The Situation in the Church and Relations with Rome

A transcription of the public conference given by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, at the St. Ignatius Retreat House, Ridgefield, Connecticut (February 17, 2008), updating traditional Catholics on the state of the Church and the SSPX.

I am sure that you are interested in many questions and topics, and among them the situation of the Church and our relations with Rome. I will try to address these issues. I say that I will try, because the situation is not simple. The situation and state of the Church are becoming more complex and diversified. Before the Motu Proprio, we were fighting to defend a number of principles–and in this respect, the fight remains the same; nothing has changed. But the Motu Proprio definitely caused a number of people to think that things are different now. So, let us try to consider what may or may not have changed.

The Background: Vatican II

In order to better understand the value of the Motu Proprio, we must look back on the past and see in what circumstances it was released. To put it in a nutshell, the Second Vatican Council was the occasion for a number of ideas to be introduced into the lifeblood of the Church. These ideas, which had been fostered in universities and seminaries, had been fought against and condemned by the Magisterium up until the Council. The Council, however, "legalized" these ideas, and especially the spirit which accompanied them, and thus they officially entered into the lifeblood of the Church. This is the most damaging aspect of the crisis. It is really impressive to see that all the great names of the Council were the names of priests and prelates who had been condemned some ten years before the Council.

In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical on modern errors, Humani Generis. Among these errors was the confusion between the natural and the supernatural order. No names were mentioned, but shortly before, a Jesuit priest had published a book entitled Supernatural in which these two orders were confused. In 1950, he was forced to leave his teaching post in Lyons, France, and his book was condemned. His name was Henri de Lubac. De Lubac is considered as having been most influential during the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict XVI says he is someone who has inspired and influenced him. This man, who was removed from office before the Council, was made a cardinal after it because of his theology.

In 1952, a Dominican priest, who would later have a similar influence on the Council, wrote a book called True and False Reform in the Church. This book was also condemned, and Fr. Yves Congar had to go into exile and stop teaching. Fr. Congar was later called by the Pope in person to be an expert at the Second Vatican Council. He himself was astonished: "I am condemned, yet they call upon me?" Even he had a sound reaction at the time.

In 1954, an American priest was asked to write in defense of the theory which is especially prevalent in America regarding the separation between Church and State. Fr. John Courtney Murray was also condemned but his ideas were to be revived in part at the Council under the name of "religious liberty."

Another famous Jesuit, Fr. Karl Rahner, was so influential at the Council that someone even coined the phrase Rahner locutus est, causa finita. In the 1960's, Rahner was considered suspect by the Holy Office to such an extent that he was prohibited from publishing anything without submitting it beforehand to the Holy Office in Rome. This means that Rome was keeping an eye on him. It was through the intervention of Adenauer that this supervision was ended.

We could also mention Dom Lambert Beauduin, OSB, who is considered as the father of ecumenism. He died before the Council.

But what is very clear is that these men, who were all very influential at the Second Vatican Council, had been condemned or censured by the Church in the days of Pope Pius XII. The famous Bugnini, a liturgist and the author of the New Mass was, even under Pope John XXIII, forced to leave his teaching position in Rome because of his Modernism. He was later called back by Pope Paul VI to create the New Mass, among other things. This shows you that something absolutely abnormal happened in the Church.

I have no real explanation as to how it was possible for bishops who, for most of them, came to the Council traditionally minded to make such an about-face. If you look at the questions sent to Rome in preparation for the Council, they expressed the genuine concerns of bishops who desired the salvation of their flock. Five years later, they were entirely changed and full of new ideas: ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality.

The attitude towards the world had changed. Until then, the world was considered as the enemy, in accordance with the Gospels. The world hates Our Lord because He preaches the hard way to heaven while the world preaches the broad way of pleasure and an easy-going life. After the Council, all of Christian life was made very easy.

Whether or not you find this strictly in the texts of the Council, they leave many doors open to this spirit. The Council is very ambiguous; in other words, if you put on Catholic glasses, you can have a Catholic reading of the Council. But if you put on other glasses, you find an entirely different reading. This is the problem with ambiguous words. From a Council, you expect clear and precise texts. Besides some obvious errors, we find much imprecision and an ambivalent terminology.

A New Theology

To summarize, a new philosophy, which is no longer scholastic, entered the Church with the Second Vatican Council. When we say "scholastic," we mean the traditional philosophical formation given in the Church which is based on Thomism and Aristotle. You may recall that, as a means of fighting modernism, St. Pius X ordered that all those who hold the title of "Doctor" in the Church must either study philosophy in the scholastic tradition, i.e., Thomism, or lose their title. If this were to be enforced today, probably 80 percent of today's doctors in theology might lose their title. This speaks for itself! A new theology means a new way of thinking, accompanied by a new terminology. Bishop Henrici, secretary of the Communio movement, gave a very interesting conference. (Communio was founded by Cardinals Ratzinger, Lubac and Balthasar. It is essentially a think-tank where many bishops have been formed over the past decades.) Bishop Henrici gave a conference on the maturation of the Council in which he described how, as a Jesuit, he studied before the Council and how he lived during this period. It is amazing to hear how clearly he dared to speak. He even asked good questions, but the way he answered them was quite surprising. For instance, he explained that when he was a theologian at the University of Louvain, a professor recommended to the most gifted students to read "the most prohibited of all forbidden books": Lubac's Supernatural. Henrici asked: "Why did we read these books?" He clearly showed that he recognized this as an act of disobedience. Basically, his answer was: "We saw the Church and the religious congregations as an old train which was about to be discarded and replaced with a new train." So they jumped into the new train without giving a thought to the old one.

It is also very interesting to hear his reasons for adhering to new theories. He explained how, in their studies of dogma, they had learned about the evolution of dogmas; hence, they wanted changes even in dogma. This is pure modernism! Faith and dogma do not change. What is true once is true forever. God is above time and circumstances. The truths about God–the Faith–do not change.

So all these attitudes, truths and half-truths made everyone look more positively at the world and things which were previously considered as opposed, or at least, foreign to the Church, for instance, other religions. We used to say: "false religions." This expression has simply disappeared from the vocabulary of the Church. You may try to find this expression in modern documents from Rome, you will never find it. It has simply been eliminated. Does it mean that other religions are less false than before? Absolutely not. But it shows a shift in attitude. "Let us focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us," they say, as well as many similar sophisms.

Obviously there is some truth in every kind of error. The elements of truth makes it possible for error to exist. If the error were pure, no one would care about it. The good elements, mixed with the bad, enable error to propagate. If you tell a Protestant about all the things upon which you agree with him, you simply confirm him in his error. You point out what is good; hence, he is pleased with what you tell him. If you don't speak about his errors, how will he ever come to know that there is something amiss? How can he be driven to convert? If you only mention the things about which he is correct, you will never bring about his conversion.

In the end, this friendly attitude towards everyone is a very false charity. It is, in fact, often called "charity." Charity is a notion which has been terribly falsified in our time. You often hear them say to followers of false religions: "Be a good Protestant (or whatever) and you will be saved." It is as if at the train station you see someone who wishes to go to New York. However, you notice that he is boarding the train to Albany. Would you tell him, "This train is very nice and comfortable; you will enjoy the ride"? If you knew he was on the wrong train and going in the wrong direction, in no way can you call this charity. You are deceiving him. If the man found out you were aware of his mistake, he would be mad at you. You have to tell him: "I'm sorry; the train may be nice, but if you want to go to New York, you must take the other train."

The Good Friday Prayer

As a side note, the latest change in the Church concerns the new prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy. I know that this prayer is causing some controversy. We must first notice that this change was brought about by pressure from a group, the Anti-Defamation League, headed by Abe Foxman, which is a very active pressure group outside the Catholic Church. The Pope thus felt obliged to make a change.

What did he change? A prayer which belongs to the oldest prayers in the Catholic Church, the prayers of Good Friday which date back to the third century at least. They are more ancient than even the other texts of the Mass. They are very venerable prayers because of their antiquity, a veritable treasure of the Catholic Church. This alone is ground for saying: "How do they dare touch such a prayer?" This prayer has never been a problem and has been prayed for centuries. How can we today claim that this prayer is bad? This is the first important argument.

Secondly, if you look at the prayer, it has been deeply changed, though this may not be noticed at first sight. The new prayer asks that the Jews be "enlightened" and "accept Our Lord Jesus Christ" as their Savior. These requests are correct. If you read only this, it is correct. We do pray that the Jews acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. There is no problem so far.

The problem is that it changes the old prayer which spoke of "obscurity"--the Jews were in "obscurity" and "darkness." If you speak of "enlightenment," you do not speak of enlightening someone who already has light. But it is very clear that Rome wanted to remove anything that could have been offensive to the Jews. But who among the Jews ever cared about a prayer recited once a year in the Church? They need to be great scholars to even know about this Catholic prayer. All this is a matter of politics; it has nothing to do with religion.

But there is worse still; the meaning of the prayer has been changed. The prayer has two parts: a prayer to God giving the reason for the prayer. We have just commented upon this part. The second part, however, has been profoundly changed. The change is very subtle and clever, it makes allusion to a quote from St. Paul to the Romans. The apostle tells us what is going to happen at the end of time, when all the nations have entered the Church, the Jews will convert. They will return at the end. Their conversion is one of the signs of the end of times. So this is what we now find in the second part of the prayer.

Further, we have a commentary on this prayer which is very interesting and may enlighten those who still have doubts about what we should do with this prayer. This commentary came from the man responsible for ecumenism and for relations with the Jews in the Catholic Church, Cardinal Kasper. On February 7, he explained this prayer on the airwaves of Radio Vatican. He said that the Pope removed what was offensive to the Jews so that there were no negative words about the Jews. He could not, however, renounce the essential fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior. Then he went on to say that when the prayer speaks of conversion, we must keep in mind that the quote refers to the end of time and that the Church does not have a "mission" towards the Jews as she does towards pagans. He clearly said that we would not deal with the Jews as we deal with others. He there and then promised that they were not going to try to convert the Jews. When you read such a commentary upon the new prayer, you need nothing more to understand why we continue to say the old prayer.

This shows you that you ought not think that the fight is over.

The Council and the Mass

Let us return to our considerations upon the Council. One of the main vehicles for introducing the new ideas into the Catholic Church was the Mass. They made a new Mass which was the most direct contact the faithful had with the Council. Who among the faithful ever reads the texts of the Council? Perhaps a few might. But how did the average Catholic come into contact with the Council? How was his life influenced by the Council? Through the Mass. It is through the liturgy that the spirit of the Church is put into practice. And it was through the new liturgy that the modern ideas, which had come into the Church through the Council, were brought to the faithful.

One of the main ideas behind the New Mass is the ecumenical aspect. Ecumenism, counterfeiting charity, tells us we must not offend our neighbors; consequently, let us remove from the expression of our faith, the liturgy, any offensive reference to our "separated brethren." This is what the New Mass does. As a result, those who continue to attend this Mass progressively lose their faith. They turn out to be more Protestant than the Protestants themselves.

Many have thus subtly been brought to think along the lines of the new theology. At first, many may have been shocked by communion in the hand; but "everybody does it." Then little by little, as you receive Our Lord in your hands standing, you end up thinking that He is not your Lord. Because if He were really God, you would fall on your knees to adore Him and you would not take Him in your hand. For when you take something in your hand, you are the one in control. "I have the matter in hand" means that you have something under control. The only one who has the privilege of "holding" Our Lord is the priest. One of the most astonishing powers of the priest is this ability to "call" Our Lord and make Him present under the species of bread and wine. God has given this power to the priest and to no one else. This is but one instance of the way the Faith was changed by these attitudes. The old liturgy is full of these little but meaningful attitudes, gestures, and words.

Sometimes the old liturgy is called "Tridentine." Tridentine refers to the Council of Trent. But the Mass such as we know it can be found in the Sacramentarium of St. Leo and St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century. The most recent prayers found in the old Mass were brought into the Roman liturgy from the Mozarabic rite in the 11th century. But the prayers of the Offertory date back to the 6th century. So you should be careful about the use of terms such as "the Mass of St. Pius V" or "the Tridentine Mass" for the Mass is really much older. You should rather say: "the Mass of All Time" or "the traditional Mass." It is called the Tridentine Mass or the Mass of St. Pius V because, at that time, some bishops had taken the liberty of adding things to the Missal. Consequently, the Council of Trent ordered a new edition of the Missal to purge it from these accretions. This was the work of St. Pius V, who, enlightened by a tremendous wisdom, did something unique in the history of the Church: he gave an indult which enables any priest to offer the Mass canonized by himself until the end of time without incurring any punishment for doing so. You do not find anything like this anywhere else. We might think he had a vision of the future to write something which would apply until the end of time. It is the famous bull Quo Primum.

The crisis nevertheless develops on all levels. If you compare the Church before the Council with the Church of today, you realize that nothing has been left untouched.. There was a reaction from a number of priests. Archbishop Lefebvre is well known, although he was not the only one to react during the Council. Then we have the whole history of the fight for Tradition throughout the years.

In 1988, at the time of the consecrations, Rome wanted to put an end to the opposition to the Council, and I may say that this is still on their agenda. In all my discussions with Rome, I have never discerned any hint that they think Rome did something wrong and that we should backtrack. Up to now, the general idea is that the Society should bow down and accept the Council. The audience I had with Pope Benedict XVI confirmed this. It was one of the clearest points of the audience; for the Pope, it is inconceivable to have a Catholic today who is not imbued with the principles of the Second Vatican Council. He even talked about the "Church of Vatican II." I do not know this church; I only know the Catholic Church.

This is a new manner of speech. You never found at any time anyone speaking of the "Church of Trent" or the "Church of Nicaea." There was only the Catholic Church. Merely to say "the Church of Vatican II" implies that there was a new beginning. I suppose we can see why some may consider it a new beginning, but it is a bad beginning.

I can say that, in all the talks we had with Rome, it was very clear that although we may not have explicitly talked about the Council, it always loomed in the background. Rome will request of us that in some way, somewhere along the line, we accept Vatican II, maybe "in the light of Tradition," maybe with this or that condition. Nevertheless, they will place it somewhere. They are very crafty. What does it mean to accept Vatican II? If you take it as a whole, it is a mixed bag. We do not want a mixed bag; we want the Catholic Church and everything that comes from her, namely Tradition: that which the Church has always taught and believed everywhere.

Rome in 2008

On the one hand, in Rome, now, they–at least the Pope and several cardinals–accept that there is a crisis, even if they occasionally say the contrary and speak of the good fruits of Vatican II. But, now, such statements seem to be more a matter of politics than the expression of their true thought. Usually, when we can speak seriously with them, they acknowledge that the situation is bad. Sometimes they try to find a way out by mentioning young people and their greater interest in serious things. But they realize that it is not convincing, so they acknowledge the crisis.

A few days before his election, the Holy Father compared the Church to a sinking boat. It is a serious matter to say the Church is sinking because we know that the Church has received the promise of indefectibility from Our Lord, and that she will remain until the end of the world. Hence, Cardinal Ratzinger meant that the situation was serious. On the one hand, they acknowledge that the situation is serious, but on the other hand, it seems almost impossible for them to go back to the cause.

Once, I tried to explain to Cardinal Mayer how power was exercised in the Church nowadays. I told him there was a problem because the chain of command was totally paralyzed. It is paralyzed because, wherever a personal power has to be exercised, it is neutralized by groups, commissions and councils. This is the case at the level of the Pope, of bishops, and of parish priests. Parish councils, presbyteral councils, synods, etc. I told the Cardinal that the situation was unbearable and that the root was collegiality. This startled him, and he said: "You are perfectly right." It didn't last very long, however, because when I pushed a little further and said: "So, you see, the root of this crisis is to be found in the Council." He said, "No, no, you are wrong. There is a crisis in the Church because the Council has not been applied." That was his answer. If, after 40 years of reforms made in the name of the Council, you say that there is a crisis because the Council has not been applied, you admit a failure. We think, however, that the Council was only too well applied.

On another occasion, I gave my arguments about the crisis to Cardinal Castrillon and said: "These errors oblige us to go back to their causes. And we must look for these causes inside the Church." He retorted that the cause of the crisis is the world. The world is going bad, hence things are going bad in the Church. The argument is not altogether wrong. If you look around, you can see that there are problems not only in the Church but in the world also. You find also in the world the same errors as in the Church.

But here is the problem: relationships between the Church and the world are such that we know that the world is bad. The Church is not called militant for no reason. The Church always fought the errors which come from the world. And the Church remained alive because she used to defend herself against these errors. What happened at the Council is enlightening; in his opening address, the Pope asked that the windows of the Church be opened to the world.

Let us suppose that you notice that your carpet is soaking wet in a room. You look up and notice that your windows are open and there just was a storm. You might say that the carpet is wet because of the storm. But usually you would simply wonder who had left the windows open.

They opened the windows to the world. The storm came, entered the Church, and flooded her with its errors. When they now blame the world for the crisis, they merely say that it is the fault of the storm. At least, you would expect them to close the windows now. But no; the windows are still open, so water keeps pouring in. No wonder they tell us that the ship is sinking!

Such is the situation at present, nothing has changed. We have the impression that they are blind. Yet, they should see; they are intelligent people. Perhaps they do not want to see. Even our Pope is convinced of the necessity of opening up to the world. The situation is complex.

Rome and Tradition

Rome acknowledges that Tradition is bringing forth good fruits. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, delegated by the Pope to deal with us, told us: "The fruits are good, hence the Holy Ghost is there." "What then?" I asked him, "And where do these fruits come from?" He remained silent. They see that the fruits are good, and consequently they would like to use us in this crisis which they now acknowledge. Contrariwise, they see that the fruits are not always good on the other side of the fence. They would like us to come in. And I can say that, this has been their plan since 2000. They want us to come in and help them get out of the crisis. Of course, it would not be such a bad idea, if at the same time they did not oblige us to accept Vatican II. They want us to absorb what caused the evil, and after that we are supposed to help. We have tried to explain to them that it would not work.

At some point, we are no longer on the same wave length. Rome looks at us as absolutely not in the way we consider ourselves. Rome considers us as bad boys; not as heretics, but as stubborn and proud boys who wanted to have their own way. So, of course, in their eyes, we must yield, obey and accept the Magisterium. To this we answer: "We push for nothing of our own invention; we simply do what the Church has always done." I once told Cardinal Castrillon, "Forget about the Society of St. Pius X. Forget about us. Deal with your problems and then you will see that the Society is no longer a problem."

Rome and the Motu Proprio

The Motu Proprio was very important. A number of more or less conservative cardinals realize that the situation of the Church is bad, and that Tradition could be a very serious help in overcoming the crisis. These cardinals are trying to bring back the Mass. What is interesting is that these cardinals in Rome have always been convinced that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated. Twenty or thirty years ago, the Pope was already convinced of what he wrote in the Motu Proprio, not only he, but Cardinal Casaroli and Cardinal Casoria (Prefect of the Liturgy in the 1980's) as well. They knew it and yet let everybody believe the traditional Mass was prohibited.

Cardinal Stickler revealed that, in 1986, a commission of nine cardinals had been set up to study two questions: Did the New Mass suppress or abrogate the old? May a bishop forbid a priest to celebrate the Tridentine Mass? To the first question, eight out of nine cardinals answered that the Tridentine Mass had not been abrogated nor suppressed. To the second question, all nine unanimously agreed that a bishop may not prevent his priests from celebrating the Tridentine Mass. This was in1986, 22 years ago.

These cardinals in Rome always knew that the traditional Mass was not forbidden. Nevertheless, they acted as if it were forbidden or as if special permissions or conditions were needed. You may remember the Indult. The faithful brought a certain amount of pressure upon the Holy See; thousands of letters poured in from the all over the world asking for the Mass. At the same time, there had been a certain evolution among the cardinals which made them realize that something should be done for Tradition, and for the Church.

Around 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger told the Fraternity of St. Peter that they must hold fast to the Tridentine Mass so that they might act as a counter-balance to the New Mass and the progressivists. Later, once the balance is achieved, he would create a new New Mass. The Holy Father still has this idea of a reform of the reform.

Despite the Indult with its restrictions, bishops made life so hard for the priests and the faithful attached to the old Mass that Rome understood it could not continue in such a manner. In May 2003, the present Pope, then a cardinal, met with some conservative cardinals in Rome. They decided to make a gesture in favor of Tradition. One idea was to make of the Society of St. Pius X, as it were, the spinal cord of the traditional movement and organize all the other traditional groups around it. The other idea was to leave us out, since "they would never come back," and do something with the other groups, establishing a number of jurisdictions throughout the world. They would be like a diocese or an apostolic administration, directly under Rome and freed from the pressures of the bishops.

We know that, from 2003 until his election, Cardinal Ratzinger worked on this project. The project was almost implemented in France, but the French bishops claimed that such a jurisdiction was unacceptable. They refused to consider it. Hence the French Bishops' Conference rejected Rome's project for the establishment of such a jurisdiction, perhaps an apostolic administration, for the Tridentine Mass in France. If nothing else, this shows that the project did exist.

A French bishop called one of our priests and told him about the project. But the French bishops did not want Rome to meddle with their business. So they sought to establish something for Tradition in every diocese so as to make Rome's project useless. They were scared to death that Rome would set up something over which they would have no control.

French bishops are presently implementing their resolution, but mainly at the expense of the Society of St. Peter. For about a year before the Motu Proprio until now, their agenda has been to suppress the places of worship entrusted to the Society of St. Peter and ask the priests to join the diocese, say the New Mass, and take charge of the very same churches originally entrusted to the Society of St. Peter. This is how the bishops are regaining control. They have already done this in several places. The bishop of Versailles said to the Superior General of the Society of St. Peter, "We will no longer give you any work. Your priests will grow bored of having nothing to do, and will eventually join the diocese." It is clear that the bishops wish to remain in control.

When the Motu Proprio was announced, bishops all around the world raised up a massive opposition. We have it from someone very close to the Pope that this latter told close friends that never in his whole life had he suffered as much as he did with the "Motu Proprio." It is a very interesting statement because it shows that the Pope went forward despite the difficulties. He chose to suffer rather than give up. He also said that he had to do it in conscience. He felt obliged and bound in conscience to do it. This is a very strong and important statement.

Some think that the Motu Proprio is a trap to "get us." This is not true. It might become a trap, but frankly, I do not think that the pope intended it as a trap. It does not fit in with reality.

I can give you another proof of the Pope's determination. The year before the Motu Proprio, on November 17, 2006, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Liturgy sent a letter to all the presidents of bishops' conferences concerning a correction in the translation of the words of consecration in the New Mass. The letter told the presidents that the translation "for all" was wrong and that "for many" was the proper translation of the Latin pro multis. What is most interesting, however, is what happened before and after the letter.

Before the letter, Rome had inquired from all the bishops' conferences whether "for all" should be retained or whether it should be corrected into "for many"? The figures show that 35 conferences answered; out of 35, three were in favor of "for many." Not even ten percent were in favor of "multis." Even in Rome, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was unanimously in favor of the translation "for all." It means that if the letter was eventually released, the Pope decided, on his own, to go ahead. And in this case, he did it "against all," not "for all."

It is important to note these things. It is very clear that, in this instance, he made a courageous and truly papal act. By this I mean that he is very aware of his duty as Pope. Hence, if he sees something he is obliged to do in conscience, we can hope that he will go in this direction until the end, despite very real pressure.

After this letter obliging the bishops to go back to "for many," many bishops' conferences asked Rome to be dispensed from changing their translation. They want to maintain a faulty translation. This was even before the Motu Proprio; it shows a modernistic attitude in the Church. Nevertheless the Pope imposed his will.

We heard about the Motu Proprio more than a year before it appeared. As an aside, I never received an answer from Rome regarding our spiritual bouquet of 2.5 million rosaries for this intention. The only answer was perhaps the Motu Proprio itself, of which the pope wrote that it was the result of many prayers. Cardinal Castrillon also told me that he was convinced that it was the fruit of our prayers if the release of the Motu Proprio met with so little opposition. As a matter of fact, there was an immense opposition, but they considered it as little.

How should we judge the Motu Proprio? It came in the midst of much opposition. There were four bishops' conferences which wrote to the Holy Father to tell him that they did not want the Motu Proprio: the Germans, the English, the French, and part of the Americans. The Germans went to see Cardinal Arinze and told him they did not want the Motu Proprio. Cardinal Arinze replied "Neither do I." He then grabbed the new Missal and said: "This is our baby." He is a traitor to the Pope! It shows what kind of opposition the Pope can meet with just for a Motu Proprio.

When you look at the situation of the Church as a whole and at the crisis, and see how many problems the Pope had for just one thing, you realize that even if he had the best of intentions and the greatest understanding, he would still meet with great difficulties to bring about any improvement. I say "if." So, now we have the Motu Proprio, but it is not everything. It is an important step. What is important about the Motu Proprio is this little phrase: "The [Tridentine Mass] has never been abrogated." This is why we say it is a good thing for the Church, despite the fact that it contains many points with which we disagree.

This little sentence is the essential point of the Motu Proprio because it has changed the status of the Mass from a juridical viewpoint. It affirms that the Mass is still the universal law of the Church. If a law has never been abrogated, it means that it remains what it was. It was the Mass of the Church, and thus remains the Mass of the Church. Enormous consequences can be drawn from this apparently trivial statement. The consequences are not explicit but they are there nonetheless. And these consequences, which are at the level of the law, are very important even if, at the practical level, they may go unnoticed.

To begin with, the Pope states that the New Mass was promulgated as a universal law of the Church. Usually when a law of universal character is promulgated it makes void whatever the former law may have said on the subject. For instance, Julius Caesar decided that everyone would drive on the left-hand side of the road. Napoleon came along and decided we should drive on the right. You can easily understand that the new law suspended the old. You have a law in the Church which said: "Tridentine Mass." Then came a new law which said: "New Mass." It is as if you had one law which says to drive on one side of the road, and another law telling you to drive on the other side. To say that the former law was abrogated brings about the same mess as if you were told you may drive on either side of the road.

This is precisely the kind of problem that the first part of the Motu Proprio attempts to solve. It is somewhat awkward to claim that there is but one Mass with two forms: ordinary and extraordinary. It is like saying ordinarily you drive on the left, but extraordinarily, you drive on the right. We cannot agree with this. We do not agree that these two Masses are really one. It goes against the evidence. Anyone who has attended both Masses understands that they are not the same. They are not two expressions of the same rite.

The Indult vs. the Motu Proprio

Compared with the Indult, the Motu Proprio radically changes the status of the old Mass. When you say indult, you imply an exception or a privilege, a law for a few. Along with this, certain conditions and necessary permissions are imposed. But when something is a universal law, there is none of this. It's like a green light: even if there is a policeman, you do not ask him permission to drive on. When the Pope says that the old Mass was not abrogated, he gives a green light to the Tridentine Mass. It is a question of law.

Matters are not as clear when it comes to the application of the law. How is this law applied? You can see that the bishops, for the most part, wish to apply the Motu Proprio as if it were an indult. They want to be asked permission. This is strictly against the law of the Motu Proprio. Such is the general attitude of the bishops, notwithstanding some exceptions. The bishops put pressure on priests to prevent the free diffusion of the Tridentine Mass, which is very important.

If, in practice, a real equality of right were given to the two Masses, it would not take too long for the New Mass to disappear. In Rome, I spoke with a high ranking prelate who thought it might take one generation. Personally, I think it might take a little longer. Once again, this is on condition that the real equality of right, as foreseen in the Motu Proprio, be truly granted in practice. But the bishops do not want this because, somehow, Modernists know that if such a freedom was truly granted, it would mean the end of the New Mass.

Legally speaking, the Motu Proprio is for the death sentence of the New Mass. But the problem is that too many people want it to remain alive, and oppose the Motu Proprio. So, they will keep trying to impose the hegemony of the New Mass over the old.

Thus we have reached a decisive point in the history of the Church and of the crisis. On the one hand, the Pope has given a law; on the other hand, bishops oppose it. So there is a confrontation. What is going to happen? If, as it seems to be the case, the Pope thinks he is obliged to do this in conscience, even against the bishops, there still remains a new principle introduced by Vatican II: collegiality. This means that the bishops have their say, and if the majority of them agree on something, the Pope must abide by their decision. So now, if the Pope steadfastly follows his conscience and his duty as pope, he will strike a blow to collegiality. And if he does not, and follows the bishops, he will have given up his power as pope because the bishops will know that they only have to pressure the Pope strongly enough and he will yield. Hence, we are living a decisive time not only for the Mass, but for the whole crisis.

If the Mass comes back, it will bring back the Faith, and eventually morals. We see it with priests who return to the old Mass. It is striking. We have had wonderful experiences with priests who, after celebrating the old Mass two, three, or five times, suddenly realized the two Masses were two different worlds between which they must choose. Most of them made the right choice when faced with such a dilemma of conscience.

The Road Ahead

With time, they will come back to the Mass, and not only to the Mass. There is a whole world that comes with the Mass. They need a complete formation. The work ahead of us is colossal. These poor priests arrive with nothing, and they discover a new world. Their transformation does not happen in one day. They need help, not only to celebrate correctly, but to understand the Catholic theology that goes with the Mass. We have many testimonies from priests who tell us, "By celebrating the Tridentine Mass, I have discovered what a priest is!" They had an idea, of course, of what the priesthood entailed, but with this Mass, they suddenly realized that they stand between God and man to offer a sacrifice and work for the salvation of souls. It is so different from the "carnival Masses" prevalent in Switzerland, for instance. Someone who understands what the Mass is can no longer accept such Masses.

In northern Italy, a society of about 300 priests recently joined Tradition as a group, and with them also is a group of over 300 contemplative nuns. This is certainly good news. Also in a diocese of northern Italy, since the Motu Proprio, three parish priests have decided to celebrate only the Tridentine Mass. It is interesting to know that their evolution began some two or three years ago. They were in such a conflict with their bishop that the affair went even to Rome. In the largest parish, which numbers upward of 1,000 souls, 800 parishioners wrote to Rome asking for the Tridentine Mass. In a few months, these parish priests had made such progress that they carried their faithful along with them.

This shows that we do not believe in a utopia! In a number of years from now, the Church can really go back to the old Mass. It will require much energy and fighting, but it is truly possible. The Motu Proprio is a great help towards this, and this is why we sincerely thank the Pope. We must be grateful, for it was a very important act, even if all is not perfect; and there is much we do not accept, for instance, the holiness of the New Mass. Fundamentally, however, the face of the modern Church could be changed if the Motu Proprio were really applied.

A top-ranking official in Rome told me that the New Mass could not be suppressed all at once, and that "we" would have to go through several steps. He did not say "I"; he said "we." Now, is the Pope included in this "we"? I do not know. At any rate, we have the Motu Proprio and we are told that the final objective is the suppression of the New Mass. This is interesting, of course. Yet, it came from one official, whereas a great majority of priests and bishops still oppose the old Mass. We must be aware of this twofold reality. I wish I could make matters less complex. To put it in a nutshell: good and bad things happen at the same time. Matters become even worse when the Pope is self-contradictory. As I said concerning the new prayer for the Jews, Benedict XVI feels obliged to constantly do favors to the Jews which are difficult to understand. We have a mystery there, but that is not the worst. The worst is his theology.

And yet, he is bringing something new in theology, and it is important that we realize it. It concerns the Council and the reforms. Until now, the common understanding in the Church was that Vatican II was something new, which had caused a radical change in the Church. In several seminaries, teaching about the Church is based only on sources dating back to Vatican II and later. In many seminaries, everything before Vatican II is ignored. It is obvious that, for many, everything began with Vatican II.

Tradition and the Council

Now the present pope tells us: "No, this cannot be. There must be a link. There can be no rupture between what was before and what came after the Council. And the link must be Tradition." During our audience, he told me that the only acceptable interpretation of the Council was according to the criteria of Tradition. A little anecdote illustrates the problem. Around 1982, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to the Pope:

You said that the Council must be considered in the light of Tradition. We accept the Council in the light of Tradition. This means that we accept what is in harmony with Tradition in the Council. What is doubtful in the Council, we interpret according to Tradition. What is opposed to Tradition, we simply reject.

Cardinal Ratzinger answered the letter and said, "Your proposal about the Council, although very short, could be acceptable. But what you say afterwards is unacceptable." So, Rome finds it unacceptable that we say: "We reject what is opposed to Tradition in the Council."

They no longer use the phrase "in the light of Tradition," but "in the light of living Tradition." The word "living" is ever present. In fact, when we say "Tradition," we do not mean the same as they. In 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre was condemned and excommunicated, the very text Ecclesia Dei Adflicta explained that Archbishop Lefebvre had a wrong and incomplete understanding of Tradition. So, you see, we use the same word but give it a different meaning.

When we say "Tradition," we refer to its definition given by a Father of the Church, St. Vincent of Lerins: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus--What has been believed by all, everywhere, at all times. What has been believed? It is an object. When we say "Tradition," we mean the doctrine and discipline of the Church, something specific entrusted by Our Lord to the Apostles and transmitted from generation to generation. "Transmit" in Latin is tradere; traditio means transmission: Tradition is what was transmitted, the object handed down. For the modern, Tradition is an act, the act of transmitting. This is one way of understanding Tradition. It is possible to use the word "Tradition" in this sense, although it is not its usual meaning. But when you speak of the act of transmitting, you look at the person who transmits, and no longer at what is being transmitted. Those who transmit are the Pope and the teaching Church.

The problem comes in with the word "living." Living implies movement, and movement means change. Some changes are legitimate, others are not. Let us suppose that you have a tree. If you say that the tree is living, it does not mean that your tree moves from one side of your yard to the other. Neither does it mean that your tree gives apples one year and oranges the next. If your tree is alive, it means that it always grows in the same place and produces the same fruit. Modernists use the word "living" to denote a change where there cannot be any change.

On the one hand, the present pope condemns those who say that Vatican II is a rupture with the past. He thus condemns the extremists, the super-Modernists who want a new Church. Benedict XVI's thinking is more subtle. He sees that it must be the same Church, and the same Faith because the Faith cannot change. Yet at the same time he accepts the changes and says: "These changes are traditional."

One of the most important texts of his pontificate is his address to the Curia on December 22, 2005. [See The Interpretation of the Second Vatican Council in the March 2006 issue of The Angelus–Ed.]

If you wish to understand his vision of the Church, you only have to read this address. It is fairly clear and simple. He explained why the Council had to introduce novelties, which, he claimed, were not new. He said that these novelties concerned the relationship of the Church with the world. In the 19th century, the world was very evil and mean, and hence the Church had to defend herself and speak negatively and meanly of the world. He used the word "radical", saying that the Church was "radical" in its opposition to the world. And he went on to explain that, in the 20th century, the world had become much better and therefore, at Vatican II, the Church had to adjust to the new position of the world. The world being better, the Church had to be kinder. Four times in his address he repeated, "It was necessary for the Church to give a new definition of the relation between...": the Church and the modern State, the Church and the other religions, the Church and Judaism, and the Catholic Faith and modern science. In each case, a new definition was needed. But how can he speak of a new relation?

Church and State

Benedict XVI explicitly expanded on the relationship between the Church and the modern State. He explained that the modern State wants to have the same type of relation with all religions, wishing to deal with all of them impartially. He said:

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself.

Now, is this in harmony with the teaching of Jesus Christ? If you reflect on this, it means that, for almost 2,000 years, the Church had lost her patrimony and was not in harmony with the teaching of Our Lord. This is unbelievable; and yet the Pope said this. You must realize that we have a serious problem here.

When we deal with the relationship between the Church and the State, we are dealing with truths very close to the Faith. Why do we say that there must be relationships between Church and State? Because every member of the Church also belongs to a State, and as citizen of one State or another, he must work out his salvation in this world. If the State recognizes the laws of God, it will legislate in harmony with the commandments of God, and thus help its citizens to lead a life in harmony with God's commandments, thus making it easier for them to save their souls.

But if the State treats every religion in the same way, the State does not feel bound by any of God's commandments and makes its own laws. Such a State does not help its citizens to save their souls. We know that the civil society in which we live puts pressure on its members because it is a laicized society. For those who go along with the flow, there is no pressure. But pressure is made to bear upon those who swim against the tide. Now if this pressure is for the good, it's fine. But if this pressure is for evil, it is very serious. And in the modern State, with all the new laws against the natural law, they are turning earthly society into hell. This life on earth is becoming ever more like hell because States do not care about God's law.

This is why it is so important to insist that the State must also recognize God as Creator, Provider, and Lawgiver. This is obvious and has always been the Church's teaching. Yet now that the Pope tells us that by going against this traditional teaching, the Church is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is terrible.

A New Vision

We are now confronted with a new vision and a new way of explaining the changes of the Council. Until now, justification was given; we were merely told: "This is new; let us go forward." But our present pope is more careful about the past. He thinks that we must not break with the past. In this, he is quite right, but the trouble is that he nevertheless wants to implement the new theories. But, as we say, it is impossible to have both; it is either/or. Yet Benedict XVI wants to bless and baptize novelties under the name of tradition. We say: this is against Tradition, and he says: it is traditional. Such is the new problem that we are facing, and it makes our situation very delicate. Before it was clear—it was a "Yes" or a "No." Now, it is a..."Yo."

One week after the Motu Proprio, another document was released by Rome; this time it was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was a note entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." This document tells us that, at the time of the Council, the definition of the Church was changed.

Now, I like Cardinal Kasper because he always speaks his mind clearly. In one of his conferences on the foundations of ecumenism, he explained that the normal definition of the Church throughout history was: "the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church." The verb "to be" signifies an identity; it binds together the subject and the object of the proposition. You can say: "the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church" or reverse the terms and the proposition remains just as valid. "To be" is the only verb with which it works. Any other verb links the subject and the object, but both remain distinct.

Cardinal Kasper explained that until Pius XII inclusive and his encyclical on the Church, Mystici Corporis, the Church used the verb "is." But the Council changed that into: "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church." This is different from the previous definition. When something subsists in another thing, they are two separate things. Kasper argued that the word "subsists" is the foundation of ecumenism for the Catholic Church. He went so far as to say that this change made the ecumenical movement possible in the Catholic Church. It is clear. As long as the Church used the former definition, ecumenism was impossible. And this cardinal is the Roman official in charge of ecumenism; he is not just any prelate.

This note "Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" first argues that the term "subsists" received many interpretations, some of which are erroneous. The document's purpose is to address these errors. It goes on to say that, at Vatican II, the Church did not intend to change the Faith. The Church believes and continues to believe what has always been believed. So why was the formula changed? Because "subsists" expresses identity more perfectly than "is." Next, it explains the real reason for the new formula. It was changed in order to mean that there are elements of the Church of Christ outside the Catholic Church. That is the problem.

So this note tells us that the verb "subsists" is better than "is." If we are logical, we must follow through this reasoning and see its consequences on salvation. A dogma tells us that outside the Church there is no salvation. If you say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, you clearly state that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. But what about the rest of mankind those who have left the Church, or belong to churches which retain certain sacraments? Modern theology maintains that these elements of the Church continue to be efficacious outside of the Church . In plain words, it means that people are saved by these elements. And consequently, there is salvation outside the Church, and this is contrary to Catholic dogma.

In order to "reconcile" this contradiction the note affirms both at the same time. It further argues that where there are true bishops and a valid Mass, the Church of Christ is present. It says that the Eastern Orthodox Church and the other Oriental churches, which are not in communion with Rome, are true and authentic particular Churches. In the context, "particular "is to be understood in opposition to "universal," and could refer to a diocese, for instance. But if you affirm that people outside the Church are also genuine particular Churches, then what is the difference between a diocese inside the Church, and people outside of it? The note even says that the Church of Christ is edified and brought to perfection in these particular Churches outside of the Church. This is a total contradiction.

True and False Solutions

Here is their problem: in order to save the novelties, which are opposed to Tradition, they maintain that novelties are not opposed to Tradition, though they are new. Such a reasoning destroys the principle of non-contradiction. This is presently the situation at the theological level. It is very dangerous. Many Catholics belonging to Una Voce and Ecclesia Dei groups rejoice, saying: "The Pope wants to come back to Tradition! He says we must look at things in the light of Tradition!" I wish this were true. The Pope does say this, but he means something else. It is very subtle and hence very dangerous. Consequently, our position remains the same. We continue to say "No" and plead for the next steps: first, the lifting of the excommunications, and then doctrinal discussions.

We desire traditional doctrine to be brought back into the Church. We are not playing the "holier than thou" and taking the place of the Pope. But if, thanks to discussions, these doctrines can be brought back into large areas of the Church, then this may lead sincere souls back to the truth. And many souls are sincere; they are not all completely crooked and evil. Many people are in good faith, but they are confused. If we can bring right ideas back, such people will return. It is a long-term fight, but it is in God's hands. He could make it shorter, but whether He wants to intervene, it is His decision. We can pray and ask Him for this. If you consider the Motu Proprio, you can see that your prayers are heard. So I invite you to pray for the lifting of the excommunications.

When will this happen? I do not have the least idea. Someone once asked me and I answered that it could be tomorrow just as it could be in ten years. But I know that in 2005, after I had given Cardinal Hoyos all of our objections against the novelties–it was quite a list–the Cardinal told me that though on certain points he did not agree with us, Rome did not consider us as being outside of the Church. So he suggested I write a letter to the Pope asking him to lift the excommunications. If Rome tells us to write such a letter, it means they are ready to grant our request. So I wrote the letter.

However, they are using the excommunications, on the one hand, as a means of pressuring us to accept things we do not want to accept. And on the other hand, on the political level, they use it with the bishops. If the pressure from the bishops is too great, I doubt they will lift the decree of excommunication. Whether they will lift it tomorrow or years from now, I really do not know. The only thing I can observe is that they have no reasonable argument against the lifting of the excommunications. It is all a matter of politics on Rome's part.

When I last visited Rome, in November, I was told that the Pope said to those around him that he did not want to hear the word "schismatic" applied to us. In the Motu Proprio, when he explained why it was released and mentioned us, he wrote that it was an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church. "Internal" and "within" do not mean "outside." This shows you the state of the Church. We must look at the whole picture. For instance, when we consider the Motu Proprio, we must look both at the Pope's thoughts and at the bishops' reactions.

On January 13, Cardinal Hoyos granted an interview to Zenit in which he clearly stated that the bishops alone were excommunicated in 1988. No priests and no faithful were excommunicated. That very same day, in Poland, the Archbishop of Gdansk had a circular letter read in all the churches of his diocese in which he claimed that any faithful who attended one SSPX Mass was excommunicated. That very same day! It is ridiculous. But it shows you what happens in the chaotic situation of the Church.

Good things happen, like the Motu Proprio and a number of priests are returning to the old Mass. Some are sincere, but not all of them. Hence, you need much prudence. Do not get involved in uncertain things. Do not simply ask the closest parish priest if he could say the old Mass for you. By all means, incite him to do so, but do not put yourself in impossible situations. At the same time, the fight goes on. It is not finished. You must be prepared for a long fight.

Of course, in this fight, we must always remember that what is most important is what we do not see. The salvation or loss of souls is what is most important. In this respect, God is using all that is happening to save souls. But there are trials, and we are free to accept or reject these trials. Hence the necessity of prayer for fidelity. Members of the Church are called "faithful" – what a beautiful title. We must pray for this grace, for daily fidelity in little things. Our Lord Himself promised that the faithful accomplishment of our duty of state in little things is a pledge of the help of His grace for great things.

We must not forget this. Our Lord has promised that He will be with us and give us His grace. We can be absolutely certain that if a soul really wants to be saved, it will be saved. Of course, if a soul really wants to be saved, it will keep the commandments, frequent the sacraments, and so on. If a soul wants God, God will not abandon the soul. To think otherwise would be blasphemous. We must then strengthen our hearts with courage. God is almighty. Let us stay on the side of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and everything will work out for our good.

Transcribed by James Vogel, assistant editor, and approved and edited by Bishop Bernard Fellay. With special thanks to Fr. Gerard Zendejas and Bishop Fellay for their assistance and help. Photos provided by St. Ignatius Retreat House.