“Exclusive Interview with Fr. Faure”
18th March 2015
How about a little history to begin, Father: how did you get to know Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre?
In 1968, in Argentina, I visited the Archbishop of Paraná, who said to me: “Do you want to defend Tradition? At the Council I defended it together with a brave Bishop, a friend of mine, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.” That was the first time I had heard of Archbishop Lefebvre. I went to look for Archbishop Lefebvre in Switzerland in 1972, during Holy Week and there I met him.
Where were you born? Why were you living in South America?
I was born in Algeria and my family, after independence, acquired a plot of land in Argentina, close to Paraná. My family was deported from Algeria because the French government surrendered power to the militant Muslims who committed horrendous massacres during the course of the process of the independence. My grandparents, parents and uncles were farmers there since 1830.
Returning to the story, how your apostolate in the Society come about?
Archbishop Lefebvre ordained me in 1977 in Écône, and 15 days later I accompanied him on a trip through the southern United States, Mexico (where the government refused our entry), Colombia, Chile, and Argentina. The Archbishop put me in charge of starting-up the apostolate in this region. During the first year two Argentinian priests helped me and the following year another Spanish priest (of the SSPX). After this the South American district was created with myself in charge and I began to preach retreats as far north as Mexico. In the first year about 12 vocations were put up in the Buenos Aires priory, which was in a large enough house. Then by 1980 the seminary of La Reja (Buenos Aires) was built, where Archbishop Lefebvre appointed me rector. There I stayed until 1985, when I was named superior of the District of Mexico. That was when we built the churches in Mexico City and Guadalajara. I looked after the different parts of this country together with Frs. Calderon, Angles, and Tam. Then I spent a few years in France. After that I was appointed to the Seminary in Argentina as a history professor and I was there until the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from Argentina (2009).
Did Archbishop Lefebvre confide in you?
Archbishop Lefebvre gave me free access to his mail and correspondence and he put me in charge of certain cases. He had a certain kind of trust for me: in 1977 in Albano he asked me what I thought about consecrations. On another occasion, also in 1977, he confided to me “They are waiting for me” (the rector professors of Écône). They would suggest accepting the New Mass and the Council in order to preserve the Tridentine Mass. They said to him: “Now we are in confrontation with Rome. If we want to preserve the (Tridentine) Mass we must accept the Council.” They wanted the Archbishop to retire to a beautiful house in Germany, but he told them that they were free to leave if they wanted to. He threw them out.
Is it true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked you to accept being consecrated a bishop?
In 1986, while on a visit to Écône, he called me aside after a meal and asked me if I would accept being consecrated a bishop. In view of what happened, maybe I should have accepted.
So you did not accept?
I told him that I thought Bishop De Galarreta would be more suitable.
Can you summarize what happened in 2012?
In that year we were very close to an agreement and it failed at the last moment, probably, due to the Williamson affair. The agreement failed because of that matter and the letter of the three bishops. Both of those things undermined the agreement.
It is said that the key to Bishop Fellay’s ad intra strategy was getting the backing of the General Chapter. Can you tell us something about that?
The General Chapter was very well prepared by Bishop Fellay and the they (the accordistas) achieved their objectives. That was when I understood what had happened to Archbishop Lefebvre and his friends at the Second Vatican Council. He (Bishop Fellay) had decided on a policy of getting closer to Rome and he managed to get the general support of the Chapter in expelling Bishop Williamson, who was the only one capable of obstructing this policy.
What, in your opinion, should be the conditions required for making an agreement with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre told us that as long as there were no real changes in Rome a deal would be impossible, because these people were not loyal, and one cannot expect to change one's superiors. It is the cat that chases the mouse and not the mouse that chases the cat. An agreement would be tantamount to handing oneself over into the hands of the modernists, and thus it must be absolutely rejected. It is impossible. We must wait for God to intervene.
Can you tell us what you think the preliminary visits of various modernist prelates to the Seminaries of the Society? Is it true that once Archbishop Lefebvre received some prelates? What is the difference now?
These were exceptional visits during which Cardinal Gagnon never had the opportunity of defending the Council, whereas these visits now are the first steps of a reintegration (of the SSPX) into the conciliar church.
How do you view an eventual unilateral recognition of the SSPX on the part of Rome?
It is a trap.
Between the 2006 chapter and the start of the crisis in 2012, a change of attitude by the SSPX authorities towards Rome can be seen. What is the reason for this change?
It is due to the SSPX superiors’ decision to “reintegrate” themselves into the conciliar church. Since 1994 or 1995 the GREC meetings took place which were significant steps towards a reconciliation, as intended by ambassador Pérol (French ambassador in Italy), and he was the inventor of the lifting of the excommunications (2009) and the Motu Proprio (2007). That must be matched by a recognizing of the Council.
What would Archbishop Lefebvre do in the current situation?
He would continue along the path that he showed us after the consecrations, absolutely discarding any possibility of an agreement.
If in the future you were invited to go to Rome and speak with the Pope, would you go? What would you say?
First, I would consult with all our friends in the Resistance. I would go with Bishop Williamson and the other excellent priests who are fighting the Resistance combat with great courage. And I would keep all our friends well-informed with total transparency.
Bishop Fellay has said that the SSPX agrees with 95% of Vatican II. What do you think of that?
Archbishop Lefebvre answered that the whole Council is imbued with a subjectivist spirit that is not Catholic.
Francis is proving an effective demolisher of the Church and objective destroyer of the Faith. Is he a true pope?
In my opinion, it cannot be said that Francis is worse than Paul VI, who first steered the Church onto a new course, and so we must preserve the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre, a prudential attitude that excluded sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to ordain a seminarian who was sedevacantist. And that was the policy of the SSPX until his death. So don’t come to us with: “The Archbishop said this or said that.”
What is the state of your process of expulsion from the SSPX?
The latest update is that I found in an email, by accident, a second monition. From tomorrow, therefore, the Society of St. Pius X will again have four bishops! They had better throw me out quickly! Deo gratias!
This decision of consecrating a bishop must have been pondered and meditated on for a long time. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre, you, Bishop Williamson and the priests of the Resistance did not want to be collaborators in the destruction of the Church. It is to preserve the Faith intact that you have been persecuted, condemned and slandered so many times. Your episcopal consecration may earn you an alleged excommunication. What were the main reasons for carrying out this consecration?
The main reason is that that we cannot leave the Resistance without bishops. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre said, Catholic bishops are indispensable for the preservation of the true doctrine of the Faith and the sacraments.
Archbishop Lefebvre thought about consecrating you a bishop and now Bishop Williamson is able to fulfil that wish. What will be your main concern?
Striving to maintain the work of Archbishop Lefebvre on the path he traced, without deviating to the right or to the left.
Where will your place of residence be?
In France where we plan to open a seminary close to the Dominicans of Avrillé.
Would you like to say any words to the priests and faithful that are still inside the structure of the Society but who are worried by the liberal drift of the last few years?
Let them re-read and meditate upon the texts of their founder.
Can you explain to us the essence of your coat of arms?
In the centre is the Lamb of the Apocalypse, the Alpha and the Omega, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, announced by Isaiah. The hearts recall the Vendeé martyrs of the revolution and the Fleur de Lys is the emblem of Catholic France. The motto, “ipsa cónteret” (“she shall crush”) is taken from the Vulgate, Genesis 3,15 where God promises the victory of the Virgin Mary over the dragon.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
Let us preserve Faith, Hope, and Charity. We must not doubt and we must ask God and Our Lady to keep us in these virtues.
Father, we give deepest thanks to God, to His Most Holy Mother, and to St. Joseph protector of the Church for this great grace. We pray God that He preserve and keep you. We thank you for having accepted this tremendous burden and we thank Bishop Williamson for consecrating you as one of the successors of the Apostles. Deo Gratias!
Support Our Apostolate! Please consider making a small paypal donation to The Recusant.
"Viva Cristo Rey!"