Special Letter of District Superior
5-15-2012
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
Recently, private letters between the three bishops of the Society and the General Council were leaked. As these docuмents are now public, I wish to make a few comments.
First of all, I want to denounce the immorality, as well as the revolutionary nature, of publishing such private docuмents. If it can be grave matter to read private letters, as moral theology teaches, it is even more serious to publish or distribute them without the permission of the authors. Furthermore, it is subversive to publish private discussions between superiors because it puts undue pressure on them. A superior must be able to make a decision in view of the common good and not because of any pressures.
Usually the defense of the Faith is invoked to justify such actions. It is, indeed, clear that the theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them.
It is essential to remember that letters of this kind are normal ways of communicating between members of the Society on a very important matter. It is normal and good that bishops or even priests of the Society should be able to express their personal opinions in a respectful way and in a spirit of charity. Once again it is their publication without the consent of both parties, which is unacceptable.
What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. It is clear that the Superior General has the responsibility of the Society of St. Pius X and will render an account to Almighty God. It is notable for us to recall that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself wanted the matter of our relations with Rome to be handled and decided by the Superior General:
Thus in principle, the one who will be responsible for relations with Rome after I pass away is the Superior General of the Society, Fr. Schmidberger, who still has six years left in his term as Superior General. It is he who, eventually, will henceforth be in charge of contacts with Rome in order to continue the conversations, if indeed they continue or if contact is maintained, which will be unlikely for a while since L’Osservatore Romano is going to print a big headline: “Archbishop Lefebvre, Schismatic, Excommunicated.” For X number of years, perhaps two or three, I have no idea, it will be separation. (Press Conference, Econe, June 15, 1988)
As a matter of fact, the acknowledgment of the authority of Bishop Fellay in such a matter is expressed in both letters; on the one hand, in the letter of the three bishops, the respectful pleading not to make a purely practical agreement implies the recognition of the Superior General's authority to make such a decision. On the other hand, in the General Council’s letter, this principle is reaffirmed. If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority.
The second notion that we must keep in mind is our attachment to Eternal Rome. We have always professed this attachment while refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times. As the Catholic Church is at the same time both human and divine, it is necessary to have a supernatural approach to the actual problems within the Catholic Church. This is why we reaffirm our Faith in Eternal Rome, with Pope Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and visible head of His Church, while recognizing the dramatic situation of the Church today and the difficult but necessary task of keeping these two in balance.
The last point, and not the least, is the indispensable defense of the Faith in times of crisis. There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a “new canonical structure,” as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed. Our Superior General; and his assistants have expressed their conviction that the possibility of a personal prelature is not a trap. This is a prudential question and different opinions are possible, but the final decision belongs only to the Superior General.
I have been regularly and recently in contact with His Excellency Bishop Fellay and other superiors of the Society. Further, I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District, following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, which continues to be manifested today. Do not be disturbed by media reports, which may prematurely, and without sufficient information, prophesy many things.
At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation. Will the Society of St. Pius X be “recognized” or will we have to stay in the same situation for some more time? We trust and hope that whatever circuмstances Providence determines will lead to a restoration of Tradition. Let us therefore keep in our prayers both the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay, that the Holy Ghost may guide them under such difficult circuмstances, in addition to the whole Society and her priests. Be assured of my prayers and may the Immaculate Heart of Mary protect the Society of St. Pius X.
Fr. Arnaud Rostand
My observations:
1) Fr. Rostand spends a good deal of this letter defending the authority of Bishop Fellay to decide on this matter. Not sure why. Te bulwark of the resistence formed against him does not question his authority to decide the matter, but the prudence of his obvious orientation, as well as its consequences for the Faith (i.e., Does it represent an implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism that is against the Faith);
2) He then mentions attachment to Eternal Rome. Again, one must wonder why, since attachment to eternal Rome is not in question, but rather the attachment to Modernist Rome that Bishop Fellay wants to cement by accepting a practical agreement while all the doctrinal issues still divide us into camps of true and false Catholicism.
3) Finally, he comes to the heart of the matter at the end of the letter: The defense of the Faith in this time of crisis. He says this can be waged within the context of a personal prelature, and that such is not a trap. Can he cite a single example of a formerly traditional group regularized that was not neutered? And even more to the point, can he explain why the leadership of the SSPX lied, in the form of a sustained campaign, to the faithful, repeatedly assuring us that there would be no agreement until the doctrinal issues had been resolved.
Apparently you are not supposed to remember that part.
Apparently, without explanation sufficient to overcome the 3 bishops protests, the post-1988 strategy of Archbishop Lefebvre has mysteriously (and almost overnight) become irrelevent.
I think the 3 bishops have stated the case against Bishop Fellay's strategy so well as to leave scarcely anything to be said on the matter.
Yet, apparently all the District Superior can muster is an argument from authority (like his new Vatican friends, who themselves have sidestepped the doctrinal arguments of traditionalists against the modernist doctrines now proliferating and rending the vinyard with heresies by the handful).
No, Fr. Rostand.
We do not agree with you, or anyone else who supports taking a seat alongside the apostates while they remain enemies of Christ.
In the words of your illustrious founder to Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Eminence, even if you gave us the Mass and sacraments, independence from the bishops, the churches and seminaries. Still we could not collaborate with you. Because we are working to restore the social kingshop of Christ, and you are working to destroy it."
Most certainly, the Pope is the Pope until a future Pope says otherwise.
But we will not help him to destroy the faint flame of truth still found in the human element of the universal Church by placing ourselves into the hands of the devil's minions.
We will wait them out, confident that the Lord and Church provide sufficient for our needs until we again get a Pope willing to take hold of the rudder and right the ship.
If this Pope wanted us to help eradicate the modernism so dear to him, our answer would be different.
We would rally to his defense, and shed out blood that Christ could reign again!
But it is not modernism's eradication he desires, but rather our silence on the matter!
Does Christ want us to be silent in the face of those betraying their vocations (be they priest or Pope)?
To affirm this is nearly blasphemy!
We will fight for Christ, and the restoration of normalcy to the universal Church.