“Where do we Stand"
Conference delivered at St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church, Kansas City, Missouri (March 2, 2009)
The theme of our conference tonight is “Where do we stand?” I want to give you an account of the present situation with our Society and our stand in the Church, including the whole situation in the Church. If we ask ourselves “Where do we stand?” we have to go back some decades. In fact, we have to go back to the Second Vatican Council. At the Second Vatican Council there were two tendencies absolutely opposed to each other: the liberal, modernist wing united in the Rhine alliance on the one hand and the more conservative Council Fathers on the other hand, united in the Coetus Internationalis Patrem, of which Archbishop Lefebvre was the president. And already at the Council there were very strong disagreements between those two camps. Unfortunately, the “left wing” won the battle due to the support of the two Council Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI.
After the Council there was an enormous decline in the Church: in the liturgy, in the government of the Church, in the handing over of the Faith, in the manifestation of the Faith, etc., to such an extent that Archbishop Lefebvre had to make a very public statement in 1974 in which he accuses the whole modern orientation. He said that errors had profoundly invaded the Church in all areas, on all levels.
You know this declaration from November 21, 1974. Here are some excerpts:
We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
Two years after this, on the occasion of the priestly ordinations in Ecône, on June 29, 1976, the Archbishop said that the whole drama between Rome and Ecône was the drama of the Mass. Is there not a certain contradiction between his declaration of 1974 and this statement in his sermon of 1976? In 1974, he said everything had been influenced by modernism, but in 1976, he said it was mainly the Mass which is at stake. No, there is no contradiction between these two statements because the Mass is essentially the summary of our whole holy Catholic religion. It is the synthesis of the Faith; thus to accept the New Mass means to accept the new orientation of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre understood this very clearly.
Even his enemies understood it in the same way. That is why they told him in 1976, before the ordinations, that if he would only once celebrate the New Mass, it would show that he accepted it in principle. Thus, the Archbishop, in his sermon of 1976, said the following:
In proof of this, consider that six times in the last three weeks–six times–we have been asked to re-establish normal relations with Rome and to give as proof the acceptance of the new rite; and I have been asked to celebrate it myself. They have gone so far as to send me someone who offered to concelebrate with me in the new rite so as to manifest that I accepted voluntarily this new liturgy, saying that in this way all would be straightened out between us and Rome. They put a new Missal into my hands, saying “Here is the Mass that you must celebrate and that you shall celebrate henceforth in all your houses.” They told me as well that if on this date, today, this 29th of June, before your entire assembly, we celebrated a Mass according to the new rite, all would be straightened out henceforth between ourselves and Rome. Thus it is clear, it is evidence that it is on the problem of the Mass that the whole drama between Ecône and Rome depends.
Archbishop Lefebvre, understanding very well that the whole orientation would be accepted if he accepted the new rite of the Mass, refused to use this new rite. Thus he was suspended after the ordinations. He continued his work, his priestly and episcopal ministry, realizing that the Faith was at stake, and Faith is more than purely external obedience.
In 1978, a new pope ascended the See of St. Peter: first John Paul I and then, very shortly after, John Paul II, on October 16, 1978. Only one month after being elected, the new pope received Archbishop Lefebvre in a private audience. He told him, “Between us, there are three problems: The first problem is that it is said that you do not accept the pope.”
The Archbishop told him that we fully accept the pope. We are very much attached to the See of Peter and we accept the primacy of the pope according to the First Vatican Council. The pope was satisfied with this declaration.
Concerning the second point, he said: “It is said that you refuse the Second Vatican Council.” But the Archbishop told him, “We do not refuse the Second Vatican Council; we accept it if is interpreted in the light of Tradition.”
The pope was satisfied with this statement–which he used himself only some days before the audience. These were his own words, that the Council must be interpreted in the light of Tradition. But the Archbishop, I think, understood this statement a little bit differently than the pope understood it. The pope meant that the Second Vatican Council must be integrated into the teaching of the Church until the Council, whereas the Archbishop understood it in the sense that Tradition is the criterion for the Second Vatican Council: what conforms to the constant teaching of the Church can stand. Whatever is ambiguous would have to be defined, made clear and reconciled with Tradition. Whatever cannot be brought into accord with Tradition has to be eliminated. This was the sense of Archbishop Lefebvre’s statement.
You might ask yourself, as many people do, whether it is possible that a Council contains ambiguous statements or teaches things which do not conform to what was taught by the Church until the Council? Well, there are in fact points which are very dubious, points which we cannot understand. I will give you some examples; you will find them summarized in a little booklet, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council; you can read it yourself. Let me simply summarize some of these points; for example, concerning ecumenism, the relationship of the Church with other Christian denominations. What does the Council say about this?
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
If other Christian denominations–Lutheranism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Calvinsim, etc.–are also means of salvation, it is absolutely useless to try to convert these people. Why should we? If their own denomination is a way of salvation let them become good Lutherans, good Orthodox, good Calvinists, good Anglicans, and so on. That’s it. According to the Council, they can be saved in their own denomination.
Or perhaps consider Nostra Aetate and the relationship of the Church with non-Christian religions. For example, concerning the Muslims:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
I do not know what you think about this moral life which is mentioned here but according to the Qur’an, every man can have four wives at once. That is not a moral life. Bombing innocents is not part of a moral life. Or imagining heaven in a very sensual manner: is this part of a moral life?
The Council even tells us that we adore God together with the Moslems. Let me quote from the document about the Church:
In the first place amongst these [whom the plan of salvation includes] there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
For weeks now, from all different sides, everyone is telling us over and over that we have to accept the Council. But how can we accept statements like these? How is it possible? In fact, it is not possible. I could never subscribe to such a statement. It is impossible. These are things which are at least ambiguous and must therefore be clarified. This is what we consistently ask.
As another example, in Gaudium et Spes, “On the Church in the Modern World,” it is said that the center of all things on earth is man: “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.”
In the text it says, “center and crown.” That man is the crown of the visible creation there is no doubt. But man is not the center and aim of all things on earth. It is simply not true. The center and aim of all things on earth is God, not man. These are false statements. They have to be clarified. Once again, this is what we ask all the time.
We thus come back to our private audience of November 18, 1978. Pope John Paul II was quite satisfied with the statement, “I accept the Council interpreted in the light of Tradition.” But once again, Archbishop Lefebvre had very clear ideas about how this should be done.
But the pope said there is also a third point: the Mass. “It is said that you refuse the New Mass.” Archbishop Lefebvre said, “Yes, in our houses, everywhere we only celebrate the old Mass. We have some problems with the New Mass.” The pope replied, “Well, this is surely a disciplinary question. You can clarify this with Cardinal Seper.” And he called Cardinal Seper who was at this time Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith. He came and said, “Holy Father, they make a banner of the Mass! You cannot grant them this Mass. It is impossible!” The pope then said, “Well, discuss this amongst yourselves” and left.
Things remained in this situation from this meeting until 1987. In 1987, the Archbishop said, on the occasion of the priestly ordinations in Ecône, that things could not continue as they were. He announced that he was likely to consecrate for his succession a bishop to ensure priestly ordinations after his death. Of course, one year later, the Archbishop consecrated four bishops due to the state of necessity.
When you speak about a state of necessity people often are confused and say: “Oh, there was perhaps a state of necessity because the Archbishop was old, because he did not want to leave his Society without a bishop,” etc. It is as if the state of necessity was on the side of the Society of St. Pius X. But this is not true. That is a false understanding of the situation. The state of necessity was not on the part of the Society of St. Pius X. The state of necessity was on the part of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly knew that from this new church and New Mass it is impossible to rebuild Christianity, Christian families, Christian convents, monasteries, seminaries and Catholic states. It is impossible to do this from the basis of the New Mass.
There were, at the time, no bishops in the whole world who were ready to ordain young men to offer the old Mass exclusively. If our ordinands were willing to celebrate one New Mass, then we would probably have found bishops who would ordain our seminarians. But not one single bishop was ready to ordain our young candidates to the priesthood being conscious that they would exclusively celebrate the old Mass and not the new one. So there was a state of necessity in the Church because there were no bishops willing to do so. And without a bishop there can be no priests, no priests who would celebrate this Mass and rebuild Christianity. That was the question. And so the Archbishop consecrated four bishops in order to have priests who celebrate the old Mass and build up Christianity from this Mass.
At this moment the Vatican thought that if they struck us hard, the whole flock would be dispersed and the Society would essentially dissolve. But, as you well know, this did not happen. You are witness to this. They issued an excommunication against the two consecrating bishops and the four bishops consecrated. But God blessed the work and it continues today.
The situation basically stayed the same until 2000 when we made a pilgrimage to Rome for the Holy Year. The Vatican authorities saw that there was a flock praying with discipline and displaying an absolutely Catholic spirit. This made them reflect that they could not leave the situation as it was. Thus, a certain dialogue began about how to resolve the problem.
Now, on our side, we asked Rome for two preliminary steps before we could enter into a true discussion. We did this because we said that confidence was very much lacking. We must first have proof that Rome really wants to protect Tradition, that Rome really wants to favor our movement and not destroy it or put it in a trap. So we said, “First of all, let Rome say that every priest has the right to say the old Mass, that the old Mass was never forbidden.” This was the first preliminary step. And then, secondly, “Let these so-called excommunications be finished.”
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, with whom we had this dialogue, said, when we proposed this to Rome,
Concerning the first preliminary step, the Mass for every priest, at this moment it is impossible. It is true that the most important cardinals in Rome agree that the Mass was never abolished. But there are not only the cardinals, there are the secretaries, there are the sub-secretaries, and there are the bishops’ conferences–and they do not agree with this. We must go slowly, and after some years this can finally be done. But at the moment it is impossible. Concerning the excommunications, if you sign an agreement with Rome it is clear that these excommunications are automatically finished.
But we told the Cardinal: “Your Eminence, we have spoken about preliminary steps. Preliminary, not accompanying, preliminary steps to re-establish confidence.” There were letters going back and forth, meetings and some discussions, but the situation did not really improve.
Finally, on April 19, 2005, a new pope was elected: Benedict XVI. Everybody knew that he was very reserved towards the so-called prohibition of the old Mass. He had said that it was absolutely unheard of in the whole history of the Church that a rite was simply forbidden like this. Moreover, it was clear that there was a certain appreciation for the old Mass. Soon there were rumors: Will there be a decree? Will there be a motu proprio? Will something come from Rome, perhaps a decision that the old Mass can once again be celebrated? For months it was the big question everywhere. Finally the Motu Proprio of July 7, 2007, came. The main statement was that the old Mass was never abrogated. The conclusion was very clear: if it was never abrogated, every priest can celebrate it. This was a very important step.
The next step was a logical consequence. If this Mass was never abrogated, why were those who celebrated it during those years sentenced, condemned, and considered to be disobedient? Why? It no longer makes any sense. So, as a logical decision, the retraction of the decree of excommunication would simply be the next step.
Bishop Fellay, in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors in April 2008, said that, besides the liturgy in the Church, few things have changed for the better. This made Rome very angry. So they called Bishop Fellay and he had a meeting with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on June 4, 2008, where the Cardinal told him “You will now accept Rome’s conditions.” “But your Eminence, what are these conditions?”
He was not very clear in his expressions, and the next day he handed a paper to us with five conditions: First, we must give a proportional answer to the generosity of the Pope. The generosity of the pope probably meant Summorum Pontificum. But we had already given an appropriate answer. First of all, our faithful, before the Motu Proprio, said 2.5 million rosaries for the Motu Proprio. Secondly, after the Motu Proprio, we thanked the Pope. Third, our priests celebrated 1,000 Masses in thanksgiving for the Motu Proprio. What more can we give you? We always celebrated this Mass which the Pope now declares was never abrogated. I think this is a very appropriate and proportional answer.
Secondly, the Cardinal said that we must give an answer by June 30th. Bishop Fellay gave his answer on June 26th. They also said that we must keep ecclesiastical charity. But isn’t it ecclesiastical charity to attack the errors which are ruining the life of the Church? I think it is a very profound charity towards the Church to attack the errors and to help overcome these errors.
Next we were told that we must respect the pope. What can we do beyond praying for him and accepting His ministry? We cannot deny that the present pope has a certain liberal spirit. He was trained in this. For example, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1984, he said that during the time of the Council and afterwards, we accepted 200 years of liberal civilization, brought to fruit outside of the Church, and brought it purified into the Church. We do not agree that this liberalism should have entered the Church.
Moreover, last year, in September, when he went to France, he said that laicization–the separation Church and state–is completely in accord with the Faith and is in fact a fruit of the Faith. But Pope Pius XI said that this sort of laicism was a pest. This pest is not the fruit of the Faith but is a very dangerous sickness which brings people to death. So if one pope says it is a pest and the other says it is a fruit of the Faith, there is a certain contradiction.
Finally there was a fifth condition. We were told not to establish our own Magisterium against the Magisterium of the Church. But we never tried to do this. We have always simply stated that there are certain contradictions between the Second Vatican Council, the reforms which came from this Council, and what the Church has always taught and practiced. There are certain contradictions. If we have made mistakes, please show us where our errors are. Show us; we are quite ready to correct ourselves. But how can we, for example, accept that the other denominations are means of salvation? The Church always taught the contrary. Our Lord sent his apostles to the whole world to teach all nations, to make them all disciples. It is far from our desires or intentions to establish ourselves as the Magisterium. At the same time, two and two make four, not five.
So where do we stand today? I think we have to consider the above history to understand the complete situation. Let us first consider the situation of the Church. I think that, from the ecumenical movement, there is a spirit of religious relativism which has profoundly entered the Church and in souls. Let me read to you a little passage from a letter I received some months ago from a lady in Germany:
In human beings, in animals, and in plants, there is a divine light. That is why we are obliged, being brothers and sisters through the divine presence in us, to tolerate other men of other races and religions, to discriminate against and judge nobody. Every religion has a right to exist, being a particular way to God. Perhaps other religions are a detour or a more difficult way, but, in any case, they are a way to God. I have to tell you that those members of other religions who are faithful servants of God, who tolerate and love others and who keep the commandments are much nearer to God than those of our own religion who gossip about others, discriminate against them, and call them pagans. After all, there is only one God. Why should someone with a different religion not have the right to call God differently? The Jews call God Jehovah, Yahweh. Why should the Moslems not call him Allah, or the Hindu, Brahman? It is all the same God who we adore as well and only under a different name. Think about that.
So we have thought about that. And we found that the Christian religion, the Catholic religion, is quite different from the Hindus, who have thousands or millions of gods. Whereas we, in our Creed, state that we believe in one God. There is only one God. We have thought about this, and we have found that we are quite different from the Buddhists, who have given up the idea of a personal God. We have thought about this, and we have found that the Christian religion is different from Islam, where the Moslems conceiving God as one person only, whereas we adore God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And one is not equal to three. There is a difference.
So these are not different names but these are different things. Things that exclude one another. They are contradictory. God cannot be in the same way one person or three persons. It is impossible.
I read to you those lines because I think that this general state of mind today is absolutely common: we just have to tolerate, we just have to be kind to everyone, we just have to have some ambiguous concept of religion. That’s it. The question of truth, the question of the Faith, the question of the First Commandment of God and the first article of the Creed does not matter for most people. I do not know how to remove from the Church this spirit of religious relativism. It is profoundly rooted in people’s minds–profoundly.
The
A priest from southern Holland–a very Catholic area—told us that in a class of 36 children, he asked how many could make the Sign of the Cross. Remember, it is a very Catholic area. There was one child who knew the Sign of the Cross. One child in 36! How can it be otherwise? In religion class, or catechism, they teach about Moslems, they teach about the environment, they teach about peace on earth, things like this; but they do not teach the one God, the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the divine institution of the Church, the seven sacraments, the Blessed Virgin Mary; nothing about all this–nothing. So what is the consequence of this decline in the knowledge of our Faith? People do not practice any longer. The priest whom I just mentioned has a parish of 9,000 Catholics. On Sundays, about 300 of them attend Mass. That is only 3%. And this is more and more common across Europe and the world. You find some elderly people at the modern Masses, some families who bring children, but the youth is completely lacking. There is no longer any youth. Except when there are special events with pop or rock music and things like that. Then the youth come.
A little over a year ago, a priest from Germany told me that in a neighboring parish, in Hanover, in northern Germany, they brought a camel to Mass one Sunday. He said the whole church was fully packed with people to see it. So these people do not come to see God in the church, but they do come to see a camel.
Or consider confession. There is a well-known canonist in Germany who always says the old Mass. Years ago he made a statement that confession was a lost sacrament. People no longer go to confession. In a parish in a very Catholic area in Germany, a new parish priest was appointed who was more conservative than his predecessor. He established a specific hour every week for confession. He even called in a confessor from outside the parish. His parish had three thousand Catholics. And only one lady presented herself for confession. Other ladies said, “I don’t know what I have to confess. I have no sins. I would have to invent sins if I were to go to confession.” So ultimately the knowledge of sin, the consciousness of evil, has completely disappeared.
Or consider religious life. You have a well-known book here in the United States with the statistics about religious life here [Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II–Ed.]. It shows that the religious life is completely disappearing. In some years, there will be virtually no religious life in the United States, and it is about the same in Europe. The religious are the special army of the Church; they are witnesses to the holiness of the Church. If the Church no longer has the strength and virtue to attracts souls who then withdraw from all worldly business and their families, who go behind the high walls of the monasteries and convents to consecrate themselves to God and His service, then the Church is no longer the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church must always have the strength to attract souls.
Finally, Eucharistic piety is also very much disappearing. Sacramental processions, sacramental benedictions, the adoration of Our Lord during the day in churches. In Europe, most churches are closed during the day. They say they do this because otherwise there are thieves and burglary in the churches. This might be very true. But why are there robberies? Because there is no one in the churches present to adore Our Lord.
Near Frankfurt, in central Germany, a new parish priest was appointed who was similarly more conservative than his predecessor. The first thing he did was clean the pews of his church because his predecessor gave Communion to everybody: Catholics, Protestants, everybody. In many cases, they apparently did not like the host because the Protestants attached them to the bottom of the pews. So this priest had to purify the pews. This was a great sacrilege.
Where do we stand? You see where we stand. I heard, from a lady who has close contacts in the Vatican, that one day the Pope said to those surrounding him, in a very private circle, that he did not know how to re-awaken the Faith.
Where does the Society of St. Pius X stand, especially in its relations with Rome? We have always maintained a three-step plan. The first two steps were preliminary: the Mass for every priest and the end of the excommunications. Although the Motu Proprio was not perfect, it nevertheless basically fulfilled the first condition. Now, with the decree of January 21, the second condition has also been fulfilled. The 1988 decree of excommunication has been taken back.
We said that when these two preliminary steps were taken, we would ask for theological discussions. We want to discuss the Council. We want to discuss what does not conform to Tradition. We want to discuss the profound sources of the evils of our time: the decline of religious life, the loss of faith, etc. What are the reasons for this? We want to discuss this.
In the decree of January 21, Rome said that theological discussions are now necessary and must follow. This is what we have always asked. It corresponds exactly to our demands. So I think that in the next weeks or months these discussions will begin. They will be mainly written discussions, and not oral—but it does not matter. We need to discuss all of these points either way.
Let me give you an example of how things might be clarified. In the Council’s decree on ecumenism, there are some terrible words about the hierarchy of truths. The modernists interpreted this in the sense that some truths are more important than others. Thus, when discussing things with Protestants, you could leave out certain less important truths, such as the primacy of Peter, the sacrificial character of the Mass, the dogmas about the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc. These “second degree” truths could be left on the side: this was the Modernist interpretation. Rome itself, at the beginning of the 1980s, gave an authentic interpretation, saying that the hierarchy of truths does not mean that one truth is more important than another; rather, it means that one truth comes forth from another. One truth is the source of another. For example, the truth of the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ comes, in a certain way, from the truth of the Holy Trinity. The divine institution of the Church comes from the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is very clear. You see how an ambiguous statement of the Council must be clarified. It can be done and must be done. This is what we mean by theological discussions: if this statement means A, it is wrong; if it means B, it is right.
The third and final step then would be the Society of St. Pius X’s enjoying a canonical structure. In Rome they have already foreseen such a canonical structure which would absolutely satisfy us. The most important question now is the theological discussions.
Let me now say a word about our duty in the midst of this crisis today. What should we do? We must first have an enormous strength of soul. The crisis continues on. It is easy to become tired and throw away one’s arms. My dear friends, we must be very firm and strong in our convictions. We must ask God every day for this strength to stand for the Faith. We should not sacrifice to the idol of the modern, liberal spirit of the world. Not one grain of incense—nothing. Absolutely nothing.
We have to overcome the spirit of modernism and liberalism. We have never looked first for our own corner where we can live in peace, calm, and tranquility as the Fraternity of St. Peter does. They have this attitude a little bit. No, we do not work for ourselves; we have always worked for the Church. The Church is our passion. The Church is our life. We want to see that the Church is cleansed from the spirit of liberalism and modernism.
Amidst all these trials and difficulties, there are profound consolations. When I consider our pilgrimage to Lourdes in October of 2008 where we saw a large flock gather, 20,000 faithful, in the Basilica of St. Pius X. Children, youth, families, seminarians, priests, the four SSPX bishops, religious, over 200 sick and infirm–to hear them all sing “Credo in unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.” What a wonderful manifestation and testimony to see all these hearts lifted to God.
There are real consolations. In Germany in November, the only Trappist monastery in the country returned to their monastic tradition and the old Mass. There had been much discussion and rumors about this in the newspapers. This step was approved by Rome, by the pope himself! They were given special permission to completely return exclusively to the old Mass.
We must also pray hard for perseverance. As an example of what prayer brings forth: After World War II, part of Germany and Austria was occupied by the Soviet army. In Vienna, there was a Franciscan priest, Fr. Petrus Pavlicek, who called for a Rosary crusade that Austria might be freed from the Communists. More than 700,000 people enrolled in this Rosary crusade. The obligation was to say one decade of the Rosary every day for the freedom of Austria. This was 1949. In 1955, Austria was freed; the Communists left without compensation. This was the first time the Soviet army left a country without either a fight or compensation. This was the fruit of prayer.
I think we must do the same for the Church. We must continue to pray that the Modernists either leave the Church or leave their errors; the latter would obviously be better.
Also, in America, you have three SSPX retreat houses: in Arizona, Connecticut and California. It is worth making a retreat, especially if you have never done so or if it has been a great amount of time since you have been on one. I invite you to do so. If you buy a car, from time to time you must take it to the garage for maintenance since some things need attention. Well, so it is with our souls, and these retreat houses are like service stations.
We must all be apostolic and missionary in these times. God wants us to save other souls. There is no question that the salvation of other souls depends on our prayers, efforts and Christian examples.
Let me finally give some an account of the most recent events. On November 1, 2008, Bishop Williamson, in our seminary in Germany, ordained a former Protestant pastor from Sweden to the diaconate. For this event, a Swedish television station came to the seminary to film the ceremony. Afterwards, they did three interviews: one with a Swedish deacon, one with the new deacon, and one with Bishop Williamson. In this last interview, he was led into a trap by being asked about the Holocaust. And he said that only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed by the Nazi regime and, further, that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.
The Swedish station said that the interview would not be viewed until the beginning of the new year. So there was already a certain plan. They then took this interview to the Lutheran and Anglican churches in Sweden since we were renting a church from the Lutherans in Stockholm and one from the Anglicans one Sunday a month for Mass. The result was that we were no longer allowed to rent the churches.
Afterwards, Der Spiegel, a very left-wing liberal German magazine, was collaborating with and connected to this Swedish television station. At the same time, I wrote a letter to the German bishops on December 1 with a copy of Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council. I said therein that now that the Mass has been granted to every priest in principle, we now ask for theological discussions. One of the bishops gave this booklet to the Central Council of the Jews in Germany. Thus there was a first attack of the Vice-President of this Council against this booklet.
On January 19, Der Spiegel published an excerpt from Bishop Williamson’s interview. The title of the article was, “The Pope will have Problems.” They did not say “Bishop Williamson will have Problems” or “The SSPX will have Problems”; the focus was on the Pope. From the beginning there is thus an obvious orientation. Immediately after we read this interview, Fr. Morgan, District Superior of England, published a statement saying that in no way are we racists or anti-Semites. We have members of our Society from many different races and countries. Since Our Lord Himself, His mother, the Apostles and the first Christians were Jews, we cannot be anti-Semites. How could we be anti-Semitic?
I myself also published a similar statement saying that we are in no way anti-Semitic since Archbishop Lefebvre’s own father died in a concentration camp. But we maintain that the Jews must be baptized and are called to accept Our Lord Jesus Christ. This we state very clearly. January 20th was when both of these statements were published.
On January 21st, the decree taking back the excommunications was issued although the document was signed the previous Wednesday. On this Wednesday, the 21st, the Swedish television station released the interview with Bishop Williamson. Thus it is probable that even in the Vatican itself, there are people who are against the Pope and who wanted to attack the Pope. Perhaps they arranged things in this manner. Or they wanted to stop the Pope because they knew that were was a plan to remove these excommunications. And if they could not stop it, at least they could damage or discredit the Pope. I think there was a certain plan.
The decree was published Saturday, January 24th. From this moment, there was a whole wave of media attention breaking out. It was incredible. Thus Bishop Fellay himself, in a press release on January 27th, said that he did not approve of Bishop Williamson’s statements. His reasoning was thus: A bishop has the task and duty of preaching the Faith. It is not his duty to speak of political or historical points. I myself had to make a similar statement because the attacks became very violent.
Bishop Williamson, on January 28, sent a letter to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos:
Your Eminence,
Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.
For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas (1:12):
“Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you.”
Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Richard Williamson
In Rome, they were astonished to have such a good letter from Bishop Williamson. Nevertheless, the media continued to attack us in all countries. It was especially violent in Germany, France and Argentina.
What was to be done in the midst of such a storm? We asked ourselves if we should withdraw from the mass media entirely and not give any commentary. Or should we try to lead things a bit? After a certain hesitation, we decided to give some commentary to some newspapers and television programs. One of our confreres, Fr. Gaudron, had a discussion with an auxiliary bishop in Germany on February 10. This turned out quite well.
But it became very clear that there was an unholy alliance between the Central Council of the Jews in Germany, the bishops, and the left-wing progessivists in the Church. This was blown up by the mass media. Every word we said was examined. It was terrible, diabolical. Several cardinals even said that it was above all human means.
On February 11, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, three seminarians from Ecône died in an avalanche. It is very curious that it was in Lourdes that Bishop Fellay called for another Rosary crusade to obtain the second preliminary step, the taking away of the excommunications. But these are the ways and mysteries of God.
More and more it became clear that the true aim of the attacks was not so much Bishop Williamson. This was but a pretext; a terrible pretext, but a pretext all the same. The true aim was not even the SSPX. The true aim was to attack the Church and the Pope. As proof, in Austria, several weeks ago an auxiliary was appointed to the Diocese of Linz. He was a parish priest, quite popular, with many youth in his parish. He says the New Mass and, as far as I know, he has never attacked the Council. But he has conservative reputation: he has no altar girls, which is, of course, a terrible crime. He also said that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God. But you should not say things like this! A storm arose and before he was consecrated, he stepped down from his appointment. The Vatican gave in and accepted this. You see: this priest says the New Mass, has never attacked the Council, or said anything against the Holocaust, and was nevertheless destroyed. Wherever there is some conservative force and some resistance to the destruction in the Church, they are punished.
Once again, on February 26, Bishop Williamson apologized:
The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.
Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.
On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (...“I believe”...“I believe”...) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.
As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.
+Richard Williamson
There are four conclusions to be drawn from these present events. First, the statements of Bishop Williamson are a painful circumstance of a most joyful event. By the decree of January 21, the four SSPX bishops were freed from a most unjust stigma. Whosoever reads the texts sees that even Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer were rehabilitated since the juridical consequences of the 1988 decree were taken back. The new decree said that the juridical consequences no longer exist. Thus the “excommunications” of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer no longer exist.
The second conclusion is that the painful experiences of the last weeks make us all concentrate a bit more on Our Lord and Savior. This corresponds exactly to the plan of God since, for as St. Paul says, we are all predestined to become conformed to the image of the Son of God. Jesus is the crucified Truth and Love; persecuted, calumniated, and rejected. The Founder of the Christian religion did not promise to his disciples a paradise on earth. On the contrary, we are certain of pain and crosses, to be misunderstood and, as Our Lord said, to be as sheep among wolves.
Let us consider a few quotes:
The third conclusion is that the big sin of the conciliar and post-conciliar Church’s orientation is the fleeing from the cross of Christ. It seems now that God wanted to bind the becoming known of our Society in the whole world to the Cross. And this all the more since we are engaged ourselves in the defense of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in its old and venerable form, for the sacramental continuation of the Passion of Christ on our altars. Moreover, such trials always mean a purification and cleansing of both the individual soul and that of the community. The divine husbandman purifies, from time to time, the fruit-bearing branch so that it can bear even more fruit. God writes straight with crooked lines. He is never deceived in His providence.
The fourth conclusion is that the devil also does not deceive himself. It seems that he understands, much better than many Catholics, what is at stake for him with the decree of January 21. Thus he mobilizes his troops to damage the Church, to discredit the pope, and to annihilate our Society. If you still need proof that we are doing a good thing, here it is.
For the last 20 years, by the so-called excommunications, God has granted us a life relatively calm. Our adversaries considered us an insignificant little group. By the decree of January 21, the unbroken Tradition was brought inside the Church. Thus the storm breaks out.
But we have confidence in Our Lord assuring us that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. We also have confidence in Our Lady, who told us that, in the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Position Statement of the SSPX German District Superior, Fr. Franz Schmidberger (March 6, 2009)
At the conclusion of the General Assembly of the German Bishops, they addressed in detail their relationship to the SSPX and issued a Statement. As the District Superior of the SSPX in Germany, I would like to state the following:
…I think the SSPX is distancing itself from the truth. The Dominican motto is “Veritas,” truth, because God is Truth. And what Bishop Williamson said: is that closer to the truth than the party line as far as the Holocaust is concerned?... I do not agree… This is not the question. We do not need to discuss this. That is not our charge. Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to hand down the sacraments, to preach supernatural truths such as the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He did not consecrate them to fight against the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz! If the Archbishop were here today, he would say to Bishop Williamson: “I did not consecrate you for this.” This is a fight for historians—let them figure it out. We are not historians in particular. The experts can discuss these things and consider the arguments for and against.
Current Issue
