[STILL ON THE WRONG WAY...!]
Interview with Bp Fellay to the German newspaper “Die Tagespost” on June 28, 2018
"We are a disruptive factor in the church"
In 1988, the SSPX superior Bernard Fellay was illegally consecrated
a Bishop. Today he hopes for a reconciliation. An encounter in
Stuttgart.
By Regina Einig
Excellency, how did you celebrate your episcopal consecration 30
years ago? Was that for you a definitive separation of the Society from
Rome or an interim stage in conflict where you had the reconciliation
in mind?
If it had been a separation from Rome then, I would not be here
today. The Archbishop would not have consecrated me for that, and I
would have rejected it. It was not a question of a separation from the
Church, but of a demarcation from the modern spirit, from the fruits of
the Council. Meanwhile, others confess that something went wrong there.
Many thoughts and aspects that we fought and combat are now also
confirmed by others. We never said that the council directly made
heretical statements. (LEFEBVRE DID, FELLAY FAILS) But the wall of protection against error has been
removed, and in this way error has arisen. The faithful need protection.
This is the constant struggle of the quarreling Church to defend the
Faith.
But not all those who criticize the "Council of the Media",
including the emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, are making it a conflict at
the point of bring excommunicated.
Why have you not strengthened the ranks of traditionalists within the Church and fought for the truth in unity with Rome?
This is partly due to the history of the French. Since the French
Revolution, a good number of French Catholics have been fighting against
the error of Liberalism. Therefore, events during and after the Council
were perceived there much more sensitively and attention than in
Germany. It was not about blatant errors, but about tendencies, about
opening doors and windows. The reforms after that showed it more clearly
than the Council itself. The problem crystallized in the New Mass. In
Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre was told: "The one or the other. Celebrate the
New Mass one day, and everything is fine." Our arguments against the
New Mass did not count [for them]. The Missal of Paul VI was written in
collaboration with Protestant theologians. If one is urged to celebrate
this Mass, then there really is a problem. And we were urged [to
celebrate it].
Did your rejection of the new Mass strengthen both you and
Archbishop Lefebvre's view that the separation from Rome is the will of
God?
I insist: we never parted with the Church.
But the fact of excommunication speaks for itself. Otherwise why did Pope Benedict XVI remove them?
In the Catholic law of 1917, episcopal consecration without the
mandate of the Pope is not considered a schism, but only as an abuse of
power, and without excommunication. The whole history of the Church has a
different view on the problem of episcopal ordinations, which take
place without the order of the Pope. This is very important.
Why is that so important?
In 1988, the new Code of Law was already in force - and the Code of 1917 also irged the Bishop to be faithful to the Holy See.
We were in dire straits because Rome had appointed a Bishop for us.
The meeting between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre on May
5, 1988, was about the date of the consecration. Archbishop Lefebvre and
Cardinal Ratzinger could not agree. Archbishop Lefebvre had made a
proposal. I am sure that if Cardinal Ratzinger had confirmed the date of
15 August as a dedication date without a change of candidate, the
archbishop would have accepted it. But the appointment remained open.
When Archbishop Lefebvre asked the cardinal, "Why not at the end of the
year?" He received the answer, "I do not know, I can not say it."
Therefore, the archbishop thought they were playing with him. That was
certainly a point of mistrust. And mistrust is still a key word in our
story. We're working to overcome that and then something comes up again -
it's really hard.
(Editor's note: The emeritus Pope told the editors that he no
longer remembered the details, but was fairly sure that the question
played only a minor role.
John Paul II had firmly committed to the episcopal
consecrations. At the end of the conversation, Archbishop Lefebvre had
signed the Protocol, which, if he had remained at his ‘yes’, would have
arrived to an agreement. An official of the Congregation of the Faith
had reached Abp Lefebvre in Albano the following day. Abp Lefebvre
explained to everyone that he had been unable to sleep through the night
and had come to realize that in reality, the unity was only to be used
to destroy his work.)
Why did not Cardinal Ratzinger, a renowned connoisseur and
supporter of the Catholic tradition and a friend of the traditional
Mass, reassure the archbishop's suspicions?
He did not understand how deep the Archbishop's motives were, and
the insecurity of the faithful and priests. Many have simply had enough
of the post-conciliar scandals and annoyances, as well as the way the
new Mass was celebrated. If Cardinal Ratzinger had understood us, he
would not have acted that way. And I think he regretted that. Therefore,
as a Pope, he then tried to repair the damage with the Motu Proprio and
lifted the excommunications. We are really thankful for his attempts at
reconciliation.
But Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, also had to consider the difficulties and
irritations of the other believers: it is irritating, for example, that
the members of the Society contradict each other in essential points
such as the question of the validity of the Mass. Some of your followers
believe that by visiting what they see as the "heretical" new mass, the
Sunday duty is not fulfilled.
I do not agree with that. We are already talking about the
invalidity of many [New] Masses. But to say that all Masses are invalid,
that is not the line of the Society. We never said that. In the
discussion with Rome, we have always emphasized that we recognize the
validity of the New Mass when it is celebrated according to the books
and with the intention to do what is required of the Church. There is a
distinction between valid and good.
Where is the difference for you?
The New Mass has shortcomings and risks. Of course, not every New
Mass is a direct scandal (FALSE, EVERY NEW MASS IS ILLICIT AND SCHISMATIC), but the repeated celebration of the New Mass
leads to a weak belief or even a loss of faith. You see every day how
fewer priests still believe in the real presence. At the old Mass, the
liturgy nourishes the faith; one goes to the rock, one is strengthened
in this belief; certain actions lead us further in faith, for example,
in the belief in the real presence, in the sacrifice - only by kneeling,
for example, by the silence, the attitude of the priest. At the New
Mass one must bring the faith, one hardly receives anything directly
from the rite. The rite is flat.
But even before the liturgical reform there were priests with
weak faith, modernists and heretics. The Liberal Council Fathers you
criticized all grew up with the old Mass and were ordained in the old
rite. Do conversions that are promoted today through the New Mass -
think of Nightfever - for self-deception?
No, I do not say that. All I'm saying is, if you receive a
president and have the choice between a silver trumpet and a brass
trumpet, will you take the brass trumpet? That would be an insult, you
do not do that. And even the best New Masses are like brass trumpets
compared to the old liturgy. For the good God, you have to take the
best.
In a sermon you recently said, "How dare you make such a
miserable, empty and flat Mass? That is not the way to honor God." And
today, the new Mass is the most precious thing in the lives of Catholic
believers, and even today the Church brings forth martyrs and saints.
Why do not you differentiate in the predication?
I agree that one must distinguish in the theological discussion.
But in a sermon one can not present everything so theologically. It also
requires a bit of rhetoric to shake up the souls a bit and wake people
up and open their eyes.
Pope Francis wants to give the Society a hand for
reconciliation. Do you still expect an agreement or has this opportunity
been missed?
I am optimistic. But I cannot anticipate the hour of God. If the
Holy Ghost is able to influence the current Pope, then he will do the
same with the next one. That's what happened. And also with Pope
Francis. When Pope Francis was elected, I thought: ‘Now comes the
excommunication.’ The opposite was the case: Cardinal Müller wanted to
excommunicate us and Pope Francis rejected it. He told me personally: "I
will not judge you!" The reconciliation will come. Our Mother Church is
currently incredibly torn. The Conservatives want us and have said so
in the Congregation of the Faith. The German bishops do not want us at
all. Rome has to reckon with all these elements - we understand that. If
we were simply accepted, there would be war in the church. There is the
fear that we could triumph. Pope Francis told journalists: "I will make
sure that it is no triumph for you."
But tensions and fears also exist within the Society members. In
France, many priests and lay people have separated from the Society,
because the negotiations with the Vatican have stirred up mistrust. How
would the Society members reconcile with Rome?
That will depend on what Rome demands of us. Let's go ahead and
give us enough guarantees - then no one goes away. Mistrust is based on
the fear of having to accept the novelties. If you ask us to go into new
ways, then nobody comes.
What makes you so sure that everyone could go along? But the
announcement of the talks has already triggered massive unrest and
resignations. Which conclusion could reassure their followers? The
mistrust would not simply be gone after an agreement.
This is true. But goodness is there, benevolence. For years, we
have been working with Rome to rebuild trust. (LEFEBVRE SAID THESE MODERNISTS COULDN'T BE TRUSTED FELLAY THINKS OTHERWISE) And we have made great
progress despite all the reactions. If we come to a reasonable agreement
with normal conditions, very few will stay away. I am not afraid of a
new split in Tradition if the right thing is found with Rome. (LEFEBVRE SAID NO AGREEMENT WITH MODERNIST ROME UNTIL IT CONVERTS FELLAY DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS) We may
question certain points of the Council. Our interlocutors in Rome have
told us: “The main points - religious freedom, ecumenism, new mass - are
open questions.” This is an incredible progress. Until now it has been
said: “You must obey.” Meanwhile, curia workers tell us: “they should
open a seminary in Rome, a university for the defense of Tradition.”
It's not all black and white anymore.
What would a reasonable solution look like?
A Personal Prelature.
If the legal form has already been found and the talks in Rome are going well, what has failed the decisive step so far?
Last year, Archbishop Pozzo told us that the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Congregation approved the text we were to sign. We
should agree with a Personal Prelature. One and a half months later,
Cardinal Müller decided to revise the text and demand a clearer
acceptance of the Council and the legitimacy of the New Mass. First of
all, we opened discussion channels, then they blocked them. What do you
really want from us? This is where the devil works. It is a spiritual
fight.
Do you personally trust the Holy Father Pope Francis?
We have a very good relationship. (YIKES GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE FREEMASON ANTIPOPE?) If we let him know that we are in
Rome, the door is open to him. He is always helping us on a smaller
scale. For example, he told us, "I have problems when I do something
good for you. I help Protestants and Anglicans - why can not I help the
Catholics? "Some want to prevent the agreement. We are a disruptive
factor in the church. The Pope stands in between.
(He smiles and shows a handwritten, French-written letter from the Holy Father to him beginning with the address Cher frere, cher fils - dear brother, dear son).
