An unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerilla war for the soul of Tradition!
Retreat given to SSPX brothers,
Flavigny (France), Christmas 2013
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
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.”
Tradition : fewer and fewer vocations [proportional to the number of students
in our schools] , why? Because we say only the best and this is the spirit of
Avrillé, [-not going to repeat this as it was confidential] it is the religion
of exclusivity, which interests us, it's us. [We know everything; we judge everything.]
We understand [sometimes] the Pope denouncing clericalism. We, the Tradis, we have
the True Faith, the True Mass, Us! Chapter 4 of St. John says: “Let us love one
another . . . God is love.” This love consists not in we who love God, but in
He who loved us (the Incarnation). That is true mercy. Credidimus caritati different from Credidimus veritati . A faith that does not produce charity, no! I Timothy
5:8, “But if any man have not care of his own,
and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse
than an infidel.” Faith is
useless if it does not spread charity. Our Lord did not come to judge but to
save, is the true faith, true joy. [Faith is life, not a backpack.]
The purpose of true reform is salvation
through renunciation, humility, obedience. In a context of the refusal of the
truth, of Tradition, we should not have an aggressive attitude, because God came
to save the world. “unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;” (John
3:5) that's the reform.
“For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten
Son . . . For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that
the world may be saved by him.” (John 3:16-17) Yes God wants to save this world and we say: it is
kaput. God does not say anything of the sort, nothing is impossible with God.
This is not an problem of faith but of hope. God will come to judge, it is not
for us to advance this judgment, but we must save souls.
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.
Bishop Williamson said that
nature has been destroyed so much that the Tridentine seminaries no longer work,
that we must do something else—this is ridiculous!
Reform, a true
restoration of the Church, is concerned with all of life not only the truth,
e.g., the reform of Pius V founded on the most complex content of the mass, the
missal , the crusade against the Turks. His reform had already begun when he
was a young teacher. He was appointed inquisitor and reformed his Dominican
convents. It made very practical reforms and was criticized everywhere.
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?]
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
This is the Caritas Christi and it is what maintains our desire for
holiness. The apostolate is the Sentire cum Ecclesia [to think with
the Church] and not to criticize Vatican II [understood: that is not definite].
Criticism becomes boring and one cracks like many brilliant people who have not
stopped us because they did not have Caritas
Christi. Saving souls is the true motivation of perseverance and that no
longer leaves time for sterile criticism. The purpose of St Pius X: to form
Christ in those who are destined to form Him in others. The priesthood is a type
of apostolate. Do not be selfish , the goal of our fight is the sanctification
of others, of those who are with us. Do not do like the pseudo-resistance, but
find enthusiasm for the good! Seek the kingdom of God and not to convert the
Pope, or to analyze the texts of the Superior General or Lumen Gentium. Pius X: “our preference always goes to those who
devote themselves to the salvation of souls.” It must be [a/the] priority of all our houses.
Do not reverse the adage “hell of philosophy, theology of purgatory, heaven of the
Ignorance is the
primary problem: “they know neither me
nor the Father.” Our priests’ apostolate should focus on training and reducing
the ignorance of the faithful, not merely talking about Vatican scandals or
religious liberty. . . but [preaching]the faith. Do not make a dialectic (e.g.
the two Russian peasants). No bitter charity! Do not force the truth but be
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.
(Father Pfluger read the table of contents to us.) It should be noted that the
Pope invites us not to fall into spiritual sloth . . . [In fact, the real
problem is not what is said but what is not said /
Worse than what he says, there is all that he does not say], the problem of
universal salvation . we understand the reaction of the Pope, but the problem
is that he does not speak about converting . He fights against clericalism:
those who think only of themselves and satisfying their little rules. What he
says about homosexuals [basically/in a certain way] is not wrong because our
Lord does not judge either. He embraces the Protestants, why not? But the worst
is that he did not tell them about the exclusivity of salvation. [For
modernists, faith is not objective, it is subjective. I no longer adhere to a
precise object. Pope recalls the cross, etc., but for the modernists, we are
all saved.] This Pope is deluded. He has the will to reform, which is fine, but
he lacks the need for faith: “He that believeth not is risking his salvation.”
( sic) At Pentecost, St. Peter preached a sermon that shocked, but he was the
Pope and there were three thousand converts. [Pope Francis, “everybody knows
what the Church thinks.” No, this is wrong].
And we, in terms
of reform, what can we do in this ongoing crisis?
We are at a decisive moment for Tradition and for the Society. Crisis comes
from the Greek word crisis which in
medicine applies to a patient when it comes time to decide his future. Is he at
the point of overcoming the disease ? We are at this point where we must decide
on our future relative to the pope, to the Church. So what to we do?
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
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
The reform is to work, to circulate “in
capite et in membris”
[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 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
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
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!
This phrase comes from the Reformation, “This call for reformation of head
and members, discussed in many writings and in conversation with insistence
on existing and often exaggerated abuses, tended necessarily to lower the clergy
still more in the eyes of the people.” Catholic Encyclopedia, entry on the
Referring to Charles Maurras (1868-1952), “He was a leader and principal
thinker of Action Française, a political movement that was monarchist, anti-parliamentarist,
and counter-revolutionary.” (from Wikipedia)
(As an interactive conference, 8.30pm - 10.30pm)
To understand the historical context of our relations with Rome, you should see
the first phase as being the expansion of the Fraternity, then there were the consecrations,
then came the contact-with-Rome phase. After 2000, it was Rome that made
contact. 2000 was the jubilee year, the year of forgiveness. Cardinal Castrillon
Hoyos insisted that a solution will come very soon for us, but Bishop Fellay
said: “We do not trust , you want us to fall into line.” The policy of the Society
consists in waiting for Rome to show us some sign of goodwill (liberalization
of the Mass ). Later we would add the lifting of the excommunications . At that
time it was unthinkable [that Rome was worthy
of trust/that Rome would do such a thing
]. [Then there would be the doctrinal discussions to show the real problems.]
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
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.
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.
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,
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
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.
A Brother’s Question :
“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
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.]
You know, we are facing a French problem. [Someone told me:] The French have
always been betrayed—it’s a historical problem: betrayal by the Revolution, the
Vendée, Leo XIII and the ‘ralliement,’ Algeria . . . But Leo XII was just realistic about the Republic. For
example, you cannot imagine going to get your gas at so and so’s place because
he is Catholic. You go to the cheapest place. The same applies to the choice of
dentist : it is based on urgency, availability and not one because he is Catholic!
[One day, I said to Fr. de Cacqueray: “When you were out in Amiens, if the
bishop or the mayor gave you a church, would
you refuse it because the mayor is gay and a Freemason?” We must be realistic.]
Reality is not black and white! It does not need to be simplistic, like Bishop
Williamson. Those who react against the Superior say they are fighting for the
Faith. No, each one is actually fighting for his own idea. God can not bless
those who spread such an evil spirit. The problem today is not the same as in
1988. [That was then a matter of conscience, this is by design.] Today we have
to face up to the evil spirit. So what do we do? Above all, assume that the
Superior wants the best! When things go wrong, when the Faith is in danger, it’s
Support Our Apostolate! Please consider making a small paypal donation to The Recusant.