ChristendomNews

N° 3 January / February 2006

Rome and the SSPX,

the principles of our activity
 Christendom Nº 3
January-February 2006
•

Editorial
For Easter or Trinity Sunday?*
Since the private audience granted by Benedict XVI to Bishop Fel-
lay at the end of August, tongues have been wagging. The know-it alls
say: «We are moving towards a regularization of the SSPX with Rome».
And they make no bones about letting everyone know what they think
they know…
We knew the rumor, now there is the murmur: «It is being murmu-
red, with all due reservations, that the agreement will be signed around
Easter». As a matter of fact, Rome did wish to reach an agreement with
the SSPX for Easter, but that was in 2001! Never mind, after the mur-
murings, we will be treated to the whisperings!
Rather than placing words in Bishop Fellay’s mouth and even attri-
buting intentions to him, Christendom News chooses to let him speak. In this issue, you will find the integral text of
his conference given in Paris last December 11. There you will see that the principles guiding the activity of the SSPX
in this delicate affair are inspired by Faith. This reality is far superior to the rumors, the murmurs, the opportunistic
tactics and the nebulous strategies.
And the agreement, then! For Easter or Trinity Sunday?

Fr Alain Lorans

* From a French popular song, in which the return of a knight is indefinitely put off from Easter to Trinity Sun-
day and so on…

Pentecost Pilgrimage from Notre-Dame de Chartres to Sacré-Cœur de Montmartre

June 3, 4, 5, 2006
All is organized to receive foreigners, volunteers speaking various languages are there to help.
Over 1,000 volunteers take care of everything for the smooth running of the pilgrimage.
Water is provided for the pilgrims all along the road. Hot soup and bread are given out in the evening, and breakfast is offered every morning.
A medical team of doctors and RN is always present, and ready for any emergency.
Shuttles are organized to pick up exhausted pilgrims and drive them to the next meeting-point.

The association Pèlerinage de Tradition is organizing a great Catholic Pilgrimage to Compostella from July 1st to July 30, 2006
with daily Mass and the sacraments thanks to the presence of SSPX priests.
High Mass on Saturday 1 July at 5:00 pm at the school St Michel Garicoïts in Domezain (near St Palais, France).
Individual departures on Sunday 2 July starting at 5:00 am (low Masses, confessions and blessing of the pilgrims). Pilgrims journey on their own, and are free to
start when they want. They must provide for their food and lodging during the pilgrimage. The Association will help them out in case of necessity only. They meet
each day at a given place for Mass.
Arrival in Compostella is scheduled for Saturday, July 29 in the morning. Mass at 12:00 pm.
Sunday Masses at Compostella on Sunday, July 30.
Pilgrims will have to walk an average of 30 km (18.5 miles) per day. They will follow the “Camino Francès” which is about 835 km (519 miles) long, to be covered in
28 days. Pilgrims should be at least 16 years old.
Those who cannot make the whole pilgrimage, may join for part of it. The Association will give you the various
stopping places and will pick you up at the nearest train station to drive you to the “Camino”

For more information on these pilgrimages, please contact: pele.trad@wanadoo.fr


 • Rome and the SSPX
Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X,
the principles of our activity
Dear faithful,
We are going to consider the
relations between Rome and the
SSPX, between the SSPX and
Rome, at the light of the principles
which are our guidelines in these
relations. So much is being said.
There are all kinds of rumors and
as a consequence, many intentions
are attributed to us. So it seems
to me that it is not useless to re-
call a certain number of principles
which guided us and are still gui-
ding us and which are principles
used by Archbishop Lefebvre. And
this is all the more useful as we are
living through difficult and often
confusing times when all the mo-
dern media which should be brin-
ging more clarity are most of the
time doing nothing but increasing
the confusion.
We are Catholics and want
to remain Catholics.
The very first principle which
guided us and is guiding us is qui-
te simply the fact that we are
Catholics and mean to remain so.
The fact that we are here, that the
SSPX exists, is clearly inscribed
in a determined period of history,
and of the history of the Church.
Indeed, we see very clearly that
Archbishop Lefebvre was constrai-
ned – we may say against his will
– to found the SSPX. He was ur-
ged by seminarians in Rome, for
it is in Rome that it all began.
Seminarians studying in Roman
Conference of Bishop Fellay in Paris, December 11, 2005
seminaries and disappointed by
the formation they received went
to Archbishop Lefebvre and asked
him to do something. It was a reac-
tion against what was happening in
the Church. First, the Archbishop
did not want to get involved. But
the seminarians’ insistence: “Do
something for us!” would eventual-
ly lead him to open a house. It be-
gun with a seminary in Fribourg,
because, at that time, the universi-
ty of Fribourg seemed to have been
somewhat more preserved than
others. However, fairly soon, the
Archbishop realized that it would
not be enough to give seminarians
a good formation. Once ordai-
ned, they would end up in dioceses
which were in almost the same sta-
te as the seminaries they had just
left. They would lead an impossible
if not an infernal life. Thus appea-
red the need for an apostolic struc-
ture for these future priests, i.e. a
structure of priestly life and apos-
tolate. And again, the Archbishop
did not want to forestall divine
Providence. He considered the pro-
ject, he saw it, but he submitted it
to the seal of Providence which he
linked to the approval by the local
bishop, the bishop of Fribourg. He
said himself: “We will see there the
seal of Providence”. Thus was born
the SSPX, as if forced into existen-
ce from all sides: from the semina-
rians, from the local authorities,
from the bishop, Msgr. Charrière,
who invited the Archbishop to es-
tablish this work and to carry it
on. It was the beginning of a crisis
which has been dragging on… And
the reason for this foundation? It
was, once again, in order to remain
Catholic.
To remain Catholic means first
of all to have a total and absolute
attachment to the Catholic faith.
There is a symbol, called the Symbol
of Saint Athanasius – a symbol is a
creed -, which in the past was re-
cited every Sunday by every priest
and by all those who were bound
to say the breviary, and which la-
ter on was said only on the feast of
the Holy Trinity. This symbol, as
famous as the others, the Symbol
Quicumque, teaches that whosoever
wants to be saved must keep the faith
integrally, totally integral. He who
denies one single truth of the faith,
one single dogma, falls away from
the faith, and by this very fact lo-
ses the faith. Saint Paul puts it very
strikingly: All those who want to come
near God, before all things must believe
that He is, we must believe that He
exists. It is a very profound state-
ment. There are many other pas-
sages from the Holy Gospel, from
Holy Scripture which show us that
without faith it is impossible to
please God.
Faith is objective
The Council Vatican I would
build all its development on the
faith, which would explain the ve-
ry reason for the Church’s exis-
tence, precisely upon this senten-
ce of the Apostle of the Gentiles.
The first reason is the transmis-
sion of the faith that brings salva-
tion. Without faith, it is impossi-
ble to please God, it is impossible
to go to Heaven, it is impossible to
receive grace, and it is impossible
to live in the state of grace, to li-
ve with God in this supernatural li-
fe. This is really the basis. You find
this in the first question asked at
baptism: What do you ask from the
Church? Faith. What does faith procu�
re? Life everlasting. We want to go to

 Christendom Nº 3
January-February 2006
heaven. Well, the-
re are not a thou-
sand and one
ways. The Good
God gave us on-
ly one means of
going to heaven:
the Church,
and so Our
Lord. In order
to obtain our
incorporation
The enemy is inside, it is into Christ,
modernism. the Church
begins by giving us the faith. You
have noticed that we are living in
a very strange era when the faith is
attacked not only from the outsi-
de by its usual enemies, the unbe-
lievers, the atheists and so forth,
but the faith is today attacked even
from within the Church, craf-
tily, insidiously. Saint Pius X de-
nounced this enemy from within –
the enemy is inside, he would say
– it is modernism. Modernism very
cleverly used the words faith and be�
lieve and transformed them, chan-
ged their meaning profoundly. This
modernism goes hand in hand with
a new philosophy, modern philo-
sophy which is called subjective,
idealistic, while normal, perennial
philosophy is objective. And faith
is objective. We do not believe be-
cause we have invented something
which would please us, not becau-
se we would have made up a god or
a religion. No! God who is a being
outside of us, who is the creator,
our creator, God has spoken. He
spoke through the Prophets; He
spoke through His Son, Our Lord.
This is what we call an objective
faith. It is outside of us, and in or-
der to have the faith we must re-
ceive it, we must receive this re-
velation. God speaks and He can
neither deceive nor be deceived.
This is the basis for our acceptan-
ce of this revelation. However, all
is not simple in revelation. There
are complicated truths. This is why
they are called mysteries; they are
truths which are above us. We ha-
ve no proof, we cannot reason them
out, and we are obliged to accept

them as they are, because God said
it. The most striking example is
the sacred host. With our eyes we
see a circular form, we can smell it,
we can taste it, our senses tell us
it is bread. Faith tells us that on-
ce the words of consecration have
been uttered – this is my body-, it is
no longer bread, it is the sacred bo-
dy of Our Lord. We submit, there
is no human proof, no human de-
monstration; there is only this sub-
mission of our intelligence to the
Intelligence of God Who has spo-
ken. This is an example which must
be applied to the whole faith. This
submission is rendered to God,
and it extends to the Church, be-
cause this revelation must be han-
ded down from century to century,
from generation to generation by
creatures. Now, by their very hu-
man nature creatures are deficient,
so God to prevent this deficiency
gave an extraordinary privilege to
the Church.
His Church, the only one He
founded, the Catholic Church has
the extraordinary privilege of in-
fallibility in order that this revela-
tion may be handed down to other
generations without error or de-
viation. It is obvious that this gua-
rantee must be verifiable; it is lin-
ked to human actions. It is also
obvious that the Good God is not
going to bind Himself to human
actions in any way whatsoever; the-
re will be certain conditions. Thus
He will bind His Omnipotence
to the words pronounced by the
priest during the Mass. The words
of consecration – and no other –
will engage this Omnipotence and
produce an extraordinary effect.
When God speaks, what He says
produces its effect. This is the dif-
ference between the word of God
and the word of man. When God
says: this is my body, this word achie-
ves, makes real what is signified, in
the same manner as God said: “Let
there be light” and there was light; as
Our Lord said to a blind man: “See”,
and he saw; or to a leper: “I will it,
be thou made clean, and he was cu-
red; and to Lazarus who was dead
•
and all wrapped up: “Come forth”,
and he came forth. Such is God’s
power. In like manner, God will, so
to speak, bind himself to prevent
any possible deficiency thanks to
infallibility on certain conditions.
Those conditions were exposed by
the Church, there are four of them:
statements must be made clear-
ly and give a definition concerning
truths pertaining to faith or morals,
the pope must speak as head of the
Church and he must bind consciences.
If one of these elements is missing,
infallibility will not be engaged.
We see very clearly in the present
difficulties that while the popes
know these conditions they almost
never want to apply them.
We adhere to Catholic Rome
One of the most striking exam-
ples of this non-use of infallibili-
ty is Vatican Council II. Of all the
ecumenical councils – ecumeni-
cal means catholic, universal, i.e.
gathering bishops from the who-
le world – of all the ecumenical
councils, Vatican II is the only one
which did not want to be dogma-
tic, did not want to deal with dog-
ma. It stands out on its own. It
wanted to be pastoral. And seve-
ral Fathers of the Council, among
them Archbishop Lefebvre, in-
tervened with forcefully during
the council: “But let us define the
words and not leave ambiguities”.
Each time the answer was: “No de-
finitions, we want this council to
be pastoral”.
In itself, infallibility is some-
thing very precious to us Catholics;
and it makes life particularly easy.
We only have to believe. The pope
has spoken, causa finita, it is settled.
It’s very simple. You only have to
believe. And this is why when this
infallibility does not want to com-
mit itself, we come upon all sorts
of problems.
Archbishop Lefebvre expressed
this first principle of attachment
to the Catholic faith admirably on
November 21, 1974, and we may
say that it is still our charter today:
 • Rome and the SSPX
“We wholeheartedly adhere with all
our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of
the Catholic faith and of the traditions
necessary to keep this faith; to eternal
Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth”.
We wholeheartedly adhere to this
text. “To Catholic Rome” means
something. This Catholic Rome
is not an abstraction, let us be ve-
ry careful about this! It is not an
abstraction. It is a reality. When
the Archbishop says: We adhe-
re to Catholic Rome, this means
Catholic Rome today. It is not me-
rely adhesion to Michelangelo’s
Rome or Saint Peter’s Rome. It is
the Rome that exists today, with
the following characteristics: this
eternal Rome is Catholic, guardian
of the faith, preserving the faith.
Why do I speak thus? It is a se-
cond principle of our action which
we began to touch upon when dea-
ling with infallibility. Concerning
the council, we reach something
absolutely unheard of, and never
seen before. From these authori-
ties in which every Catholic was
accustomed to recognize infalli-
bility, from this teaching Church,
this mistress of wisdom and truth,
suddenly came teachings, reforms,
practices which did not ring true.
They were dissonant and wor-
se than that. Suddenly, we reali-
zed that what was said were errors
which the Church had condem-
ned. Suddenly, we saw that the-
re came to the council a whole ar-
From left to right: Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray
my of periti – theologians to which
all would be referred – and among
them we found many who had
been condemned. Thus those who
would were behind the council in
the 60’s were in general those who
had been condemned in the 50’s.
This is quite astonishing and truly
unheard of! They were not just
the periti (experts), but after the
council some of them would even
receive the cardinal’s hat as reward
for their eminent theology. We
saw that with cardinal de Lubac,
condemned in 1950, and forced to
leave his university chair, because
of his errors, because of his book
on the supernatural; Yves Congar,
also, created cardinal for his emi-
nent theology, who, condemned in
1952, had gone into exile. And the-
re are others still: in the United
States, the father of religious liber-
ty, Courtney Murray; in Germany,
the very famous Rahner, semi-
condemned; he was suspect and
had to submit every book to Rome
before its publication. And thus,
from this mouth which ought to
be the mouth of truth, came out all
sorts of clever things, very clever-
ly presented, for most of the time
they were not errors that could be
easily detected. And if there were
some, they were usually ambigui-
ties, words with a double meaning.
Bishop Weiss, a Dominican Father,
would complain during the council:
“But why don’t you say things mo-
re clearly?” Bishop Weiss was a mo-
dernist, and his interlocutor, a pe-
ritus, answered him: “We work at
introducing the greatest amount
of ambiguities into the texts. We
will draw out the consequences af-
terwards”. This is why some could
speak of “time bombs”.
No authority may compel us to
diminish our faith
So, when he made a judgment
after the council, the Archbishop
could declare: “On the other hand,
we refuse, and we have always re-
fused to follow the Rome of neo-
modernist and neo-protestant ten-
dencies which clearly showed itself
during the Council Vatican II and
after the council in all the reforms
issuing from it. Indeed, all these re-
forms contributed, and are contri-
buting, to the destruction of the
Church, the ruin of the priesthood,
the annihilation of the sacrifice
and the sacraments, the disappea-
rance of religious life, a naturalist
and Teilhardian teaching in the
universities, the seminaries, the ca-
techism classes, - a teaching sprin-
ging forth from liberalism and
Protestantism, which was condem-
ned several times by the solemn
Magisterium of the Church. No
authority, even the highest in the
hierarchy may compel us to aban-
don or diminish our Catholic faith
clearly expressed and professed by

 Christendom Nº 3
January-February 2006
the Magisterium of the Church for
19 centuries.”
No authority, even the highest in
the hierarchy may compel us to abandon
or diminish our Catholic faith! Many
of you had first-hand experience of
this, some with the liturgy, others
with a sermon, a book, a bishop’s
teaching which clashed with the
faith. And you found yourselves fa-
ced with this choice: either to stay
in the parish life to which you were
accustomed, or leave it to join so-
mething else, to join a gathering of
the banished and condemned, peo-
ple spurned by everyone. This is a
terrible tragedy! And quite recent-
ly, we told Rome about this trage-
dy: “Listen, we do not trust you.
If you want an agreement, that is
all very well! But first, before ma-
king an agreement, you have to re-
gain our confidence. Still today,
there are faithful, religious, sis-
ters, priests who join us because
of this scandal, because they have
been scandalized, hurt, wounded
in their faith, in their Catholic li-
fe. They know quite well who we
are when they approach us. We tell
them: “Beware! You run the risk of
being excommunicated, laicized…
it’s up to you, you make the choi-
ce!” And nevertheless, they would
rather incur those censures than
remain in the situation in which
they find themselves. So I conclu-
ded saying to the Roman autho-
rities: “If you want to regain our
confidence, words will not suffi-
ce, actions are required. You must
get things under control again.
You must condemn what must
be condemned: heresies, errors.
Whether it is matters of faith, of
morals, of discipline, of the liturgy,
these acts of condemnation must
be made known. Now, there must
also be positive actions. Catholic
life which is presently made im-
possible in the official Church, the
normal, traditional life must be ma-
de possible again. And this can on-
ly be done by favoring Tradition”.
I also told them that, if they were
hoping to get something from us,
they would have to set to work to

remove this label of “plague-stric-
ken” that sticks to us. We someti-
mes get the impression that official
authorities consider us to be worse
than the devil. Well, all this must
change!
The mystery of the two Rome
Here we reach a very great mys-
tery. This necessity of discerning,
of distinguishing between one
Rome and the other is a nightma-
re, and yet it is a reality. We are not
saying that we reject the Church,
that we deny the faith. No! Could
we find images, comparisons which
may help us? I think we can, with
certain diseases like cancer. What
does cancer do? It uses the vital
functions, the organic functions
of the living being to produce so-
mething else, and this within the
system itself. It hardly can be said
that a tumor is a foreign body sin-
ce is develops within the body and
yet, it does not belong to a healthy
body. We could say that the crisis
in the Church is similar: it is so-
me kind of cancer taking advanta-
ge from the strength, the energy,
and the functions of the Church
to produce a foreign body. If the-
re were only one tumor, we could
take the scalpel and remove it fair-
ly easily. But it is a kind of gene-
ral cancer which is all over. In that
case, you abandon the scalpel and
try some other methods, perhaps
successfully; otherwise you give up
the patient.
The Church cannot die; she has
the promise of eternal life. This is
why we must not let her go, we must
not abandon her, even though the
cancer is all over. And even if this
cancer has disfigured Rome, eter-
nal Rome, Catholic Rome, even if
we cannot see it, we must seek it.
To be sure, the one we see is the
erring one. If we listen to it, if we
read official texts, we do not often
find this eternal, Catholic Rome.
The distinction is not so easy.
Once again, it would be so easy to
take the scalpel. But no! The true
and the false – we may say the fal-
•
se – Church are intermingled. This
false Church seems to have super-
seded the true Church but without
being able to make it disappear.
The true Rome is still there, but as
it were underneath the other.
This is the mystery of an incre-
dible disease which was acknowled-
ged by the very popes who caused
this disease. Yes, those who caused
it denounced it. Paul VI lamen-
ted this “auto-destruction of the
Church”, and pointed out the “smo-
ke of Satan” which had penetrated
into the holy Temple through so-
me cracks. These are no trivial sen-
tences. They are stupendous. Satan
is inside the Church, the Church
which we confess to be holy. Paul
VI said it in official texts! Privately
he wondered whether we had not
reached the end of times. He said
so to Jean Guitton. He wondered
if it were not the Apocalypse. He
went so far as to say that it was
quite possible that a non-Catholic
thinking may one day triumph in
the Church, though he kept enou-
gh hope to state: “But that is not the
Church, there will always be a rem-
nant, no matter how infinitesimal,
how imperceptible. There will re-
main something. The Church will
survive”. Paul VI said all that. And
after him, John Paul II, in 1982, in a
public text lamented the fact that,
in the Church, heresies are sown
by the handfuls. Sown by the han-
dfuls! You see, we are not the only
ones to say that there is a problem
in the Church, and not a little one
at that. It is obvious that, confron-
ted with this state of affairs, we are
obliged, and every Catholic is obli-
ged, to take measures, measures of
protection of every kind to preser-
ve the faith, the faith of one’s fa-
mily, of one’s children. Here I am
speaking of the faithful, but I may
also say it of the priest, and of the
bishop. Every one at his own level
is confronted with an unheard of
problem of conscience, something
never seen before. Every one is so
to speak left alone with this choi-
ce, which will be a personal choi-
ce. He must decide: either to carry
 • Rome and the SSPX
on with the risk of error, or reject
this risk and give the impression of
breaking away from the Church.
Of course, we do not want to lea-
ve the Church! And yet, all appea-
rances tell us that we no longer ha-
ve much in common with what still
seems to be the Church. Where is
the true Church? Where is the fal-
se one? Once again, it is a great and
tragic problem.
The SSPX is a spare wheel…
Transmission of the faith, scho-
ols, children’s catechism clas-
ses, the formation of new priests,
the liturgy, discipline, mo-
rals… we can say that before
all this, which was normal-
ly received without any dif-
ficulty, everyone is left alo-
ne and must make a choice.
Examples crop up, we could
give many but I will take just
one which shows how the pas-
tors scatter their sheep. The
story happened in Denmark,
but I am sure it is the story of
almost anybody. A Catholic
physician sent his children to
the only Catholic Church in
Denmark because he wanted
Where is the true Church? It is a great
them to receive a Catholic
education. It is so impor-
tant; it is even a duty, and such a
grave obligation that in the old co-
de of Canon Law parents who, in
a mixed marriage, a marriage with
someone of another religion, would
not have given this Catholic educa-
tion would have been excommuni-
cated. So this Danish doctor sent
his children to a Catholic school.
And what happened in that scho-
ol? Well exactly the contrary of
what should happen: immoral edu-
cation, sex-ed… This good father
reacted. First he met the authori-
ties of the school, the teacher, of
course, the rector, the priest, and
the bishop, all to no avail. He do-
cumented the facts and sent the
dossier to Rome. Some month la-
ter he received the answer from
Rome. The Cardinal President
of the Pontifical Council for the
Family told this father that he was
right: Yes, the documents you sent
me are scandalous. It is absolutely
unacceptable that such a teaching
should be given in a Catholic scho-
ol. And the cardinal concluded his
letter saying: But I can do nothing
about it. So, here is my advice, get
together with other faithful, ga-
ther them around you and carry on
the struggle. This MD told me: It
is just like the sheep which goes to
the shepherd and tells him the wolf
is there, and the shepherd answers:
I can do nothing about it. So you,
sheep, get together and attack the
wolf! Among these chance gathe-
and tragic problem.
rings we may number the work of
Archbishop Lefebvre. It was one of
these chance gatherings in the face
of general collapse. And conside-
ring the fruits of this work we can
say that it seems to be an adequate
response to the crisis. At least so-
me souls can be safeguarded, can
continue to lead this Catholic life
in a routed world.
Obviously this may give the im-
pression of competition with the
Roman hierarchy, but at the same
time, our faith obliges us to reco-
gnize that Rome does exist. We
acknowledge that there is a pope.
And hence we are obliged to ac-
knowledge the order established
by God. Because God made his
Church, God gave her her consti-
tution, and we cannot do wha-
tever we please. I know a priest
– he told me himself – who went
to God and told Him: My God,
it is unfair, we are not allowed to
hit below the belt, while our ene-
mies are allowed to hit anywhere!
It is somewhat like that. We can-
not do anything. We are limited
in our action. For instance, we say
that we do not have ordinary juris-
diction because this belongs to the
pope, to the bishops. What we can
do, and what we do, is “first-aid”,
the work of the Good Samaritan.
We go wherever souls are left hel-
pless, souls who have the right to
be taken care of, at least in the na-
me of charity. Happily, the Church
transcends the men who make
her up. One of her principles is
that she is made for salvation.
God made the Church to save
souls. And so, alongside what
we may call usual laws, there
are the great principles of the
Church. These great princi-
ples tell us that if it happens
that certain dispositions of the
law become harmful by reason
of certain circumstances, we
must not allow ourselves to be
restrained by these harmful
dispositions. We must have
recourse to higher principles.
In such cases, the Church sup-
plies. A most touching exam-
ple of how the Church supplies is
the danger of death. According
to the usual, normal laws of the
Church strictly speaking, if a priest
is guilty of grave faults, Canon Law
tells us he is excommunicated. But
this priest retains his priestly cha-
racter; He is a priest forever. Yet
being excommunicated, he is not
allowed to exercise his priesthood.
For instance, an Orthodox priest,
that is, a non-Catholic, but who-
se priesthood the Catholic Church
recognizes as valid, an Orthodox
priest is a true priest. But obvious-
ly, no one would think of going to
an Orthodox priest for the sacra-
ments. He is excommunicated; he
is outside of the communion of the
Church. He is not Catholic. We are
not going to send for him. But the
Church tells us: if you are in dan-

 Christendom Nº 3
January-February 2006
ger of death, at your last moments
on earth what matters most is your
salvation. So at that moment, the
Church forgets all the censures,
all the excommunications and tel-
ls us: if you can find no one else but
this Orthodox priest, well, send for
him. He will give you absolution,
and the last rites not only perfect-
ly validly but also licitly. You are in
good standing with God and the
Church. Why? Because the first
law, the law that matters most is
the salvation of this soul.
… In a state of spiritual necessity
We base our action on this prin-
ciple. There are several kinds of
death. Of course, there is physical
death; this type is not too difficult
to understand. But there is another
kind, moral death. Souls today are
so distressed, they can no longer
find a priest, and yet they need the
support of grace, of faith. For this
reason, and without hesitation, in
spite of all the condemnations, we
go to souls. And the Church, I do
say the Church, the true Church,
deigns to use us as spare wheels in
order to bring you grace, to sanc-
tify you, to save you. During the
private audience with the Holy
Father on August 29 last, Benedict
XVI drew up a list of the problems
caused by the SSPX according to
him. The first problem he mentio-
ned was what he called obedience,
submission to and acknowledge-
ment of the power of the pope. He
went on adding: “You do not have
the right to justify your actions in
the name of the state of necessity”.
Because, indeed what I have just
described to you, this state whe-
re there is a risk of spiritual death,
is called the state of necessity. The
members of the official clergy, who
should be doing their work, no lon-
ger perform it, so we come to the
rescue of souls. It is truly a state
of necessity. And the pope told us:
You do not have the right to base
your actions on the state of neces-
sity. The reason he gave for forbid-
ding us to use the case of necessity

is the following: I’m trying, he told
me, to solve the problems. We are
happy to hear it. But at the same
time his very words perfectly jus-
tify what we are doing because, on
the one hand, he thus acknowled-
ges that there are problems; and on
the other hand, since he is trying
to solve them, it means that he has
not solved them yet. So there
really is a state of necessity.
And as a matter of fact, la-
ter in the conversation, at so-
me point, the pope himself
told me in a doubtful way,
it is true, but he brought it
up: “We should see if there
is not a state of necessity in
France and in Germany”.
Why these two countries?
Why these rather than
others? As for me, after
...once again, we are expecting actions.
having traveled around the world, I
admit that I do not see much of a dif-
ference between France, Germany,
Argentina, Russia, China, Japan,
the Philippines or Australia. If the
question of the state of necessity
can be raised for these two coun-
tries, we are ready to raise the
question for others and to go fur-
ther. It is quite interesting because
it shows that the present pope ac-
knowledges and there are most se-
rious problems in the Church. He
acknowledges that there is a crisis
in the Church. Those who prece-
ded him said the same; it is true,
since they spoke of the smoke of
Satan, of heresies sown by the han-
dfuls. But Benedict XVI tells us
that he is striving to solve the pro-
blems. We are happy to hear it, but
once again, we are expecting ac-
tions.
Another principle guiding our
behavior concerning these diffi-
culties we experience in distin-
guishing between the true and the
false Rome is the necessity to know
the human milieu, and – I would
even go further and say – the ne-
cessity to apprehend reality as it is.
When we observe human psycho-
logy, we know well that man has
a rather strong tendency to color
his judgments according to his fee-
•
lings. When
we love so-
meone we
easily for-
give him
almost
every-
thing, but when we hold a grudge
against someone we hardly oversee
the slightest thing. This is a trivial
example but we can apply it to our
case. Thus, as we nurture an extre-
me defiance towards the present
authorities, we are going to scruti-
nize everything with this tenden-
cy; it is normal and understanda-
ble. The danger is that when acts
are performed and because they
are not sufficiently clear, we inter-
pret them in one way rather than
the other. And then we may make
mistakes. So we need much light,
because it is not easy to see clear-
ly through this game. Thus we see
faithful who would simply like to
turn over the page, to draw the
curtain over today’s Rome: eve-
ryone’s a heretic, we put everybo-
dy outside the Church, and then it
is much easier, we are the only ones
left! Obviously this is not reality.
Obviously there are still Catholic
souls in the official Church and in
Rome. The solution that consists
in saying there is no pope, no bis-
hops and everyone else is in the sa-
me boat, is no solution at all. As a
matter of fact, those who adopted
this line of conduct now have so-
me twenty popes or so. This abso-
lutely does not solve the crisis of
the Church, and we do not walk
 • Rome and the SSPX
that path. Our line of conduct is:
because of daily experience, we are
obliged to show an extreme reser-
ve towards the hierarchy, for we
do not want to run the risk of spi-
ritual death, on this level we can-
not afford to make mistakes. This
explains why we withdraw; out of
prudence, we withdraw our works
from the life of the official Church.
It is a question of prudence, but a
prudence that must balance two
elements: faith, which demands
that we acknowledge the Church,
which is not dead because it has
the promises of eternal life. Faith
obliges us to acknowledge that the
pope is truly pope, that the Church
will be visible till the end of time.
Thus Vatican I in one of its canons
obliges us to believe that there will
be a successor of Peter till the end
of time. And the other element is
this distrust. On the one hand, be-
cause of the faith, we hope to see
the Church rise up, and on the
other hand, we feel this distrust.
What did change with
Benedict XVI?
In this situation a new pope ar-
rived. Did the advent of Benedict
XVI change something? Yes and
no. Where was the change? On
the side of men? On the side of the
Council? On the side of the direc-
tives? None of these. But then what
did change? A state of mind. With
the advent of this new pope, there
is a feeling of expectation almost
everywhere in the Church. This is
very clear. There is something like
hope. We wait. We await an impro-
vement. And this state of mind, if I
consider Rome, shows itself by the
fact that the conservatives in the
Curia are taking heart again, they
rejoice, they are full of hope; whe-
reas on the contrary the progressi-
vists are gnashing their teeth. The
atmosphere – but it is not easy to
describe an atmosphere – the at-
mosphere has changed: Tradition
is being looked on more favorably.
But up to now, nothing was clear-
ly done; there have been many ru-
mors, announcements. I give you
some, but I emphasize that they
are only rumors from the Curia, up
to now they are only ideas, ideas
that may or may not be realized.
God only knows. Concerning the
freedom, even a partial one, for the
Mass, I can assure you, based on
the information we possess, that
persons very high up in the Curia
were expecting a decree at the end
of the Bishops’ Synod. But there
was a rather violent reaction from
the progressivists that prevented
its publication. The ‘Bugninists’,
the disciples of Bunigni, the man
who made the new Mass, led this
effort - it was carried out by the for-
mer secretary of the Congregation
for Divine Worship who spent his
summer drafting a note. The Head
of the Congregation for Divine
Worship, Cardinal Arinze, also si-
gned this seven-page note. It is a
private note, but with a protocol
number from the Congregation,
which was given to the pope. And
this document said: You do not ha-
ve the right to free this Mass be-
cause it has been abolished. Faced
with this maneuver, the pope ob-
viously backed down and delayed
his decree. That is how things
still stand. Well, not quite, becau-
se in the meantime, the author of
the note has been demoted. He
is now archbishop of Assisi. Poor
people of Assisi! We spoke about
this note with Cardinal Castrillon-
Hoyos, and his reaction very clearly
showed that there is something un-
derway but that he is bound to se-
crecy. This is one of the main lines
of conduct of the present pope: no-
body knows anything and every-
body is frustrated, and first of all
the cardinals. That is the present
pope’s way of acting. He does not
say anything, and that is probably
better. Under these conditions we
are reduced to conjectures. Yet we
do have a few bits of information.
What must we expect? What is
going to happen? What is not going
to happen? What is he going to do?
What is he not going to do? Many,
many open questions. One thing is
certain, and it is already a very in-
teresting point, the progressivists
are against it. One way of judging a
situation is to see what the enemy
is thinking of it. Well, the enemy
is against it, and they have present-
ly set up his strategy regarding the
present pope. It consists in saying
that the pope is old, that he will not
last long and so let us wait for the
next. In the meantime, we stop the
important dossiers, we put on the
brakes and we obstruct. Passive re-
sistance, such is their way of acting,
such is the line of conduct adopted
by the progressivists with regard to
the present pope.
So “something” is in the works
concerning the Mass. Can I tell
you more? There are many unk-
nown factors. What is really going
to be done? That is a mystery! A
rather trustworthy rumor tells us
that there will not be a complete
liberalization of the Mass, at least
for the time being. Eventually we
could obtain it, but before that the
pope wants to create an atmosphe-
re, because to grant freedom for the
Mass would provoke too much op-
position and would be of no avail.
Towards a doctrinal discussion?
Concerning the Ecclesia Dei
Commission, the Society of Saint
Peter, Christ the King and such li-
ke… there is also a plan in embryo,
which has been announced to us for
quite a while, but nothing happens.
The plan does exist, but I suspect
that, up to now, they have not ta-
ken or will not take action, because
they first want to strengthen these
societies. Already before this pon-
tificate, for at least one year, they
have been seriously, i.e. concretely,
thinking about the setting up of
a structure which would allow an
easier development for the commu-
nities and consequently for the fai-
thful who want the old Mass. I am
not speaking here of the SSPX, but
of the other societies which depend
upon the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
And all this, because they realize

 Christendom Nº 3
January-February 2006
very well that to hand them simply
over to the bishops’ own decision
brings forth almost no fruit. Even
in Rome, they are quite disappoin-
ted to see how the bishops obey,
and even more, do not obey the
pope. So, they seriously intend to
give a little more freedom to the-
se faithful and to the Ecclesia Dei
societies. The structure foreseen
would be along the lines of that of
Campos, that is to say probably se-
veral Apostolic administrations
throughout the world, together
with a reinforcement of the Ecclesia
Dei Commission in Rome in order
to give more weight to this struc-
ture. This is understandable when
you know that Benedict XVI is ra-
ther sympathetic towards the old
Mass and does not like the new
one too much. So we can unders-
tand, he expressed it enough even
before becoming pope, we can un-
derstand that he wants to give mo-
re leeway to the old Mass. And it
is no utopia to think that at some
point this will be accomplished.
But I cannot be more precise. I do
not know.
Will there also be changes in
Rome? If the pope really wants
to do something, that is where he
must begin. In the Curia, he must
put in the key posts a certain num-
ber of people who support his de-
sire for reform. If you wish, this is
a little sketchy, but we could thus
define our pope Benedict XVI: a
head ill-formed by a liberal, mo-
dern and sometimes modernist
philosophy, and a conservative
heart. As a result, when it comes to
concrete acts, we will have someo-
ne relatively close to us; when it is a
matter of proclaiming, explaining,
declaring, we will have someone
fairly distant from us. For instan-
ce, during the private audience, it
was quite clear that the great stum-
bling block would be the Council.
Benedict XVI is truly a pope of the
Council. I would even go further.
During the discussion it was not
explicit, but it was clear; we really
had the impression that the present
pope could not conceive a Catholic
10
who is not imbued with the spi-
rit of Vatican II. It was impressi-
ve, and I believe that it will really
be the great bone of contention. As
far as the liturgy is concerned, I get
the impression that we will reach
some result, but there will remain
this doctrinal dissension. Will we
ever manage to discuss it? Up to
now Rome practically always re-
fused any discussion. Certainly
there was the presentation of the
dubia on religious liberty, in the
days of Archbishop Lefebvre, but
since then we have made no head-
way. We have always tried to bring
about a debate. Presently we have
reached a point where I think that
such a debate could soon be possi-
ble. I do not rule out that we may
reach this discussion in the months
to come. You must understand, and
this is very important, that in fact
Rome does not deal with us as with
people who would be outside the
Church. She does not deal with us
as she does, within the framework
of ecumenism, with those who are
outside, schismatics or heretics. To
these latter she proposes dialogue;
but there is no dialogue with us. In
the eyes of the Roman authorities,
the discussion can only be that of
the student with his teacher, of the
one who is taught with him who is
teaching; Rome being the teaching
Church, and we those who are tau-
ght. A priest went to visit some car-
dinals to ask them: But why do you
not dialog with the Society? The
answer was: Because that would be
a discussion between peers, and it
is not fitting. – Strictly speaking it
is true, that it is not fitting, never-
theless the problems exist and they
must be dealt with.
“Neither heretical, nor schismatic”
according to
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos
Recently, Cardinal Castillon-
Hoyos, who was explicitly com-
missioned by the pope to deal with
the Society, so his official delegate,
publicly declared during an inter-
view, on Channel 5 of Italian televi-
•
sion, on Sunday, December 13, at
9:00 am: “The Society is not here-
tical”. And he went on: “Taking the
words in their strict sense, we can-
not say that the Society is schisma-
tic”. So the Society is neither here-
tical, nor schismatic. This is what
is said about our situation, not in
an official document, but at least,
publicly by the pope’s representa-
tive. He carried on and said about
us: “They are inside”. If we are
not schismatic, we are inside the
Church, and so they cannot talk
about imperfect communion, be-
cause the communion does exist.
So, he said, we should rather talk
about seeking a more perfect com-
munion. This happened relatively
recently. I believe that this kind of
talk is somewhat new. We will see
how things evolve.
During the private audien-
ce, to sum it up, the pope be-
gan by asking this question to
Cardinal Castrillon who was pre-
sent: “Where do we stand? What
is the state of affairs?” And the car-
dinal answered: “Holy Father, eve-
rything is in order. There is no mo-
re problem, you only have to bring
things to a conclusion, to do the sa�
natio, and everything is resolved”.
Then the pope asked me the same
question and I had to slow things
down a little saying: Holy Father,
I completely share your perception
of the situation of the Church when
you say that it is tragic, and one of
the manifestations of this tragedy
is that the traditional life is impos-
sible inside the official Church. You
cannot live as a Catholic, and tho-
se who try get their heads chopped
off. Of course, I did not say it like
that to the pope, but I explained
how in Argentina, a young parish
priest joined us because he could
no longer live his priestly life in
his parish, caught between his pa-
rishioners and the bishop, who ma-
de life so impossible for him that
he could not stand it any longer.
He was confronted with problems
of conscience, just like a sister from
the nearby convent in Menzingen
who found it impossible to live her
 • Rome and the SSPX
religious life. I do not need to look
very far to find examples to explain
to the Holy Father that this sim-
ple Catholic life is no longer pos-
sible. It must first be made possi-
ble again before we can reach any
agreement. And it is then that I
proposed the idea of proceeding
by stages. Obviously our unders-
tanding of it is somewhat diffe-
rent from Rome’s. When we speak
of proceeding by stages, we mean:
in order for the Church to come
back to Tradition, quite simply for
the Church to be once again what
she was. It would be so wonderful
if this could be done in the twin-
kling of an eye, but as a rule, when
men are involved it takes longer,
and it goes precisely through a cer-
tain number of stages. Rome does
agree to speak of stages, but means
something else: That the Society
gradually re-integrates into the
Church.
That is not exactly the same
thing, to be sure, but there is so-
me common ground and we can
tell Rome: Reintroduce the Mass,
let this Mass be free, remove this
label of plague-stricken, because
this could do some good for the
Church. From the very beginning,
in 2000, I do not know whether
you remember, we had proposed…
We said to Rome: Before discus-
sing, before going any further,
there must be preliminary condi-
tions, and we had given two: free-
dom for the Mass, freedom for all
priests, since we already have this
freedom, it is not for us. And sin-
ce they always use this excommu-
nication thing as a scarecrow to
frighten people away and limit the
good we could do, let them remo-
ve this scarecrow. Up to now Rome
had always refused. I think that,
with the new pope, they are begin-
ning to think it over. I believe that
Rome no longer rules out the idea
we had proposed at the beginning,
which was to create a new situation
for the Society, in which it would be
in absolutely no way bound to the
novelties. We remain as we are but
if we may say so, freed from the-
se gibes, these labels which scare
people away. And we say to Rome:
During that time, you quite simply
stand by and watch us. You do not
commit yourself in any way either,
you watch, and you grant this free-
dom for the Mass. Why? Because
this is a right in the Church. In
Rome, this right of the Mass is ac-
knowledged except by Archbishop
Sorrentino who has just been de-
moted. It is truly the common opi-
nion that the old Mass was never
forbidden or abrogated. Cardinal
Medina has been saying this seve-
ral times in some interviews lately,
in the past few months. But we ha-
ve several texts, several testimo-
nies which show that it really is the
common thesis.
In Rome, they acknowledge
that the old Mass was never forbid-
den. And if it never was forbidden,
why is it not allowed? In fact, it
does not even need to be allowed.
If it has never been forbidden, it is.
It has full right existence. As a rite
of the Church, any priest may use
it. But, that is the point, progressi-
vists managed to create an atmos-
phere of terror around the Mass.
And besides, the progressivists
know quite well that if too much
leeway is given to the Mass, all the
reforms will be questioned. Why?
Because in the old Mass, there is
a strength, powerful graces which
demand faith, which demand mo-
rals, Christian discipline. The pro-
gressivists know that and they are
afraid. They are terrified of losing
their reforms if the Mass is freed.
That is one more reason for us to
work at it! It’s not just about the
Mass, quite obviously, but it would
already be an important step
forward.
Bishops and priests request
freedom for the Tridentine Mass
To all this we must add that,
beside this difficult labor with the
Roman authorities, there are more
obvious and more consoling fruits
on another level, which show clear- In Rome, they acknowledge that the old
ly that our actions are not in vain.
It is on the level of the bishops and
priests. We are trying to meet se-
veral bishops and give them docu-
ments to make them reflect. For
the priests, I would not be sur-
prised if suddenly, at least locally,
we would witness some sort of ava-
lanches. We have not yet reached
that point and we must not count
our chickens before they hatch,
nevertheless, we are witnessing ra-
ther surprising phenomena. I do
not name the locations, it would be
too dangerous for those who could
be recognized, but I can assure you
that in a good number of countries
we are in touch with priests, espe-
cially young priests who are be-
ginning to get organized. In some
places, they try to influence the bis-
hop, in other places, unknown to
the bishop, they are learning to say
the old Mass again. In some places,
the bishops themselves are wor-
king for this evolution. I have the
testimony of Cardinal Castrillon,
who is himself in charge of Ecclesia
Dei; according to him the number
of bishops requesting the old Mass
is ever increasing. It is a growing
movement. Recently, I heard about
five Spanish bishops who asked the
pope for freedom for the Mass.
There are similar cases in Italy, and
we are beginning to find some also
in France. They are extremely dis-
creet movements precisely because
of this ter- ror which is still rei-
gning. Are we
close to the
e v ent t h a t
could trig-
ger an ava-
l a n -
c h e ?
In the
Mass was never forbidden.
11
 Christendom Nº 3
January-February 2006
next few days, I am going to re-
ceive a petition from two hundred
priests who want me to carry their
wishes, their requests to Rome.
Two hundred priests.
All this shows us that we must
carry on. It also shows that firmness
pays off, and that it is not the time,
so to speak, to stupidly give up. It
is not a human or Machiavellian
game. Not at all, it is much more
serious, of much greater import.
The good of the Church is at stake.
After the private audience, I wrote
a letter to the pope to tell him that
I thanked him for his kindness.
Indeed, he was kind during the au-
dience and I could see that he was
seeking a solution, but at the same
time I could see this stumbling
block which is the Council and
which will probably remain during
his entire pontificate. So I consid-
ered it my duty to tell him clear-
ly that I disagreed on that point.
He took it wrongly. That is almost
normal. Nevertheless he asked me
through Cardinal Hoyos why I had
said that. I answered that I did not
want to find myself with the prob-
lems of conscience which were the
lot of most of the priests of the
Society of Saint Peter, and of three
quarters of the priests of Campos.
It seems that impressed Rome.
During a following meeting, the
last I had with Cardinal Hoyos and
which lasted rather a long time,
and which, I think, was fruitful,
we specifically pointed out this
distrust and – with regard or not to
the Society, but simply to get out of
the crisis – the necessity for Rome
to do acts which go counter to the
causes of this crisis and this at all
levels. And for this, I also asked
insistently for the Mass, and told
them that to give us an opening for
the Mass would allow the Church
to be centered again on Our Lord
Jesus Christ, on the Cross, on
Sacrifice. This proposal was con-
sidered, and when you think about
it, that is already something great.
We have also proposed present-
ing a list of our objections to the
12
•
Is it still worth going to Rome?
Excerpt from the address of Bishop Fellay to conclude the Sym-
posium of the Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X (Paris), “Archbishop
Lefebvre, an apostle of Christ the King confronts secular apostasy”,
December 10, 2005.
(…) In good philoso-
phy, we say that it is not
possible to talk to someo-
ne who denies the princi-
ples. So, can we talk to
Cardinal Ratzinger, now
Benedict XVI? You have
heard Bishop Tissier de
Mallerais say: «We cannot
discuss». So what do we
do? Is it still worth going
to Rome? Yes. But preci-
sely, not to «discuss».
So why go to Rome?
Firstly, to make Tradition
manifest to the Church…
somewhat like what Saint
Paul did, as he himself told about this incident with Saint
Peter. To Saint Peter’s face, he recalled what ought to be
done, what was just and true before God… Likewise, what
we talk about in this hall, must not remain here. It must go
forth. Our aim is to win over other souls, other intellects to
these truths. To that end, we must preach, we must go out,
we must try to go everywhere, and I would even say, espe-
cially to Rome. It’s not just the pope in Rome, there are al-
so other souls, souls capable of being touched. Everyone is
not ill to the same degree.
It is impressive to see how much the social doctrine of
Our Lord has been lost. I’ll just give you a little example: it
was on the occasion of my visit to John-Paul II in Decem-
ber of 2000. Cardinal Castrillon wanted to present the pope
with the protocol of the discussion we had the day before. I
was under the impression that when I had told him we were
against religious liberty he did not understand it as I did. So
I was saying to myself: I must be more specific, I must give
a precise word so that what I said would be correctly pre-
sented. This is why I asked for an addendum. And while the
pope had gone down to Saint Peter’s square to see the fai-
thful, we were working on it a bit more with one of the po-
pe’s secretaries. I then requested that, in this protocol, they
add that the theory of religious liberty was going against the
 • Rome and the SSPX
Council and the reforms, which
is obviously an enormous task. At
least, they have accepted the list.
We hope this will end up with a
discussion, we shall see. So there
are more reasons for hope than for
discouragement, yet we harbor no
illusions. The difficulties are great
because, up to now, we can see that
the subject of the Council remains
taboo, and they try to set it above
any discussion. It is a matter – that
is the main impression I have – it
is for the pope a matter of saving
the Council, of saving it by say-
ing that there is only one autho-
rized interpretation. This is why
he is trying to eliminate all kinds
of deviations which are, maybe
in part, a cause of the crisis. But,
keep your hands off the Council!
And we say: But the problem is in
the Council, and not somewhere
else; it is only partly somewhere
else. The world is certainly respon-
sible, but all these ambiguities in
the texts were voluntarily placed
there. In itself to say that the coun-
cil must be read in the light of an
interpretation means that it is not
self-explanatory. If it were self-ex-
planatory, we would not need in-
terpretations. And then, when they
talk about living tradition, what
does this means? This living tradi-
tion is most likely the pope him-
self. The pope reads the teachings
of the past and restates them again
today. But I think that we do not
agree with this definition of tra-
dition. For us tradition is, as the
Church always defined it: what has
been believed and taught always,
everywhere and by all. Quod ab om�
nibus, quod ubique, quod semper. This
definition by St Vincent de Lérins,
the classical definition of tradition
is much simpler; everybody under-
stands it.
So, for us, on the one hand
there is hope that one day things
will improve, hope that the pope
will do something. How far will he
go? We do not know! And on the
other hand, there is the absolute
impossibility of reaching any kind
of compromise which could jeop-
social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ. Well, this secre-
tary of the pope, his second secretary asked me: «What’s
that?» He did not know – he was an Italian about 40 to 45
years old -, he did not know what the social Kingship of Our
Lord was.
So we are reaching a level of ignorance at the very top
that’s more than astonishing, it is frightening. There is work
to do there, obviously a work which is beyond us. What are
we? How could we do all that? We clearly see that it is com-
pletely beyond us; nevertheless, at our own level, and lea-
ving all that in the hands of God, we think that more than
ever – precisely inasmuch as all these truths are silenced,
even denied – we must recall and proclaim them.
This is one of the reasons why we keep some contacts
with Rome, to try and use them as a mouthpiece. When we
speak here, the sound reverberates in this hall. When you
hear: Bishop Fellay is going to Rome, or Bishop Tissier or
another bishop… it reverberates through the whole Church,
it arouses some interest in the Catholic world for what is
going on between Rome and the Society. So, we try to ta-
ke advantage of this position to broadcast traditional thin-
king and hope thus to reach someone. And if we look back
on what has happened up to now, I can assure you that this
is not fruitless. We have in the Roman Curia – and outside
of it --, a number of prelates and bishops who are moving
closer to us, who gladly come and seek support in what we
are doing. Among priests, the movement is growing. In Italy,
this movement is beginning to show much promise.
Once again, all this is beyond us. We try to do what we
can - I think it is our duty to do so. We do not have the right
to give up. We do not have the right to say: With those peo-
ple, it is hopeless. When we deal with the Church, we always
deal with something of an infinitely greater dimension than
the mere human dimension. We are in a supernatural world,
and Our Lord remains the leader of His Church, able to still
the storm in a surprising manner, when he wants and in the
manner he wants. He is also able to use men, human acti-
vity as he wishes. So we must add to all the very important
and necessary reflections [of this symposium] other super-
natural means: prayer, sacrifice to call down divine interven-
tion on the Church. He can shake up authorities, whether
Church authorities or civil authorities. He can do it. It would
be a miracle, but given the situation, I think that we can ask
Him for nothing else than a miracle, but, once again, while
we do all that is necessary, all we can do at our level.
So, let us not lose heart at the sight of the disaster. On
the contrary, when we see a situation as difficult as the pre-
sent one, it is time to take heart again, seeking strength and
support in Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
13
 Christendom Nº 3
January-February 2006
•

ardize our faith: we are Catholics, the gates of hell shall not prevail. stand. Nevertheless God disposed
and Catholics we want to remain. We are sure of His victory, togeth- all things in His infinite wisdom
Come what may! er with that of the Blessed Virgin. for His glory and our salvation.
So let us hold on! Let us always “Everything works unto good for
Let us pray! It is the age bear in mind that God remains those who love God”, even the cri-
of Our Lady God, infallible divine Providence. sis of the Church! We must cling to
At no time during this crisis of the these truths which give us strength
We pray, we must pray for the Church did God lose control, He and hope. God promised, and He
pope. We must do it in earnest. Let remains Lord of all that happens. bound Himself. His honor is at
us acknowledge that his task is im- As for what is evil, God per- stake. He promised that those who
mense, and to a certain extent im- mits it, but seek Him would find Him, that
possible. In order to do good, he He would never abandon those
needs the Holy Ghost, all the grac- who wanted, more precisely, those
es, the strength, the wisdom and who were ready to pay the price to
the light of the Holy Ghost. And if honor Him, serve Him, and thus
the Good God had made these grac- be saved. So let us ask Our Lady
es dependent upon our prayers, my to be our protection, our refuge,
dear brethren! If when we appear because this is the age of Mary.
before God it were revealed to us We see this clearly in Fatima, in
that it would have depended upon Lourdes, in La Salette. It is the age
our prayer, I think we would bit- of Our Lady. An age of turmoil,
terly regret it, wouldn’t we? So, let certainly, but which will end with
us do all the good we can. We must the victory of the Blessed Virgin.
pray for the pope just as we must Let us work hard to strengthen our
pray for governors, Saint faith, to live by faith. Let us not al-
Paul says it. We low events, which I would
must pray for called simply human,
Church and to discourage us. We
State au- must fix our gaze
thorities much higher. May
even when God be served first!
we are not “Seek ye first the
pleased Kingdom of God
w i t h and His justice
them. and the rest
T h e y shall be added
have re- unto you”. May
sponsi- the Blessed
bilities, Virgin help us
respon- to acquire this
sibili- determination
ties for to serve God,
o u r to honor Him,
souls. to praise Him
And es- We are Catholics, and Catholics we want to remain. Come what may! as the Church
pecially, always did.
we must
overcome evil with good. We de- assigns it its limit. None of these
sire, we hope that Tradition will one evils can trespass the limit fixed by
day triumph. This is our intimate God. Just as when He was asleep

r
prayer, our hope. Let us work for it. in the boat, not one drop of wa-
Everywhere, let us seek to do the ter more than what God permit-
utmost good we can, each one ac- ted got into it. God is so power-
cording to his power, and his grac- ful, that He can allow such an evil,
es. We are so sure that God, Our because He can even draw a great-
Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of er good out of it! We often forget
the Church. He has promised that this, and we find it hard to under-
14