SSPX : "As We Are" or "As We Have Become" ?
In his last editorial of the magazine Fideliter, in the La Porte Latine, Fr Bouchacourt used the famous phrase of Archishop Lefebvre pronounced during his sermon of June 29, 1980: "Rome must take us as we are ..." . At MPI, we would have preferred to hear the superior of the district of France say "as we have always been." Indeed, his present of the indicative, in view of the last sanctions taken against the seven deans, looks terribly like "as we have become" ...But on this subject, let us leave the floor to a member of the SSPX who signs there his third text that illuminates this famous "as we are" retroactively.

SSPX: “As We Are”? (“Or as we have become?”)

You may have heard this rumor circulating now, and who would like Rome to recognize us “as we are.” This is what Archbishop Lefebvre had tried to ask, but the facts showed that Rome did not hear it in the same way. Another expression is equivalent to the first: it is “unilateral recognition”. But here again, Rome is not mistaken. Read instead what I found in the Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 63 of January 2003 of Bishop Fellay. I’m sorry, it’s always about Campos, but their case looks so much like ours …

“We can say whatever we want: on January 18, 2002 in Campos there was not only a unilateral recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but there is a counterpart: the complicity of silence. And how could it be otherwise? “

To explain this last sentence, we must go back a little in the same text. Fourteen years apart, the situation is definitely unchanged! Judge for yourself:

“We see behind the scenes a certain questioning of the developments of the last decades, a willingness in some to correct the drift,

This said for all Burke and Schneider of yesterday and today,

“But it remains clear that the principles which govern the present Rome are always those of the actualization of the Council as we have been able to experience it during the last forty years. In the official documents and the general line, we see no fundamental questioning on these principles; On the contrary, we are reminded that the movement initiated by Vatican II would be irreversible, which forces us to ask ourselves where the change of attitude has come from. The answer lies first and foremost in the pluralistic and ecumenical view that now reigns in the world of Catholicity, without excluding other explanations. But this vision ends by making everyone rub shoulders with each other without requiring any further conversion, as Card. Kasper about Orthodox and even Jews. It becomes clear that in such a perspective there will also be a small place for Tradition, but … such a vision, we can not accept it, any more than the schoolmaster could not accept pluralism in mathematics. “

Read again the sermon of Le Puy in 2016, or the interview at Terre de mission (January 29, 2017), where Bishop Fellay explains Rome’s attitude towards the Fraternity as “a concern of the Holy Father for the rejected on all sides. Hear divorced-remarried, etc.

But let us continue.

“One day will come, we are absolutely certain, when Rome will return to her Tradition, where she will put it in honor, and we call with all our heart this blessed day. But for now, we are not yet so advanced, and any illusion would be mortal for our society. We can see this by examining the developments of Campos … Campos, by his mentor Monsignor Rifan, proclaims that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration have remained as traditional as ever, Is the essence of what has been granted them, and the reason for their adherence to the Roman proposal: the ratification of the traditional position … “

And a little further, this sentence that makes me think so much about the new information site of the Fraternity:

“This attitude of implicit duplicity has become as the norm in the new situation in which they find themselves: we emphasize the points of the present pontificate that seem favorable, we pass under a reverent silence what is wrong …”

And here is the sentence quoted in the heading:

“We can say whatever we want: on January 18, 2002 in Campos there was not only a unilateral recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but there is a counterpart: the complicity of silence. And how could it be otherwise? It is obvious that now Campos has something to lose and that they are afraid of losing this something, and that in order not to lose that, it is the path of a compromise that has been chosen. We Brazilians, we are men of peace. You French, you are still fighting. To have peace with Rome, we must stop fighting. We no longer look at the overall situation of the church, we content ourselves with being content with the Roman gesture to a very small group of 25 priests to say that the situation of necessity no longer exists in the Church because with the granting Of a traditional bishop, a new situation of right was created … Because of a tree one forgot the forest … “

The sequel also applies very well to our situation:

“At Campos itself, everything that is positively traditional is preserved, of course, so the faithful do not see any change, except the most shrewd, who notice the tendency to speak more respectfully to the current Roman declarations and events by omitting the Garde of old and the deviations of today; The great peril is then to come to terms with the situation and not to try to remedy it. For us, before we embark, we want the certainty of Rome’s will to support Tradition, the marks of a conversion … To summarize, we must assert de Campos, despite their recrimination, that slowly, under the leadership of their New bishop, they mold into the conciliar spirit. Rome does not ask for more for the moment. “

But you exaggerate, I shall be told … Our situation is not at this point! We are strong! (And humble?)

So read on:

“It may be objected that our arguments are very weak, subtle, and do not give weight to the Roman offer to regularize our situation. We reply that the abstract consideration, in abstracto, of the proposition of apostolic administration is as magnificent as the plan of a very beautiful house proposed by an architect. The real question and the real problem are not there, but in the concrete: on what ground will the house be built? On the shifting sands of Vatican II or on this Tradition stone that dates back to the first of the Apostles? To secure the future, we are obliged to ask of Rome today the clarity of her attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the authorities have clearly reaffirmed the facts and have effectively returned to the “Nihil novi nisi quod traditum est”, then “we” will no longer constitute a problem. And we beg God to hasten on that day when the whole church will bloom again, having rediscovered the secret of its past strength, freed from this thought of which Paul VI said that it is of a non-Catholic type. It may prevail. It will never be the Church. There must be a small flock, no matter how small. »»

In this state of mind, it is, to say the least, foolhardy to speak of a “rubber stamp” (cf. interview of January 29th at Terre de mission), and it is in any case dishonest to say that “everything can happen” From Abbe Nély to Present). Unless we have changed … In this case, Rome does not have to fear to take us today “as we are” …

A priest of the Society of St. Pius X