Interviews with Bishop Fellay
La Porte Latine, the official website of the French District of the Society of Saint Pius X, interviewed Bishop Fellay on October 7, 2010, about the SSPX’s 40th Anniversary.
Forty years ago, on November 1, 1970, Archbishop Lefebvre obtained the Bishop of Fribourg’s recognition of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. What do you make of the last four decades?
These 40 years will go down in the Church’s history as a woeful era of decadence and loss of influence over the contemporary world and nations. It is doubtless difficult to assess one’s own time, but I do not see how the judgment could fail to be negative. In this context, our little work appears as a ray of sunshine in the midst of darkness, an oasis in the desert, a life raft after shipwreck. For us, these are unforgettable and rather amazing times, sprinkled, of course, with tears and trials, but overall joyous.
Halfway through these 40 years, two great events took place in the Society’s history: the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and the passing away of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991. Is there, then, a before and after? Do these two periods present a contrast?
I do not see two periods, but rather a continuity. Our concern to remain faithful to the positions our venerated founder gave us is certainly part of it. Likewise, the fact that the external circumstances have remained pretty much the same greatly contributes to this continuity. Nothing compels us or prompts us to act otherwise; quite the contrary: Archbishop Lefebvre’s judgments were so profound that they still hold true. And that is quite remarkable!
Has the work of the Society leveled off, or are there new apostolates that continue to open up for it throughout the world?
The development hasn’t been astronomical due to a lack of priests, but there has been some progress, especially in mission lands. Currently, Africa has been calling upon us for help in several places, but we can hardly answer because we do not have enough workers for the harvest. It is also certain that, if we had more priests at our disposal, we could make prodigious inroads in Asia. But, besides that, we should point out the internal development of already existing works, which is fairly constant.
All these years have also been a time of fraternal charity with the religious communities that have shared the Society’s ideal of restoration. What do you make of this support?
We both give and receive support. The mutual support of traditional works is very comforting. In a situation of quasi persecution like ours, this mutual understanding is vital.
At the same time, these 40 years have been studded with difficulties of which we are all aware. Some priests, sometimes very important people, religious or faithful–some torn, others weary–have stopped supporting the Society. What should we make of these separations?
One of the best images to illustrate your question would be that of a war or battle in which men under fire are falling to your left and right, and you have no choice but to continue the assault. There is an extremely harsh side to war, and our age is without mercy for the fallen. The suffering is great both for those who leave us and for us who see them leave without any way of bringing them back.
At the same time, are there priests and religious communities that, understanding the Society’s role in the Church, have gotten in touch with you?
Yes, we have also had this consolation. Not a month goes by without someone knocking at our door: here a seminarian, there a priest or nun. Sometimes it involves a simple contact, other times, a decisive step in our direction. There are even, though it is rarer, bishops and entire congregations that make known to us their sympathy or even more.
Since you travel on all continents, you must hear the Society and Archbishop Lefebvre spoken of in different ways. Are the founder and his work still the object of a certain distrust, or have things evolved since 1970?
They have not really evolved, with a few exceptions. It seems to me quite surprising to observe that in the whole world the Society is received in about the same way, that is, in disgrace by the vast majority of bishops while being appreciated by a little flock of souls desiring to remain faithful. I think this is a fair illustration of the extent of the crisis as well as the profound consistency of its nature.
At Rome, do you also notice any changes? Has the Archbishop’s work had any effect upon the highest authorities of the Church?
At Rome, a certain change towards us is noticeable, although it still has not had much effect. It seems to me that our work is appreciated by some, while it is hated by others. The reactions to us are very stark. There are very clearly two camps, one favorable and the other hostile, which makes relations rather difficult, because you always wonder which one will have the last word. It is nonetheless the case that those who wish to be faithful to the Pope consider us with respect and expect very much from us for the Church. But from this to seeing concrete results, patience is still in order!
Forty years is both very short and yet long enough for a great many of the faithful to have no memory of Vatican II. Is there not a danger, as the Council becomes ever more remote, of living in a certain comfort on the part of priests and faithful who become satisfied with our current situation?
The danger exists, no doubt, of ending up isolated in a kind of practical autonomy. A large part of this attitude ought to be attributed to the situation in which we find ourselves, that of the rejection of Tradition. That is why we are trying to broaden the horizon and concerns of the lay faithful by speaking to them of the Church and of Rome. It is very important to preserve a Roman spirit. Our attachment to Rome must not be symbolic, but concrete. This situation is also a trial of our faith in the Church.
A year ago doctrinal discussions began between the experts of the Holy See and of the Society. We of course know that these relations are enveloped in a great discretion and that many of the faithful are praying for a happy outcome. Without entering into the subjects in detail, should we expect an unavoidable failure in the near term, or, on the contrary, a clear-cut restoration?
Given the way the discussions are shaping up, I do not think they’ll suddenly break off or find a quick solution. It is a meeting of two mentalities, yet the will to enter into discussion at the theological level is indeed real. That is why, even if the development takes a long time, the fruits could yet be promising.
Through these discussions, should a firm condemnation of the Council by Rome be expected, or will it finally have to be accepted without flinching? How might one imagine the resolution of a crisis of this order?
It seems to me that if a condemnation of the Council is forthcoming one day, it will not be tomorrow. A will to correct the current situation is rather clearly shaping up. About the present state of the Church, especially serious, our assessments coincide on a number of points, both on doctrine and morals and discipline. Nevertheless, the prevailing tendency at Rome is always to exonerate the Council: they do not want to trace the cause to the Council; they look for other causes, but certainly not the Council! Considering this, it seems that it would be easier to get around it by simply recalling the indisputable teaching of the Church, leaving for later a direct condemnation. I believe that, in the current context, a condemnation would simply not be understood.
In a recent work, Vatican II: A Much-Needed Discussion, a Roman theologian, Monsignor Gherardini, draws up a rather alarming assessment of the Church. He implies that a reading of the Council in continuity with Tradition is manifestly not self-evident, and he summons the Pope to undertake a serious work of clarification of conciliar teaching. How should his book be received?
It should not be taken as something coming from us or addressed to us. No, it is addressed to mainstream Catholics and to the sitting hierarchy. Thus viewed, the work becomes important because it calls in question the way in which the Council has been received. It touches a taboo. When we do it, we set off their defense reflex, blocking all discussion. But when it comes from their side, it opens up a lot of things. My conclusion is that objectively the book is important; it could be a spark capable of igniting a blaze.
Do you have a precise message you’d like to address to the priests and faithful of the Society?
On the occasion of our 40th anniversary: fidelity! Fidelity, the guarantee of the future; fidelity in little things, the guarantee of fidelity in great things. And especially, don’t give way to discouragement if the struggle must go on for a long time still, which everything seems to indicate; on the contrary, become bolder in advancing the work of the Church’s restoration.
“At a Pivotal Point”
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay from Nouvelles de Chrétienté, Sept.-Oct. 2010
The Society of St. Pius X is celebrating its 40th anniversary. Is this the end of the wandering in the desert, as it was for the Hebrews in the time of Moses?
It seems to me that what we are experiencing resembles instead one of those expeditions of the scouts who catch a glimpse of the Promised Land, although circumstances do not allow the people to enter it. In order to avoid any misinterpretation of the image just used, I hasten to add that we declare just as firmly as ever that we are Catholics and that, with God’s help, we intend to remain that way. However for the Church as a whole this crisis does resemble a wandering in the desert, with one difference: the manna is quite difficult to find. There are encouraging signs, especially on the part of Rome; unfortunately they are quite mixed up in other very troubling matters. A few blades of grass in the desert…
In spite of everything, how is the Society of St. Pius X developing throughout the world?
The Society is actually developing a bit everywhere. Some regions are making more rapid progress than others—I’m thinking of the United States, for example—but the big handicap that we run up against is the lack of priests. Requests for help come in from all sides, but because of our severe shortage of priests we cannot respond as we ought. With every appointment [of an SSPX priest to a pastoral assignment] we make a choice that is going to disappoint one or more groups of the faithful. On the one hand that is a rather good sign, since it shows a certain development in our work, but it is also quite painful. Think of the mission countries, particularly in Africa or in Brazil. If we could send 50 priests there, it would be a great relief. The immense continent of Asia is waiting also.
Archbishop Lefebvre used to say that for the authorities in Rome the statistics of that growth were more eloquent than theological arguments. Is that still true?
I don’t know whether we should say “the statistics” or “the facts.” At any rate the two things are equally telling. As the good old saying puts it, contra factum non fit argumentum, there is no arguing against the facts—that is still totally valid. And Archbishop Lefebvre’s statement is quite true. We should note that it is not so much the number that impresses Rome, since we are still a negligible quantity in the Mystical Body as a whole. But what we represent, in an extremely vivid way, is a living tradition—that overawes them. These magnificent fruits which are very certainly, by the admission of a high-ranking Roman prelate himself, the work of the Holy Ghost—that is what induces the Roman authorities to take a look at us. All the more because we are talking about fresh fruit springing up in the middle of the desert.
In September, reports on the implementation of the Motu Proprio concerning the traditional Mass were to be sent to the Holy See. Only a few bishops implemented the Roman directives generously. How do you explain this hesitance, or this resistance?
Just as the new Mass expresses a certain new spirit, that of Vatican II, so also the traditional Mass expresses the Catholic spirit. Those who cling tenaciously to Vatican II because they see in it a new start for the Church, or those who suppose that with Vatican II a new leaf was turned definitively in Church history, simply cannot accept the coexistence of a Mass that recalls precisely what they thought they had abandoned forever. There are two spirits embodied in the two Masses. That is a fact! And the two do not go together! We find among modern Catholics a similar hatred for the Rosary, for example. And it is all related. We see in the controversy over the Mass a very good illustration of the complexity of the crisis that is rocking the Church.
Do you mean to say that in the Church today, behind a façade of unity, there are hidden divisions not only between the local bishops’ conferences and the Holy See, but even in Rome among various opposing trends? Do you have factual evidence?
Oh, yes; alas, we certainly are in those times that have been foretold, when there will be cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop. This sort of dispute is generally very discreet and escapes the notice of the laity. But recently, on various occasions, it has become open and public, for instance in the gratuitous attack by Cardinal Schönborn against Cardinal Sodano. That looked a lot like a settling of scores. But it is no secret that opposing trends clash in Rome itself. We have the facts about several cases, but I don’t think that it is helpful to the lay faithful to reveal such things.
A recent conference given by Msgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission at the seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter attempts to prove the doctrinal continuity between Vatican II and Tradition. To that end it deals with the question about the “subsistit in” and the issue of ecumenism. Do these examples seem convincing to you?
I would not say “convincing” but surprising. That conference is the very logical application of the principles enunciated by Benedict XVI in December of 2005. And it gives us a presentation of ecumenism that is fairly different from what we have heard for the past 40 years…a presentation mixed with eternal principles concerning the oneness of the Church and her unique perfection, concerning the exclusive character of salvation. We do see in this an attempt to preserve the Church’s perennial teaching and at the same time a Council that is revisited in the light of Tradition. The mixture, although interesting, still leaves open some logical questions concerning the role played by the other Christian denominations…which were called “false religions” up until and including the time of Pius XII. Will anyone from now on dare to use that term again?
In his lengthy conclusion, Msgr. Pozzo proposes a Second Vatican Council that has been re-examined—if not corrected; one that denounces relativism, a certain overemphasis on the “pastoral” approach, and an excessive reliance on “dialogue”... Do you think that this presentation is capable of bringing about unanimity in Rome and in the dioceses? What do you think about this revised version of the Council?
It is interesting, in the sense that they are presenting a new Second Vatican Council to us, a council which in fact we never knew and which is distinct from the one that was presented during the past 40 years. A sort of new skin! It is interesting especially inasmuch as the ultra-modern trend is condemned rather strongly. A sort of moderate or tempered council is being presented to us. The question remains, what kind of reception will this new formula have? It will certainly be deemed too traditional for the modernists and not traditional enough for us. Let us say that many of our attacks have now proved to be justified, a good deal of what we condemn is condemned. But although the matter is condemned, there is still a major disagreement concerning its causes. Because ultimately, if such intellectual disorientation was possible with respect to the Council, and to such a degree, to such an extent…there certainly must be a proportionate cause! If we discover such a great divergence in interpreting the conciliar documents, we will have to admit someday that the deficiencies in those documents are there for a reason.
Some people committed to Tradition think that the crisis in the Church should end instantaneously, that the passage from this crisis to its solution should take place all at once. In your view is this a sign of supernatural confidence or of all-too-human impatience? In a gradual resolution of the crisis, what are the positive steps that have already been taken? What steps do you hope to see in the future?
The instantaneous solution of the crisis, as some people imagine it, can result only from a miracle or from large-scale violence. If it does not come about in that way, then there will still be the gradual solution. Although absolutely speaking one cannot exclude the possibility that God could work such a miracle, usually God governs His Church differently, through the more normal cooperation of creatures and of His saints. In general it takes at least as much time to get over a crisis as it did to unleash it, if not more. The path of reconstruction is long, and the work—immense. But above all the choice of personnel will be the determining factor. If the policy for nominating bishops finally changes, then we can hope. By the same token there will have to be a thoroughgoing reform of teaching at the pontifical universities and of priestly formation in the seminaries. These are long-range projects which at the moment are still dreams, but over a period of ten years they could already be taking shape seriously. Everything depends on the pope at first. For the moment the positive thing is above all the acknowledgment that many things have gone awry... People are admitting that there is a sickness, a grave crisis in the Church. Will they go much further? We will see.
What specifically can the Society of St. Pius X contribute as a solution to this unprecedented crisis? What role can Catholics devoted to Tradition take in this work of restoration? What do you expect from the young generation which is now 20 years old and will be 60…in 40 years?
We can offer a reminder that the Church has a past that still remains quite valuable today. This is not dusty nostalgia but a fresh look at the Tradition of the Church—a decisive contribution toward a solution of the crisis. We should add to this the reminder about the power of the traditional Mass, about the mission and role of the priest as Our Lord intends it, in His image and according to His Spirit. When we ask priests who approach the Society what they expect from us, they tell us initially that they expect doctrine. Even before the Mass! This is surprising, but at the same time it is a good sign. The lay faithful have the important role of witnessing, of showing that the Christian life as it has always been understood, with its demands and respect for God’s law, is quite possible in the modern world. It is Christian life put into practice, a very concrete example needed by the man in the street. And for the generation of twenty-year-olds, I see that it is waiting, ready for the adventure of Tradition, sensing very well that what is being offered to it apart from Tradition is nothing but imitation goods. We are at a pivotal point for the future reconstruction and, although it is not yet clearly apparent, I think that everything is possible.
1 Conference given by Msgr. Guido Pozzo on July 2, 2010, at the seminary in Wigratzbad (Germany), entitled, “Aspects of Catholic Theology in the Reception of Vatican II.”
Current Issue
