While the spectre of the agreement between Rome and the FSSPX continues to widen divisions, Father Christian Thouvenot gave a surprising, to say the least, interview to the German District newsletter on February 16th 2018,

After briefly explaining his role as General Secretary and giving some technical elements concerning this July’s general Chapter, he asserts :

“In fact, our statutes provide for the Society to carry out « the necessary steps to become of pontifical right ». This was, in addition, Archbishop Lefebvre’s concern against the unjust and illegal suppression of the Fraternity in 1975 and at the time of the canonical recognition proposals that he formulated in 1987. But this question of our legal status is a consequence of the abnormal situation of the Church and the bad process that was done to us. We are Roman Catholic, profoundly united with the pope and with the hierarchy of the Church, but in the Catholic faith. We follow the pope, the vicar of Christ and successor of Saint Peter, not of Luther or Lamennais. We recognize the magisterium, the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the councils, but in the continuity of Tradition, not in the novelties which corrupt the faith, the liturgy and the doctrine of the Church.

To answer your question, it is likely that during the Chapter the question of the status of the personal Prelature will arise. But it is the Superior General alone who directs the Society and is responsible for Tradition’s relations with the Holy See. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre made a point of highlighting this.”

Two seriously inaccurate, but sadly significant points,  need to be corrected.

1- Do the statutes of the SSPX provide for the Society to carry out the necessary steps to become of pontifical right?

Indeed it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre provided for, at the creation of the SSPX in 1970 that the Society make « the necessary steps to become of pontifical right ». This mention is quite natural, and has nothing to do with the present situation of the Church. Established initially, as is proper, of diocesan right, any congregation spreading over several dioceses normally evolves into a congregation of pontifical right. This mention within the statutes of the SSPX is as such timeless and to use it as an argument to justify seeking an agreement with Rome today without taking into account the fact that today Rome is occupied by enemies of the Church to be considered canonically as suspect of heresy, amounts to deceit. Inversely, Archbishop Lefebvre always preferred a unity in the integral profession of Catholic Truth and the public combat which such unity implies, to a canonical recognition which would impose upon his Society silence concerning the evils and dangers of conciliar Rome.

“Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith, by saying: Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to re-enter in the official public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let us not speak about the malice of the [new] Mass any more. Let us close our mouths and say nothing any more. Let’s not be opposed to that. Let’s not say anything any more about the issues of religious liberty, of human rights and of ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent and like that we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will please those who are in the Church. We are going to re-enter like that into the Church, and once we will be inside the Church, you will see, we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do that… This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure and under superiors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.” (Mgr Lefebvre, Econe, Conference January 21, 1984)

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!” (Mgr Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, 1990).

2 – Is the Superior General sole responsible for Tradition’s relations with the Holy See?

To cut short any debate, Father Thouvenot asserts the following : “It is likely that during the Chapter the question of the status of the personal Prelature will arise. But it is the Superior General alone who directs the Society and is responsible for Tradition’s relations with the Holy See.”

In the face of such an assertion, let’s not forget that the Superior General of the SSPX is the superior of the SSPX and not the « pope » of Tradition. There too, Archbishop Lefebvre took great care, and in an explicit manner on numerous occasions, to avoid this pitfall. Even if his moral authority was real, this authorité never translates into an office. So it is most regrettable to see how much Mgr. Lefebvre’s wisdom, so respectful of the Orders which called on him for the Sacraments, has been abandoned. These communities are overlooked in the evolution of the relationships with Rome, often less informed than the ordinary priests of the SSPX. To express their own opinion on these Roman relationships sometimes even comes at the cost of them being refused Sacraments.

As for the SSPX, that the Superior General be in charge, as the Archbishop recalled with common sense, of the relations with Rome is one thing, is he for all that omnipotent and sole decision-maker in this domain? The general Chapter, which is the supreme authority in a religious society, not regarding government, but regarding directives and sometimes even in a legislative domain [ 1 ], has it no place in these relations with Rome in times of crisis?

The question was brutally brought up within the SSPX when in 2011, its Superior General broke with the directives given by the 2006 Chapter which stipulated that no practical

agreement was possible without a preliminary doctrinal agreement. Indeed in 2011, despite the sad conclusion of the doctrinal discussions highlighting the total disagreement on dogmatic questions, the Superior General general followed suit with Rome in wanting to “put aside the theologians”  to come to a practical agreement.

The Chapter of 2012 then ruled that if ever the Superior General be offered by Rome a canonical status in acceptable conditions (conditions enumerated by the aforementioned chapter), there would be a deliberative Chapter, meaning the decision of acceptance of this agreement does not belong by rights to the Superior General, but to the General Chapter. Regrettably, these prescriptions of the 2012 Chapter have in turn been widely ignored by the Superior General of the SSPX. The pretext given is that a personal prelature is erected by a motu proprio of the pope and, not requirineg to be accepted or not (!), such an erection would be independent of any antecedent decision of the General Chapter.

Graver still,  the six essential conditions promulgated by the chapter of 2012 are bypassed. One understands then the grave crisis of authority present at the moment in the SSPX. The origin of this crisis is not  the priests who are in disagreement with the choices of the Superior General. The crisis of authority which the SSPX is going through today is the result of the contradiction which exists between the directives of its General Chapter and the practical choices made by its Superior General.

Conclusion

On the eve of a new General Chapter of the FSSPX (July 2018), we can only pray that the Society may take up once again the torch of the anti-liberal fight, and that the crisis of authority which has been undermining it for the last few years might come to an end. This implies inevitably a change of personnel at the head of the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Christian Lassale,  translated from the French by Francesca de Villasmundo

[ 1 ] Cf. Emile Lombart, (dean of the faculty of canon law of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse), Manuel of canon law, 1958, p.168 : « almost everywhere the supreme authority is held by the General Chapter which elects the Superior General and has more to be power that he has. The Chapter meets at fixed periods (every 6 years in most recent institutes) and in extraordinary circumstances, such as the death or the resignation of the Superior General. In exempt priestly institutes it has the legislative power; elsewhere it can take certain measures, valid until to the following Chapter which can decide to maintain them.« 

Cet article vous a plu ? Medias-Presse-Info est une association à but non lucratif qui offre un service de réinformation gratuit et qui ne subsiste que par la générosité de ses lecteurs. Merci de votre soutien !