1. Reverend Father, why is another Bishop
needed for the Resistance? Does a state of necessity subsist in the Church?
Aren’t the traditionalist bishops of the SSPX enough for the Church, as the
SSPX states?
The Church
needs Bishops because Our Lord wanted it like this. So, Tradition needs
Bishops. The work that Bishop Williamson has done since 1988 is enormous. The
help that Bishop Faure brings is indispensable, and a third bishop is not too
much. Tradition came to count with seven bishops when Bishop Lazo from the
Philippines came over to Tradition before the deaths of Archbishop Lefebvre and
Bishop De Castro Mayer. The Resistance is nothing more than the continuance of
Tradition.
2. Some people say that your consecration will
constitute a schismatic act. What can you say in this regard?
Just like
the 1988 consecrations did not constitute a schismatic act, in the same way,
this one also will not. The reason that
motivated the first consecrations is the same that motivates the other ones,
that is, the fact that Rome does not return to Tradition.
Evidently,
this new consecration can receive criticism, just like the consecration of
Bishop Faure, but for those that attentively consider the reasons, it concerns
consecrations motivated by the very same motive of the 1988 ones: the fact that
the Basilica of St. Peter is occupied by enemies of the Our Lord. It’s a
painful fact, but it is fact. To deny it proves to be irrealism, an accusation
made by Bishop Fellay to his three brothers of the episcopacy: Bishops
Williamson, Tissier, and De Galarreta.
This new
consecration is motivated by nothing more than the same motives that made
Archbishop Lefebvre act, nothing more and nothing less. The only difference is
the special circumstance in relation to the authorities of the Society, but in
relation to Rome and the crisis, the reasons are the same and are identical in
every way.
3. Father, last year, motivated by the
consecration of Bishop faqure, the SSPX said that the Resistance is
sedevacantist and that that is demonstrated by consecrating bishops without the
permission of the Roman authorities. What is your response to this other
accusation?
In the very
same way that Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist, the Resistance is
not sedevacantist, although within the Resistance there may be, just like in
the SSPX there always were, sympathizers of this thesis.
4. Father, what is your position regarding
sedevacantism?
I think
that the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in this regards is the most sensible
and the most prudent. The Pope cannot use his authority to destroy the Church,
so we don’t obey him in this work. We refuse to have any part in the
destruction of the Church. As far as deciding if the Pope has lost his pontificate
because of this, it is a disputed issue. We don’t have the means of withdrawing
a conclusion that eliminates all doubt. So then, with doubt, it is best to not
affirm that the seat is vacant and continue to consider him the Pope.
5. Last year we asked Bishop Faure what he
would do if he were invited to the Vatican by Pope Francis. Now we ask you the
same question. Would you go? What would you say to Francis?
Go to Rome?
Only if it were to ask if the Roman authorities accept Quanta Cura, Syllabus,
Pascendi, etc., but for now I think that the answer was already given and it is
negative.
6. Professor Carlos Nougué has posted a brief
article about your life where he mentions the incident of the pressure you
received from the authorities of the SSPX for having refused to sing the Te
Deum in celebration of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum (July of 2007). Can
you tell us anything about this and about other circumstances when you were
under pressure by the leaders of the SSPX?
What
happened in Santa Cruz when Bishop De Galarreta was here suggesting to me that
I leave the monastery is very complicated. Several factors come about. Only
Bishop De Galarreta can say exactly what all the reasons were that moved him to
make this suggestion to me. The doctrinal question could have been in play, but
there is no certainty about that since Bishop De Galarreta was, in principle,
against the deal. May be the liberty and independence of the monastery was
unsettling to Bishop Fellay. Bishop De Galarreta gave as a motive the vocations
of the monastery because while I was prior, the priests would not send
vocations.
7. Reverend Father, did your experience in the
monastery of Le Barroux serve to strengthen your opposition to the going astray
of the accordista drift or rallié of the SSPX?
Yes, there
is something similar in the admiration that Dom Gérard had for the then
Cardinal Ratzinger and the admiration, or at least, consideration that Bishop
Fellay has for Benedict XVI.
Dom Gérard
used to say that Archbishop Lefebvre stayed in his corner in order to refuse to
come in contact with the Roman representatives and that Cardinal Ratzinger was
a man that it would be possible to deal with. Dom Gerérd did not know the
Cardinal and did not want to learn from the experience of Archbishop Lefebvre.
I think that Bishop Fellay has committed the same error. The advice and views
of elders is something fundamental in life. Saint Thomas, when speaking about
docility, points to this disposition of the soul that we must have with elders.
It is worth reading article 3 of the question 49 of 11a IIae. It is very
instructive. Dom Gerárd did not take into account the advice and warnings of
Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop Fellay would act very differently if he also
contemplated this, I believe. This question deserves an entire study regarding
the attitudes of Dom Gerard and Bishop Fellay. I think that both were lacking
in t he prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre.
8. Can you tell us how the split came about
between your monastery and the SSPX in 2012?
The
separation between our monastery and the Society was gradual due to another
incident. But in 2012, when Brother Arsenio as well as myself wrote to them
about the dealings with Rome, and moreover when Bishop Williamson was in our
monastery and received our total support, the rupture was made.
Nevertheless,
we maintain good relations with some members of the SSPX that see the problem,
although they believe that it is better to remain in the SSPX for now.
9. Father, you knew Archbishop Lefebvre. Can
you tell us something about him?
Archbishop
Lefebvre possessed the strength and the tranquility of those that are certain
about the well founded principles of what they are doing, and this was united
to a great readiness to attend to souls. His tranquility came from the robustness
of his Faith and his common sense. Certitude generates tranquility, so the
certitude of Faith is superior to everything else. From this we can see the
total tranquility that Archbishop Lefebvre presented in every occasion. He was
a true bishop, as Saint Paul describes it, who acted in a way to save his own
soul and the souls of others that listened to his words and counsel. His motto
from his coat of arms summed up his attitude and his action: Credidimus
Caritati.
10. How would you explain the change that has
been done in the SSPX regarding a practical agreement with Rome and what do you
think with happen to the Society?
I think
that there are members of the Society that want an agreement and have been
working in this sense for many years.
Maybe Bishop
Tissier and Bishop De Galerreta accepted the change from what had been decided
in the 2006 General Chapter in order to save from the Society from an internal
division.
Only God
knows what will happen with the Society. I pray that it returns to its past fervor,
but it will be difficult to return as things once were.
Not being
together with the Society, I have difficulty in giving a fundamental opinion.
From what I have heard and read, I believe that the Society will try to arrive
at an unstable equilibrium composed of legality and fidelity. But they will
fight on the turf chosen by the enemy. From a tactical perspective, it’s not
very smart. The liberty to preach against the Holy See will remain (and is)
paralyzed. Even more so, Bishop Fellay seems to think differently from
Archbishop Lefebvre, despite his denial of this. This is fatal for the SSPX.
11. Reverend Father, can we speak of a true and
actual liberalism within the SSPX or would that be an exaggeration?
In bringing
oneself closer to Rome, there is no way of avoiding liberalism.
12. Father, how would you define the resistance
and how do you see its future?
I would
define the resistance as fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro
Mayer. The resistance is Tradition, or is the most sane part of Tradition or,
at least, the part of Tradition that clearly rejects the idea of a practical
agreement without Rome having returned to Tradition.
The future
of the Resistance is the fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro
Mayer, or in other words, the teachings of the infallible Magisterium of the
Church. Thank God that we have Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure with us
because they were chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre and were always faithful
disciples of the founder of the Society of St. Pius X.
13. What will be your priorities as bishop?
To give the
Sacraments and assure the preaching of the Faith.
14. What will be the motto of your coat of arms
and its meaning?
The motto
will be “Veritatem Dilexisti” (Thou hast loved Truth) taken from Psalm 50. The
coat of arms is the backside of a miraculous medal with the 12 stars (the 12
articles of the Creed and the 12 Apostles), the Cross, the “M” of the Most
Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Sacred Hearts.
In the
beginning, Brazil had the name of the “Land of the Holy Cross”. This is also
the name of our monastery.
Our
congregation was dedicated to the Most Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary by our
founder, Rev. Fr. Jean Baptiste Muard, in the 19th century.
15. Finally, Reverend Father, would you like to
send a message to traditionalists, in particular, to the Resistance?
A message?
Study the works of Archbishop Lefebvre and learn from his examples. Archbishop
Lefebvre is another Fr. Le Floch and Fr. Le Floch is the Magisterium; he is the
love of the Magisterium of the Church. Only in this way can liberalism and
Modernism be overcome.
Moreover,
read and search for understanding in the great anti-liberal authors, especially
those that understand the errors of the modern world, like Bishop De castro
Mayer, Archbishop Lefebvre and also Bishop Tissier who expounds upon the
strange theology of Benedict XVI with precision and who gave us the biography
of Archbishop Lefebvre, not to mention the ancient authors, whose list would be
too lengthy here. Remember Bishop Vital, the great Brazilian bishop and friend
of Mgr. Ségur, who vigorously combated masonry and because of this was
incarcerated and probably poisoned because he died a little after having been
released from prison due to serious digestive problems. Remember also Mgr. Pie
and, for Brazilians, Gustavo Corção, whose book, “O Século do Nada” (The Age of
Nothing), should be known by all. Corção understood the evil of the times very
well: the lie, since he said that the 20th century could be called
the age of the the lie. The remedy to this is in its opposite: “Veritatem
dilexisti”.
Dear Father, we give enormous thanks to God,
His Most Holy Mother, Saint Jospeh Protector of the Church, and Saint Benedict
for the great blessing that the Resistance receives with your consecration. We
ask God to give you a highly fruitful episcopacy. We give many thanks to you
for having accepted such an important responsibility and to Bishop Williamson
and Bishop Faure because they will consecrate you as a successor of the
Apostles. Deo grátias!
