The Recusant

What do brothers need? To know what is their duty today. In the liturgy during Advent, St. John the Baptist invites us to, “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” “Repent,” i.e., have a new spirit . The purpose of this new spirit is the kingdom of heaven, salvation. Consequently, the goal of everything—prayer, vows , activities—is salvation. To arrive at salvation, there must be a change of direction, of mind, to reorient the compass: “to understand the profoundly supernatural spirit of the entirety of their lives.”

The statutes of the Society are also useful for the brothers . In one passage, it invites us to
“understand the profoundly supernatural spirit of the entirety of their lives.”

So, what is our mission, our duty? St. Pius X tells us: “Omnia instaurare in Christo.”
Instaurare: true reform of the Church.

The new pope Francis was elected because of his commitment to reform. He is the reformer of the Curia, the initiator of a new evangelization. What used to be called reform.

“ ... race of vipers .” It's worse than modernist or liberal. No, liberal, it's worse [implied : in the insults] ! But basically no one knows what is a liberal.

Holiness according to St. Benedict consists in humility, and [humility/one of the degrees of humility is] in obedience to God, to superiors. The obstacle in Tradition is this spirit of self-sufficiency, of pride which leads to contempt, to disobedience and is totally opposed to the thoughts of God in the Incarnation. Real reform requires a conversion, a renunciation of all but the Kingdom of Heaven (supernatural aspect to remember). Our Lord said: “I came from the Father; I came into this world (the Incarnation).”  Why ? Not for the just, not for Tradis but for the lost sheep, He leaves the 99 to care for the lost sheep. Let’s be careful of our security. Do not remain in safety in this world, it's better to go out, to not remain in his security if not rooted in Him, you must see the [good of others / the salvation of souls]. The supernatural life has not been given for us. God calls, the soul must answer.

 

Credidimus caritati is different from Credidimus veritati [we have believed in truth]. Credidimus caritati means: we have believed in charity. If the vocation, prayer does not lead us to charity and therefore to joy, it is because there is something wrong in our spiritual life. Our Lord tells us that the purpose is: “that your joy may be complete.” This is totally contrary to Bishop Williamson’s fatalism, a false attitude and not Catholic. All that we are telling you is that God is light and in Him is no darkness, He is love. Archbishop Lefebvre told us in 1978: “God is love, therefore He is mercy.”

 

An example of real reform can be found in the book “The Holy Church Throughout Its History” by our dear Father Jean-Dominique. Persecuted Christians thought it was the end of the world. The pope accepted what Constantin proposed—it was not perfect—that came from an emperor [a pagan] but they took it all the same. (The Pope did not refuse under the pretext that the Edict of Milan could applied in the name of religious liberty.) In times persecution, one survives. Once freed from persecution, thousands of young men leave the world, vocations flow in. This is a very strange phenomenon!

We notice a lack of enthusiasm in Tradition today. The phenomenon of leaving the world for contemplation is not there. The current state of vocations is disappointing. Carmel, for example!
--which has gone over to the “pseudo resistance,” which is ridiculous—they do not have vocations. There is an ideal in Tradition that we are not able to transmit. One can see it in the lamentable assistance at weekday Masses.

It is too easy to see only the world’s perversion; it is faith that overcomes the world: the primacy of contemplation, love of the Cross and thus the Mass—it is through it that we overcome the world. Our fight has been idealized; our view is in black and white.

Reality takes time, e.g. the Council of Constantinople, St. Athanasius was exiled seven times. He
preached in the city while the Arian bishop was still installed. His fight lasted more than 60 years. This is the mystery of history, God-made-man, who comes in this time, in this world, not stifling everything, destroying everything and then constructing a new world. Our Lord became incarnate in this rotten world. Reality demands a long development, not a pope who falls asleep a modernist and wakes up a Thomist. Our Lord said: “It is by your perseverance that you will save your soul.” [Luke 21:19 – In your patience you shall possess your souls.?]  All our priors, our superiors may not understand where we must begin to institute reform. As a reformer, St. Raymond of Capua was faced with a rebellion within the Church. All reform is the work of the Holy Spirit; it is a work of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre relied on ordinary means for his reform.

As pope, he began with very practical reforms :
   1 - He installed lavatories .
   2 – He threw out the children of clerics.
   3 - The doors of the Vatican were locked at night.
   4 - He cut the staff of the Vatican by half.
   5 – Women’s convents were enclosed; they were forbidden to leave except in cases of leprosy, plague and fire.
   6 – The priests who were doing nothing were confined to the castle of St. Angelo. 7-11 puts out whores .
And he began by putting through these reforms and in that way he reformed Christian life: [not enough/He was not satisfied with reforming] the Mass, the cate[chism?] ...

Another example of realism in relation to the reform is Pius X. In an atmosphere of abandonment and apostasy, he took as his motto : Omnia instaurare in Christo,  for the return of nations to
Our Lord through the Church, not fatalism, waiting for chastisement. Pius X was not content to just complain about the situation. For us, to have above all a clear goal: why our vocation?
Above all, the Church, Christ, to save souls and not to think only of self, our priory, our school ...
Another example is that of St. Dominic who had great charisma and attracted many vocations. His secret can be discovered in his prayer: “What will become of sinners?”

 

With this new pontificate there is much talk of reform. With Evangelii gaudium, the Pope tries to touch all people, to convey the joy of the Gospel and the Faith. As said Father Schmidberger said, “There are good things but also omissions.” After nine months we see this pope a little more clearly. He wants to change the Church. He loves to please and always does things differently: he does not sing when it’s time to sing; he does not fast when it’s time to fast; he is not exact with the rubrics (genuflections); he wears a priest suit when the others are in cassocks. In short, it hurts. What we must say is that he is unique; he is different; he is Argentinian and a Jesuit. He is a man of action. He is in the act, the doing, the movement, but He is the Pope. Evangelii gaudium is in a somewhat surprising language for us, to which we are not accustomed.

We must look at how the Church has acted in the past. At present, Suresnes [French District headquarters] and Bishop Tissier are pushing us, putting some pressure on us to make a clear declaration, pure and hard, a profession of faith, dotting our i’s and crossing our t’s. They [ They or some] demand that we not have discussions with Rome, but issue short texts based on doctrine. But be careful! [This is not so simple.] In the Creed one does not profess that one renounces Vatican II and religious liberty!

We consulted a few colleagues on the appropriateness of publishing the declarations on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the consecrations; a French colleague wrote us about the usefulness of this text which is insupportable to the modern clergy [two strong statements ( end of Chapter 2012, then the declaration of the bishops in 2013) recalling our position again. Our statements are insupportable to modern clergy], even to him who believes us! Because he lacks the serious philosophical background to be able to understand us.

 

First problem: on the same text, each one sees it in his own way and the modernists do not see what you see. Example: during the interfaith rally in Buenos Aires in remembrance of the attack against the Jews, nobody understood our fight against religious liberty. They thought we were fighting against the Jews, because they have some very intelligent faithful [who did not understand the context /who spoke this way on TV].

2nd problem: they are ignorant of the ante-conciliar magisterium [because they/ and they ] are overwhelmed by pastoral concerns. Their concerns are totally different from ours, in that we focus on Vatican II and collegiality ... [In issuing such a declaration .] We are pleased with ourselves and we are not advancing things.

The reform is to work, to circulate “in capite et in membris[1]” [of head and of members] simultaneously. In capite ,is in relation to the Pope and to Rome and it has consisted in the doctrinal discussions and our efforts which have not been crowned with success for the moment. In membris is in our relations with the faithful, with parishes and the conservative clergy. We must now intensify contact in membris .

Going further back in history, we can see that the Carolingian reform consisted of many of private initiatives that were developed outside Roman power without confronting it and that it ended legislative approval. The pope is not launching the initiative but is the base who launches them, initiatives which expand until the head takes responsibility for them so as to make them official.  This requires necessary placement of inferiors to conduct the business if the head can not take over the reform on his own. The Motu Proprio was a step. The Pope could not go faster and farther yet. The Bishop [Fellay?] has said that is numbers that speak. “We learn nothing from history,” said ... ? People always do the same stupid things! Change will come from the increase of these initiatives and by their meeting and union.

[It/In fact, it is especially] France’s problem. The French are complainers. The France’s problem is that it has a Maurrassian[2] spirit, Cartesian . The current problem is either to open up to others or to fall back on oneself. So how do we overcome this crisis? Four bishops, four points of view!

 

- The first group which follows Bishop de Galarreta thinks that the Society is for an elite, the first duty is to protect our work, to protect from the confusion caused by contact with others. The Bishop has been disappointed regarding our discussions with Rome. In not keeping in touch, we protect what we have. “In Rome it is the heads, not the imbeciles who only know Vatican II,” Fr. Pfluger said . [There are those who imagined that we would make short work of them during the discussions.]
- The second group is Bishop Williamson’s : Talking with Rome is already a visible sign of betrayal. This is a very personal problem for Williamson . He was trained in a school where he learned “to do the opposite, to take a negative view.” It is also a psychological problem in his relationship with Bishop Fellay. He never accepted him as superior. He was always opposed. There is also in his character, his pessimism is ideological: the youthful nature is so corrupt that he cannot receive grace, we must first restore his character.

 
Comment : This is ridiculous. We can no longer do anything about it and it is provoking for provoking sake and to move things along. Talking with the enemy is already losing the fight.

- The third group (Bishop Tissier, Suresnes) is those who are afraid. They say: firstly it's too dangerous, Rome must convert before any agreement or canonical regularization. A French [superior/ priest] told us: “Before any contact with Rome, the Pope must convert, condemn Vatican II and consecrate Russia to Our Lady.”

Analysis : Basically , this is a problem of fear, fear of contact . They go on to say that because they are modernists, they are our enemies. These conditions [= the prior conversion of Rome] are ideal but unrealistic.  A leader never retracts a single deal. It takes time.

After the Assisi “scandal,” Archbishop Lefebvre did not require the pope to apologize, but a little time later he went to him in Rome. We must refer to Archbishop Lefebvre’s words in 1982 in the United States where he rebelled against those who were refusing the 1962 missal and casting doubt on the validity of the sacraments. The Archbishop said: “I ​​can not tolerate this sectarian, schismatic spirit of those who despise the good of the faithful. This is not consistent with the thinking of the Church.”

 
We can say the same about the current situation. We must not yield to the pressure of those who
think like that, nor make it a personal problem, but remember what is our mission: [We must not delude ourselves, actually.] if we cut with Rome, we are sedevacantists. Bishop Tissier’s thesis of a pope for two churches is ecclésiovacantisme and is unacceptable!

 

Then came Benedict XVI, who knew our case very well. Already in 2002, he said [to Dr. Barth]: “The cohabitation of two rites together in the Church is impossible;  we must [therefore ‘catholicize’ /reform] the New Mass [based on the former].”

[The Motu Proprio was in the air,] then there was the 2006 Chapter meeting which was very fortuitous  (as have been some encyclicals there were several hundred of them  and to which one no longer refers). You know: we can make Archbishop Lefebvre say anything if we go back over his writings, everything and its opposite because everything is tied to circumstances. [The 2006 Chapter showed that a certain distrust towards Rome was still present. Towards the end of this Chapter, a priest slipped a note under the door of the Secretary to plead for: “no practical agreement.”] In 2006, no one thought that the Pope would follow up with [the preconditions] . On 7 October 2007, the Pope issued ​​his Motu Proprio. Bishop Tissier himself said to me on that day: “This is a victory; it is the biggest event since the coronation of Pius XII.” And now the “pseudo- resistance” criticizes the Motu Proprio; it’s hypocritical , especially when we know that the Pope had all the curia against him. [Of course, the Motu Proprio is not perfect.] this Motu Proprio is a prerequisite and the Pope knows that one can not move too quickly.

 

The moment the pope withdrew the excommunication, he was attacked by the Curia and in our ranks, there was the Williamson affair. This [was/is] not worth the effort, nor the time to “criticize the plot.” If the Pope had known what Williamson thought, he would not have lifted the excommunication. We should not forget that the Pope is German and that this subject is very difficult for them. [Then] the Pope said: “We must discuss this,” and this is an affront to all the curia and the bishops: the world knew about it, except us! On 4 June 2009, there was a meeting in Rome with Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Fr. du Chalard. The cardinal was very nice ... (sic) . He told us that for a long time, they had an internal problem with the bishops. [We did not understand Vatican II: religious liberty, the Council wanted to only allow us to able to go into Muslim countries. Quanta Cura, etc. This is not the problem.

After the discussions, we are waiting for a result of these discussions. [But in fact] they offered us a text to studied, to sign. It is clear we can not sign it, but we see that Rome did everything it could. It wants a solution, a regularization of the Society. Hoyos made ​​proposals. But at that time, there was already a strong opposition in the Society. There is a small group that does not want contact with Rome. Rome pressed and required a response before the end of November. The Bishop answered that we cannot follow and this was a humiliation for Rome.

The Carmel reacted and not with a noble attitude. Inside there is strain and division, it is heating up and all that is ridiculous.

Bishop Fellay is very hesitant, not on the fundamentals, but when and how to act without ourselves splitting with Rome. In March, the Pope’s office informed us that the Pope wanted the regularization despite the Curia’s opposition, but the bottom line is that everyone wants to save face: Rome with Vatican II and us with the Williamson nonsense. Cardinal Levada said: “If you do not sign, it is because you do not recognize the Pope.” And Bishop Fellay does not want to risk excommunication for refusing recognition of the magisterium . The letter of 3 bishops, it was seriously imprudent, was not in the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact, a little later , Bishop de Galarreta apologized for the letter saying that if he had known the contents of the January documents (possibility to criticize ) he would not have acted so. And that of course, that remains between us, especially do not put it on the internet! (He said with a knowing look.)

Imagine that the Pope calls Menzingen and Bishop Fellay answers, “I am not available, call back later.” It is not possible! And yet, he is faced with the problem of the Society, especially with this ecclésiovacantiste speech by Bishop Tissier and so we cannot look like sedevacantists . The text [that the Pope was on the verge of signing/proposed by the Society] had been found to be more demanding than that of the Archbishop in 1988. And yet the Pope did not sign despite all announcements he made and the Ecclesia Dei commission becomes more demanding, then Fr. Pfluger [?] asked the cardinal, “Where did this new requirement come from?” Answer: “We were all in agreement until May, but after some have been putting pressure on the Pope.” Especially after what Bishop Tissier said, “the Council is not a true council.” Cardinal Ladaria reminded the Pope who, obviously, cannot change his decision. In the Society we were very upset, our position is not clear in relation to the Council, if it is not given magisterial authority. So we are no longer Catholic.

 

The pseudo-resistance: these priests are[very unbalanced /reckless ] people, cases. One has the impression that it is a state of mind. The question today is not whether to trust, they want to impose upon us, for the current situation, for today, a prudence which was that of Archbishop Lefebvre in his time, for his era, in his circumstances. It is not honest.

All these departures are a purification for the Society and must be seen as a blessing , even if it hurts because maybe these are colleagues with whom we got along well.

 

The Society’s irregular situation may be a punishment because it is focused on errors,  they treat and have treated the Pope like a student. They systematically judge the texts that come from Rome, on principle and it is very serious! [One is almost glad that the Church is being ridiculed, happy with each error.] Since 2006, we have lost [60/66] priests and it is not because of Rome, while the Fraternity of St. Pierre, where there have about 250 [priests], they have had almost no departures. There really is a problem. [Of course we have to maintain our line.] The Church is being humiliated, we must be like the Good Samaritan , we must love her. We have idealized our fight and it has become an obsession to hit at the other institutions. [Of course they are not perfect, but neither are we.] We understand the pope is critical of clericalism . We have met with some of the bishops, they called us to Rome, and we, we were happy when Rome is seen badly. God can not bless the attitude of those who do not want to go re-enter the fold because there might be a wolf. [A priest (bishop?) of the Society has even said: “Even if the Society’s chapels were empty, it would not matter, what matters is that we keep the faith.”] Faith is at the service of the apostolate.

The [April] text is circumstantial, [minimal]. Maybe not the best and some say pitiful, it dogmatizes its interpretation and they imposed it on Bishop Fellay . [It had been seen by the Society’s theologians, who found it very good. Others say it is pathetic, that it is not Catholic! They have dogmatized an interpretation, an opinion.]

We must be careful: in our own ranks we are not all in agreement about the concept of the magisterium, there are even 5 theories (Bishop Tissier, Fr. Gleize ... ) We must not dogmatize and impose a view on a superior. Certainly we must not change positions, but the circumstances have changed. Those who resist the superiors are few but limited, like Chazal . In 2007, Bishop Williamson's theory was: “ad infra decisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Council, but what is ad extra comes under the jurisdiction of the bishops.”

So, in fact, everyone is [Pope against the Superior General] . behind this opposition there is fear on the one hand, on the other hand : “Rome does not interest us.” [“We are the Church.”]

Bishop Tissier dares to say : “Where there is true faith, there is the Church.” Watch out, this is also what Luther said. In relation to the liberation of the Mass, they were against it being classified as an extraordinary rite, but it is hysteria to quibble about it! It should be clear, this is not serious, it has become an existential problem—what do you care if Bishop Fellay writes to Rome? [In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre said nothing to the committee of what he was going to do in Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre had always kept in touch with Rome, yet remaining firm.]

We are full of a spirit of self-sufficiency. We have everything. But watch out, as a matter of principle God does not need us. The Society is going to be purified of members who are not  wanted by us and it is a grace for it [the Society].

 

Fr. Rioult, for example, I know him well—he’s a clown. He knows nothing and judges everything! Those people, they can’t help it, they must judge the Pope. They focus on the 5% that is bad, even if 95% of Vatican II is good; it is idealism.

St Pius X in his reform did not act that way. He did not condemn everyone and fire all the seminary and university professors! What nonsense to react this way! If some need to be reassured, in Menzingen they always say the old Mass (general laughter). We must pay attention to grace that passes and does not return, as St Augustine said. The hour is grave, you do not need to make a fool of yourself in front of the Church, with regards to history.

 

“In Tradition, they are still disturbed by what will happen in April. How are we to react?”

[Note from Non Possumus: this is referring to the “canonization” of John Paul II.]

 

First, do not be shocked. This is another concept of holiness compared to what we have.

But it has always been like that in the Church, each pope beatified his predecessor ! Imagine a priest who spends his time criticizing the Pope, Vatican II. And then? No, we must go on! [We must sometimes attack, sometimes advance, sometimes. . . We cannot spend our time attacking. We must know, but also explain the faith.]

It is urgent to understand that we must not saw off the branch. [If a bishop in his diocese unconditionally gives a church, can one accept it? If the Pope does it, but we have guarantee of being able to continue the fight and to be relatively protected against the local bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre said that we could accept it.]

You must leave it to the Superior General, he has enough to worry about that! To understand the situation, we must see that those who are against it, our Lord speaks, saying: “They have ears and do not hear, eyes and do not see (but do not understand).” Think, it’s possible that the Pope is renew contact with us. This pope is unpredictable! Then Bishop Fellay will say to him, “You're not the Pope”? No, everything depends on the situation.

You know, Archbishop Lefebvre was always a very practical, very pragmatic man, and he always said: “If it's good for the Church, we take it, we do.” [In I984, at the time of the motu proprio on the Mass, Archbishop Lefebvre said that it was a foot in the door, even though the motu proprio required recognition of the new Mass.]