 29, Cardinal Castrillon proposed to Bishop Fellay different elements that could serve towards a possible agreement between Rome and the Society. The Superior General expressed his point of view, his distrust, his apprehension. (Although never before had Rome gone so far in favor of Tradition).

On December 30, for a few seconds, the Superior General saw the pope in his private chapel. (No words of importance were exchanged).

On January 13 there was a special meeting of the General Council, of the Society's bishops and of the delegate of Bishop Rangel, at which were established the principles to guide us in the present situation.

On January 16, there was another meeting with Cardinal Castrillon, during which the Superior General exposed the necessity of having guaranties from Rome before going ahead in the details of eventual discussions or an agreement:

That the Tridentine Mass be granted to all priests of the entire world

That the censures against the bishops be declared null.

The principles that are to guide us through this rather new situation are the following:

Given that Rome has initiated this effort, it is normal that the Society take it with the seriousness that it deserves.

Our distrust is extreme, keeping before our eyes on the one hand the very recent example of the Fraternity of St. Peter, and on the other hand the continuity in the post-conciliar direction, which is constantly reaffirmed.

The Society has in no way the intention of modifying its principles and its general goal. The so abundant fruits of grace, on the one hand, and the conciliar disaster on the other just go to reinforce its determination to conserve Catholic Tradition.

If there were to be an agreement it could only be seen in the perspective of giving back to Tradition its rights of citizenship, even if the final triumph will only be obtained gradually.

The prayers requested of the members of the Society for the duration of one month do not at all signify our expectation that this will be resolved within that time frame, or with any haste at all. This time of prayer is so that we can request more intensely of Our Lady that She open the hearts of those responsible in Rome and of the bishops; that She enable us to avoid every trap, and that She might enable the rights of Her divine Son to triumph in the Church.

+ Bernard Fellay
Superior General