vendredi 20 mars 2015

Fr Faure's Interview (english) + comment


We are happy to have a new Bishop and we pray for both Bp Faure and Bp Williamson. For the Resistance, it is a important security to have two Bishops instead of one... But we are not happy with some parts of the interview given by Fr Faure just before his consecration... After having told in a previous preach he wanted the nullam partem with Rome, we have just found out that he is not for the nullam partem in reality, since he is ready to go to Rome with Bp Wiliamson if Rome calls them. The purple parts of the text of the interview are the parts we find dangerous for the future of the Resistance or with which we do not agree. We propose a comment of these quotes at the end of the interview. So our course of action will be the same as with Bp Williamson : if something we find dangerous is told, we will react. 

Translated by Michael (not the Michael from Avec l'Immaculée but another one) 

Avec l'Immaculée corrected a few mistakes of translation (cf. the spanish original.) The translation has apparently been orally dictated. We have not checked everything, but just the parts which were not English for our level of understanding, which is not bilingual. So we may have left mistakes. We put our corrections into [ ].

How about a little history to begin, Father, how did you get to know Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre?
In 1968, while in Argentina, I visited the Archbishop of Paraná, who told me: "Do you want to defend Tradition? In the Council I defended Tradition together with a brave Bishop, a friend of mine, Archbishop Lefebvre." It was the first time I had heard of Archbishop Lefebvre. I went to look for Archbishop Lefebvre in Switzerland in 1972, and during Holy Week was went I first met him there.

Where were you born? Why were you living in South America?
I was born in Algeria and my family, after the independence, acquired a plot of land in Argentina, close to Paraná. My family was deported from Algeria because the French government seceded power to the militant Moslems that committed horrendous massacres during the course of the process of the independence. My grandparents, parents and uncles worked in agriculture there since 1830.

Returning to the story, how your apostolate in the Society come about?
Archbishop Lefebvre ordained me in 1977 in Econe, and 15 days later I went with him on a trip through the southern United States, Mexico (where the government refused our entry), Colombia, Chile, and Argentina. The Archbishop put me in charge of starting an apostolate in this region. During the first year 2 Argentinian priests helped me and the following year another Spanish priest (of the Society). After this the South American district of the United States was formed as was my position and responsibility and I began to preach retreats as far north as Mexico. The first year there were 12 vocations that were put in the Priory of Buenos Aires that was in a large enough house. Following this, around 1980, the seminary in La Reja (Buenos Aires) was built, where Archbishop Lefebvre put me as rector. I stayed there until 1985, when I was named superior of the District of Mexico. That was when they built the churches in Mexico City and Guadalajara. I looked after the country and its distinct places together with Frs. Calderon, Angles, and Tam. Later I was in France for some years. After all of this I was named as professor of history in the Seminary in Argentina and I was there until the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from Argentina (2009).

Did Archbishop Lefebvre confide in you?
Archbishop Lefebvre gave me free access to his mail and correspondence and he put me in charge of certain records. He had a certain kind of trust for me: in 1977 in Albano he asked me what I thought about consecrations. In this opportunity he confided in me that "they are waiting for me" (the rector in Econe and the professors). They would suggest accepting the New Mass and the Council in order to preserve the Tridentine Mass. They said to him: " now we are confronted with Rome. If we conserve the Mass (Traditional) we must accept the Council." They tried to persuade the Archbishop to retire in a beautiful house in Germany, but he told them that they were free to leave if they wanted to. He got rid of them. 

Is it true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked you to accept being consecrated a bishop?
In 1986, while on a visit to Econe, he called me aside after a meal and asked me if I would accept being consecrated a bishop. Knowing what happened, I suppose I must accept. 

Then you did not accept?
I told him that it seemed to me that Bishop De Galarreta would be the most adequate. 

Can you summarize what happened in 2012?
In that year we were very close to an accord and it failed at the last moment, probably, because of the issue with Bishop Williamson. The deal failed because of that matter and the letter of the three bishops. Both of these caused the deal to fail. 

It is said that the key to the ad intra strategy of Bishop Fellay is the backside of the General Chapter. Can you tell us something about this?
The General Chapter was very well prepared by Bishop Fellay and the they (the accordistas) accomplished their objectives. [I understood there] what Archbishop Lefebvre and his friends felt like in the Second Vatican Council. Bishop Fellay had taken the decision of a policy of getting close to Rome and he had fixed it in order to have the the general support of the Chapter in expelling Bishop Williamson, who was the only one capable of obstructing this policy. 

According to your judgement, what should be the conditions required to make a deal with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre told us that while there were no real changes in Rome a deal would be impossible, because these people were not loyal, and one cannot intend to change one's superiors. It is the cat that chases the mouse and not the mouse that chases the cat. A deal would be equal to handing over oneself to the modernists, and consequently, it must be absolutely refused. It is impossible. We must wait for God's intervention. 

Can you tell us what you think the visits of evaluation of various modernist prelates to the Seminaries of the Society? Is it true that once Archbishop Lefebvre received some prelates? What is the difference now?
It dealt with exceptional visits during which Cardinal Gagnon never had the possibility of defending the Council, while on the other hand now it deals with the first steps of a reintegration (of the Society) into the conciliar church. 

What do you think about an eventual unilateral recognition on the part of Rome to the Society?
It is a trick.

Between the 2006 chapter and the crisis started in 2012 certain changes are observed and attitudes of the authorities of the Society Of St. Pius X in respect to Rome? What is the reason for this change?
[It is due to the decision of the superiors] to be reintegrated into the conciliar church. Since 1994 or 1995 there were some contacts with GREC ; that were significant steps towards a reconciliation, like what had been seen with the ambassador Perol ([represented France] in Italy) who is the inventor of the lifting of the excommunications (2009) and the Motu Proprio (2007). [The recognition of the Council had to be the counterparty] (ndlr : Avec l'Immaculée is not sure of the translation here in this last sentence). 

What would Archbishop Lefebvre do in the current situation?
He would follow in the line that he indicated to us after the consecrations, doing away completely with the possibility of a deal.

If in the future you were invited to go to Rome and speak with the pope would you go? What would you say?
First, I would consult with all of my friends in the resistance. I would go with Bishop Williamson and the other excellent priests that accept the combat of the resistance with much valor. And I would keep all of our friends well-informed with all transparency. 

Bishop Fellay has said that the Society is in agreement with 95% of the Second Vatican Council. What do you think of this?
Archbishop Lefebvre answered that all of the Council is invaded by a subjectivist spirit that is not Catholic. 


Is Francis, being an effective devastation of the Church and objective destroyer of the Faith, a true pope?
In my opinion, it cannot be said that Francis is worse than Paul VI, who was who put the Church on the wrong course, and so we must conserve the attitude that was the same of Archbishop Lefebvre, a prudential attitude that excluded sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to ordain a seminarian that was sedevacantist. And that was the policy in the SSPX until his death. So don't let it be said that the Archbishop did this or said that.

What is the state of the process of your expulsion from the Society?
The last news that I had heard was by chance a second warning in an email. After tomorrow, therefore, the Society of St. Pius X will again have 4 bishops! They better throw me out quickly. Deo gratias!

This decision of consecrating a bishop must have been thought about and meditated during much time. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre, you, Bishop Williamson and the priests of the resistance have not wanted to collaborate in the destruction of the Church. It is for conserving the faith intact that they have persecuted you all, condemning you all and calumniating you all many times. Your episcopal consecration could run the risk of resulting in an alleged excommunication. What were the principal reasons for bringing about this consecration?
The main reason is that that we cannot leave the resistance without bishops. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre said, Catholic bishops are indispensable for the conservation of the true doctrine and faith and the sacraments.

Archbishop Lefebvre thought of you in the consecration of bishop and now Bishop Williamson is finalizing this wish. What will be your main concern?
Maintaining the strength of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the way that he had went, without deviating too much to the right or to the left. 

Where will your place of residence be?
In France where we have been thinking about opening a seminary close to the Dominicans of Avrille.

Would you like to say any words to the priests and faithful that are still under the structure of the society but that are not satisfied with the liberal ways in the last years?
That they return to read into meditate upon the texts of their founder.

Can you explain to us the essential of your coat of arms?
[In the center] is the lamb of apocalypse and Alpha and the Omega the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world announced by Isaiah. The hearts are symbols of the Vendée martyrs and the revolution and the flower de lily is the emblem of Catholic France. The motto, ipsa conteret (she will crush you) is taken from the Vulgate, Genesis 3, 15 where God promises the victory of the Virgin Mary against the dragon.

Is there anything more you would like to add?
We conserve Faith, Hope, and Charity. There is nothing to doubt and we must [beg God and Our Lady to be maintained] in these virtues.

Father, we greatly thank God, His Most Holy Mother, and Saint Joseph protector of the Church for this great grace. We ask of God that he may protect and conserve you. We thank you for having accepted this tremendous [burden] and [we thank] Bishop Williamson for consecrating you as one of the successors of the Apostles. Deo Gratias!

Comment of Avec l'Immaculée :

Quote from the interview : "Can you summarize what happened in 2012?
In that year we were very close to an accord and it failed at the last moment, probably, because of the issue with Bishop Williamson. The deal failed because of that matter and the letter of the three bishops. Both of these caused the deal to fail. 
Comment of Avec l'Immaculée :
Until now, we never debated about this secondary issue, but we do not think that the media hype about Bp Williamson, made three years and a half after his interview in Sweden, in january 2009, played a real part in stopping the process of the agreement sspx-Rome in 2012. Freemasonry always wanted a deal between the Society St Pius X and Rome, because they know it is the only way to kill the sspx. So we think that freemasons did not pull the rug from under them. In our opinion, there is something else.
It is evident for us that the deal with Rome was prevented because of Bp Tissier de Mallerais' threat made to Bp Fellay to consecrate new Bishops and to leave the sspx if the superior signed the agreement with Rome, in 2012. It was also prevented by the courageous reaction of good priests like Fr Koller... 

 
According to your judgement, what should be the conditions required to make a deal with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre told us that while there were no real changes in Rome a deal would be impossible, because these people were not loyal, and one cannot intend to change one's superiors. It is the cat that chases the mouse and not the mouse that chases the cat. A deal would be equal to handing over oneself to the modernists, and consequently, it must be absolutely refused. It is impossible. We must wait for God's intervention. 
Commentary of Avec l'Immaculée :
First serious problem :
There is a big ambiguity which tells a lot. Fr Faure, while having an apparently strong speech and saying that an agreement with Rome is impossible for the moment, says nowhere that we must wait for the full conversion of Rome to make a deal with it. He tells the same thing as Fr Pivert, France fidèle, Avrillé, that is : for the moment, we cannot trust them, we need a radical change of Rome... But its conversion is not required, which is very worrying and completely differs from the initial position of the Resistance.
Quote : "Can you tell us what you think the visits of evaluation of various modernist prelates to the Seminaries of the Society? Is it true that once Archbishop Lefebvre received some prelates? What is the difference now?
It dealt with exceptional visits during which Cardinal Gagnon never had the possibility of defending the Council, while on the other hand now it deals with the first steps of a reintegration (of the Society) into the conciliar church."
Comment: 
Fr Faure, instead of recognizing that these visits were dangerous and that Abp Lefebvre should not have permitted them, excuse them, on the contrary... So perhaps one day, cardinal Müller -- who denies the Virginity of Our Lady and the transsubstantiation dogma, -- cf. here -- will come and say hello to us, while not having our permission to speak about Vatican II! He could come to visit our seminarians near Avrillé and could have a little chat with Fr Pivert who would study if his proposals permit us to fight "for the reign of Christ the King". -- For those who are not aware of the problem with Fr Pivert, cf. here and here)
What do you think about an eventual unilateral recognition on the part of Rome to the Society?
It is a trick.
Comment :
Same way of thinking as Abp Lefebvre, same vocabulary, based on confidence, instead of basing the reflexion on doctrine : at present, the Romans are too mean, so we do not trust them, but if they become again sincere and nice, we will study... It is what we are going to see in the next quote.
NB -- About Abp Lefebvre, cf. note at the bottom of this article + this article.

What would Archbishop Lefebvre do in the current situation?
He would follow in the line that he indicated to us after the consecrations, doing away completely with the possibility of a deal.
Comment :
The words "doing away completely" are in contradiction with the following part of the interview and what is suggested at the beginning of it, since the conversion of Rome is not required.
Moreover, we saw in our previous studies that Abp Lefebvre never set out the principle which states we should wait for the conversion of Rome to make a agreement. Sometimes he said he was waiting for it, by necessity, because of their lies, but he never told it by principle, because they had not the true doctrine.
Quote : "If in the future you were invited to go to Rome and speak with the pope would you go? What would you say?
First, I would consult with all of my friends in the resistance. I would go with Bishop Williamson and the other excellent priests that accept the combat of the resistance with much valor. And I would keep all of our friends well-informed with all transparency."
Comment :
Here is the sadest extract of the interview. Fr Faure and those who support him understood nothing. 
They still have not learned the lessons of the various divisions of the SSPX in the past. They are still willing to go jump into the lion's den and to be divided even more, as it is the systematic result of all contacts of Tradition with Rome since the beginning. They are ready to shake hands or to kiss the ring of pro gay Freemasons  (or gay themselves), of heretics who kill souls. They must not count on us to encourage them in this.
It is sinful to go to talk to these people. This goes against the whole tradition of the Church (cf. nullam partem) and against the discernment of spirits, as experience teaches that it is to get in a proximate occasion of sin. In fact, every time we go to Rome, there is a compelling proposition which seems at first without compensation, or so little ... This technique makes those who approach Rome to be systematically deceived. Moreover, since in principle it is prohibited to put ourselves under the authority of heretics, it is useless and even harmful to approach them until they are not fully converted. As for transparency, we know what to think: Bishop Fellay  had also promised transparency and finally, he never published the texts of the discussions with Rome, as originally planned. Once one is caught in the downward spiral of Rome, there is always good excuses for not being transparent because the temptation to consider a particular proposal is too strong ... especially when one does not keep the principle that we must demand the complete conversion of Rome before all things! We also discover that Bishop Williamson would be willing to go talk to Rome if Rome called : we assume that Fr. Faure asked him if he could say that he would accompany him to Rome, before writing this publicly... So the discourse is changing, from the Williamson side ... which only half surprised us, given the ambiguous Eleison Comments against which we had to fight in the past. (See for example here and here)

 
Bishop Fellay said that the Society is in agreement with 95% of the Second Vatican Council. What do you think of this?
Archbishop Lefebvre answered that all of the Council is invaded by a subjectivist spirit that is not Catholic. 
Comment:
It's good but insufficient. Father Faure does not say that we must reject all Vatican II. So we are still in the line of Father Pivert and Avrillé ... This is also the line which Archbishop Lefebvre had. This line is not doctrinally tenable, if we want to remain faithful to the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas on heresy (see explanation in this article).

Is Francis, being an effective devastation of the Church and objective destroyer of the Faith, a true pope?
In my opinion, it cannot be said that Francis is worse than Paul VI, who was who put the Church on the wrong course, and so we must conserve the attitude that was the same of Archbishop Lefebvre, a prudential attitude that excluded sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to ordain a seminarian that was sedevacantist. And that was the policy in the SSPX until his death. So don't let it be said that the Archbishop did this or said that.
Comment:
Again, like in the time of the Archbishop, Father Faure is careful to fight as much as he can against sedevacantism, which is a theologically free opinion, for this opinion is justified by the writings of many holy doctors (even if they are very probably wrong and even if this doctrine can have very dangerous consequences for the souls). With the Immaculate is not sedevacantist but we believe that this view is free and permitted and only the Holy Pontiff to come will have the right to decide about the question. So we think it is sinful to persecute sedevacantists, as long as those people keep for themselves their opinions and agree not to preach or proselytize about it, because of the trouble that  it always arouses in souls. It is also necessary that they do not think their opinion is a dogma. If they make it a dogma, in this case, it is excessive, and they have to go with the other sedevacantists, outside the Resistance. But if they agree that it is a free opinion and if they agree not to speak about it not to disturb people, let's keep them. Chasing the non-dogmatic sedevacantists seminarians would be a sin in our opinion, because it would force them to go towards dogmatic sedevacantism if they want to be ordained priest, while in good conscience, some do not want to join the dogmatic sedevacantism, knowing they do not have the right to decide about it, as a trustful pope has not yet ruled on it. So this decision not to ordain sedevacantist seminarians, even the non dogmatic ones, persecutes people who have done nothing wrong and simply adopt a theological attitude permitted by the Church. (NB : if Bp Faure agrees to ordain the non dogmatic sedevacantists he can publicly tell it and send us a link to the article where it is told, and we will rectify our statement, with relief)
If we want to remain faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre on this subject, it implicates that we also defends the false immoral "oath"  done in front of the open tabernacle, telling that we recognize that the pope is the pope. But in the current state of theology, it is forbidden to promise this because no one has the right to have a final certainty on this issue. This problem has been studied in this article. If Fr. Faure required this "oath" because of his loyalty to Archbishop Lefebvre, it would be sinful, according to the Code of Canon Law of 1917: we have no right in conscience to promise uncertain things.
In addition, a harsh attitude of persecution against non-dogmatic sedevacantists, who can be very holy priests and who have with them the whole doctrine of the Church is truly painful, when we see at the same time that Father Faure is ready to go and kiss the hand of homosexuals Freemasons Roman heretics. And this, claiming he is faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre, not without reason. That's why with the Immaculate warned against some of Archbishop Lefebvre positions since July 2014.

Archbishop Lefebvre thought of you in the consecration of bishop and now Bishop Williamson is finalizing this wish. What will be your main concern?
Maintaining the strength of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the way that he had went, without deviating too much to the right or to the left. 
Comment:
We agree that we should not deviate to the right or left of the true doctrine of the Church. This is the doctrine of the Church which must be the line we must not deviate. But not to want to deviate from the line traced by Archbishop Lefebvre is bad because this line is not correct, on several points, including the relations with Rome: he never stated the principle that we had not the right in conscience to consider putting souls under the guidance of people who had not entirely the true faith. It is common sense that if someone does not have the true faith, God could not want to give him authority to guide the souls to heaven. (see also the nullam partem rubric)


Where will your place of residence be?
In France where we have been thinking about opening a seminary close to the Dominicans of Avrille.
Comment:
We have seen that the Dominicans of Avrillé, while good in some points, do not have a good clear doctrine concerning the attitude to adopt towards Vatican II and Rome. It is therefore problematic that the students are trained by them ... at least by their superior, Father Pierre-Marie, (because some of these Dominicans are more traditional than their superior).


Would you like to say any words to the priests and faithful that are still under the structure of the society but that are not satisfied with the liberal ways in the last years?
That they return to read into meditate upon the texts of their founder.
Comment:
All of Archbishop Lefebvre texts are not doctrinally clear, on some points. He contradicts or is mistaken several times in his lectures or sermons, concerning the relations with Rome, sedevacantism, "conciliar church" (sometimes considered as the true Church and such as worthy of being frequented by us, and sometimes considerated as a sect, it depends on the time. - We have given our position on this subject in this article.Archbishop Lefebvre was also wrong about the jurisdiction of substitution that the faithful are supposed to give to the priests of the sspx (according to him, but theologically, we cannot say that.) The authority of substitution comes from God. Bishop Tissier in his biography of Archbishop Lefebvre noted this error . (see explanation in note 1 a. of this article.) So Archbishop Lefebvre is not to be considered as gospel on all points ... although when speaking of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnate Word, he is fascinating and sometimes even sublime! But on all points of doctrine never really studied closely by the Church and related to the present crisis, he hesitated, which is understandable. We do not condemn him for it. But we do not say either he is our master in everything. Only Jesus is our master.


Conclusion
We ask Saint Joseph, since Fr. Faure was consecrated on his feast day and since he is the protector of the universal Church, to protect our new bishop and to show him that it is not the best thing to want to be faithful in everything to Archbishop Lefebvre, when he is not doctrinally safe. Attempting to follow all the line drawn by Archbishop Lefebvre would bring new dramas in the Resistance, because the same erroneous principles would produce the same injustices and tragedies as in the past, in the Society of St. Pius X.