October 2007 Print

Bishop Bernard Fellay

On the occasion of a conference organized in Paris by the magazine Nouvelles de Chrétienté, the French counterpart of Christendom, on June 6, 2007, Bishop Fellay answered several questions on the liberalization of the Mass in the context of the present crisis of the Church.

 

Keep in mind that this presentation was given a full month before the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, was released.

 

Your Excellency, though we are still expecting the Motu Proprio, which should give some liberty to the Tridentine Mass, in the light of the recent declarations of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to the Bishops of Latin America, do you think that this liberty will correspond to what you are expecting as a first precondition for your discussions with Rome? (The second precondition is, of course, the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication, which would then be followed by a doctrinal debate.) In a word, in your opinion, could this Motu Proprio be the beginning of the first stage?

I would make a distinction. I think that on the part of Rome, without this being their only intention, there is a definite desire to answer our request. But Rome will never say so; indeed, they could not. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that the Pope himself loves the old Mass, and that he has been saying for a long time that he thought it was unjust to claim that it had been suppressed. We can affirm that since 1982 Cardinal Ratzinger has considered that there were no reasons–either canonical or theological–in favor of the abolition of the old Mass. His personal conviction is that the old Mass was never abrogated. Indeed, this is one of the things officially said by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, in Rome's name, to the bishops of Brazil and all of Latin America: "The Tridentine rite has never been abolished."

It is quite interesting to hear this about a rite which was declared to be forbidden and for whose sake priests and laity have been persecuted for 40 years. Now, all of a sudden, Rome tells us it has never been abolished. So we cannot present the Pope's gesture as an act of spontaneous generosity. It would certainly be goodness on the part of the Pope to give the Mass back to the Church, but it is not only goodness; it is an act of justice. If the Mass has never been abolished, it is a mere act of justice to say so. Justice must be granted to the Mass.

Now to answer your question: Does it correspond to our precondition? That will depend upon the restrictions which are established by the text. If they are such that we can speak of true liberty and of a real reintroduction of the Tridentine Mass in the Church, then perhaps this precondition will be met. But if the bishops are given the power to close the door just opened by Rome, then the precondition will not be satisfied. There must be true, genuine liberty. Since this liberty is acknowledged by right, we must see that they do not in fact go against the law.

Do you think the bishops will be able to neutralize the Motu Proprio?

They will be able to twist the meaning of a text. In the post-synodal Exhortation on the Eucharist, No. 39 affirms that the bishop is the guardian of the liturgy in his diocese. It is absolutely normal and obvious to state that the bishop has authority to maintain an orderly celebration of the liturgy in his diocese. But if this is used in order to assert that the guardian of liturgical unity can consider the old Mass a danger for the liturgical unity of the diocese, then it will not work. I think that somewhere in the Motu Proprio this power of the bishops will be stated. We will have to see how it is applied.

I was given to understand that in order to prevent this, the Motu Proprio will include the possibility of recourse to the Pope, but I do not know how this will be phrased. One thing will change: up to now the Mass was forbidden and the bishop could allow it; with the Motu Proprio the Mass is allowed and the bishop can forbid it. But it may be added that if a bishop wanted to forbid it, recourse could be had to Rome. In any case, what should be strongly affirmed is the Pope's desire to open the door to the traditional Mass.

Several times, here at St. Nicholas's in Paris and in your latest "Letter to Friends and Benefactors," [reprinted in the May 2007 issue of The Angelus] you have said that there could be some pressure from the faithful and priests of the rank and file on the occasion of the Motu Proprio. What do you mean by this?

On the one hand, I can see that there is expectation in the Church as well as discontent with the new liturgy. Of course, those in authority say that all is well, but you have only to look at the empty churches. They are empty because Christian people no longer go to churches where they are not being nourished and where they have been scandalized. Today, souls grow up in religious indifference, but there are still those who are not happy with this situation and expect to see something more beautiful in the Church. Surveys show that some 70% are favorable to the old Mass. Almost everywhere, the average Christian has no objection to the old Mass. Obviously there is not great enthusiasm, but there is expectation.

On the other hand, there are those movements, those abbeys–not only those among us–who have been waiting, and who, if they have in their hands an official text enabling them to have the old Mass, will undoubtedly make use of it. Then there will be the danger of a confrontation between the bishops and Rome. What will this confrontation be like? I think that the post-Motu Proprio period will be much more interesting than the pre-Motu Proprio era.

It is quite clear that there is enormous opposition, and I think this accounts for the delay of the permission to celebrate the old Mass. I believe that the Pope is afraid. Some years ago–it was still under the pontificate of John Paul II–Cardinal Castrillon told me: "We cannot grant the liberty of the Mass, because we would lose control." And he also said: "We cannot grant the liberty of the Mass because the Pope is afraid of breaking up the Church, of splitting it in two." This clearly shows that what is at stake is most important. And we cannot imagine that those who up to now thought they were victorious will so easily let go, and give up the fight. We can expect a fight to affirm the rights of what is to be given. Once again, I do not know what will be granted, nor its limits, but one thing is certain: it is not the end of the fight. We cannot hope for a peaceful return of the old Mass.

The bishops may not display their opposition a great deal. I do not know up to what point they will dare to appear disobedient, because it does not look good to be disobedient. But we can expect passive opposition, on the sly. We might even see entire Bishops' Conferences reject the Motu Proprio. But even given such a shocking reaction, we can expect the faithful to find the reintroduction of the old Mass quite normal, even if they have never had any close contact with it. They might even ask for what their bishops could still claim to be forbidden. But I do not think there will be any tidal wave; it will be long and patient work. However, if equal chances are given to both rites, it will be sufficient for one of them to win, and it is not difficult to guess which one... The Church authorities know this very well, hence their opposition even to a simple opening-up. In Rome, some of them said to us: "A generation from now, the New Mass will be done with." Personally, I would say two generations from now, but you can see that there are optimistic people even in Rome.

We cannot ask you who told you that in Rome?

No.

You said that the bishops might be opposed, the faithful might be favorable–at least a small portion of them–to this reintroduction of the old Mass. What about the priests? Do you think priests are interested?

There is an interest, and even a fairly great interest, on the part of the younger generation. But often with them the problem is that there is no problem. They do not know the old Mass. And how could they desire something they do not know? They know only the New Mass; but I do not think most of them feel really enthusiastic about the New Mass, because it is empty and flat. If we can manage to make them discover the old Mass, that would already be a great step forward. Obviously this does not mean that all of them will agree immediately. The opening toward the old Mass will have to be supported by those in authority. It is not enough to say: you may say the old Mass; more is needed. They must be told: "You must."

Already some years ago, around 1986, at the time of the famous commission established by John Paul II to find out whether or not the old Mass had been abolished, the idea was in the air that the celebration of the Tridentine Mass might be imposed in the parishes once a month. But everything depends upon the Pope's conviction, his courage in this desire for a return of the old Mass. In my opinion, however, because of the present opposition, it is more prudent to begin with a simple opening; later on we can gradually strengthen what has been acquired.

If you read the text by Cardinal Castrillon, it merely states–but this is already quite something–the equality of the rites. One is extraordinary, and the other, the New Mass, is considered as the ordinary mode. In this distinction, the extraordinary mode is somewhat lessened, as if set aside; you take it out of the closet on some occasions. They keep repeating: "It is not at all a turning back, it does not put the liturgical reform in question." All precautions are taken to make void the argument which would claim that the present Pope is setting the New Mass aside. Does he really want to do this? I do not know. I can see he has a will to come back to the old Mass. I have a feeling that there is more than that, but will he ever dare to say it? I do not know.

Concerning the priests and their interest in the traditional Mass, in France the SSPX made a film which teaches how to celebrate the old Mass, and proposed it to priests. Seven hundred of them asked for the film. In Germany we have not yet reached all the priests, and we have received 1600 requests for the film, in a country where the bishops insist vehemently that no one is interested in the old Mass. In the US also, we have had over a thousand requests. There is interest among a number of priests, but because of pressure from the bishops, the administrations, the older priests, etc., many do not dare to manifest themselves. A regime of terror is still enforced in the seminaries. Woe to the seminarians who show any traditional tendency! In some seminaries, even the recitation of the rosary is looked upon with suspicion. I was personally told by seminarians that they could not pray the rosary publicly, they had to say it very discreetly–otherwise they would be sent away. This happened in Europe, but the same type of thing happens outside Europe also.

For most of the priests who had to give up the old Mass, it was such a costly step that they no longer have the strength to go back. Some priests have found a sort of liberation in the New Mass; I say nothing about them. But with the younger priests, there has been no relation to the Tridentine Mass, and they are much more open. If we take the liberty of making some remarks about Vatican II, it is much harder with priests who lived through the time of the Council than with younger priests who have no such attachment and are more open to discussion.

There is hope, and I am convinced that if something is really done for the old Mass, it has a chance to gain the victory. But we must be patient and not imagine it will happen overnight. It is a step in the right direction.

In your recent declarations, you said that the Mass is only an effect but not the cause of the crisis which is shaking the Church today. Could you expand on this statement?

As a matter of fact, I think we can say both: it is both a cause and an effect. In a proximate way, the Mass was the instrument used to implement the reform of the Catholic spirit and of Catholic life; the transmission of the new spirit was accomplished through the Mass. In this sense, we can and we must say that the Mass is a cause, and one of the major causes, of the present state of the Church. But on the other hand, it is rather an effect than a cause, inasmuch as it is the instrument for the implementation of principles. Now the danger lies with the principles, and they must be our targets. If we let the principles continue to act, sooner or later the effects of these principles will unavoidably reoccur.

Suppose you have a wild tree; you cut one or the other of its branches because they do not seem to bear good fruit, but you do not make any new graft, you merely cut the branches. The new branches will bear the same bitter fruit, because the sap is still the same. If we apply this to the new Mass and say: "Let us cut off the New Mass because it is a bitter fruit, but we will leave the principles established by the Council free to continue acting"–then we will keep harvesting the same bitter fruits. We must do something about the Mass because it was the motor for the new spirit in the Church. We must go back to a motor which truly transmits the Catholic spirit, and the old Mass has this power of grace and faith.

Yet it is only one element in the whole. We must also lay the axe to the tree, to the principles. Now heretofore in our dealings with Rome the Church authorities had been doing nothing but avoiding the real problems and telling us: "Let us sign an agreement, a practical agreement which is not concerned with the doctrinal aspect." To do so would be tantamount to setting sail in a boat riddled with holes. We would sink–and we want to keep afloat!

In your sermon in Villepreux [outside Paris, France–Ed.], in October last year, you said that in Rome the same hand that could grant freedom to the Mass could deny the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you think that, while granting the Mass, the Pope could also go wrong on important doctrinal issues?

Yes, certainly. There is in Pope Benedict XVI a strange mixture. He entertains some affection for what is traditional, but at the same time–and even more on the intellectual level–he has a vision of things which is downright modern. And yet he would not, for all that, want to break with the past. We could say that Pope Benedict XVI will never be an extremist, he will never go to any extreme. Yet it seems to me that he would like to unite opposite extremes. He himself does achieve this somewhat in his life and his personality which are, as it were, a conciliation of opposite extremes. I think he feels drawn to both sides. Which one of these conflicting affections will win the day? I do not really know.

They vary according to the moment. For instance, concerning the issue of limbo, the newspapers wrote: "Pope Suppresses Limbo"; this is false, yet it is what he said when he was a cardinal. It is false to affirm that the Pope made a decree suppressing limbo. There is no decree, only a text from the International Theological Commission under the responsibility of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But this Commission has no magisterial authority; hence it is not a teaching of the Church. It is an opinion; it may even be advice or an invitation, or as the theologians put it: "an aspiration of the People of God today."

This text on limbo seems to me very instructive insofar as it clearly shows a modernist procedure. In the document you will find no statement contrary to Catholic doctrine, no heresy, but you will find quoted all the definitions of the Church on the questions and they are even said to be dogmas of the Catholic faith. The whole document is, however, an attempt to find a little door, a little crevice through which it can escape from these definitions of the Church and reach a new thesis according to which infants who die without baptism enjoy the beatific vision, even though the Church has always supported the contrary opinion.

These theologians tell us that the thesis of limbo remains a theological opinion, they do not deny this–on the contrary, they affirm it–but they diminish the scope of the thesis. It is true that limbo is not a dogma; there is no Church definition concerning limbo. But the thesis of limbo is very close to dogma, since it is a conclusion drawn from dogmas such as the necessity of baptism to go to heaven. In the document, the theologians set out to try and find a new way. Hence this sentence:

The Christian faith's affirmation of the necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation cannot be depleted of its existential significance by being reduced to a merely theoretical affirmation.

They acknowledge that the necessity of baptism for salvation is a dogma of faith. But they add:

On the other hand, God's freedom over the saving means given by Him must be equally respected. Consequently, one must avoid any attempt to oppose sacramental baptism, the baptism of desire and baptism of blood as antithetical. They are but expressions of the creative polarities within the realization of God's universal salvific will on behalf of humanity.

This is true, but they will go still further, and suddenly come up with something which would look like baptism of desire but is not baptism of desire.

The most astonishing remains the following:

It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants who die.

They acknowledge their complete lack of certitude about what they present as a new means of salvation far better than anything taught by the Church in the past 21 centuries. And a little further on, we read:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge.

Such is their conclusion!

This is a document which will have consequences in the practice of the Church and encourage the practical suppression of limbo. This text, which, theologically speaking, does not go very far, marvelously fulfills its purpose, which is to undermine the previous thesis by proposing an opening onto something which has never been taught by the Church, but which is presented as the common opinion, if not as a certitude–we dare not say a dogma! It is as vicious as can be. This is how they inoculate into the Church so many errors with consummate skill and cunning.

How can you correct such people? It would require considerable reasoning to prove that they have a hidden or open intention to put the Church on the wrong track. And yet the document was blessed by the Pope, since he approved its publication. This does not necessarily mean that he approves the content, but he approved the publication.

In this affair we clearly see how modernists, minds twisted by modern theology, proceed. We could already find this at the Council, but maybe here it is still more skillfully done than at the time of the Council. We oppose the Council because it is full of these "subtleties," ambiguous statements which could be understood in a Catholic sense, if they were explained in a Catholic spirit, but which could just as well mean quite the contrary. They are open doors.

In his address to the Curia in December 2005, the Pope condemned this manner of acting which consists of taking advantage of ambiguities to draw non-Catholic conclusions. He reaffirmed that the Council must be connected to the Church's past, and that it must be read in the light of tradition.

The problem is that he then spoke of a living tradition. What is a living tradition? Our definition of Tradition looks at the content of what is transmitted, according to St. Paul's words: "I passed on what I received." When we say that we have the faith of the Apostles, we consider that the Apostles passed on what Our Lord taught them, and all that He taught them. This object or content, transmitted from generation to generation, we call Tradition. It includes not only the Faith, but practices, a discipline and a spirit which we call the Catholic spirit.

Living tradition, on the contrary, looks at the person who transmits and at the act of transmission. It is true that tradition may mean both: what is transmitted–this is the traditional definition–but also he who transmits, who makes an act of tradition. But when we speak of him who transmits, we mean the magisterium; hence, according to Benedict XVI, the living magisterium is the Pope himself who draws from the past of the Church and transmits from it what he deems suitable for today. If there is perfect correspondence between objective tradition and the personal act of transmission of the Pope, all is well. But otherwise, it raises very serious difficulties.

When, after condemning ultraprogressivism, the Pope explained what this living tradition is, the Council read in the light of the living tradition, we find in his discourse all that we opposed, all that Archbishop Lefebvre opposed: religious liberty, ecumenism, etc. All this new relation of the Church to the world is presented by Pope Benedict XVI as something good and necessary. It makes us wonder to see on the one hand an attachment to Tradition and on the other hand the desire to be modern.

In the 19th century, proposition 80 of the Syllabus condemned this statement:

The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.

Yet Benedict XVI stated that the Pope must come to terms. He nonetheless made distinctions, acknowledging that the modern world also has its bad and unacceptable sides, and that qualifications ought to be given. How far will he go with qualifications of qualifications? Why doesn't he simply say, "The world hates you, and if the world hates you," said Our Lord to the Apostles, "it is because it first hated me." This will remain true until the end of the world. The spirit of the world leads to hell, the principles of the world are contrary to Christ's.

Throughout the centuries, when we saw the world congratulate the Church, we feared, because we knew that there was something which did not agree with this statement of Our Lord. On the other hand, when we see the world persecute the Church, we say: "That is how it is supposed to be. Jesus Christ told us it would be so." This enmity declared by God between the Blessed Virgin and her offspring–the Church–on the one hand, and Satan and his children on the other, will last until the end of time. It is vain to think that one day we will manage to be at peace with the world. A Christian who lives as such will per force have to suffer.

St. Paul tells us that whoever wants to live piously in Our Lord will undergo persecution. There are different kinds of persecution, but we will have to suffer. It is an illusion to imagine a situation of harmony with the world. We may reach a certain peace with the State, or even better have a Catholic State; this is obviously good. But the principles of the world will always remain opposed to Our Lord, and the Church will always have to fight.

You said that the text on limbo broke with the tradition of the Church, and that it had no magisterial value. Another document addressed some months ago to the bishops of the whole world had an official character, since it was a letter of Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in which he reminded the bishops that in the Canon of the Mass for the consecration of the Precious Blood, the expression "for all" must not be used, but instead "for many," as in the traditional Latin text, "pro multis." Don't you get the impression that there is, after all, a return to Tradition on the doctrinal level?

This event is interesting. First, there was a letter dated November 17, 2006, from Cardinal Arinze and the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship to all the presidents of Bishops' Conferences, pointing out that the translation "for all" in the consecration was erroneous and that they had to go back to a translation faithful to the Latin text, which reads "pro multis–for many." Salvation for all is in obvious contradiction with the Latin text. The bishops were given a year and a half or two years to prepare the faithful for this change. Imagine! If two years are needed to change the pro multis, how many years will be needed for the Mass? This delay was given in keeping with the upcoming new edition of the Pope Paul VI missal.

As far as we know, this correction was imposed by the Pope against almost everybody. The Bishops' Conferences in the proportion of nine out of ten wanted to keep the "for all." I say "wanted"; maybe it should be said that after the letter they still want to keep the "for all." It will be interesting to observe the outcome of the confrontation.

But we must say that a courageous act of the Pope was at the origin of the letter of Cardinal Arinze. The Pope made a decision against the Bishops' Conferences and the great majority of the Roman Curia. So there is hope! Will he manage to impose the Catholic translation "for many"? It seems to me that the post-Motu Proprio period will be very important because it will reveal the thoughts of many hearts. There may be more to hope for from this text than meets the eye. The Church is supernatural and the human aspect of the combats fought within it are but the tip of the iceberg. The real combat is always between God and the devil, and it is a matter of saving souls.

With the "for many" and the reintroduction of the traditional Mass, what is truly at stake is the salvation of souls. We may realize the true dimension of the combat better according to the bishops' reactions. But without doubt, if the Pope makes a courageous act, it will provoke a downpour of grace upon the Church.

You lay much emphasis on the doctrinal aspect. You say that if there is a liberalization of the Mass, and it remains to be seen to what extent freedom will be granted, this will be only one stage. Don't you fear that your insistence upon doctrinal issues may discourage more than one among the priests and the faithful who sometimes wonder if all this is not mere dilatory maneuvering or even an unrealistic pretense to convert Rome?

I feel like answering: this is the only way possible! Other ways may be considered and tried, but we have the impression that they are dead ends; even if they go in the right direction, they do not reach the goal to set the Church back "on the tracks," if I may use the expression. The Church is always one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, and in this sense, it is always "on the tracks." But churchmen have clearly gone off the tracks and caused a partial destruction of the Church together with the loss of souls.

We may try to say that all is well because the Mass is granted and they let us live in our little corner with what we are attached to, as if we were in a microcosm. But we can clearly see that pressure from the outside becomes such that we reach a point when it is unlivable. Or we may try to slalom among the obstacles placed in the way by the bishops, as the Society of St. Peter is doing. But this does not lead very far, and each time they have some result, they are in danger of losing it. See what happened in Lyons, see the threats in Versailles.

It is clear that as long as the Church is ruled by the new principle, to sign a practical agreement would mean to submit to these new principles; even if we say that we do not accept them, they will rule the practical agreement. We saw an example of this with the Society of St. Peter when in 1989 some priests of that Society were punished by their Superior General because they had concelebrated with the local bishop. The bishop protested, and Rome decided that the Superiors of the Ecclesia Dei Societies could not forbid their members to celebrate the New Mass. The principle used to settle this internal crisis was the general law in the Church, namely the ordinary mode of celebration is the Novus Ordo. A divisive principle was thus introduced within the Society of St. Peter, which never recovered from it.

This is the reason why we tell Rome that we want a doctrinal discussion on those very principles. As long as we are not clear on these fundamental points, we cannot sign an agreement. We may reach some temporary modus vivendi. This is what I proposed to them when I asked that they withdraw the decree of excommunication and give the Mass back to everybody. That would change the situation. It would not mean that Rome recognizes us, but merely that they give us elbow room. They do not commit themselves in any way, and we can work much more effectively for souls. After some time, we could re-evaluate the situation, and of course, we hope thus to bring Tradition back into the Church. But this can certainly not be done by accepting modern principles. So far Rome has not considered this solution; they want a canonical agreement first. But I think that the Pope, who is more of a theologian, might be open to such an idea.

The whole question is to know how Tradition, which is now ostracized, can one day be considered as the good of the Church. We are convinced that the Church will come out of the present crisis, but how? Some imagine that it will happen overnight as if by magic. There will be a special intervention from God and everybody will convert overnight. According to His absolute power, God can do it. He told the winds to be calm and the storm stopped. Likewise, God could change men's hearts all at once. But the history of the Church shows that He usually does not act thus, rather He works slowly though some persons who live their Catholic lives in an extraordinary manner, called holiness, and thus renew the Church.

The saints go through all sorts of suffering, and usually this is how crises are resolved. God can always do things in an extraordinary manner, but it is reasonable and supernaturally prudent to think that we will have to win over souls gradually and bring them back to the Faith of all time, showing them that the progressivist theses lead nowhere, that they are illusions which do not save souls.

In this respect, your testimony is invaluable, because facts speak louder than words. You are proof that it is possible to live according to the Gospel and the traditional doctrine of the Church. Obviously this means sacrifices, but it is possible, and even attracts today's youth.

The Council tried to please the world, and instead of drawing the world upwards, it stooped down to it. Your daily Catholic lives show that what the Church always did and taught is bearing fruit. This is a most powerful argument, which forces churchmen to reflect. I heard that some years ago, Cardinal Ratzinger scolded Fr. Bisig because he was not doing enough: "Look at the SSPX," the Cardinal said, "they have schools..." Probably the Society of St. Peter did not have many at the time. Recently, a bishop in Southern France said he wanted a Catholic school: "It is possible, the SSPX has schools."

This is what makes them think. Vocations do so also. If you have a diocese with no vocations and you see young communities receiving a continual flow of vocations, it makes you think. I consider that we must simply carry on until the Roman authorities think seriously about it, and not just say that the Council cannot be discussed and that the New Mass is infallible, as Cardinal Castrillon once said in a public conference.

In my opinion, to sign an agreement is to miss the point and hide the real problem. Rome would like a practical agreement as an easy way out, which does not oblige them to reflect upon the Council and the great theological problems it raises. They cannot simply say that the Council is good and can only be good, and claim that its disastrous results are due only to the fact that the Council has not been applied! After 40 years of Conciliar reforms? This is not serious!

It is true that we criticize, we attack, and this is no pleasant task. Here is a comparison. We are like a thermometer which shows that there is a fever. But we have the impression that Rome's only response is to break the thermometer. That is no cure! You must attack the disease, not the thermometer! I told Cardinal Castrillon: "Just forget us, forget that the SSPX even exists. Solve the problems in the Church and then you will see that the SSPX is no longer a problem."

We would like to see them deal with the real problems. So far, we have not reached the essence of the problem. So we keep insisting, not for our own sake but for the sake of the Church. We know that the Church is holy and indefectible, but her history is made by men. We have a role to play in the achievement of the indefectibility of the Church. Before God we must be able to answer honestly: "I did all I could for the good of the Church, for my soul first, but also for the good of the Church in the position which was mine."

At present, given the way Rome is acting, a practical agreement would be suicidal. If the authority at the Vatican were fully aware of the necessity of a return to Tradition, then we could seriously think about a practical agreement, even if there were still great disorder in the Church. As long as at the top they are not convinced of this necessity, and will not give us their support in the battle against the modernists, we cannot think of signing an agreement. A bishop made the following reproach to Fr. Schmidberger: "Yes, you will come back when all is spic and span in the Church." Fr. Schmidberger, my predecessor at the head of the SSPX, answered: "We are ready to clean up the toilets, but give us the means to do so." We can still say the same today. If we had the means–that is, the assurance that at the top level they bless and favor Tradition and genuinely want its return for the good of the Church–then things would be different. But there must be true will, and what we can see today causes us to say that the time has not yet come. We must be patient.

 

Reprinted from the July-August 2007 issue of Christendom. Christendom is a publication of DICI, the press bureau of the Society of Saint Pius X (www.dici.org).