Sandro Magister gives us from his blog Chiesa an interview with Bishop Fellay head of the SSPX. The interview stands without my comments, only by highlights in red:
Pope Francis and the Society of Saint Pius X: a paradoxical benevolence?
by Bernard Fellay
It
is necessary here to use the word “paradoxical,” the paradox of wanting
to advance toward we might almost say “Vatican III,” in the worst sense
that could be given to that expression, and on the other hand wanting
to tell the Society: “You are welcome here.” This is really a paradox,
almost an attempt to combine opposites.
I do not think that it
is because of ecumenism. Some might think so. Why don’t I think that it
is because of ecumenism? Just look at the general attitude of the
bishops on this subject of ecumenism: they have their arms wide open to
everybody except us!
Very often people have explained to us why
we were ostracized, saying: “They don’t treat you like the others
because you claim to be Catholics. Now, with that, you create confusion
among us, and therefore they don’t want you.” Several times we have
heard this explanation which rules out ecumenism. Well then! If this
approach, which consists of saying, “We accept everybody in the
household,” does not apply to us, what then is left? I think that the
pope is left.
If at first Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis, did
not see the Society in a particular way that is different from this
ecumenical perspective that I just mentioned, I think that there would
be nothing at all. I even think that instead we would already be
laboring once again under penalties, censures, excommunication, the
declaration of schism, and that whole attempt to eliminate a bothersome
group.
Then why was Benedict XVI and why is Pope Francis now so
benevolent toward the Society? I think that the two do not necessarily
have the same perspective.
In the case of Benedict XVI, I think
that it was his conservative side, his love for the old liturgy, his
respect for the previous discipline in the Church. I can say that many,
and I mean many priests, and even groups that had problems with the
modernists in the Church and had recourse to him when he was still a
cardinal found in him—at first as a cardinal, then as pope—a benevolent
respect, a desire to protect and to help them at least, as much as he
could.
In Pope Francis we do not see that attachment either to
the liturgy or to the old discipline. We could even say, quite the
opposite, given his many contrary statements, and this is what makes it
more difficult and more complicated to understand his benevolence.
And
nevertheless, I think that there are nevertheless several possible
explanations, but I admit that I do not have the final word on the
subject.
One of the explanations is Pope Francis’ perspective on
anything that is marginalized, what he calls the “peripheries of life.”
I would not be surprised if he considered us as one of these
peripheries which he manifestly prefers. And from that perspective, he
uses the expression “walk forward” with people on the periphery, hoping
to manage to improve things. Therefore it is not a fixed decision to
succeed immediately: a development, a walk, goes wherever it goes… but
at least you are being rather peaceful, polite, without really knowing
what the result might be. Probably this is one of the deeper reasons.
Another
reason: we see also Pope Francis rather constantly critiquing the
established Church, what is called in English the establishment—we say
that from time to time in French, too—reproaching the Church for being
self-satisfied, a Church that no longer looks for the lost sheep, the
one that is in trouble, at all levels, whether poverty on the one hand
or even physical danger... But we see in Pope Francis that this concern,
despite the blatant appearances, is not just a concern about material
things... We see very well that when he says “poverty” he includes also
spiritual poverty, the poverty of souls that are in sin, that should be
brought out of it and led back to the Dear Lord.
Even though it
is not always expressed that clearly, we find a number of expressions
that indicate this. And from this perspective, he sees in the Society a
community that is very active—especially when compared to the situation
in the establishment—very active, in other words it seeks and goes out
seeking souls, it has this concern about the spiritual welfare of souls,
and is ready to roll up its sleeves and work for it. He is acquainted
with Abp. Lefebvre; he read twice the biography written by Bp. Tissier
de Mallerais, which shows, without a doubt, an interest; and I think
that he liked it.
And also the contacts that he was able to have
in Argentina with our confreres, in whom he saw a sort of spontaneity
and also candor, for they hid absolutely nothing. Of course, they were
trying to get something for Argentina, where we were having difficulties
with the state concerning residency permits, but they hid nothing, they
did not try to dodge issues, and I think that he likes that.
This may
be the rather human side of the Society, but we see that the pope is
very human, he assigns a lot of importance to such considerations, and
this could explain a certain benevolence on his part.
Once
again, I am not saying the final word on this subject, and certainly
behind all this there is Divine Providence. Divine Providence which
manages to put good thoughts into the head of a pope who, on many
points, alarms us tremendously, and not just us: you can say that
everyone who is more or less conservative in the Church is scared by
what is happening, by what is being said, and nevertheless Divine
Providence manages to bring us through these reefs in a very surprising
way.
Very surprising, because it is clear that Pope Francis
wants to let us live and survive. He even said to anyone who cares to
listen that he would never do the Society any harm. He also said that we
are Catholics. He refused to condemn us for causing a schism, saying:
“They are not schismatics, they are Catholics,” even though after that
he used a somewhat enigmatic expression, namely that we are on the way
toward full communion.
We wish that we could have a clear
definition sometime of this term “full communion,” because you can see
that it does not correspond to anything precise. It is an opinion… you
don’t really know what it is. Even quite recently, in an interview given
by Msgr. Pozzo about us, he repeats a quotation that he attributes to
the pope himself—we can therefore take it as an official position—the
pope, speaking to Ecclesia Dei confirmed that we were Catholics on the
way toward full communion. And Msgr. Pozzo explained how this full
communion can come about: by the acceptance of the canonical form, which
is rather surprising: the idea that a canonical form would resolve all
the problems with communion!
A little further on, in the same
interview, he says that this full communion consists of accepting the
major Catholic principles, in other words the three levels of unity in
the Church, which are the faith, the sacraments and the government. In
speaking about faith, he speaks here instead of the magisterium. But we
have never called into question any one of these three elements. And
therefore we never called in question our full communion, but we skip
the adjective “full,” and say quite simply: “We are in communion
according to the classic term used in the Church; we are Catholics; we
are Catholics and we are in communion, because the rupture of communion
is precisely schism.”
The visits of the prelates sent from Rome: open doctrinal questions?
These
visits have been very interesting. Obviously, some individuals in the
Society have looked at them with quite a bit of mistrust: “What are
those bishops doing in our home?” Well! That was not my perspective.
[...] Therefore I was very insistent, I said several times: “So come see
us.” They never wanted to. Then, all of a sudden [...] a cardinal, an
archbishop and two bishops came to see us, to visit us in different
circumstances, some in the seminaries, and also in one priory.
The
first thing that they all told us—was it a party line or their personal
opinion? I don’t know, but the fact is—they all told us: “These
discussions are taking place between Catholics; this has nothing to do
with ecumenical discussions; we are among Catholics.” Therefore from the
start they swept aside all those ideas such as “You are not completely
in the Church, you are halfway there, you are outside—God knows
where!—schismatics...” No! We are discussing things among Catholics.
This is the first point, which is very interesting, very important.
Despite what is still said in Rome today in some instances.
The
second point—which I think is even more important—is that the questions
addressed in these discussions are the classic questions that have
always been stumbling blocks. Whether it is a question of religious
liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, the new Mass, or even the new rites of
the sacraments... Well, they all told us that these discussions were
about open questions.
I think that this reflection is of capital
importance. Until now they always insisted on saying: You have to
accept the Council. It is difficult to state exactly the real
significance of this expression: “accept the Council.” What does that
mean? Because the fact is that the documents of the Council are utterly
unequal: they are to be accepted according to a gradated criterion,
obligatory to different degrees. If the document is a document about
faith, there is an obligation pure and simple. But those who, in a
totally erroneous way, claim that this Council is infallible, demand
total submission to the whole Council. Well, then, if that is what
“accepting the Council” means, we say that we do not accept the Council.
Precisely because we deny its infallibility.
If there are some
passages of the conciliar documents that repeat what the Church said
before, in an infallible way, obviously these passages are and remain
infallible. And we accept that, there is no problem with that. This is
why, when someone says “accept the Council,” it is necessary to
distinguish clearly what is meant by that. Nevertheless, even with this
distinction, until now we have sensed an insistence on Rome’s part: “You
must accept these points; they are part of the teaching of the Church
and therefore you must accept them.” And even today—not just in Rome,
but with the great majority of the bishops– we see this attitude toward
us, this serious reproach: “You do not accept the Council.”
And
now all of a sudden, on these points that have been stumbling blocks,
the emissaries from Rome tell us that they are open questions. An open
question is a question that you can discuss. And this obligation to
adhere to a position is substantially and even perhaps totally mitigated
or even removed. I think that this is a crucial point. We will have to
see later whether this is confirmed, whether we can really discuss it
freely or better, honestly, with all the respect due to the authorities,
so as not to aggravate even more the current situation in the Church
which is so confused, precisely about the faith, about what must be
believed, and here we demand this clarity, this clarification from the
authorities. We have demanded it for a long time. We say: “There are
ambiguous points in this Council, and it is not up to us to clarify
them. We can point out the problem, but the one who has the authority to
clarify them is actually Rome.” Nevertheless, once again, the fact that
these bishops tell us that these are open questions is, in my opinion,
crucial.
The discussions themselves have played out according to
the personality of our interlocutors, more or less happily, because
there were also good exchanges [in which we were] not necessarily in
agreement... Nevertheless, I think that all of these interlocutors are
unanimous in their appreciation: they were satisfied with the
discussions. Satisfied also with their visits. They congratulated us on
the quality of our seminaries, saying: “They are normal (fortunately!
You have to start with that…), these are not narrow-minded, obtuse
people, but lively, open, joyous, normal individuals, quite simply. And
this remark was made by all the visitors. This is the human side,
undeniably, but we must not forget that either.
For me, these
discussions, or more precisely this easier aspect of the discussions is
important. For one of the problems is mistrust. Certainly we have this
mistrust. And I think that we can also say that Rome certainly has it in
relation to us. And as long as this mistrust prevails, the natural
tendency is to take whatever is said the wrong way or to assume the
worst possible scenario when solutions are suggested. And as long as we
are in this mindset of mistrust, we will not make very much progress. It
is necessary to arrive at some minimal trust, a climate of serenity, in
order to eliminate these a priori accusations. I think that this is
still the mindset in which we find ourselves, in which Rome finds
herself. And it takes time. Both sides need to come around to
appreciating persons and their intentions correctly, so as to get beyond
all that. I think that this will take time.
This also requires
acts that display good will and not the intention to destroy us. Now we
still have this idea in the back of our minds, it is a rather widespread
attitude: “If they want us, it is because they want to stifle us, and
eventually to destroy us, to absorb us totally, to disintegrate us.”
That is not an integration, that is disintegration! Obviously, as long
as this idea prevails, we can’t expect anything.
____________
The original video recording of the interview with Fellay on March 4, 2016:
> Entretien avec Mgr Bernard Fellay
__________
English translation by
Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
