Readers’ letters

Source: FSSPX News


Dear Father,

Please find enclosed my renewed subscription to Nouvelles de Chrétienté (French magazine published by DICI- presse, [Ed.]), specifying nonetheless that, despite my fidelity to the Society since its beginnings and my indefectible sympathy, I wholly disapprove of the fact that it has taken upon itself to rule out the idea of a practical agreement with the authorities of the Church. Indeed, from the moment an accord, that is satisfying and therefore acceptable, could be obtained, it would be illogical and excessive to quibble over whether or not the doctrines professed by these authorities are irreproachable in certain areas. On the contrary, it is the expansion of Tradition, made possible by an agreement, and the consequences that would result from this accord, which would permit us to step up the fight against modernist errors. Only contacts deepened and led with good will would permit us to judge the possibility of a return, infinitely desirable, to unity, without either compromises or abandonment.

I was keen to explain to you this conviction, which seems good sense to me, that I may in no way share the responsibilities that the leaders of the Society would incur, in opposing themselves a priori to a regularization which seems providentially conceivable, on the motive, or pretext, of holding out for a perfect solution, which in this case would clearly be opposed to the greater good.

The bringing to an end of the exceptional situation, which the state of necessity has imposed upon Catholic Tradition, would be a great victory for the whole Church.

Without renouncing this hope, I remain respectfully and sincerely yours.

(Letter signed)


We reply with pleasure to your letter which sets out your opinion on the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.
We think as you do, that if a satisfactory and acceptable solution were possible, it would obviously be necessary to consent to it. But what do we mean by the word acceptable? In this matter, the Society of St. Pius X does not wish to act for itself or to seek benefit for itself alone, but it endeavors to serve the Church. We are not looking for our own little place "in the sun", but we are thinking, on the one hand, of all priests, especially the young priests who, just about everywhere in the world, are persecuted or forbidden from celebrating the Tridentine Mass. We want the right to celebrate the Traditional Mass to be recognised for everybody, everywhere. This, on the other hand, would be the sign that the Roman authorities had decided to truly support Tradition. The day when the Vatican is ready to acknowledge the rights of the Mass which are at this moment denied, and to impose this decision on the universal Church, a major obstacle will be removed.

We are well aware that the current situation will not be resolved overnight, and that it will take more than a day to purge the Church of the poison of Modernism. We know that the reform of hearts and minds, and the eradication of errors, will not be accomplished by the wave of a magic wand, but will require the necessary time. But between the ultimate goal to be reached and the situation as it is now, many intermediate steps are necessary. Each stage is a progression, even though it remains imperfect in relation to its destination, and this progession must be clearly understood. This is the crux of the problem you speak of. Prudence demands that each progression be clear, visible, indisputable, without which it risks being no more than a mirage, which would lead us into a desert, where there would be nothing to do but die of thirst….

Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that there is a deadlock, or even a contrary movement, even if some signs may foretell, that things will change in what we can esteem to be the not too distant future. Let us understand that the right judgement of the situation is of paramount importance: a misapprehension could be fatal.

Equally we must do justice to a cliché, insidiously put about by various means, and of which your letter is a reflection: the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X would oppose a practical agreement on principle. Where does this judgment come from and what is the basis of it? One would be hard pressed to explain or prove it. In fact, it expresses no more than an opinion and at the same time, the dissatisfaction of the partisans of a hasty agreement, and it is a way of exerting a certain pressure on the leadership to push it in this direction. Let us not forget that, on the one hand, the advances made by Tradition have been steady for the past three years, and on the other hand, the leadership has maintained the same attitude it has always had vis-à-vis Rome, which is that of its venerable founder: to affirm Tradition in the face of the present ecclesiastical madness and to stay attentive to everything that will help its return to the minds and hearts of the pastors of the Church. Certainly one is free to voice ones well argued opinion, when one thinks to be especially enlighthened on a question, but for goodness’ sake, let us have confidence in the leaders of the Society and not make accusations without evidence.

Finally, let us add that clearly, it is indeed on the refusal – or impossibilty? – of granting the Mass to everyone, that the present phase of this gigantic battle for the Church is organized. Let us pray that the swallows that we have seen here and there will soon bring us a veritable spring, which we will be the first to greet.

DICI editorial.