ABOUT THE CHURCH AND THE VATICAN

The FSSPX:
'To some in the Church,
we would still be black sheep
whatever we did'

They will proceed with scheduled ordinations next Saturday, and
their superior, Mons. Fellay explains why.

Interview by MICHAEL PRÜLLER
Translated from
(Austria)
June 22, 2009


How is it going with the dialog between Rome and the FSSPX which created such a dust-up in January?
We sorted out our ideas earlier this month. The Pope's decision on the structure for the talks will be announced shortly. A special commission will be created for the discussions among some theologians from Rome and some of our own.


In your opinion, what is the purpose of this rapprochement: a special structure for you in a small niche, or a fundamental change in the Church?
That's a good question: who or what should be changed? It's wrong, of course, for anyone to claim that the entire Church should change. We are not the great enemy. Our situation is more like a thermometer which shows there's a fever in the body.

In fact, there is a problem to be resolved. And it's not ours but of the Church leadership. The Church has been suffering from a serious crisis, and Rome dealt with it so blandly that the illness developed and it's hard to see an end to the crisis. We are proposing measures that may help.


There are two points of conflict: on the one hand, your belief that the deposit of faith is in danger, and your rejection of specific documents from the Second Vatican Council. Do you want Rome to take back or modify these documents, or is it rather a case of "We agree that you do not agree"?
The present confusion comes in large part from a cultural crisis in the world, not only in the Church: a crisis of thinking, of philosophy. But some aspects of this crisis took concrete form in the Council. Rome should be prepared to clarify these points, because there are so many interpretations of Vatican II. Which of them should we recognize? Every theologian interprets it in his own way.

[Which interpretation to recognize? That's simple! Be guided by Benedict XVI's interpretation. But I suppose the FSSPX wants it sort of codified in a consolidated set of doctrinal notes from the CDF such as what it issued about what Vatican II said about the Catholic Church and all other 'churches'. That would actually be very helpful to everyone - except that all the liberal custodians of the faux 'spirit of Vatican II' will go into paroxysms and contortions to 'prove' that Vatican-II meant rupture, not continuity with tradition.]

The Holy Father already dismissed the interpretation of Vatican II as discontinuity and rupture with the past. But 80 percent of bishops and theologians want this rupture. So on this topic, we are not the problem.


You do not only reject some interpretations but even some conciliar documents in themselves that have to do with religious freedom and respect for other religions.
One example: The declaration on the collegiality of bishops (in Lumen gentium) which even had to be corrected during the Council itself by Pope Paul VI... The conciliar text can be interpreted in a catholic (universal) sense with the note that the Pope issued, the so-called 'Nota praevia' (by which Paul VI established that the bishops can lead the Church as a college, only 'under and with the Pope'). Unfortunately some are reading the original provision without looking at the the Nota praevia.
.

Would a new papal Nota praevia on these two documents satisfy your demands?
We cannot presume to dictate what and how the Church should think. That was never our intention. What we say is this: the Church had, up to the time of the Council, taught certaint hings, but something has since emerged which is not the Church. We wish to be clear about this.


The other major dispute with Rome was the Tridentine rite. Since the Pope has reauthorized this rite, that has been largely resolved. Are you satisfied on that now, or did you expect something more?
I am sure something else will come in the future. Not for us, but for Rome itself, the liturgical situation needs to be better. That will come.


The Pope has adapted the old rite by modifying the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. Do you still pray the old version?
Yes.


Would it be possible for you to follow the Pope and introduce the new prayer?
Yes. What the Pope says does not contradict the faith. It is more a question of revising history, even insofar as the attitude of the faithful. The Good Friday prayers are among the most ancient prayers that we have.


For a reconciliation with Rome, a declaration of loyalty will probably be needed. Would you be able to do that even if the Church does not go back on all the points you raise about Vatican II?
I would say yes. If the Catholic principles we raise are clarified, even if not everything is resolved, then it is possible.

There is a very practical question which is evident now, which is - How will we be accepted? There is a very strong block which keeps us from moving ahead at this time. If we see too much opposition then we will simply decide to wait a bit longer.


A present point of contention is the announcement by heh FSSPX that it will ordain 3 priests on June 27 in Zaitzkofen, Germany. Many consider this a provocation to Rome and the Pope - it seems to be rejecting the friendly hand he has extended.
I regret that this is seen as a provocation. These ordinations have taken place every year for 30 years in exactly the same way. When we were discussing with Rome about lifting the excommunications, etc., the question was never raised that these ordinations should stop.

For us, this is a question of the life of the society. We need new priests as we need to breathe.


Everything cannot depend on these three ordinations, Would it not have been more prudent to suspend the ordinations to improve the climate?
The problem is only in Germany. In Rome, there is sympathy for these ordinations even if they consider it illegal and not in accordance with canon law.

We have been told that we are now in an intermediate stage during which we can talk to each other peaceably, and during which Rome can also observe us. We have no objections if Rome wants to send us an observer. We have offered that but perhaps not clearly enough.


Were you surprised that Rome has not placed conditions on lifting the excommunications?
No, not really. This rapprochement can only take place through small steps because of all the wounds that have been dealt and what has happened in the past. It was in that sense that the Pope's gesture, which we accepted with gratitude, also had the purpose of 9improving the climate. On our part, we are open, but not to interrupting our work in any way.


With the lifting of the excommunication, the Pope has often been compared to a father taking back the prodigal son who comes back full of remorse. Has it been that way or don't you see yourselves as the repentant son?
Yes, but no longer in that direction. There is an opening on our part. We asked for discussions and that has been accepted. We regret that there are those who are seeking to sabotage this with their hatred.


Why don't you perform the ordinations elsewhere? The harsh reaction of the German bishops was predictable.
I think one can see bad faith in this case. We could do anything they want and we would still be considered the black sheep. On certain points, we have decided we will not step back. You can understand that.


So you do not expect any rejection by the Pope of this act?
That would be interpreting the facts wrongly. This is not a hostile act, I wrote the Pope and asked him not to consider these ordinations as a rebellious act, but a measure of survival in difficult and complex circumstances.


In any case, it places the Pope in an unpleasant situation.
I understand. it is a very unpleasant situation for everybody. But let me repeat - the problem arises from having different currents in the Church which Rome itself finds it difficult to live with. It is a problem that cannot be resolved by the Pope. And I am not sure it can be resolved at all.


What is Mons. Williamson doing these days?
He is in London. He prays and studies, nothing else.


Is there a foreseeable end to his internal exile?
I don't see it. It depends entirely on him.


Would you prefer a further distancing from his negation of the Holocaust?
If he repeats such statements, then it cannot be tolerated.