May 2009 Print

 

Interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand, District Superior of the US District of the Society of Saint Pius X

 

Father, could you tell us a little bit about yourself? Perhaps where you were born, ordained, etc.?

Yes, of course. I was born in Paris, a city boy, and grew up there, including school. I was raised in Tradition. We attended St. Nicholas in Paris and I was there when the church was taken in 1977, even if I was a young boy at the time. I was educated in Tradition in Paris. I entered the seminary after one year of college at the Institute of St. Pius X [See October 2007 issue of The Angelus–Ed.] and went to Flavigny for three years and was ordained in Ecône after three more. I was ordained in 1993.

Did you ever know the New Mass?

No, not really. There was a period of time, like everyone, when we didn’t know where to go. But in Paris there were some old priests who maintained the Latin Mass through the time until the Society of St. Pius X was more established. So we were always going to this Mass and thus didn’t really know the New Mass. I was protected from that.

So, ordained in 1993 and from there, what was your appointment?

My first appointment was the Philippines, for the Asian district. I spent two years there. Afterwards I was appointed prior in Sri Lanka when we opened the mission there. And I spent three years there. So I started in the missions.

Then I was sent back to France, to Paris, and was assigned to our high school there. I was an assistant priest there for one year and then Headmaster for seven. Then I was sent to Canada, where I was District Superior for two years. And now, here I am!

You spent the beginning of your priesthood in an English-speaking part of the world. Did you speak much English in the Philippines or in Sri Lanka?

Well, I tried to, as I try to now! But, yes, that is where I learned English, at a school like other French students. But I prefer not to comment on my English studies at that time...

But between the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Canada, and now here, I have had time to practice it.

Was it a surprise for you, after two years of being District Superior of Canada, to be appointed District Superior for America?

Yes. I think all my appointments as a priest have surprised me. I was not thinking of the Philippines when I was assigned there, for instance. Even when I was sent to Canada, I was not expecting any changes. I was quite happy in my school, enjoying education; I truly loved teaching and taking care of the school. But I was even more surprised last spring when Bishop Fellay told me I would move again! It is not very usual that we are moved from a District after only two years and, also, the District of the United States is big, and it is surely an honor for me to be here, but it is a big job!

Could you perhaps give us some reflections or initial impressions of the American District, its faithful and chapels, etc.?

My first impression was the strength of the District, primarily the youth. I have been amazed by the number of families and children which I have noticed everywhere in the States. It is a very young District in the Society. The families thus give a real strength to the Society here. The Society’s growth comes from the generosity of the families. And this is where we should work, in education, in schools and youth groups. This should be our first aim.

Could you explain why, in the mind of the Society, the excommunications which were “lifted” recently by the Holy Father were never considered valid?

Well, we have always maintained and said that it was out of necessity that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops. When we look back at his life, we see that he always followed Providence. The consecration was not a purely personal idea of his own, but the different circumstances and events surrounding it brought him to do it. He tried to keep as much contact with Rome as much as he could; It was a disposition of his even though he was absolutely hurt by everything going on in Rome and around the world. He was a man who had been Delegate for all French Africa, in charge of so many countries and dioceses, watching the world he worked for falling to pieces.

At the same time, he saw the prayer meeting at Assisi and other ecumenical gatherings and ideologies having more influence in the Church. Seeing also that there was no proper response from Rome, he really saw the consecrations as a necessary act for the survival of Tradition—not only of the Society of St. Pius X, but of the Mass and of traditional Catholic teaching.

And Canon Law is clear: when an act is made out of necessity, there is no condemnation. Even in light of our situation today, our only justification is that there is a necessity in the Church, not only to say the Mass but also to preach the traditional Faith. So we have never considered these excommunications valid. We have always maintained this position in our literature.

And, at the same time, it was important for us to ask the Pope to publicly acknowledge that the bishops were not excommunicated.

Yes. As Bishop Fellay has explained, it was not primarily for us that we asked for the lifting of the excommunications. It was more for the Church Herself and for those on the outside. We understand the situation in the Church, as do our faithful, and thus we know where we are and why we act in the way that we do. But it was important for the Church to say that Tradition is not bad and is not to be perceived by people on the outside as excommunicated. The aim here is mostly for others, not ourselves or our faithful.

So what is the main benefit of Pope Benedict’s declaration?

I think it is in line with what he has already done. If you consider the motu proprio for the Latin Mass, which was the first step we asked, the lifting of the excommunications follows. The most important thing is to see a certain good will in Rome and the Pope mostly, as he is rather alone in this fight and in these decisions. The main effect is that we will now be ready to enter into doctrinal discussions with Rome. For us, it does not change anything; it is but a step.

But when you see the reactions from all around the world, within the Church, especially from the Left, the progressive bishops and priests are very troubled by this little step in the Church. It is not a huge decision; the Pope has made bigger decisions. But it is made out to be the most important decision he has ever made! The reaction has been so violent that it shows the Pope has made a step in the right direction.

You mentioned there is still a ways to go. Obviously, Rome is not yet what we would call traditional Catholic. What additional steps do you see remaining before we could say the Society is comfortable?

The next step is the doctrinal discussions with Rome. We hope that the Pope will assign some theological experts who can sit down with our own theological experts and priests so that our objections to the Second Vatican Council can be made clear. We have not changed our critique at all concerning the crisis in the Church. We have maintained that the main problem in the Church is the Second Vatican Council and what flows from it: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, etc. This is the root of the crisis that we are in. And as long as we cannot discuss these things, there will be no progress.

It was very important for the Pope to acknowledge that these doctrinal talks are necessary. It was the first time. Until now, we have always been refused: “No, just accept the Council. Then we can talk.” Well, we have not changed and now we have said, “No, let us talk about this Council which we cannot in conscience accept because it is not in line with the traditional teaching of the Church.”

So we will see how it goes. Probably, though, there is a long way to go. And it depends a lot on Rome’s reaction. We must remember that this all started with the Pilgrimage of Tradition to Rome in 2000. This impressed Rome; many cardinals and bishops saw the Society, young and strong, praying in Rome. Thus, in 2001, Bishop Fellay announced three steps for us to go forward: the freedom for the Mass, the lifting of the excommunications, and doctrinal talks. This is only eight years ago. And these things were considered impossible at the time; we were strongly criticized for being unrealistic. But now we have the first two and are about to start the talks. And we have not changed our positions at all; yet some positions have changed on the part of Rome.

Could you perhaps explain what the content of the discussions will be? You mentioned religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality. What is the difference between the way the Second Vatican Council or the “spirit of Vatican II” sees these topics and the way the traditional teaching of the Church sees them?

Of course, that would require a long answer. But to go straight to the point, I think the easiest to understand is the problem of ecumenism. The Catholic Church has always believed in Her own divinity and the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that He founded a unique Church in which alone we can be saved. This is the dogma “Outside the Church, there is no salvation,” which, granted, needs some explanation.

Whenever there were discussions or dialogues with other religions, it was in order to bring them to the Catholic Church, to convert. The new approach on ecumenism, from Vatican II, was more to diminish our faith in order to reach some common religion where we can all be happy in a new world. It is no longer to bring the Catholic Faith to people, but to diminish our faith so that others can believe in it and accept it.

And, for instance, it has been applied to the Mass. They wanted Protestants to be able to accept the Mass and participate in it. This is the New Mass, which is accepted by the Protestants; some even celebrate it! Or they join Catholic priests in offering it. The New Mass is a visible sign of what ecumenism has done to the Church. It is a destruction which is much greater than what we can imagine in its evil effects in the Church.

Today if you ask a regular Catholic basic Catechism questions, you won’t receive an answer. The people who believe least in the necessity of the Catholic Church are often its own members. This ecumenical influence, diffused through the New Mass, has the effect that they assume it is OK to be a Protestant or any other religion, so long as one is “sincere to himself.”

These are the topics we will try to talk to Rome about: ecumenism, religious liberty, the relationship of Church and State, problems within the Church such as the New Code of Canon Law, collegiality, etc. We have some work! It is a big task.

Could you perhaps give some advice to our parents, who are facing the challenges posed by a godless world in trying to raise their children in a way that will enable them to keep the Faith in such a world?

Sure, although this again requires a longer answer than I can give here. I think it’s important first to realize that there is an opposition between the spirit of the world and the spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not new; it is not just the modern world. Our Lord Himself, in His preaching, emphasized that there will be a fight in our lives between these spirits. For parents, they must know this, and they surely see it in their own lives. We have to try to put this into practice in the education of children.

One thing I might emphasize, and which is disappearing, is the spirit of sacrifice. Especially in the modern world, sacrifice is absolutely unacceptable. Today, we are told: you must avoid any suffering, any pain, anything which has a sacrifice involved. But life today is organized to try to remove sacrifices from our lives—even though this is impossible.

And this affects everything. The comfort of life, of course, is one way of avoiding any sacrifice. So, for instance, we refuse to walk two minutes to do shopping, and instead take a car so it only takes us ten seconds. Or we don’t ask students to walk home to get something, even if it’s only five minutes away, but instead they call their parents for a ride. These are little things, but the easiness of modern life which technology provides, diminishes sacrifice in our daily life. And, little by little, it suppresses the spirit of sacrifice which is so important.

We see this in education. I believe it is important to teach children, from a young age, the spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is a spirit of sacrifice. How? I think it must start in little things. For instance, some always give their children a choice: They can choose their food, their drink, etc. Perhaps this is good for a feast, but normally, and especially in Lent, they should eat whatever is put on their plate. It is in little things like this that we can teach a spirit of sacrifice.

The education of children is a difficult task—but it has always been so. St. Gregory called it “the art of arts.” In a way, it is not natural to us; we have to learn how to educate. We have to read about education. If we think we can educate because it is natural to us, we are wrong; it is an art. Therefore, it is to be studied and learned. Today it is especially difficult.