December 2008 Print

An interview with Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard

 

Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, and has served since 1978 as the liaison of Archbishop Lefebvre’s priestly fraternity to the Roman Curia.

 

The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum is a year old. Many observers say that nothing has changed in the Church.

That is not altogether false, but neither is it entirely accurate. The motu proprio first came into effect on September 14, 2007. This was an act of great importance for the whole Church. If the bishops were to make it their own, a matter of personal concern, what blessings would follow for the Church! Unhappily such is not the case. With few exceptions the bishops are against it and are blocking the will of the Pope. We are faced with a situation of massive de facto disobedience of the shepherds of the Church over against the Vicar of Christ.

Nevertheless, interest in the motu proprio remains unbroken. Among the faithful and the clergy there is a slow but steady increase in interest. Since most of the hierarchy continue–against the will of the pope–to treat the traditional Mass as something forbidden, this process has been retarded, but remains irreversible.

In Italy, where I have lived for 30 years, more than 1,000 priests have ordered a DVD, produced by the Society of St. Pius X, in order to learn the rubrics of the old Mass. These DVDs are being sold in bookshops near the Vatican. Young priests in particular are finding a great treasure in the Mass of St. Pius V. In all seminaries there are students who desire this Mass. The sensus fidei is awakening in souls. Young clerics are searching for an authentic expression of the Faith. Many bishops do not yet realize this. Prelates shaped by the Conciliar revolution are often completely perplexed when they perceive this phenomenon.

The greatest success has been that many younger priests are finding themselves through the traditional rite. They are discovering the reality of Catholic priesthood, their reason for being priests–sacrifice. They discover their priestly identity, which has been so obscured by the new liturgy, modernistic theology, and a false understanding of their pastoral duties.

 

What are the obstacles that hinder the return of the old Mass?

As far as priests are concerned, there remains a great lack of information regarding the old Mass. Many priests are not sufficiently informed, or have not yet had contact with the old liturgy. We are speaking here not of progressives, but of priests who want to be truly Catholic.

Many priests also have a practical problem, especially in the English-speaking world. They know nothing of Latin, not even the rudiments. This is the result of a cultural rupture and an educational problem that should not be underestimated. For many priests who know no Latin the Church naturally begins in 1965.

But there is also an increasing number of religious, priests, and nuns who yearn for the traditional liturgy. I know the situation in Italy rather well, and am astonished where and under what circumstances the traditional Mass is returning after nearly 40 years of repression.

The faithful often find no priests whom the bishop will put at their disposal. The old way of thinking still prevails. Many groups remain orphaned or give up, since the ordinaries sabotage their efforts: holy Mass should be celebrated only on a weekday, the cycle of readings must be taken from the Novus Ordo, no liturgy can be said on holidays, Communion in the hand, no advertising, etc. Those are only some examples. Faithful who write respectfully to their bishops often receive no answer. This has opened the eyes of many, and they are coming to understand what the Society of St. Pius X means when it speaks of a state of necessity. The motu proprio has opened the eyes of many faithful.

 

Why are people interested in the old Mass?

There are two reasons for the rediscovery of the traditional Mass. First, many want it because it is more dignified and beautiful. They find a sacred element in this venerable rite that they do not find in their parishes. That is a personal choice. Second, for others there is a bigger problem. For them it is a problem of the teaching expressed in the liturgy. I believe that we must now show that the immediate problem is not one of aesthetics but of the expression of the Faith. We must struggle against the Protestantizing of our Catholic Faith.

 

In response, some might object that the motu proprio does in fact maintain that the old and the new Masses are merely two expressions of the Faith.

The New Mass is a product of ecumenism. For that reason it suppresses everything that could displease Protestantism. Cardinal Ottaviani already pointed this out in 1969, when he perceived in the liturgical reform a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent on Mass as a sacrifice.

Cardinal Martini recently admitted this again in his book Jerusalemer Nachtgespräche [Nighttime Conversations in Jerusalem]. “In the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church allowed itself to be inspired by Luther’s reforms.”

The motu proprio is an antidote. It will have its effect gradually, but it will take effect. Have no doubt of it. Even if many modernists in the Curia and the bishops’s conferences believe that–pardon the expression–the Ratzinger phantom will soon pass. This is the thinking in some circles!

We are in a terrible crisis of the Church, a crisis of doctrine.

It is already remarkable that the venerable and 1500-year-old Roman rite is characterized as an “extraordinary form.” May the day soon come when this “extraordinarily beautiful” rite of the Church will again be recognized as the only ordinary form.

In any case the Church is a visible society and the necessary reforms demand human exertions and good use of the supernatural means that God has given us. If the motu proprio places the traditional Mass on the same level as the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, it is not of the essence of the Pope’s personal intervention. The mind of the document is: numquam abrogata. The traditional Mass was never abolished.

We must keep before our eyes the real persecutions suffered by priests who have remained loyal to the Mass of St. Pius V. What have we experienced over the last 30 years! In this regard rehabilitation and a mea culpa from the bishops is a point of justice.

The Pope’s theme was the following: the Mass is not forbidden, and cannot be forbidden. Everything else in the motu proprio and the accompanying writing to the bishops is an appeal for acceptance. We are in the age of collegiality, which hinders papal government.

We must observe that the Pope has up to now never publicly celebrated the old Mass, and has not once referred to the motu proprio in other documents. He is aware of the strong opposition. He has chosen another path, that of example.

He has appointed a new master of ceremonies, who has only the title in common with his predecessors. The cross is once again in the center, the paramenta are more dignified. Now the Pope is once again distributing Communion in the mouth to kneeling faithful. This is interpreted by many as a sign that the Pope wishes to reintroduce the old form of distribution of Communion.

These are important signs. The Holy See has given them no official explanations or interpretations, only statements in passing. All these indications have caused great discomfort to the modernists. Now there are rumors that the Pope wishes to return to Latin for the administration of sacraments and the consecration.

The mistaken translations of the words of consecration are supposed to be corrected, although I don’t see many countries where this is actually happening.

 

Would it not be a great consolation for many faithful to see the Holy Father act energetically in ruling the Church?

The Holy Father sees the dramatic situation of the Church. He is well aware of the deep crisis in the Church. For this reason he believes that it is no longer possible to rule the Church by authority, but rather by force of persuasion. Resistance in the Curia is very strong. As an observer of many years I can say that the Pope is very limited in his choice of personnel. Great pressure has been exercised from various sides. It is no secret that a certain group of priests in the Curia are the real decision makers. Even if the Pope were able to fill important positions with people in his confidence, there would be no change in the people who dictate a progressive course in the Church. They know how to maneuver, how to conceal the true problems, and how to accomplish their purposes. With his reform of the Curia Paul VI gave the Secretary of State a degree of power that is not good for the Church. No significant nomination in the Curia or in the Church throughout the world takes place today without passing through these hands.

 

What is expected from the forthcoming document, that is supposed to elucidate certain passages in the motu proprio?

I have no private knowledge of this document. If it happens, such a text would surely only elaborate certain subjects. What is a “stable group”? What characterizes a priest suited for the old Mass? The answers will be practical, rather than matters of principle...

 

Will the order of readings be changed?

...that would be dangerous... Many in Rome are talking of a “reform of the reform.” They want to correct the New Mass and make it “traditional.” Will the Offertory come back? Silence at the Canon? The traditional form of kneeling for Communion in the mouth? I don’t think that they are trying to alter the old Mass. The progressives want this, of course, but not the current pope.

We ourselves stick to the rules that the Church has always applied. Faithful to Tradition.

The competence is in the Holy See, in the papacy. He has the primacy! Very clearly! If changes are made in the spirit of the Church, that are led by the spirit of the Church and brought forth from the treasure of Tradition, that would not be a problem. We know very well that the Church has full power over the divine liturgy.

In any case the missal of Pius V has reached such perfection, that it would be difficult to surpass. There were sound developments in the liturgy, which were led by the Holy Ghost. We could compare that with dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception. These are fruits of the Faith. Clear expressions of Catholic Faith. After the proclamation of a dogma there is not much to be added. They are the fruit of a certain perfection. To practice superficial politics with liturgical changes is a big mistake.

 

Twenty years ago Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four auxiliary bishops. What are your thoughts?

Archbishop Lefebvre is without any doubt the savior of the old Mass. There is no doubt of it. Archbishop Lefebvre also preserved the transmitted teaching of the popes without deviation. Who stood up against false ecumenism? Archbishop Lefebvre!

Ecumenism is entering into its waning days, even if it is accelerating in the minds of modernists. Observing all these efforts we are confronted with ruins. Ecumenical and interreligious dialogue continue amongst the modernists, but it is a dialogue of the like-minded. It serves the obscuring of truth, and nothing else. Today 95% of Catholics believe that one can be saved through any religion. They adhere to a diffuse pan-Christianity. This is an illustration of the bankruptcy of the conciliar project: no true unity and massive loss of faith. False ecumenism must therefore be discontinued. We need a return to the clear words of Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.

“Numquam abrogata” were the key words in the motu proprio: the old Mass was “never abolished.” It logically follows that the Society of St. Pius X was “numquam excommunicata,” “never excommunicated.” Archbishop Lefebvre’s and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer’s consecration of four auxiliary bishops in 1988 had the goal of saving Tradition. The motu proprio is a posthumous triumph of this heroic act motivated by an authentic understanding of episcopal obedience.

Whoever might earlier have had doubts about these episcopal consecrations should have no more doubts after the last 20 years. They made possible a great development, which found a first confirmation in the motu proprio. Without the episcopal consecrations even the Ecclesia Dei communities would not exist. There is an ever greater readiness to admit this even among these communities.

 

Since the year 2000 there have been ongoing discussions between the Society and Vatican authorities.

There were always discussions. For the last 30 years I have regularly visited the Curia. Castrillon Hoyos recently formulated five points, which were characterized as an ultimatum.

The Society’s response was solid, clear, and precise. We consider the motu proprio important, but it is not everything. Problems remain regarding Catholic doctrine, religious freedom and ecumenism in particular. The drama lies in the fact that very few people recognize that both of these problematic areas brought forward by the Council are in contradiction with the papal magisterium of the past.

For this reason there are no “negotiations.” It is not a question of canonical “form.” This is not the problem that afflicts the Church. Authorities in the Church need to recognize that there is a grave doctrinal issue in question. Where these conciliar innovations have been applied, there is sterility, the loss of Catholic identity, and indeed of the Faith. From these principles follow the dechristianization of states, the disappearance of Catholic families, the destruction of the Catholic priesthood and religious life. Where there is adherence to Tradition, there are good fruits, vocations, families with many children, and conversions. The more conservative, the more vocations. A tree must be judged by its fruits. Where the Tradition–or the appearance of Tradition–is found, vocations are attracted.

 

Would you say something about the “ultimatum”?

On June 4, 2008, Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos called Msgr. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, to Rome.

In the course of the discussion a memorandum was transmitted, with the demand for a response by the end of the month of June.

On June 23 an Italian daily newspaper–informed by a curial indiscretion–publicized the existence of this ultimatum. In the following days this information was picked up by the whole international press. Thus mass media pressure was exerted and compounded through the Internet.

The document of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos demanded four concessions, beyond the requirement of a response by the time of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. The Society of St. Pius X was, in the person of its Superior General, to commit itself to the following conditions: 1) to give a response proportionate to the pope’s generosity; 2) to avoid any public comment which would not respect the person of the Holy Father and would have a negative impact upon ecclesial charity; 3) to avoid claiming a magisterium superior to the Holy Father’s and not to set the Society in opposition to the Church; 4) to demonstrate its will to act in all honesty and ecclesial charity, and in the respect of the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

Bishop Fellay responded on June 26. The Cardinal wrote back the next day and said that he had given the document to the Holy Father.

Bishop Fellay made public the following explanation:

The conditions seem to be meant to obtain an atmosphere favorable to a further dialogue, rather than imply any precise commitment on definite issues. The Society of St. Pius X wishes that the dialogue be on the doctrinal level and take into accounts all the issues, which, if they were evaded, might jeopardize a canonical status hastily set up. The SSPX considers that the preliminary withdrawal of the 1988 decrees of excommunication would foster serenity in the dialogue.

The SSPX does not claim the exercise of a magisterium superior to the Holy Fathers, nor does it seek to oppose the Church. Following in the footsteps of its founder, it wants to hand down what it has received, namely what has always been believed everywhere and by all. It claims as its own the profession of faith addressed by Archbishop Lefebvre to Paul VI on September 24, 1975: Jesus Christ has entrusted to His Vicar the charge of confirming his brethren in the faith, and has asked him to make sure that every bishop faithfully keep the deposit of the faith, according to St. Paul’s recommendation to Timothy.

In the discussions between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, the events of 1976, including the suspension of the Archbishop’s faculties, were passed over in silence. It seems to me that the same thing is happening today. For years now, and in particular since last fall, there is discussion of lifting the excommunication decrees of 1988. That is not a problem. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has repeatedly said so. In an audience with Bishop Fellay the Pope spoke of Archbishop Lefebvre as “a great man of the universal Church.” The Cardinal has not rejected the Society’s request to proceed step by step: liberation of the Mass, lifting the decree, discussion of dogmatic questions, etc. The Cardinal has his own strategy. He wants a “practical solution.” We will not be required, as in 1976, to cease ordaining priests or to interrupt the apostolate. It is only asked that we should stop criticizing the authorities. But the authorities indirectly recognize that we represent no evil and that we are not harming souls.

 

In connection with the “ultimatum,” regular “Lefebvre bashing”–verbal attacks on the Society–appeared in various “conservative” media.

The verbal violence stems from a misunderstanding of the deeper causes. Many people are no longer in a position to understand that there are dogmatic issues. The ecumenical spirit has reached such a point that it is common to see only what we have in common. Thus it is hard to accept differences when they are brought forward–this is perceived as a lack of charity. But this interpretation is opposed to the truth. There is only one truth, no multiplicity of truths. There is no love without truth.

Thus some people who passionately attack the Society in the name of loyalty to the papacy actually are stabbing the Pope in the back. We are Catholics, loyal sons of the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church.

In the ecumenical climate that prevails in the Church–which otherwise in a most painful manner forbids those who are now attacking us from speaking the truth–we are seen as creating adversity. We are taken for disturbers of the peace.

Personally, I would like to refer to a statement of the Pope from April 18, where he refers to the necessity of doctrine and shows clearly why we must hold firm to that which the Church has always taught in matters of religious freedom, ecumenism, and ecclesiology. I cite as follows:

Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions” that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia–communion with the Church in every age–is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom. 1:18-23).

Faced with these difficulties, we must first recall that the unity of the Church flows from the perfect oneness of the Trinitarian God. In John’s Gospel, we are told that Jesus prayed to his Father that his disciples might be one, “just as you are in me and I am in you” (Jn 17:21). This passage reflects the unwavering conviction of the early Christian community that its unity was both caused by, and is reflective of, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This, in turn, suggests that the internal cohesion of believers was based on the sound integrity of their doctrinal confession (cf. I Tim. 1:3-11). Throughout the New Testament, we find that the Apostles were repeatedly called to give an account for their faith to both Gentiles (cf. Acts 17:16-34) and Jews (cf. Acts 4:5-22; 5:27-42). The core of their argument was always the historical fact of Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the tomb (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30). The ultimate effectiveness of their preaching did not depend on “lofty words” or “human wisdom” (I Cor. 2:13), but rather on the work of the Spirit (Eph. 3:5) who confirmed the authoritative witness of the Apostles (cf. I Cor. 15:1-11). The nucleus of Paul’s preaching and that of the early Church was none other than Jesus Christ, and “him crucified” (I Cor. 2:2). But this proclamation had to be guaranteed by the purity of normative doctrine expressed in creedal formulae–symbola –which articulated the essence of the Christian faith and constituted the foundation for the unity of the baptized (cf. I Cor. 15:3-5; Gal. 1:6-9; Unitatis Redintegratio, 2).

My dear friends, the power of the kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies, which, in alleging that science alone is “objective,” relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the “knowable” is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of “personal experience.” 

For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living. 

Even within the ecumenical movement, Christians may be reluctant to assert the role of doctrine for fear that it would only exacerbate rather than heal the wounds of division. Yet a clear, convincing testimony to the salvation wrought for us in Christ Jesus has to be based upon the notion of normative apostolic teaching: a teaching which indeed underlies the inspired word of God and sustains the sacramental life of Christians today.

Only by “holding fast” to sound teaching (II Thess. 2:15; cf. Apoc. 2:12-29) will we be able to respond to the challenges that confront us in an evolving world. Only in this way will we give unambiguous testimony to the truth of the Gospel and its moral teaching. This is the message which the world is waiting to hear from us. 

This is precisely the point.

 

What can we expect from Rome?

The Pope–with the interruption of his trip to Australia–and the Curia are now ad aquas for their summer vacation. Then we shall see. The five points have mostly to do with a climate for discussion. No one knows what steps the Cardinal is now preparing and what the Pope foresees.

The events of June show the negative role of the mass media, in particular the Internet and Internet chat rooms. Everyone writes their own commentary and many create confusion. This gave the “ultimatum” a greater dynamic than it had in reality.

The excitation in the media did clarify what the Society concretely represents, since her number of priests is very small in proportion to the whole of the Church. Nevertheless it attracts so much attention. This does not have to do with the Society as a group with all its limits and weaknesses, but rather with the meaning of Tradition for the Church, the meaning of the papal magisterium of the last centuries. A high level Curial prelate put it this way: “The Society poses the right questions and articulates the real problems.” In this terrible crisis of the Church most are not looking for the deepest causes of the crisis. They try merely to limit the abuses, but they do not address the causes of the abuses.

 

 

Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from the July-August 2008 issue of Kirchliche Umschau and published with their permission.