[Catholic Caucus] FOR THE RECORD: Superior of FSSP discusses Synopsis of French Bishops' TLM Survey

Rorate Caeli ^ | July 25, 2024 | Peter Kwasniewski

[ebb tide]

[Catholic Caucus] FOR THE RECORD: Superior of FSSP discusses Synopsis of French Bishops' TLM Survey

Considering how the Synopsis of the French Bishops' Survey on the TLM is being weaponized against traditional Catholics, it seems fitting to present here, for the record, a translation of the interview that Fr. Benoît Paul-Joseph, the superior of the FSSP's French district, gave to La Salon Beige on June 7, 2021. Recall that Fr. Paul-Joseph has met now twice with Pope Francis and may be considered to be in possession of the salient facts both at home and in Rome. - PK

(Salon-Beige introduction:) Following rumors of a forthcoming restriction of the right, recognized by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, to celebrate mass according to the 1962 missal, and the recent decision by Mgr Minnerath, Archbishop of Dijon, to expel the Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pierre (FSSP) from his diocese, Le Salon beige interviewed Abbé Benoît Paul-Joseph, superior of the FSSP's French district. In particular, we wanted to look back at the French Bishops' Conference's summary of the application of the Motu proprio Summorum pontificum, which is particularly critical of the FSSP.

La Salon Beige: A few months ago, the French Bishops' Conference published a summary of the results of a consultation commissioned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, listing a number of positive and negative points, the latter being the most numerous. The first of these concerns the unity of the Church, which would be damaged by the use of the Extraordinary Form. How do you respond to those who believe you are forming a parallel Church?

Fr. Paul-Joseph: In his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of “two expressions of the one Roman Rite”: one ordinary (the Missal of Paul VI) and the other extraordinary (the Missal of St. Pius V). So there is indeed a distinction between these liturgical forms, even though they belong to the same rite. But this is precisely the principle of unity, which necessarily includes plurality (otherwise it would be unicity): in the Church as elsewhere, unity does not mean uniformity, but rather the harmonious coming together of parts, with their proper differences. If “walking towards unity” means seeking to erase little by little everything that distinguishes us, then we're on the wrong track, and we're even destroying the richness and harmony of unity.

Secondly, in concrete terms, the apostolates entrusted to us always function more or less like a parish or chapel: a mission received from the local bishop, a dedicated pastor, a community of faithful, parish activities specific to the community, preparation for the sacraments, their celebration, apostolic initiatives carried out by the community's faithful, etc. The result is that, inevitably, the apostolate functions with relative autonomy: not with the aim of constituting a parallel Church, or “a parish within a parish”, but because it's a natural movement.

On the one hand, the faithful of the Extraordinary Form are accused of forming a separate, isolated, withdrawn group... and on the other, few French bishops have created a personal parish for this form in their diocese (as proposed in the motu proprio). In contrast to other countries, the FSSP doesn't even have a personal parish in France, and in some churches, your priests have limited slots, sometimes causing frustration among the faithful. Isn't there a contradiction here: if you're to be better integrated, shouldn't you be entrusted with fully-fledged parishes?

What is certain is that several of our apostolates now find themselves in a complicated situation in which the canonical framework does not correspond to the de facto situation. Let me explain: in several cities, the territorial parish to which our apostolate is attached and on which it depends is either of comparable size (number of faithful, parish activities, financial resources, etc.) or smaller. In the latter case, this creates an imbalance and friction, as we try to force a reality into a framework that is inappropriate because it is too small. Inevitably, this generates almost insoluble difficulties in terms of organization, communication and human relations. Such a situation - a fortiori when the church is shared between two communities - multiplies the risk of rancor and resentment, as the “hosted” community always has the feeling that it is being tolerated or welcomed, but in any case that it is not at home, even though it is more numerous and more dynamic than the one hosting it. In such a case, I believe that the personal parish is the best solution: the most natural and the most likely to allow for peaceful functioning (for comparison, in the USA, the FSSP has 39 personal parishes).

In reality, this is often a form of anachronism, in the sense that the canonical status of the apostolate (especially in the big cities) has not kept pace with its development. The priest and the faithful concerned therefore give the impression of going beyond the framework, but because it is not adapted! With the growth of many of our apostolates, this question has become inescapable.

One of the stumbling blocks is your rejection of concelebration. Is this really contrary to the letter and spirit of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum?

The question of concelebration is a delicate one, particularly in our institute, given our internal history and the crisis we've been through. As a preamble, let me remind you that if the majority of FSSP priests do not concelebrate, this is not due to an unofficial prohibition by their superiors, nor to an impossibility linked to their constitutions (which would be impossible), but to their personal choice, as the Church allows.

Secondly, it is also important to remember that, by virtue of their membership of the Fraternity of St. Peter, an Apostolic Society of Pontifical Right, whose history and very name originate in fidelity to the See of Peter, the priests of our institute are in full ecclesial communion. There can be no doubt about this.

The Motu Proprio does not speak directly of concelebration, but recalls the dignity of Paul VI's missal, asking priests not to exclude it on principle. In our case, our constitutions, definitively approved by the Holy See in 2003, recognize that celebration in the Extraordinary Form is constitutive of our charism. This means that an FSSP priest cannot receive a mission that would include the celebration of the liturgy in the Ordinary Form.

As for concelebration (in the Ordinary Form), while it is one of the signs of communion with the bishop, it is not the only one, nor is it the highest (it has only been practised since fairly recent times), and is in no way binding.

Also, the priests of the FSSP, because of the liturgical choice they have made, which is based on objective theological reasons, do not wish to concelebrate Mass in the ordinary form as provided for by canon and liturgical law. I can understand that this is difficult for some bishops to accept, but it seems unfair to me to suspect or penalize people who make use of a right, or to put their motives behind their choice. The priests of the FSSP have never questioned the validity of the Mass celebrated according to Paul VI's missal; on the contrary, they have always pointed out its inadequacies and ambiguities, in a filial spirit. That's why, since they have permission, they prefer not to concelebrate it.

In this regard, I would like to point out that the question of concelebration was submitted to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in 2010, which recalled that it is always a possibility, never an obligation.

This summary indicates that places dedicated to the Extraordinary Form have an average of between 20 and 70 worshippers. Does this correspond to the reality you know? And are baptisms really “one-off and exceptional”?

I can't understand how such figures could be given, and many people have expressed astonishment. For our part, we've been keeping relatively precise statistics for almost ten years. We find that in our sixty or so Mass locations, the average is around 200 worshippers. Apart from twenty or so locations where the average is less than 100, in the other apostolates we are well over the 70-plus mark. Over the past ten years, we have seen a steady increase in the number of our faithful of 8% per year; this increase is constant, both in absolute terms and in growth rates. What's more, between 2015 and 2021, we have been given a mission in ten new dioceses.

And you only have to attend a Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Form to see that it's mainly the younger generations who are joining us. This proves the missionary dimension of this liturgical form, which is not reserved for initiates but continues to attract souls to Jesus Christ. And that's what really counts.

Moreover, the youthfulness of our congregations and the large number of families mean that requests for baptisms are not only regular, but significant. To see for yourself, it's interesting to consult the parish registers in which baptisms are recorded: in relation to the number of priests or faithful in the entire parish territory, baptisms administered in the extraordinary form are far from exceptional!

Finally, my many visits to the towns where we are present have shown me that the number of adult baptisms and confirmations continues to grow. In 10 years, there has been an impressive progression: I no longer see confirmation ceremonies without adults, and there are few places where there are no catechumens.

Some bishops wonder about theological training and the poverty of preaching. Is the training provided in the FSSP seminary monitored?

This remark is surprising, to say the least: people often tell us that they have joined our apostolates because of the quality of the homilies, which they find clear, well-constructed and instructive, unlike those of many parishes in the ordinary form. Of course, the quality of a homily depends to a large extent on the priest's disposition and oratory skills, but I think that the FSSP priests least at ease in this kind of exercise will stick to a catechetical presentation, perhaps a little dry or elementary, but faithful to the Catholic faith and therefore never useless or out of place.

As for the formation in our seminary, it obviously complies with the provisions of the Holy See as specified in Canon Law. The seven years of seminary studies follow a comprehensive program called “Ratio Studiorum”. This was presented to the Holy See in 2012, via the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which submitted it to the Congregation for Catholic Education (the Roman congregation in charge of seminaries) for validation. Discussions took place and a number of clarifications were requested. It was finally in 2015 that this comprehensive document (which gives general norms, the number of hours for each subject and a description of the content of each course) received the approval of the Holy See.  In addition, the seminary has its own course catalog, specifying the precise content of each course, the essential elements of bibliography, the number of hours and the types of exams.

Speaking of seminaries, we've been following your interest in the Domaine de Pontigny, which was eventually sold to the Schneider Foundation. How far along are you in setting up a seminary in France? Are any bishops helping you in this search?

Given the development of the FSSP in France, it seemed appropriate at our last General Chapter in July 2018 to plan for the foundation of a formation house in France: our French-speaking seminarians are currently in formation at our bilingual seminary in Wigratzbad (Bavaria).

Because of its symbolic dimension, its geographical location, its size and its magnificent abbey church, Pontigny Abbey matched our specifications perfectly. Today, we still want to found a seminary in France, but we're looking for a place that meets our needs (geographical location, church, surface area). A number of bishops have shown me their goodwill or even their support in pursuing this project, sometimes pointing me in the direction of certain locations that seemed suitable.

During the health crisis, the faithful were deprived of the sacraments for a long time, and communion on the tongue was often suspended. Should rite take precedence over charity (not to contaminate one's neighbor), to take up another of the synthesis's criticisms? Should we really pit the health of the body against that of the soul?

Should the rite come before charity? Slogans are always reductive and caricature reality, and this one is no exception! In the heat of the health crisis and with the pressure put on by the Government, I think there was an over-reaction on the part of certain bishops, with a kind of complex in the face of the civil powers that led several pastors to play the good pupil, i.e. to maximize health measures. I think we've sometimes fallen into the unreasonable, literally. In the spring of 2020, the majority of dioceses in France issued instructions that communion should no longer be given directly on the tongue.

Beyond the question of the validity of such a ban, it was not supported by any scientific or medical study: it was taken for granted that distributing communion on the tongue carried a serious and proven risk of transmitting the virus. In other countries, however, bishops' conferences have set up a scientific committee to address the issue, and have concluded that the distribution of communion on the tongue does not entail excessive risks, or at least can be regulated from a health point of view.

In France, this caused a great deal of harm to many of the faithful, who didn't want to receive the Holy Eucharist in their hands, and had no choice but to stop taking communion, or to find a church where communion was given on the tongue. I don't think we can say that this is a matter of vanity, nor of ritual rigidity, still less of a form of Pharisaism: it has to do with faith in the Lord's real presence and cannot be regarded with disdain, all the more so at a time when we claim to respect ever more different ways of “living one's faith”.

---

TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: dictatorpope; frankenchurch; modernists

[ebb tide]

Ping

[ebb tide]

Refuting the Exaggerated and Belligerent Claims of the French Bishops’ Survey: Paix Liturgique

[Dr. Sivana]

Thank you for posting that. My personal experience confirms that the FSSP priests in the U.S. live as described in the article. We are grateful for them.