to the 4 bishops-elect, June 13, 1988
behalf of the Society of St. Pius X, I thank the four of you.
it comes down to it, Rome never answers the essential question.
They demand of us a statement which would make us tilt ever so little
in their direction, but on their side there is no calling in question
of their basic liberalism and modernism. Yet I keep bringing up
I wrote to them on June 2, however courteous our conversations have
been, they have persuaded us that the moment for an understanding
has not yet come. We must have some protection against the spirit
of Assisi. They never tackle the basic problem, never! So all our
efforts have gone for nothing. We have been at cross purposes in
these conversations. On our side, we are expecting the return of
Tradition to Rome. On their side, they do not budge.
Holy Father answers me that in organizing these conversations he
has been concerned for unity. Thus the May 5 protocol was to allow
the Society to stay within the Church, in line with the 21 ecumenical
Councils down to and including Vatican II. I still have to reply
to this answer of the Holy Father, but the truth of the matter is
that we should be demanding of them to pronounce the Anti-modernist
Oath and to accept "Lamentabili" and "Quanta
Cura". We should be questioning them on the Faith! But
they will not reply. They merely persist in their errors.
"Yesterday de Saventhem told me that I will be the one responsible
for any break. But just look at seminarian Carlo's letter on the
total failure of "Mater Ecclesiae". He writes,
"I was wrong all down the line". Look also at his letter
of entreaty to Cardinal Ratzinger. He wrote to the Cardinal several
times. No reply! For two years Rome has made fun of these young
men. They are being forced to toe the line. Whether it's Garrone,
Innocenti or Ratzinger, it is always the same attitude towards ourselves
.... In any fight between conservatives and the official Church,
Rome always sides with the Conciliar bishop, and condemns Tradition.
Saventhem objects, 'But these are only minor details'. I reply that
these details carry enormous weight. They mean to draw all we do
over to the spirit of the Council. With the May 5 Protocol, we would
soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now
we are unified, but with that Protocol we would have had to make
contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society,
everything would have been a cause of division. New vocations might
have flowed our way because we were with Rome, but such vocations
would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome - which means division.
As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us,.
their side, Archbishop Decourtray is offering to one of our colleagues,
Fr. Laffargue, a Traditional parish, on condition he quits the Society...
They are pulling in our people, they are pulling us over to the
Council... Whereas on our side, we are saving the Society and Tradition
by carefully keeping our distance from them. We made an honest effort,
to see if we could keep Tradition going within the official Church.
It turned out to be impossible. They have not budged, except for
the worse, for instance Msgr. Casaroli's visit to Moscow.
our people will go mad with joy to be given some bishops. 90% of
them will breathe a great sigh of relief!"
"Ah yes, they object, but the May 5 Protocol offered us a bishop.
We would never have got him. On television and radio the Bishop
of Sion, our diocesan bishop here in Switzerland, said that the
Vatican had refused all candidates we put forward. They would accept
Dom Gerard, Fr. Pozzetto, Fr. Laffargue. But our own candidates
they would have put off, put off, put off. As for de Saventhem,
he argues just like one of them!
function will be to give the sacraments, and to preach the Faith.
You will be at the service of the Society. Rome only dealt with
me because I had the Society behind me. It is a valid entity. Remain
very united among yourselves, to lend strength to Tradition. It
will be up to the Superior General to take the major decisions...
for being bishops without the Pope's approval, that is not in itself
schismatic. It only became schismatic from Pius XII onwards, with
the Chinese problem.
Rome they are most upset. De Saventhem gave me Cardinal Ratzinger's
fax number. They have spiritual AIDS down there. They no longer
have God's grace, their immune system has shut down. I do not think
one can say that Rome has not lost the Faith. As for eventual sanctions,
the unpleasantness grows less with time. The humble people will
understand, it is the clergy who will react.
to the Faith, martyrs, always had to choose between Faith and authority.
We are re-living the trial of Joan of Arc, only with us it is not
a disagreeable few months, it has been going on for 20 years!"
From Le Sel de la Terre, no. 28, Spring