The Society of St.
Pius X has been founded by the Church and in the Church, and we say
this Society continues to exist, despite the fact that there is a
pretense that it does not exist; that it was suppressed in 1976 (but
obviously with total disrespect of the laws of the Church itself). And
that's why we continue. And our dear Founder insisted many, many times
on the importance of this existence of the Society. And I think, as
time evolves, we must keep this in mind Ė and it is very important
that we keep this Catholic Spirit.
We are not an
independent group. Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so
to say, with Rome. We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against
Rome, at the same time with Rome. And we claim and we continue to say,
we are Catholic. We want to stay Catholic. Many times I say to Rome,
you try to kick us out. And we see it would be much easier for us to
be out. We would have many more advantages. You would treat us much
better! Look at the Protestants, how they open the churches to them.
To us, they close them. And we say, we donít care. We do things in
front of God. We suffer from the Church, fine. We donít like that, of
course. But we ought to stay there in the truth. And we have to
maintain that we do belong to the Church. We are Catholics. We want to
be and we want to stay Catholic, and it is very important to maintain
Itís also important
that we donít finally imagine a Catholic church which is just the
fruit of our imagination but which is no longer the real one. And with
the real one we have problems. Thatís what makes it even more
difficult: the fact that we have problems with it. That does not allow
us, so to say, to shut the door. On the contrary, it is our duty to
continuously go there, knock at the door, and not beg that we may
enter (because we are in) but beg that they may convert; that they may
change and come back to what makes the Church. It is a great mystery;
it is not simple. Because at the same time we have to say, yes, we do
recognize that Church Ė thatís what we say in the Creed, I believe in
the Catholic Church Ė so we accept that there is a pope; we accept
that there is a hierarchy, we do accept that.
And practically, at
many levels, we have to say no. Not because it does not please us, but
because the Church has already spoken about that. Even many of these
things it has condemned them. And so, in our discussions with Rome we
were, so to say, stuck there. The key problem in our discussions with
Rome was really the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church. Because
they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" Ė and we say, yes.
And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They
say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" Ė
Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then
they say, "then, obey." And we say, no. And so they say to us, you are
protestant. You put your reason above the Magisterium of today. And we
answer to them, you are Modernists. You pretend that the teaching of
today can be different from the teaching of yesterday. We say, when we
adhere to what the Church has taught yesterday, we, by necessity,
adhere to the teaching of the Church today. Because the truth is not
linked to time. The truth is above it. What has been said once is
binding all times. These are the dogmas. God is like that; God is
above time. And the Faith is adhering to the truth of God. Itís above
time. Thatís why the church of today is bound and has to be like (not
only like) the Church of yesterday. And so when you see the present
pope say that there must be continuity in the Church, we say, of
course! That is what we have said at all times. When we talk about
tradition, thatís precisely the meaning. They say, there must be
Tradition, there must be continuity. So there is continuity. Vatican
II has been made by the Church, the Church must be continuous, so
Vatican II is Tradition. And we say, beg your pardon?
It goes even further,
my dear brethren. That was during the discussion. At the end of the
discussion, comes this invitation from Rome. In this invitation there
is a proposition of a canonical situation that is to regularize our
situation. And I may say, what is presented today, which is already
different from what was presented on the 14th of September, we can
consider it as all right, good. They fulfilled all our requirements, I
may say, on the practical level. So there is not much problem there.
The problem remains at the other level Ė at the level of the doctrine.
But even there it goes very far Ė very far, my dear brethren. The key
is a principle. Which they say, "this you must accept; you must accept
that for the points that make difficulty in the Council Ė points which
are ambiguous, where there is a fight Ė these points, like ecumenism,
like religious liberty, these points must be understood in coherence
with the perpetual teaching of the Church." "So if there is something
ambiguous in the Council, you must understand it as the Church has
always taught throughout the ages."
They go even further
and say, "one must reject whatever is opposed to this traditional
teaching of the Church." Well, that is what we have always said.
Amazing, isnít it? That Rome is imposing on us this principle.
Amazing. Then you may wonder, then why donít you accept? Well, my dear
brethren, there is still a problem. The problem is that in this text
they give two applications of what and how we have to understand these
principles. These two examples that they give to us are ecumenism and
religious liberty, as they are described in the new Catechism of the
Catholic Church, which are exactly the points for which we reproach
In other words, Rome
tells us, we have done that all the time. We are traditional; Vatican
II is Tradition. Religious liberty, ecumenism is Tradition. It is in
full coherence with Tradition. You just wonder, where do we go? What
kind of words will we find to say, we agree or we donít? If even the
principles which we have kept and said, they say, yes itís ok you can
say that, because this means what we mean, which is exactly the
contrary of what we mean.
I think we could not
go further in the confusion. In other words, my dear brethren, that
means that they have another meaning with the word ďtradition,Ē and
even maybe even with ďcoherence.Ē And thatís why we were obliged to
say no. Weíre not going to sign that. We agree with the principle but
we see that the conclusion is contrary. Great mystery! Great mystery!
So what is going to happen now? Well, we have sent our answer to Rome.
They still say that theyíre reflecting on it, which means theyíre
probably embarrassed. At the same time I think we may see now what
they really want. Do they really want us in the Church or not? We told
them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without
obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready. But if you want
us to accept these things, we are not. In fact we have just quoted
Archbishop Lefebvre who said this already in 1987 Ė several times
before, but the last time he said it was in 1987.
In other words, my
dear brethren, humanly speaking, difficult to say how the future will
look, but we know that when we deal with the Church, we deal with God;
we deal with divine providence, and we know that this Church is His
Church. Humans may cause some disruption, some destruction. They may
cause turmoil, but God is above that, and He knows how to, out of all
these happenings Ė these human happenings Ė these odd lines, God knows
how to direct His Church through these trials.
There will be an end
to this trial, I donít know when. Sometimes there is hope that it will
come. Sometimes it is like despair. God knows when, but really,
humanly speaking, we must wait for quite a time before hoping to see
things better Ė five, ten years. I am persuaded that in ten years
things will look different because the generation of the Council will
be gone and the next generation does not have this link with the
Council. And already now we hear several bishops, my dear brethren,
several bishops tell us: you give too much weight to this Council; put
it aside. It could be a good way for the Church to go ahead. Put it
aside; forget it. Letís go back to the real thing, to Tradition.
interesting to hear bishops who say that? Thatís a new language! It
means that you have a new generation which knows that there are things
that are more serious than Vatican II in the Church, and that we have
to go back to this more serious, if I may say so. Vatican II is
serious because of the damage it has caused, yes it is. But as such it
wanted to be a pastoral council, which is over now. We know that
someone who is working in the Vatican wrote a thesis for his academic
grades and it was about the magisterium of Vatican II. He himself told
us and nobody in the Roman universities was ready to take that thesis.
Finally a professor did, and the thesis is the following: the
authority of the magisterium of Vatican II is that of a homily in the
1960ís. And he passed!
We shall see my dear
brethren. For us itís very clear. We must stick and hold to the truth,
to the Faith. We are not going to give that up Ė whatever happens.
There are some threats, of course, from Rome now. We shall see. We put
all these things in the hands of God, and in the hands of the Blessed
Virgin Mary. Oh, yes, we have to continue our crusade of rosaries. We
count on her, we count on God. And then whatever happens, happens. I
cannot promise a beautiful spring. I have no idea whatís going to be
in this spring. What I know is that the fight for the faith will
continue, whatever happens. If we are recognized or not, you can be
certain that the Progressives will not be happy. They will continue
and we will continue to fight them too.