"Why I Favor Our Superiors Legalizing Our Situation In The Church"

Q. Since you are the first French priest ordained for the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, were you close to Archbishop Lefebvre? How did he inspire you?

A. Yes, I was close to Archbishop Lefebvre. I knew him well and I strongly appreciated him. He was so cordial, pleasant, a great prelate, but humble, simple, thoughtful for those who surrounded him. He had heart. It was difficult to not love him. He had a magnetic per-

sonality. I knew him while during my seminary days at Santa Chiara, the French Seminary in Rome. We were in the midst of the Second Vatican Council in 1964. The seminarians followed, as much as they could, this ecclesiastical event.

The seminary professors often invited a particular conciliar father to spend the evening with us. They were of every tendency. It certainly brought some of us joy to hear Archbishop Lefebvre on the two or three occasions he was invited. Differing from the others, he spoke little about the council. Rather he spoke about the priesthood to which we desired Ordination. Like several of my fellow seminarians, I appreciated his presentation of the Catholic priesthood.

In the midst of the council, everything was changing. In a university seminary, minds react quickly, undergo influences, and seek to understand. We participated at the seminary in all the systematic changes of everything — of the common life, of the house rules, of theology, of scholastics. In the midst of this spiritual and intellectual agitation, we needed to be careful, to reflect, to inquire, and to read a lot in order to remain informed.

We painstakingly followed such journals as Nouvelles de Chrétienté, Itinéraires, and La Pensée Catholique to follow the conciliar debates. Without these journals, I do not know if I would be a priest today. Without Archbishop Lefebvre, I certainly would not be. The superiors of the French seminary would not have accepted me. My mind was not open to the proposed novelties.

Our little group of traditional seminarians quickly saw ourselves becoming the object of criticism. When many of us were refused tonsure in 1968, we turned to Archbishop Lefebvre. Having resigned as superior general of the Spiritans, Archbishop Lefebvre was now free to found a seminary in Fribourg, Switzerland. I remember when he approached Bishop Charriere of Fribourg about this project. The bishop accepted it and even encouraged him. The archbishop saw the finger of God.

I became part of the first class of nine seminarians. My diocesan bishop at the time authorized the transfer. Being the most experienced seminarian — I already had four years of seminary under my belt — gave me the opportunity to become close to Archbishop Lefebvre. During walks, he would gladly converse with us. He even confided in us spontaneously, spoke of his projects, of his priestly ideal, of his hesitations. He often shared his African memories, his memories of the council, his decision to publish his essay, "To Remain Catholic, Must We Become Protestant?"

This essay explains the whole of Archbishop Lefebvre. He hated the modern world’s revolutionary spirit that refused subjection, submission, subordination to a created order, to a divine order. Archbishop Lefebvre had been formed by the thinking of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XII. These were his masters. He remained faithful to them all his life. For Archbishop Lefebvre, God as Trinity is everything.

Oh, but the Pontiff was doing something very harmful to the Church by disallowing the consecrations. Without traditional bishops to ordain seminarians, where were traditional priests supposed to come from?

My current pastor attended a very liberal seminary in the 1970s.

I live in the Diocese of Trenton, a very liberal diocese (it is common practice in this diocese to stand during the consecration, for example).

My pastor celebrates the Mass of St. Pius V every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation and on many other feasts (Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, etc.) besides.

We have Novenas, First Friday devotions, recitation of the Rosary, Benediction, Holy Hour, Forty Hours' Adoration and other devotions.

My pastor will christen, wed and bury his parishioners according to the Rite of St. Pius V whenever he is asked.

We have a Schola he organized for the promotion of plainchant.

Every sermon he gives is based on the the Scriptures, the Fathers and the insights of the saints to which he has special devotion like St. Francis de Sales and especially St. John Vianney.

The CCD is taught according to the Baltimore Catechism.

All this from a priest who was four years old when the Second Vatican Council was convened.

He has done all this without needing to be ordained by Richard Williamson.

He is a living example that God will provide good priests for his Church under the most adverse conditions - with or without the help of the SSPX.

He was the only bulwark against the complete destruction of the old Mass.

The SSPX needs to believe this. But it is not necessarily true. Abp. Lefebvre did an enormous amount of good work for the Church, work which needs to be recognized and acknowledged by many who unjustly scorn the man.

And he did so with a good conscience, for the purpose of saving the Traditional Mass and Traditional Catholicism--not for reasons of malice to defy the Pope.

I agree. I believe that Abp. Lefebvre acted according to the dictates of his conscience as well.

That isn't the point. The point is that the bishops of the SSPX need to recognize the objective fact that their consecrations were irregular and that whatever the circumstances of their consecrations they need to regularize them according to the canonical norms of the Church.

The SSPX is needed as a leaven within the Church - not marginalized outside the Church as a testament to the ego of the Williamsons of the world.

Williamson is made the excuse for a rejection of SSPX, I think.

Williamson is not made the excuse, he makes himself the reason why the SSPX cannot move forward.

It is his insistence that the Holy See retrovalidate his consecration that is holding up everything. The Holy See cannot declare his consecration valid without giving a prefabricated excuse for schism to every leftist bishop in the world. He knows this and he is insisting on this point because he knows that if the SSPX and the Holy See reconcile, his three brother bishops will retain their office while he will most likely be laicized.

But any fraternity may have a weak link.

I agree. That is why I, unlike some, do not like to generalize about the entire SSPX due to the actions of a few members.

He has never been representative--and even Rome knows this.

I agree. The question arises: why then does the SSPX defer to Williamson's agenda?

Because if Fellay et al. overruled him, he would create a schism in the SSPX and greatly damage the society.

This is why Hoyos negotiates cordially with the other three bishops, but not with him.

I agree. Williamson has basically told the Holy See that Williamson, who has never been in communion with the Holy See at any time in his entire life, gets to dictate what the Holy See considers valid or invalid.

There is no point in talking to someone who only listens to himself.

Look, I have never heard that the situation is as you suggest, that Williamson is demanding that his consecration be validated. On the surface such a request is superfluous since the consecrations were absolutely valid, though not licit. Are you suggesting that the Archbishop had not consecrated bishops validly? How can this be since Rome has never questioned the validity of the consecrations? I have no idea where you are coming from with this. The bishops of SSPX are all valid bishops and are certainly recognized as such by the Pontiff. You seem to be confusing validity with legality.

The situation is very dangerous for the SSPX right now. It does not quite trust Rome to keep its word--and it has the Vatican crackdown on FSSP as an example of how the Holy See is still willing to stick it to traditionalists. Now may indeed be the right time for "regularization"--but this could also be a ploy to split the Society. Right now it is flourishing. In fact, it is only by maintaining a quasi-independent stance that the Society has been able to preserve the traditional faith from the surrounding corruption. Once it becomes fully subject to Rome, it becomes subject to the prevailing corruptive influence--with a chance that the traditionalist movement will be set back considerably, perhaps for hundreds of years.

A couple of years ago I read "The History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson and the one thing I came away with was how it is a miracle Christianity even made it past the first few years after the Resurrection of Christ. After that I was stunned that it actually flourished what with all the heresies and persecutions and turmoil that have been constant throughout the centuries.

You're right - which is why it's probably kind of pointless to worry overmuch. But it is sure dismaying at this point in time to look at the empty pews in our parishes and wonder why the progressives can't or won't see the fruit of their labors.

As an aside... I was amazed to hear tonight on the "World Over Live" that more than a couple of people wrote in regarding the Ratzinger interview - and they were upset that Ratzinger seemed to suggest a return of *some* Latin in the Mass as well as an ad orientem position of the priest - and these are what you would assume would be fairly conservative Catholics who watch EWTN... and they are obviously ignorant of the history of the Church. Catechism is and has been so poor which is a scandal in itself.

I used the word "validate" in the nontechnical sense of "acknowledge as necessary, morally justified, a positive thing."

Sacramentally speaking the consecrations were indisputably valid.

Williamson has demanded that the Holy See effectively announce: "We were totally wrong and Abp. Lefebvre was totally right. Williamson is now and has always been a bishop in good standing, we're sorry we bothered him." Fellay, of course, takes a far more reasonable stance than this - which is one of the reasons why Williamson is now in Argentina.

In fact, it is only by maintaining a quasi-independent stance that the Society has been able to preserve the traditional faith from the surrounding corruption.

That was true at one time. The circumstances have changed - now it is the wreckers who are mumbling and talking of schism.

Their most deeply desired goals: the legitimation of divorce, sodomy and onanism along with the destruction of celibacy and the "ordination of women" are now 35 years behind schedule.

A heretical schism has already erupted in Rochester and in Austria.

They are losing their grip - even their liturgical triumphs are being eroded now.

Their greatest hope was that they could eliminate enough vocations to force the Church to readmit to ministry the thousands of priests who abandoned celibacy in the early 1970s (I call them the Saturday Night Fever priests) - but those disgraces are now entering their 60s.

That "secret weapon" has essentially thrown in the towel.

The traditional moment is hard upon us and we need as many hands in the Barque of Peter as we can get.

... the Holy See itself had rejected traditional Catholicism--and was determined to obliterate its practices, including any traces of its classical theology...

LOL It is somehow, oddly, comforting to see how little things have changed...

Excerpt from Fides et Ratio:

The enduring originality of the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas

43. A quite special place in this long development belongs to Saint Thomas, not only because of what he taught but also because of the dialogue which he undertook with the Arab and Jewish thought of his time. In an age when Christian thinkers were rediscovering the treasures of ancient philosophy, and more particularly of Aristotle, Thomas had the great merit of giving pride of place to the harmony which exists between faith and reason. Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God, he argued; hence there can be no contradiction between them.44

More radically, Thomas recognized that nature, philosophy's proper concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine Revelation. Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfilment,45 so faith builds upon and perfects reason. Illumined by faith, reason is set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobedience of sin and finds the strength required to rise to the knowledge of the Triune God. Although he made much of the supernatural character of faith, the Angelic Doctor did not overlook the importance of its reasonableness; indeed he was able to plumb the depths and explain the meaning of this reasonableness. Faith is in a sense an “exercise of thought”; and human reason is neither annulled nor debased in assenting to the contents of faith, which are in any case attained by way of free and informed choice.46

This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology. In this connection, I would recall what my Predecessor, the Servant of God Paul VI, wrote on the occasion of the seventh centenary of the death of the Angelic Doctor: “Without doubt, Thomas possessed supremely the courage of the truth, a freedom of spirit in confronting new problems, the intellectual honesty of those who allow Christianity to be contaminated neither by secular philosophy nor by a prejudiced rejection of it. He passed therefore into the history of Christian thought as a pioneer of the new path of philosophy and universal culture. The key point and almost the kernel of the solution which, with all the brilliance of his prophetic intuition, he gave to the new encounter of faith and reason was a reconciliation between the secularity of the world and the radicality of the Gospel, thus avoiding the unnatural tendency to negate the world and its values while at the same time keeping faith with the supreme and inexorable demands of the supernatural order”.47

44. Another of the great insights of Saint Thomas was his perception of the role of the Holy Spirit in the process by which knowledge matures into wisdom. From the first pages of his Summa Theologiae,48 Aquinas was keen to show the primacy of the wisdom which is the gift of the Holy Spirit and which opens the way to a knowledge of divine realities. His theology allows us to understand what is distinctive of wisdom in its close link with faith and knowledge of the divine. This wisdom comes to know by way of connaturality; it presupposes faith and eventually formulates its right judgement on the basis of the truth of faith itself: “The wisdom named among the gifts of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the wisdom found among the intellectual virtues. This second wisdom is acquired through study, but the first 'comes from on high', as Saint James puts it. This also distinguishes it from faith, since faith accepts divine truth as it is. But the gift of wisdom enables judgement according to divine truth”.49

Yet the priority accorded this wisdom does not lead the Angelic Doctor to overlook the presence of two other complementary forms of wisdom—philosophical wisdom, which is based upon the capacity of the intellect, for all its natural limitations, to explore reality, and theological wisdom, which is based upon Revelation and which explores the contents of faith, entering the very mystery of God.

Profoundly convinced that “whatever its source, truth is of the Holy Spirit” (omne verum a quocumque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est) 50 Saint Thomas was impartial in his love of truth. He sought truth wherever it might be found and gave consummate demonstration of its universality. In him, the Church's Magisterium has seen and recognized the passion for truth; and, precisely because it stays consistently within the horizon of universal, objective and transcendent truth, his thought scales “heights unthinkable to human intelligence”.51 Rightly, then, he may be called an “apostle of the truth”.52 Looking unreservedly to truth, the realism of Thomas could recognize the objectivity of truth and produce not merely a philosophy of “what seems to be” but a philosophy of “what is”.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.