Nouveaux sacres d’évêques : un théologien de la FSSPX répond aux jeunes

Full Transcript

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZzEz_nSdRI

[00:00] As the consecrations approach, scheduled for July 1st, many members of the Fraternity have many questions.
[00:07] Why is this act legitimate?
[00:15] What does Church theology say about authority and unity?
[00:21] We therefore wished to conduct an in-depth interview with Father Gleize to address these questions with the seriousness they deserve.
[00:26] We will ask him several questions to review, point by point, the doctrinal foundations of such a decision.
[00:34] Father, before addressing the various points that justify these consecrations, can you tell us why this ceremony, which will take place for the time being without a papal mandate, is so important for the Fraternity?
[00:48] Important for the Fraternity, yes, it is.
[00:56] We will, in all likelihood, welcome
[01:05] 15,000 people to the seminary in Écône: it is therefore an unprecedented event, significant in itself.
[01:16] But beyond the logistical and organizational aspects necessary to manage these crowds, we must not lose sight of the fact that the consecration ceremony is ordered for the good of the entire Church.
[01:28] It is precisely the means by which the Church, with fully Catholic bishops, can persevere in its faith amidst this widespread crisis.
[01:40] How can you say that this is for the Church when you are acting against Rome?
[01:45] The accusation of acting against Rome is nothing new.
[01:45] It was leveled at us as early as 1988.
[01:54] Archbishop Lefebvre was already defending himself against it.
[01:54] Recall the homily for the consecrations on June 30th: the Archbishop refers to this ceremony, which was apparently undertaken against the will of Rome.
[02:03] Here, a very simple distinction must be made between Rome, which we have
[02:09] Always recognized as the principle of unity and authority in the Church—we are Catholics, and Archbishop Lefebvre reminded us of this many times: “Far be it from me to set myself up as pope”—and the men in Rome, invested with these functions and positions of authority, but who, unfortunately, are imbued with these pernicious ideas that have generated, and continue to generate, this unprecedented crisis throughout the Church.
[02:36] You often speak of a survival operation.
[02:36] What does this survival entail?
[02:44] It is about surviving when things become difficult.
[02:52] Today, it is becoming difficult to be Catholic.
[02:52] It is becoming difficult to find a Mass according to the traditional rite of the Church.
[03:00] It is becoming difficult to hear an authentically Catholic sermon.
[03:06] And when I speak of this difficulty, I am not measuring it on the ultimately rather limited scale of the small
[03:14] traditional world.
[03:14] We must consider it on the scale of the entire universal Church, throughout the world.
[03:19] What does it mean to survive?
[03:27] It means continuing to breathe clean air while the atmosphere becomes increasingly poisoned.
[03:32] We want to find ways to give souls clean air, truly Catholic preaching and sacraments, to save their souls.
[03:39] Don't you think you have a very pessimistic view of the state of the Church?
[03:46] Perhaps that was the case in the 1970s and 80s, which led Archbishop Lefebvre to ordain the new bishops in 1988.
[03:52] But today, we are still seeing a return to the Church, with many baptisms on Easter night throughout the Church, and so on.
[03:58] Ultimately, is this state of survival still relevant?
[04:06] Yes, it still is.
[04:06] We are not saying that the air has completely disappeared, nor that the atmosphere has become totally unbreathable.
[04:11] We are simply saying that the air is poisoned.
[04:11] At first,
[04:17] There was the massive influx, throughout the Church, of this poisonous atmosphere of the Council.
[04:23] This is what we saw in the 1970s and 80s: churches emptied, priests desacralized, abandoning their cassocks, going too far into the world to the point of sometimes abandoning their priesthood, and a completely desacralized liturgy, of which only the name remained.
[04:44] Today, since John Paul II and with Benedict XVI, we observe among Catholics a need for spirituality, seriousness, and the sacred.
[04:51] This is true.
[04:51] But the atmosphere remains poisonous.
[05:00] Why?
[05:00] Because this return to the sources remains based on false principles, the principles of liberalism.
[05:07] Moreover, the liturgy has not been reformed.
[05:13] There may be an attraction to the traditional liturgy, but the norm remains the modern liturgy.
[05:17] The new liturgy, which is a liturgy designed to Protestantize.
[05:26] And there are still these ideas of liberalism, with a new evangelization that forgets the fundamental role of the priest and maintains a very real and consistent ecumenical dimension.
[05:35] So we are far from being out of the crisis in the Church.
[05:42] Indeed, Father, I see where you're going with this: it's the argument you often invoke and which is often defended by the authorities of the Society, that of the famous state of necessity.
[05:53] Could you try to explain it to us, to define it in a few words?
[05:59] The most important word is "necessity."
[06:04] This means that, whatever one may think, one finds oneself obliged—one would wish it weren't so—to disregard, if one wishes to keep the faith, the application made by the authorities of Church law.
[06:17] We respect the law: it is good.
[06:17] But the law is made to give souls
[06:23] The means to be saved.
[06:23] It is meant to give faith, to give the sacraments.
[06:29] Today, churchmen are applying these laws to impose the false principles of the Council.
[06:35] In this case, we disregard them.
[06:35] We disregard these laws when they take away our catechism, when they take away our Mass, and when they turn our priests into meeting organizers instead of being fellow believers.
[07:00] Are there limits to this state of necessity?
[07:00] How far will you go?
[07:04] If this continues, eventually you will no longer recognize the Pope and you will become Protestants.
[07:04] You accuse the Church of becoming Protestant, but isn't the Society itself, by not recognizing the Pope, becoming Protestant?
[07:15] I answer you with what Archbishop Lefebvre said: we do not criticize or reject the Pope, but what he does.
[07:21] The limit, therefore, is imposed upon us by the Pope himself.
[07:21] He sets it,
[07:27] Insofar as he departs from tradition and introduces false principles into the Church.
[07:35] We are resisting an invasion.
[07:35] Our stance is a reaction, a secondary, consistent stance, intended to protect us against this unjust aggression stemming from the errors of the Council.
[07:51] We will therefore go as far as necessary to protect the faith, within the bounds of Providence.
[07:58] It is not necessarily understood how a state of necessity can, in itself, justify recourse to these episcopal consecrations.
[08:04] We see around us the communities formerly known as Ecclesia Dei, which recognize the hierarchy of the Church, which obey, at least in principle, and which nevertheless manage not to cooperate in error.
[08:17] Their seminarians are ordained priests, and so on.
[08:23] Why should we not be able to adopt this way of doing things?
[08:23] I am simply asking you
[08:28] The question.
[08:28] I was actually asked this question by a priest from the Fraternity of Saint Peter, who himself answered it: have the promises of 1988, contained in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, been kept?
[08:40] No, indeed, they have not been kept.
[08:40] That said, they still have their priests ordained every year, admittedly by diocesan bishops, but they can continue to benefit from and receive the sacraments.
[08:52] And this remains precarious.
[08:56] We saw this clearly with the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which clearly demonstrates Rome's intention to restrict these privileges.
[09:03] And I think there's something very important here: these concessions are always granted not for the good of the Church, but as a concession to these communities, who, moreover, have to demand them loudly and defend themselves to obtain even the smallest amount.
[09:20] For our part, we want—and this has been the initial idea—the good of the Church.
[09:27] As Bishop de Castro Mayer said, we are
[09:34] not asking for the possibility of celebrating Mass in a side chapel; we want the high altar, because we want the Church, the good of the Church.
[09:43] Father, you just spoke about Vatican II and the errors often mentioned: collegiality, ecumenism, the reformed liturgy.
[09:54] But are these errors so significant?
[10:00] You yourself said it: the atmosphere isn't completely poisoned.
[10:05] Can't we set aside these flawed principles and continue to live healthily in the Church?
[10:11] Or are they truly decisive?
[10:11] You know the expression—I believe it's Pope Francis's—is that of the Church's compass.
[10:18] The ideas of the Council are just that: a compass.
[10:23] And a compass shows the way; it therefore has a very concrete scope.
[10:29] These are not texts that remained a dead letter in the Council's records.
[10:29] These are texts that have led to very concrete reforms, that have changed the lives of Catholics,
[10:35] Their way of praying, the way priests live.
[10:43] We see it more and more: we are truly in an ecumenical Church.
[10:48] What is the most important part—or at least one of the most important—of the Pope's activity?
[10:54] It is the ecumenical meetings.
[10:54] We saw it with the ecumenical jubilee, or again with the Pope's congratulations to the new Archbishop of Canterbury, since she is a woman.
[11:01] Ecumenism remains very much present, and it is the harbinger of indifference.
[11:06] These are not merely abstract ideas; they are ideas that have taken root in our lives in a very concrete way and that are bringing about what has been, quite rightly, called a Protestantization.
[11:17] Are there, for us faithful, concrete signs of this state of necessity?
[11:24] I will give you just one example: the declaration Fiducia supplicans, this document from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that authorizes the non-sacramental blessing
[11:41] Of couples in irregular situations.
[11:41] How will you explain this to your children?
[11:48] You take them to Mass on Sunday, and they see their uncle living in concubinage, their divorced and remarried aunt, approaching the Holy Table and receiving Communion.
[12:00] How will you explain to them that divorce and concubinage are immoral, and that normally one should not receive Communion under these circumstances?
[12:07] This situation compels us precisely to react, to protest, to defend our faith.
[12:14] Hence the recourse to a Catholic episcopate that will not authorize this sort of thing and will even go so far as to say that communion must be refused to such people.
[12:29] Here is an objection that one easily encounters: that of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
[12:36] Either you reject this dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, or
[12:42] You consider that it is you who allow the Church to remain indefectible.
[12:49] Could you simply define this dogma briefly for us and explain where you stand in relation to it?
[12:54] The question is very interesting because behind it lies the idea one has of the Church.
[13:00] Very often, when I hear this well-known reproach—"It is not we who save the Church, it is the Church that saves us"—it is as if, in the mind of the person making this objection, the Church is not us, but something other than us.
[13:12] In reality, the Church is us.
[13:19] Not just us, the traditionalists or the faithful of the Fraternity, but us, the members of the Church, the baptized faithful, from the Pope to the newest baby baptized.
[13:34] The Church is indefectible through us, through what we do precisely to preserve the faith, to safeguard the sacraments, through the actions of men,
[13:49] of the Pope, of the bishops, and also of ordinary faithful.
[13:55] The Church will therefore not be indefectible because we remain passive in the face of Vatican II, accepting without a fight all the measures that forbid us the true Mass, the true sacraments, and the true catechism.
[14:09] The indefectibility of the Church passes through us.
[14:14] Far from questioning this indefectibility, and far from mistaking ourselves for the Church, we each fulfill, in our own way, with the graces of state that God bestows upon us, the role that God expects of us.
[14:19] Father, earlier you invoked the state of necessity to justify the episcopal consecrations of July 1st.
[14:25] But does the state of necessity justify everything?
[14:31] For example, there are laws, such as the law against killing an innocent person, that cannot be circumvented.
[14:36] Isn't there a limit?
[14:41] Aren't there laws that cannot be transgressed?
[14:47] Yes, indeed.
[14:47] We see it clearly, and you say it: it's the most vivid experience.
[14:47] One cannot kill an innocent person.
[14:56] Abortion, for example, admits of no exception, not even if the person is suffering unbearably.
[15:01] On this point, there can be no compromise.
[15:06] However, we must... One thing must be understood: these laws cannot be transgressed precisely because they were established directly by God himself.
[15:14] They belong either to the natural order, by virtue of God's very existence—these laws are then the expression of what nature and justice demand—or to the supernatural order, when God reveals them to us through his revelation, because they concern the situation of his Church.
[15:29] For example, the fact that the Pope, Bishop of Rome, is the head of the Church, he alone and no one else.
[15:37] Therefore, there are laws that admit absolutely no exceptions.
[15:46] But these are not the only laws.
[15:52] There are
[15:58] Others: laws enacted by human beings in dependence on God's laws, in order to clarify them and facilitate their application in particular, variable, and contingent cases.
[16:11] This is human law: civil laws, such as traffic laws, and the laws of canon law.
[16:20] God commands us to keep the Lord's Day holy: this comes directly from God.
[16:28] The Church specifies how to keep it holy by asking us to attend Sunday Mass.
[16:34] This commandment can be subject to exceptions: if you are unable to attend Mass, you can still keep Sunday holy.
[16:41] Therefore, a very important distinction must be made.
[16:51] Some laws do not admit of exceptions; others, depending on the circumstances, may.
[16:51] It is precisely these laws that come into play in
[16:59] The problem we are addressing: episcopal consecrations.
[17:06] Specifically, on this subject, are episcopal consecrations conferred without a papal mandate contrary to divine law or ecclesiastical law?
[17:14] This is the main objection raised against us.
[17:21] There are two types of objections.
[17:21] Either we are denied the state of necessity, being told that it does not authorize us to resort to these exceptional measures.
[17:25] Either we accept it, but are told that this state of necessity does not give us the moral option of doing what we are about to do, because it would be contrary to divine law.
[17:41] The answer is very simple, for it is found in all treatises on canon law.
[17:49] The fact that the Pope reserved to himself the power of episcopal consecrations, that is, the power to consecrate other bishops, is a recent measure,
[18:02] Dating from the 12th century.
[18:02] It cannot be proven that it goes back to the time of the apostles and that it is, therefore, the expression of divine right.
[18:15] Church history shows that at a certain point the Pope reserved this power to himself.
[18:15] Why?
[18:19] Because there were abuses: bishops were consecrating a little too freely, with harmful consequences.
[18:26] To establish order, the Pope reserved this power to himself.
[18:26] But this is a matter of ecclesiastical law.
[18:32] We can therefore encounter rare, exceptional situations where, for the good of the Church, it becomes necessary to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, or even against the explicit will of the Pope.
[18:44] We saw this during Paul VI's Ostpolitik: bishops in Eastern European countries secretly consecrated Catholic bishops even though they knew perfectly well that Paul VI was opposed to it, for the well-known political reasons.
[18:57] If I understand correctly, consecrating bishops against
[19:04] The Pope's wishes would not be a schism, but a serious act of disobedience.
[19:10] What is the difference between the two?
[19:10] Is that correct?
[19:17] It would be a schism if a bishop were consecrated by giving him not only the power to perform ordinations and administer confirmation—that is, to give the sacraments—but also jurisdiction, authority.
[19:22] That would be a schism.
[19:27] Why?
[19:27] Because only the Pope—and this is a matter of divine right—can grant jurisdictional power, that is, establish a bishop at the head of a part of the Church in a position of authority and governance.
[19:39] Only the Pope can do this.
[19:44] To do so in place of the Pope and against his will constitutes an usurpation contrary to divine right, and therefore a schism.
[19:50] But granting the power of Holy Orders without granting jurisdictional power is not a schism.
[19:56] It would perhaps be, and this is most often what Church history attests to, it's disobedience, because it requires the Pope's permission.
[20:01] But there may be
[20:06] circumstances where it wouldn't even be disobedience, because those circumstances demand Catholic bishops, and the Pope cannot refuse them.
[20:18] If he refuses, he abuses his power.
[20:24] He truly acts like a tyrant, because he refuses them for illegitimate reasons.
[20:29] Unfortunately, that's what we see today.
[20:37] We are being denied fully Catholic bishops—that is, bishops opposed to the errors of the Council—precisely because those who refuse them to us, the Pope in particular, are attached to those errors, which run counter to the common good of the Church.
[20:52] So you think the consecrations of July 1st aren't inherently bad?
[20:59] No, they aren't.
[21:05] Normally, doing what we're doing would be disobedience in a serious matter.
[21:05] But, given the circumstances, it isn't.
[21:05] It's part of what the Bishop called "Operation Survival."
[21:05] Normally, the Pope cannot
[21:09] , and indeed should not, refuse us this. He has a grave duty to give souls the means to
[21:17] sanctify and save themselves. Among these means is the fully Catholic episcopate.
[21:23] What would truly constitute a schism in an episcopal consecration? What constitutes a schism
[21:29] is precisely granting the power of jurisdiction that only the Pope can bestow.
[21:33] It is an usurpation. It is, in a way, exercising authority in place of authority,
[21:40] an act of supreme authority in place of supreme authority. This is what the
[21:46] Orthodox bishops did in 1054, and they remain schismatic because they
[21:51] still do not recognize the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. But, Father,
[21:58] how can you say that the consecrations of July 1st will not grant jurisdiction
[22:04] to the bishops, when for years the Society has acted as if it truly possessed
[22:09] jurisdiction? For example, by preaching, or even by declaring marriages null and void—I'm thinking
[22:17] of the Saint Charles Borromeo Commission. Several elements thus show that the Society acts
[22:24] as if it truly had jurisdiction over souls. You said it, and it's interesting:
[22:30] the Society acts as if, from the outside, it had jurisdictional power. But it
[22:39] doesn't, and it denies having it. We mustn't forget that the Society acts
[22:45] in this way under the law that provides for what is called a supplementary jurisdiction. What does
[22:52] that mean? It's an aspect of the state of necessity. When souls are destitute and
[22:56] need someone to act with authority for their own benefit—you gave the example
[23:04] of a declaration of nullity of marriage, made in a way that truly respects the rules of
[23:09] the Church—they can turn to someone and request a single act of authority. This means
[23:17] that we exercise authority on a case-by-case basis, at the request of souls. It is not the people
[23:25] who have given us a power we do not possess. It is not a power we have
[23:29] arrogated to ourselves. We respond, as the law stipulates, to the requests of souls. In a sense, it is
[23:37] these souls who, in quotation marks, grant us jurisdiction, that is to say, they authorize us
[23:42] to perform these acts of jurisdiction for their benefit. But it is not by carrying out dozens,
[23:49] hundreds, or thousands of individual acts of jurisdiction to come to the aid
[23:54] of these souls that we would possess jurisdictional power. Power descends from above,
[23:59] and it can only descend from the Supreme Pontiff. Here, we are dealing with something quite
[24:03] particular: exceptional measures provided for by law. They multiply
[24:08] due to circumstances, but that does not change the matter. They are exceptional measures.
[24:13] This is merely a jurisdiction, in the improper sense of the term, a substitute,
[24:18] in the sense I have just explained. For the faithful, how can one distinguish between leaving
[24:26] the Church and resisting a particular orientation? Concretely, how can one distinguish the bishops of
[24:32] the Society from the schismatic bishops? I will answer you first with an initial distinction: a
[24:40] An Orthodox bishop will refuse to recite the Filioque when reciting the Creed. The
[24:47] bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X do recite the Filioque; this signifies that they remain Catholic,
[24:52] unlike Orthodox bishops. This is a primary difference in the profession of
[24:57] faith. More fundamentally, the bishops of the Society recognize the very principle of
[25:03] the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. An Orthodox bishop does not recognize the Bishop of Rome
[25:09] as head of the Church. He rejects him. Certain ecumenical gestures may give the impression of this,
[25:17] but one should not be fooled. The Society and its bishops have always recognized the Pope for who
[25:23] he is. Once again, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, we reject not the Pope,
[25:29] whom we recognize for who he is, but what he does. We are therefore not leaving the Church,
[25:35] for leaving the Church means abandoning the Catholic faith, refusing to recognize the
[25:42] divinely instituted government of the Pope, or rejecting the true sacraments. We reject none of
[25:48] these three things. On the contrary, we protest against the harmful measures and false principles
[25:54] of the Council that tend to destroy or corrupt these three things: the Church in
[26:01] its governance, in its profession of faith, and in its worship. Far from leaving the Church,
[26:08] we remain in it, and we resist what seeks to destroy it. Archbishop Lefebvre said: “I do not want to
[26:16] be reproached, when I appear before God, for having contributed to the
[26:24] destruction of the Church along with others.” In this regard, Father, you wrote in several of
[26:30] your articles in the Courrier de Rome that the unity of the Church truly rests on faith,
[26:34] and not primarily on obedience. Could you explain again the true link between faith and
[26:41] obedience? One thing must be remembered: in a natural and temporal society, like the
[26:47] French Republic, you have obedience, and that's all. There is an authority, and people
[26:52] who obey through the laws. The Church is much more than that. The Church
[26:56] is a supernatural society, founded first and foremost on faith, that is, the adherence of the intellect
[27:03] to the truths that God reveals to us. Authority in the Church is established by God for
[27:09] this very purpose: to communicate His truths to us, so that our intellect can give them its full
[27:15] assent. Obedience in the Church, therefore, only has meaning in dependence on faith. All the
[27:21] laws of the Church exist to allow us to protect our faith, to profess it, and to draw
[27:28] all the necessary conclusions from it in our lives. This unity of the Church,
[27:33] which, as you said, rests first and foremost on faith, is supernatural; yet, it is
[27:39] quite evident. It is visible, yes, but visible through what is called the profession of
[27:46] faith. What is the profession of faith? It is what we do when we recite our
[27:50] Creed. It is precisely the same Creed. We are united in our faith, in particular because
[27:57] we sing the same Filioque in the Creed, which the Orthodox do not sing, and which,
[28:03] unfortunately, Pope John Paul II omitted to sing so that he could recite the Creed with them,
[28:08] even though they are not Catholic, in the context of an ecumenical meeting. Where is the unity
[28:12] of the Church at that level? It is precisely to maintain this visible unity that we profess the
[28:21] same faith on Sundays at Mass, every time there are religious services,
[28:27] and even in our behavior and our activities. We take the truths of the faith into account in the
[28:33] way we conduct ourselves. There is therefore a moral life that flows from what God
[28:39] has revealed to us. Adultery is condemned by the Gospel; therefore, divorce is not something a
[28:46] Catholic can condone. This has consequences. What do you say to those who
[28:54] truly place faith and obedience on the same level, and consider obedience
[29:00] almost more important than belief? It simply means they haven't understood the
[29:05] supernatural nature of the Church. This is somewhat the tragedy of these generations of Catholics, both before and after the
[29:13] Council: by constantly emphasizing the role of the Pope in the Church, they forget what the Church is.
[29:20] The Pope. There's a loss of the supernatural spirit. We no longer see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ,
[29:26] primarily charged with preaching Christ's word to us. We see him as a head of state,
[29:33] a man charged with enforcing laws and governing, without going beyond what
[29:38] one might find in a French president. It's a kind of
[29:44] desacralization and de-supernaturalization of the Church. By constantly insisting on obedience,
[29:50] we create a false unity, a temporal and naturalistic unity, no longer supernatural.
[29:57] To return to this question of unity of faith you were talking about, you said it
[30:00] should be expressed through our profession of faith. But precisely, this profession is
[30:06] given to us by the Pope. He is the principle of the Church's visible unity. Yes, but we must always
[30:12] return to the principles, that is to say, to the initial truths. Certainly, it is the Pope who gives it to us,
[30:18] but he does so because he is the Vicar of Christ. Consequently, he has no right
[30:25] to change the word of Christ. He transmits it to us, and it is always the same word.
[30:31] He is the Vicar of Christ. If we oppose him, it is not the Pope himself
[30:38] , as Vicar of Christ; on the contrary, we rely on the entire line of Popes throughout
[30:46] the history of the Church, who have been, one after another, like the unaltered echo of
[30:51] this word of Christ, always transmitted in the same sense and with the same meaning,
[30:57] as Saint Vincent of Lérins says. Today, we oppose not the Vicar of Christ,
[31:02] but a man invested with this power of Vicar who, unfortunately, abuses this power,
[31:11] diverts it from the expression of the true faith, and imposes errors already condemned or
[31:17] theological opinions already rejected. What is the right way to love the Pope in this
[31:22] crisis? The answer is always the same: to have an ever more purified gaze of faith. We must see
[31:30] beyond the person who is harming the Church and causing us suffering; we must see beyond this
[31:36] person the office, the Vicar of Christ, and pray that this man will be faithful to
[31:43] his office. We all have a stake in this. This is not about polemics: these are
[31:50] all-too-human reactions. Archbishop Lefebvre was far above this kind of reaction. He saw the good of
[31:55] souls and was concerned with bringing Rome back to tradition, as he said. Against
[32:02] all hope, he hoped for the Pope's return to traditional ideas, for the good of the Church,
[32:08] for the good of souls, and also for the salvation of the Pope himself. We pray for him as
[32:14] the head of the Church, but also as an individual, that he
[32:17] too may be saved. Isn't there still a danger of sliding towards sedevacantism? The danger,
[32:28] or rather the risk, exists. But it is, in a way, a risk inherent to the situation we are
[32:36] experiencing. It is not a risk we ourselves created, nor is it inherent to our
[32:42] person or our position; it is inherent to the situation. We are forced to
[32:48] acknowledge what we see: a papacy that is causing people to lose their faith. We are
[32:56] forced to react. But this does not mean that we believe there is no
[33:01] longer a pope, nor that there is no longer any authority in the Church. Not at all. It is simply
[33:05] a conviction we hold, perhaps contrary to what we are forced to experience,
[33:12] by living, it is true, somewhat as if there were no pope. But this does not mean that
[33:18] we acknowledge that there is no pope. On the contrary. This situation calls for prayer
[33:24] and study, to become ever more convinced and deeply entrenched. Above all, we must not
[33:30] forget that this situation, which may carry this risk, is not of our own making. It is
[33:36] Providence that has imposed it upon us. It is God who allows this. It is God who has
[33:42] placed us in this situation. If He has placed us here, as long as He allows us to remain so, He will grant us the
[33:49] grace to persevere and remain Catholic, preserving the faith and our reference to the See of Peter.
[33:58] I would also add common sense: a Church without a pope cannot stand, neither theologically
[34:03] nor according to sound reason. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, the possibility of sedevacantism is becoming a reality.
[34:11] in a dead end. The visible Church, in order to be visible, needs a visible leader.
[34:18] Father, you said earlier that there will be no schism
[34:22] during the episcopal consecrations to be conferred on July 1st in Écône, because
[34:27] Holy Orders will be given but not jurisdiction. Can we now turn to what is probably the
[34:33] most technical point? Can you explain to us what the power of Holy Orders is and what the power
[34:38] of jurisdiction is? The simplest way is to go back to Christ. As you know, Christ is priest,
[34:47] prophet, and king. He communicates his powers to men so that they can, after him, continue
[34:55] his work in the Church. What is the power of Holy Orders? It is the power of Christ
[35:02] the priest, that is to say, the power to sanctify, to give souls grace through the sacraments.
[35:08] It is therefore the power to administer the sacraments. It is acquired through a rite, a consecration. It
[35:16] is equivalent to the priestly character of the one who receives it, and it is a power that cannot be
[35:22] lost: it is indelible. It is given, through the rite, directly by God himself; the one who
[35:29] ordains, the consecrator, is merely God's instrument. The power of jurisdiction, on the other hand,
[35:38] is the power of Christ the King and also the Prophet. It is the power of Christ who teaches and
[35:45] governs us to enable us to obtain the salvation of our souls and to prepare us to
[35:52] receive the sacraments. This power is communicated to men through what is called
[35:57] jurisdiction. It is given by a man, by the Pope, by means of a canonical mission. It is an
[36:07] act of the Pope's will, which grants authority to a priest so that he may have authority over a diocese
[36:12] and be a bishop by virtue of that authority. It is a power that can be lost. The Pope can
[36:17] withdraw jurisdiction just as he can grant it. It is therefore the power to govern, to guide
[36:24] souls toward the end of society, through laws. These two powers are quite distinct, but there is
[36:31] a link between them in the Church. Why? Because the Church is a supernatural society. Its
[36:37] purpose is the salvation of souls. In the Church, therefore, government aims at sanctification.
[36:43] Jurisdiction is ordered to order. This is why these two powers are linked and must be
[36:53] coordinated in their exercise. There is also another important element: in the Church,
[37:00] power is sacred power. This is the meaning of the word hierarchy, which signifies sacred power.
[37:06] He who has the authority to govern in the Church must therefore be a sacred figure, because
[37:11] he is God's representative in the supernatural order. Consequently, it is fitting that,
[37:16] in the Church, he who possesses jurisdiction should also be consecrated and possess the power of order.
[37:25] You are establishing a distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. But how
[37:30] can we arrive at a perfect separability of the two, when most of the time,
[37:34] if not always, we observe that bishops possess both? We must
[37:42] n't confuse things. Just because, most of the time—as you said
[37:46] —they are not separate, doesn't mean they are inseparable. They can be separate. Why
[38:00] are they not usually separated? Because, as we have just said, the
[38:02] purpose of government is the sanctification of souls, and the one who governs is a sacred figure.
[38:08] Therefore, the one who governs must possess holy orders. There is a kind of connaturality, a destiny, even
[38:15] an aptitude, almost a requirement, between jurisdiction and holy orders. On the other hand, the reverse is
[38:23] not true. Therefore, one will very rarely, almost never, find someone who possesses jurisdiction
[38:28] without having holy orders. When the Church grants jurisdiction to someone who lacks the power
[38:33] of Holy Orders, it aims to grant that person the power of Holy Orders as quickly as possible. However, the reverse
[38:38] is not true. One can find—it is rare, but not extraordinary—within the Church,
[38:43] individuals who possess the power of Holy Orders without having any jurisdiction, and without any
[38:49] qualification or requirement whatsoever regarding jurisdiction. Why? Because
[38:57] these are bishops whose role is to sanctify: the auxiliary bishops. They come to assist the bishop.
[39:03] who is a bishop and who possesses jurisdiction, because he cannot suffice on his own for
[39:10] this entire work of sanctification. The bishops of the Society will be, and are, auxiliary bishops
[39:16] . They do not have jurisdiction. They simply have the power of Holy Orders to sanctify. There
[39:21] is perfect autonomy here, perfect separation, and this is entirely traditional
[39:27] in the history of the Church. One can therefore confer the power of Holy Orders without conferring jurisdiction.
[39:33] So you maintain that a bishop can validly and licitly receive episcopal consecration
[39:38] without receiving a canonical mission. Why is it theologically decisive to make
[39:45] this distinction? This is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre did not want to do,
[39:48] quite simply because he could not. Only the Pope can confer jurisdiction
[39:53] in the Church. If one confers jurisdiction in the Church in place of the Pope, it means one is
[40:00] usurping it. This is an usurpation: we are appropriating, arrogating to ourselves something that only the Pope possesses
[40:07] and can exercise. It is precisely to avoid being schismatic that we refuse to do what
[40:15] would be an usurpation. We must maintain a balance between two demands. We must grant the power
[40:21] of Holy Orders because there is a state of necessity: we cannot leave souls in distress,
[40:25] even if Rome opposes it. But on the other hand, we reasonably restrain ourselves so as not to
[40:32] go beyond what the situation requires and so as not to grant a jurisdiction that would be
[40:38] usurped and that would undermine our credibility. In this regard, can you explain and
[40:45] show us how the new ecclesiology of Vatican II blurs this distinction between
[40:51] the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction in the text of the Council? This is an important aspect of the
[40:56] problem, and it helps to understand why Rome considers us schismatic despite
[41:00] everything we may say. In the new ecclesiology—that of the constitution
[41:05] Lumen Gentium, in chapter 3—it is stated that episcopal consecration,
[41:13] within the framework of a rite, confers both the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction, which
[41:18] thus comes directly from God, and which every bishop possesses by virtue of his consecration. This is
[41:25] something entirely new, completely contrary to all tradition. At the time of the Council,
[41:35] Council Fathers, comrades-in-arms of Archbishop Lefebvre within the Coetus, and even others,
[41:39] remarked, in giving their opinion on the text of this schema, that it contained something
[41:43] absolutely new that could find no justification in the tradition of the Church. Nothing like
[41:51] it had ever been seen before. The consecrated bishop does not possess jurisdiction: it is the Pope who grants it to him.
[42:00] This, therefore, represents a new logic. In this line of reasoning, indeed, if we consecrate bishops
[42:05] against the Pope's will, and if the consecration ipso facto confers jurisdiction, then we can only
[42:10] conclude that there is a schism. But we can only conclude that there is a schism based on these
[42:18] false presuppositions of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II. Moreover, Father,
[42:23] doesn't the growing authority of lay people in the Roman Curia indirectly reveal the validity of
[42:29] this distinction? Yes. At the same time, this puts the conciliar authorities in contradiction with
[42:36] themselves. We see it clearly: they give positions of authority and jurisdiction to women,
[42:42] that is, to members of the faithful of the Church who, by definition, cannot receive the
[42:47] power of Holy Orders. This clearly proves that there is a distinction between the two. If
[42:51] they were consistent with themselves, they should consider that jurisdiction derives
[42:56] from a consecration, and they would then have to consecrate these people, which is not possible. There is
[43:02] therefore both a contradiction within the conciliar system, within the new ecclesiology,
[43:09] and an indirect acknowledgment of the correctness of the traditional position. For a non-specialist faithful,
[43:19] could the question be summarized without losing precision? Quite simply,
[43:26] episcopal consecration makes a bishop by giving him the power to confer the sacraments of Confirmation
[43:34] and Holy Orders. In concrete terms, the bishops in the Society, as we
[43:40] will have them and as we have them, are bishops who travel the world to give
[43:45] Confirmation and ordinations. They have no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is
[43:50] granted by the Pope, and we do not grant it because we are not the Pope. Father,
[43:56] may we move on to the objections? Gladly. What, fundamentally, do you find fault with in Cardinal
[44:02] Sarah's position? Cardinal Sarah is a man of goodwill, and we see that he is reacting up to a
[44:10] point. He has spoken quite strongly. But he is content with a unilateral appeal for
[44:18] obedience, and this appeal is repetitive. There is no real argument: "You are going to disobey,
[44:25] it's serious, obey, otherwise you will cause a schism in the Church." “One gets the impression
[44:31] that unity of faith no longer exists, and that it can no longer justify an action that, apparently,
[44:39] goes against obedience, but which, in reality, is entirely in line with just and
[44:44] true obedience, which has no reason to exist in the Church except to preserve the faith.
[44:51] Another objection, raised by the Fraternity of Saint Peter and based on Saint Thomas Aquinas,
[44:56] is that the bishop is like a prince in the ecclesiastical order. Should we understand
[45:02] by this that the bishop is defined above all by his power of jurisdiction? When quoting
[45:09] Saint Thomas, one must be very careful to place the quotation in its context and to
[45:14] see precisely what he is talking about. Saint Thomas spoke very little about the bishop from the point of view of
[45:24] jurisdiction—he does speak of it in Contra Gentiles, but very little elsewhere—because, for him,
[45:27] jurisdiction falls under canon law, which he does not deal with directly. It is not
[45:29] a theological matter.” Saint Thomas Aquinas, therefore, speaks primarily of the bishop in the context of the
[45:34] sacraments, that is, the power of Holy Orders. Indeed, he says that the bishop is a prince,
[45:39] a king. But he is so in the order of worship. This is what we see in a
[45:45] pontifical Mass: there is a throne, a king assisted by servants, who exercises authority,
[45:54] but in the order of worship, by analogy. Why? Because he gives the priests
[46:00] the power to consecrate the Body of Christ. Yes, the words prince, king, and regency are present
[46:07] , if you will; but this is entirely metaphorical and inappropriate, by analogy
[46:12] in the order of worship. This has nothing to do with a true jurisdiction corresponding
[46:19] to a true power of government. We must put things in context. We must also understand—as we
[46:27] have already said and we repeat here—that the power of Holy Orders is formally autonomous within
[46:33] its own order. It does not necessarily imply the power of jurisdiction. Not at all.
[46:40] The Church, as a society, needs both. There must be,
[46:47] in one way or another, individuals within the Church who possess both powers in order to exercise them,
[46:52] one for the sake of the other—jurisdiction for the sake of order. But this does not mean
[46:57] that every individual in the Church must necessarily possess both. And it certainly does
[47:02] not mean that the power of order requires jurisdiction. Absolutely not. You have
[47:13] responded extensively to Father de Blignières in the pages of the Courrier de Rome lately. What
[47:18] exactly do you criticize him for? Is it for minimizing the state of necessity? Or is it for being mistaken about
[47:27] the unity of the Church, particularly on the question of hierarchical communion, which, according to him, is
[47:32] a matter of divine right? I criticize, or rather I deplore—and I am not addressing Father
[47:41] de Blignières personally, whom I do not know and have never met, but his ideas and what
[47:46] he develops—first, that he repeats himself without renewing his arguments. He takes up the arguments of 1988,
[47:57] repeats them, harps on them ad nauseam, and does not respond to the arguments we have already
[48:04] raised and which we renew in an attempt to clarify the issue ever more precisely. He does
[48:11] not answer us; he repeats himself. What are these arguments? He tends, and increasingly so
[48:18] over time, to minimize the state of necessity. We see it. This minimization unfolds indirectly
[48:27] and takes the form of a reproach addressed to the Society: "You are exaggerating.
[48:34] " When we see this, we cannot help but think of the reflection that Archbishop Lefebvre
[48:40] made about Dom Gérard when the latter, after the consecrations, took the wrong path that
[48:44] We know. The Bishop said, "He no longer sees the gravity of the errors." Because the state of necessity
[48:52] is measured by the gravity of the errors. They minimize them: there are errors, there are indeed things
[48:59] that are wrong in the Church, but it's not so serious as to… We can
[49:03] clearly see that they said nothing about Fiducia supplicans, or very little, or not enough.
[49:11] There is a truly marked weakness in the reaction to errors, and it's growing
[49:17] . So, on the one hand, there is the minimization of the state of necessity, and on the other hand, the famous
[49:23] argument of divine right, according to which the requirement of a papal mandate for the consecration of bishops
[49:28] by the Pope is a requirement of divine right. But no, that's not true. All
[49:35] canon lawyers say so. The law states that the Pope reserves the consecration of bishops to himself. But this
[49:43] reservation dates back to the 11th century. Father Cappello, in his well-known treatise, demonstrates and proves this.
[49:48] Why this reservation? Because there were abuses. The Pope therefore reserved this power to himself,
[49:52] but it falls under ecclesiastical law. No explicit mention of this requirement, according to which only Saint Peter and his successors could
[49:58] consecrate other bishops, is found in the sources of revelation.
[50:04] No, absolutely not. It would have to be proven before it can be asserted.
[50:10] Yet it is asserted to say that we cannot do what we are about to do, and that,
[50:16] consequently, it would necessarily be schismatic, or intrinsically evil, against divine law.
[50:21] They assert it, but they do not prove it. That is not true. It is a measure of
[50:27] ecclesiastical law, which therefore allows for an exception due to the circumstances. The bishops of
[50:34] Eastern European countries did so during the communist persecution, despite the opposition of Paul VI, who was then
[50:43] engaged in his Ostpolitik. Some might say this argument is self-serving, but it
[50:53] remains a matter of common sense that should resonate with the conscience of Catholics. Archbishop Lefebvre
[50:58] was not a madman. He was a man of the Church, a great bishop. He had long enjoyed Rome's confidence
[51:06] . He had been to Africa; he knew its theology. I can attest to this, as I was
[51:12] in charge of the archives at the seminary in Écône: you should see the sheer number of pages he filled in
[51:17] his fine handwriting with the study of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church Fathers, and the early popes. He knew
[51:23] canon law. I therefore do not believe he acted entirely recklessly. He knew
[51:28] what he was doing. He said so and explained himself by citing studies by canon lawyers in the sermon
[51:37] at the consecration. This is therefore a miscarriage of justice. Another objection that could be raised,
[51:44] Father, is that the very liturgy of consecration seems to demonstrate the profound link
[51:50] between the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction in the episcopate.
[51:54] I am thinking, for example, of the episcopal ring, but also especially of the crosier and the enthronement that
[51:59] takes place at the end of the liturgy. All of this seems to show that there is an intrinsic,
[52:03] deep, fundamental, almost necessary link between episcopal consecration and the power of
[52:10] jurisdiction. It is quite beautiful, moreover. We will see this in the ceremony: at the end,
[52:16] the bishop is accompanied, he leaves with the crosier and takes possession of the flock. Indeed, this
[52:25] could give the impression that consecration confers jurisdiction. But
[52:33] a distinction must be made, which can be illustrated by a similar, though not identical, example.
[52:39] Look at the coronation of the kings of France. There, too, you have the presentation of the insignia of
[52:52] power: the crown, the scepter. The king is crowned, but he is already king. In France, he
[53:02] is king from the moment the previous king dies: "The king is dead, long live the king," even before he is consecrated.
[53:07] Another interesting example: when the pope, in former times, received the tiara at the
[53:15] papal coronation, he was already pope. What does this mean? There can be a simultaneity between
[53:24] episcopal consecration and the bestowal of a symbol corresponding to something else: the power
[53:31] of jurisdiction. But this simultaneity, this synchronization, does not mean that
[53:38] episcopal consecration is the cause and source of this power of jurisdiction. The liturgy
[53:44] He did things this way, and it's easily explained. Ordinarily, most of the time,
[53:51] the consecrated bishop already possessed jurisdiction, having received it beforehand, and the liturgy expressed this. The
[53:59] liturgy therefore remains what it is, even in the rare, though not extraordinary, case where the
[54:06] consecrated bishop does not receive jurisdiction. What ultimately matters is not so much the
[54:11] details of the liturgy, but the form—insofar as the episcopate is a sacrament, which is
[54:16] disputed—for there is a form and a substance. Now, in the very expression of the form, you have
[54:25] no mention of the power of jurisdiction. The form of the rite indicates what is caused by the rite; here,
[54:33] what is designated is the power of Holy Orders, and by no means the power of jurisdiction. Contrary
[54:40] to all these objections, do the statements of figures outside the Society, such as
[54:46] Bishop Strickland or Bishop Schneider, confirm the Society's position and analysis? They
[54:56] primarily confirm the Church's traditional doctrine, quite simply, because
[55:01] the Society has no analysis of its own. There is only the Society's fidelity to Church doctrine
[55:06] . It is both fortunate and heartening to see two bishops reflect, evolve, be clear-sighted,
[55:15] honest, and upright, and draw their conclusions. What is impressive about Bishop Schneider
[55:22] is that he has evolved considerably. He is becoming more aware of things, he is moving in the same direction,
[55:29] always more and always better. He is taking a stand, he is courageous, because he is taking our side
[55:35] and defending us. But it must be clearly understood—and here we return to the initial point—that
[55:42] consecrations are not for the Society. He is taking a stand for the Church, and he defends the Church through
[55:50] the Fraternity. Indeed, this is very beneficial. Does this external support change
[55:56] anything about the nature of the arguments, or simply their visibility? It does
[56:01] n't change the nature of the arguments. It simply gives them much more weight in terms of visibility.
[56:06] We can see, therefore, that it is not only we who are saying this in what would be
[56:12] a self-serving argument; it is also being objectively observed by people who are not
[56:17] part of our Fraternity and who have no particular interest in doing so. This therefore lends it added
[56:24] credibility. You explained to us earlier why the accusations of schism
[56:29] would be futile concerning the consecrations conferred on July 1st in Écône. But there is still the
[56:35] threat of excommunication. What are we to make of this? Will this excommunication be automatic? What
[56:42] will its value be? In 2026, as in 1988, we must adhere to the letter of the law; Otherwise, we
[56:52] get lost in imaginary things and no longer know where we're going. The law is very clear. This
[57:01] was also highlighted by a German canon lawyer whom Archbishop Lefebvre quoted in his homily of
[57:06] June 30, 1988. The law states that anyone who acts against ecclesiastical law, or the
[57:17] law in general, driven by grave necessity, is excused from any offense. Therefore: no offense,
[57:26] no punishment. The law also stipulates that even if someone acts in this way is
[57:34] mistaken, erroneous, or in bad faith, and even commits an intrinsically
[57:40] evil act, as long as they are driven by grave necessity, there would certainly be an offense,
[57:46] but the punishment should be mitigated, because the extenuating circumstance that led them to act out of necessity is taken into account
[57:53] . The punishment would therefore necessarily be less than excommunication, by the
[57:58] very nature of the law. Whatever the hypothesis considered, according to the letter of the law,
[58:05] we should be no more liable to excommunication in 2026 than we were in 1988.
[58:11] This would not only be fundamentally unjust, but contrary to the very letter of the
[58:17] law. Father, is there a difference between 1988 and 2026? Something has changed,
[58:29] and something hasn't. Both are true. What hasn't changed is us. And without
[58:35] any presumption, we must face this. I think it's very important, because it's
[58:42] striking and can serve as an example: precisely, we haven't changed. One might have
[58:49] expected it—because that's generally what happens when there's this kind of initiative.
[58:57] Truly schismatic, breaking with the Church—leading to fragmentation. Society splintered at the
[59:04] same time as it broke with the true Church. We saw this among the Orthodox: an
[59:11] immediate and seemingly endless fragmentation of autocephalous churches. We also see it in
[59:15] Protestantism. Yet the Fraternity remained as straight as an arrow and as united as one,
[59:24] in its threefold unity of worship, profession of faith, and governance. There are, of course, always
[59:32] the human stories inherent in the history of the Church, with this or that isolated defection
[59:37] of this or that priest. But society itself has maintained its unity. I emphasize this: the unity
[59:45] of its Catholic faith, without veering into exaggeration or hardening,
[59:50] without falling into sedevacantism. It has also experienced a rejuvenation,
[59:58] with young priests ordained every year, and an internal balance at all levels,
[01:00:05] even from a purely human perspective. On the other hand, in present-day Rome,
[01:00:12] things have changed. The crisis has certainly worsened, particularly under
[01:00:21] Pope Francis. But even under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we saw a deepening of the crisis,
[01:00:26] with an intensification of ecumenism, which is fostering an increasingly
[01:00:32] indifferent mentality. If you ask an ordinary Catholic today, they will tell you—
[01:00:40] because they believe it and because it has become a unanimous conviction—that salvation can be found
[01:00:45] in all religions. They believe it because it has been said. So, the
[01:00:52] crisis has worsened on all levels. In that respect, yes, there has been a change in present-day Rome,
[01:00:59] and that is what justifies our initiative all the more. Can we say that the principle of
[01:01:07] 1988 remains the same in 2026, namely the desire to transfer the power of order without transferring the
[01:01:13] power of jurisdiction? Yes, it is still the same principle. I would even say that it
[01:01:17] lends us all the more credibility. This worsening of the crisis still does not tempt us
[01:01:26] to replace the authorities in place. We remain in our place. We want the salvation of
[01:01:33] souls, and we are taking the necessary steps. Precisely because the crisis is worsening, we do not see,
[01:01:37] from a human perspective, any real hope of a return to tradition on the part of the conciliar authorities.
[01:01:42] We must therefore take the necessary steps to continue, but only as much as necessary, and no more. Do you think
[01:01:49] that the media's focus on the schism at Écône somewhat obscures the theological argument? Undoubtedly
[01:01:56] , as always. Remember the consecration ceremony: during his sermon,
[01:02:00] Archbishop Lefebvre paused and alluded to the journalists, saying that the media would
[01:02:07] not help us in this regard. That is the role of the media, their usual mission: to be there,
[01:02:15] to write their story, pushing whatever is in vogue. There is a single way of thinking,
[01:02:23] and that is manipulation, not information. The mechanism will therefore certainly come into play. It
[01:02:30] may come into play in different circumstances, because today, thanks to or because of the internet,
[01:02:38] alongside the official media, we have a multitude of independent and parallel media outlets. But this only
[01:02:45] exacerbates the circus surrounding the Magisterium. It is confusion. Yes, there will certainly be this
[01:02:53] demonization, this kind of screen preventing people from seeing clearly. All the more reason to pray,
[01:03:00] reflect, study, take a step back, and always maintain a clear perspective. Father, what should
[01:03:09] a member of the Society remember first and foremost as July 1st approaches? The most important thing
[01:03:16] to remember is that, if it hadn't been for the consecrations of June 30, 1988, there most likely would have been no
[01:03:24] members of the Society, because there would have been no Society at all. I mean, there
[01:03:30] would no longer have been a Society as it is now, as it has remained, faithful
[01:03:33] to itself. There would also have been no communities. This shows the full importance of this
[01:03:41] founding act of Archbishop Lefebvre, which gave us the means to persevere through the crisis.
[01:03:48] The consecrations of 2026 are therefore part of a continuity, a repetition made possible
[01:03:55] thanks to this initial initiative of Archbishop Lefebvre. This simply means that we continue
[01:04:01] to work for the salvation of souls in complete safety, by the grace of God. What danger do we face?
[01:04:07] What is the danger in this context? The danger that lies in wait for us is always the same: believing we have arrived.
[01:04:14] We must not forget that we take the means that God gives us,
[01:04:18] and that these means must be used according to God's will. It is not because we
[01:04:24] once again have four young and effective bishops that everything is won. The salvation of our souls is
[01:04:32] never won. We must always persevere to the end, remain faithful in faith,
[01:04:39] in humility, in self-distrust, and in surrender. In such a situation, Father
[01:04:45] , what concrete act of faith must each faithful person who truly wants to remain Catholic make, in your opinion
[01:04:52] ? I believe that we must truly believe in the indefectibility of the Church. We
[01:04:57] spoke about this earlier, and we must believe in this indefectibility while fully understanding
[01:05:03] what it means. The Church is indefectible, but the Church is us. Once again,
[01:05:08] we are not the only traditionalists, nor are we the only faithful of the Society: it is everyone,
[01:05:14] all the baptized. The Church is infallible because each person, in their place, corresponds to the graces
[01:05:20] God gives them to work out their own salvation and contribute to the salvation of others. That is what the Church is: the
[01:05:26] Pope in his place, the bishops in their place, and each faithful person in their place. The Church is not
[01:05:32] an entity separate from us. The objection raised against us—"It is the Church that saves us, and it is
[01:05:48] not we who save the Church"—when one reflects on it, is meaningless and,
[01:05:50] moreover, betrays its origins. There is an entirely artificial, even antitheological, dichotomy here
[01:05:57] between the Church and us. But we are the Church. The Church is us: the Pope, the bishops,
[01:06:03] the faithful. We were told often enough at Vatican II that the Church is the people of
[01:06:07] God. Indeed, the Church is steadfast because we work and contribute, at our own level,
[01:06:15] with the graces God bestows upon us, to this perseverance. This is what we must not
[01:06:21] forget: believing in God's help, which can never fail us. You have just highlighted
[01:06:27] the act of will that must be made. But as for the act of intellect, what
[01:06:32] is the fundamental distinction that must be understood? It is essential to understand that the Church
[01:06:39] is a society of a supernatural order. It is the mystical body of Jesus Christ. It is not a
[01:06:46] society like any other. Its unity rests on the gift of God's grace. This is first and foremost the gift of
[01:06:54] faith. The unity of the Church, fundamentally, is the unity of the profession of its faith. Faith is the
[01:07:01] beginning of salvation. Dependent upon this, and in service to it, is the unity of governance.
[01:07:07] The governance of the Church, once again, only has meaning if it is there to maintain this
[01:07:17] profession of faith. The gravity of the present moment lies precisely in separating the two. Finally,
[01:07:23] in conclusion, Father, you now have thirty seconds to convince us of the
[01:07:28] validity of the 2026 consecrations. The glory of God and the salvation of souls. The Superior General has
[01:07:35] said it and repeated it after Archbishop Lefebvre, and that is what motivates us. I would say it is apostolic,
[01:07:42] missionary, and charitable. Thank you. At the end of this interview, one point emerges very clearly: the
[01:07:51] question of the consecrations cannot be interpreted solely from a disciplinary or media perspective.
[01:07:57] On the contrary, it requires and demands a proper understanding and sound knowledge of
[01:08:02] the Church's doctrine on unity and authority. It also requires,
[01:08:07] and perhaps above all, a sound understanding of what true and just
[01:08:13] obedience to the Pope should be. Thank you, Father, for your insights and your answers.

Full Transcript

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZzEz_nSdRI
Translation: fr

[00:00] Alors que les consécrations approchent, prévues pour le 1er juillet, de nombreux membres de la Fraternité ont beaucoup de questions.
[00:07] Pourquoi cet acte est-il légitime ?
[00:15] Que dit la théologie de l'Église sur l'autorité et l'unité ?
[00:21] Nous avons donc souhaité mener un entretien approfondi avec le Père Gleize pour aborder ces questions avec le sérieux qu'elles méritent.
[00:26] Nous allons lui poser plusieurs questions pour passer en revue, point par point, les fondements doctrinaux d'une telle décision.
[00:34] Père, avant d'aborder les différents points qui justifient ces consécrations, pouvez-vous nous dire pourquoi cette cérémonie, qui aura lieu pour l'instant sans mandat papal, est si importante pour la Fraternité ?
[00:48] Importante pour la Fraternité, oui, elle l'est.
[00:56] Nous allons, selon toute vraisemblance, accueillir
[01:05] 15 000 personnes au séminaire d'Écône : c'est donc un événement sans précédent, significatif en soi.
[01:16] Mais au-delà des aspects logistiques et organisationnels nécessaires pour gérer ces foules, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que la cérémonie de consécration est ordonnée pour le bien de toute l'Église.
[01:28] C'est précisément le moyen par lequel l'Église, avec des évêques pleinement catholiques, peut persévérer dans sa foi au milieu de cette crise généralisée.
[01:40] Comment pouvez-vous dire que c'est pour l'Église alors que vous agissez contre Rome ?
[01:45] L'accusation d'agir contre Rome n'a rien de nouveau.
[01:45] Elle nous a été adressée dès 1988.
[01:54] Monseigneur Lefebvre s'en défendait déjà.
[01:54] Rappelons l'homélie des sacres du 30 juin : Monseigneur fait référence à cette cérémonie, qui aurait été entreprise contre l'avis de Rome.
[02:03] Ici, il faut faire une distinction très simple entre Rome, que nous avons
[02:09] Toujours reconnu comme le principe d'unité et d'autorité dans l'Église — nous sommes catholiques, et Monseigneur Lefebvre nous l'a rappelé de nombreuses fois : « Loin de moi l'idée de me poser en pape » — et les hommes de Rome, investis de ces fonctions et de ces postes d'autorité, mais qui, malheureusement, sont imprégnés de ces idées pernicieuses qui ont engendré, et continuent d'engendrer, cette crise sans précédent dans toute l'Église.
[02:36] Vous parlez souvent d'une opération de survie.
[02:36] Qu'implique cette survie ?
[02:44] Il s'agit de survivre quand les choses deviennent difficiles.
[02:52] Aujourd'hui, il devient difficile d'être catholique.
[02:52] Il devient difficile de trouver une messe selon le rite traditionnel de l'Église.
[03:00] Il devient difficile d'entendre un sermon authentiquement catholique.
[03:06] Et quand je parle de cette difficulté, je ne la mesure pas sur l'échelle finalement assez limitée du petit
[03:14] monde traditionnel.
[03:14] Nous devons le considérer à l'échelle de l'Église universelle, dans le monde entier.
[03:19] Que signifie survivre ?
[03:27] Cela signifie continuer à respirer de l'air pur alors que l'atmosphère devient de plus en plus empoisonnée.
[03:32] Nous voulons trouver des moyens de donner aux âmes de l'air pur, une prédication et des sacrements véritablement catholiques, pour sauver leurs âmes.
[03:39] Ne pensez-vous pas que vous avez une vision très pessimiste de l'état de l'Église ?
[03:46] C'est peut-être ce qui s'est passé dans les années 1970 et 1980, ce qui a conduit Monseigneur Lefebvre à ordonner les nouveaux évêques en 1988.
[03:52] Mais aujourd'hui, nous constatons encore un retour à l'Église, avec de nombreux baptêmes la nuit de Pâques dans toute l'Église, et ainsi de suite.
[03:58] En fin de compte, cet état de survie est-il toujours pertinent ?
[04:06] Oui, il l'est toujours.
[04:06] Nous ne disons pas que l'air a complètement disparu, ni que l'atmosphère est devenue totalement irrespirable.
[04:11] Nous disons simplement que l'air est empoisonné.
[04:11] Au début,
[04:17] Il y eut l'afflux massif, dans toute l'Église, de cette atmosphère empoisonnée du Concile.
[04:23] C'est ce que nous avons vu dans les années 70 et 80 : des églises vidées, des prêtres désacralisés, abandonnant leur soutane, allant trop loin dans le monde au point parfois d'abandonner leur sacerdoce, et une liturgie complètement désacralisée, dont il ne restait que le nom.
[04:44] Aujourd'hui, depuis Jean-Paul II et avec Benoît XVI, nous observons chez les catholiques un besoin de spiritualité, de sérieux, de sacré.
[04:51] C'est vrai.
[04:51] Mais l'atmosphère reste empoisonnée.
[05:00] Pourquoi ?
[05:00] Parce que ce retour aux sources reste fondé sur des principes faux, les principes du libéralisme.
[05:07] De plus, la liturgie n'a pas été réformée.
[05:13] Il peut y avoir une attirance pour la liturgie traditionnelle, mais la norme reste la liturgie moderne.
[05:17] La nouvelle liturgie, qui est une liturgie conçue pour protestantiser.
[05:26] Et il y a encore ces idées de libéralisme, avec une nouvelle évangélisation qui oublie le rôle fondamental du prêtre et maintient une dimension œcuménique très réelle et constante.
[05:35] Nous sommes donc loin d'être sortis de la crise dans l'Église.
[05:42] En effet, mon Père, je vois où vous voulez en venir : c'est l'argument que vous invoquez souvent et qui est souvent défendu par les autorités de la Société, celui du fameux état de nécessité.
[05:53] Pourriez-vous essayer de nous l'expliquer, de le définir en quelques mots ?
[05:59] Le mot le plus important est "nécessité".
[06:04] Cela signifie que, quoi que l'on puisse penser, on se trouve obligé – on souhaiterait qu'il n'en soit pas ainsi – de ne pas tenir compte, si l'on veut garder la foi, de l'application faite par les autorités du droit de l'Église.
[06:17] Nous respectons la loi : elle est bonne.
[06:17] Mais la loi est faite pour donner aux âmes
[06:23] Les moyens d'être sauvé.
[06:23] Il est destiné à donner la foi, à donner les sacrements.
[06:29] Aujourd'hui, les ecclésiastiques appliquent ces lois pour imposer les faux principes du Concile.
[06:35] Dans ce cas, nous les ignorons.
[06:35] Nous ignorons ces lois lorsqu'elles nous enlèvent notre catéchisme, lorsqu'elles nous enlèvent notre Messe, et lorsqu'elles transforment nos prêtres en organisateurs de réunions au lieu d'être des coreligionnaires.
[07:00] Y a-t-il des limites à cet état de nécessité ?
[07:00] Jusqu'où irez-vous ?
[07:04] Si cela continue, à terme vous ne reconnaîtrez plus le Pape et vous deviendrez protestants.
[07:04] Vous accusez l'Église de devenir protestante, mais la Société elle-même, en ne reconnaissant pas le Pape, ne devient-elle pas protestante ?
[07:15] Je vous réponds par ce qu'a dit Monseigneur Lefebvre : nous ne critiquons ni ne rejetons le Pape, mais ce qu'il fait.
[07:21] La limite, par conséquent, nous est imposée par le Pape lui-même.
[07:21] C'est lui qui la fixe,
[07:27] Dans la mesure où il s'écarte de la tradition et introduit de faux principes dans l'Église.
[07:35] Nous résistons à une invasion.
[07:35] Notre position est une réaction, une position secondaire et cohérente, destinée à nous protéger contre cette agression injuste découlant des erreurs du Concile.
[07:51] Nous irons donc aussi loin que nécessaire pour protéger la foi, dans les limites de la Providence.
[07:58] On ne comprend pas nécessairement comment un état de nécessité peut, en soi, justifier le recours à ces consécrations épiscopales.
[08:04] Nous voyons autour de nous les communautés anciennement connues sous le nom d'Ecclesia Dei, qui reconnaissent la hiérarchie de l'Église, qui obéissent, du moins en principe, et qui néanmoins parviennent à ne pas coopérer à l'erreur.
[08:17] Leurs séminaristes sont ordonnés prêtres, et ainsi de suite.
[08:23] Pourquoi ne pourrions-nous pas adopter cette façon de faire ?
[08:23] Je vous demande simplement
[08:28] La question.
[08:28] On m'a en fait posé cette question par un prêtre de la Fraternité Saint-Pierre, qui y a lui-même répondu : les promesses de 1988, contenues dans le motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, ont-elles été tenues ?
[08:40] Non, en effet, elles n'ont pas été tenues.
[08:40] Cela dit, ils ont toujours leurs prêtres ordonnés chaque année, certes par des évêques diocésains, mais ils peuvent continuer à bénéficier des sacrements et à les recevoir.
[08:52] Et cela reste précaire.
[08:56] Nous l'avons vu clairement avec le motu proprio Traditionis custodes, qui démontre clairement l'intention de Rome de restreindre ces privilèges.
[09:03] Et je pense qu'il y a quelque chose de très important ici : ces concessions sont toujours accordées non pas pour le bien de l'Église, mais comme une concession à ces communautés, qui, de plus, doivent les exiger bruyamment et se défendre pour obtenir le moindre petit quelque chose.
[09:20] Pour notre part, nous voulons — et c'est l'idée initiale — le bien de l'Église.
[09:27] Comme l'a dit Mgr de Castro Mayer, nous sommes
[09:34] Nous ne demandons pas la possibilité de célébrer la messe dans une chapelle latérale ; nous voulons l'autel principal, parce que nous voulons l'Église, le bien de l'Église.
[09:43] Père, vous venez de parler du Concile Vatican II et des erreurs souvent mentionnées : la collégialité, l'œcuménisme, la liturgie réformée.
[09:54] Mais ces erreurs sont-elles si importantes ?
[10:00] Vous l'avez dit vous-même : l'atmosphère n'est pas complètement empoisonnée.
[10:05] Ne pouvons-nous pas mettre de côté ces principes erronés et continuer à vivre sainement dans l'Église ?
[10:11] Ou sont-ils vraiment décisifs ?
[10:11] Vous connaissez l'expression – je crois que c'est celle du Pape François – c'est celle de la boussole de l'Église.
[10:18] Les idées du Concile sont juste cela : une boussole.
[10:23] Et une boussole montre le chemin ; elle a donc une portée très concrète.
[10:29] Ce ne sont pas des textes qui sont restés lettre morte dans les actes du Concile.
[10:29] Ce sont des textes qui ont conduit à des réformes très concrètes, qui ont changé la vie des catholiques,
[10:35] Leur façon de prier, la façon dont vivent les prêtres.
[10:43] Nous le voyons de plus en plus : nous sommes véritablement dans une Église œcuménique.
[10:48] Quelle est la partie la plus importante — ou du moins l'une des plus importantes — de l'activité du Pape ?
[10:54] Ce sont les rencontres œcuméniques.
[10:54] Nous l'avons vu avec le jubilé œcuménique, ou encore avec les félicitations du Pape au nouvel Archevêque de Canterbury, puisqu'il s'agit d'une femme.
[11:01] L'œcuménisme reste très présent, et il est le héraut de l'indifférence.
[11:06] Ce ne sont pas de simples idées abstraites ; ce sont des idées qui ont pris racine dans nos vies de manière très concrète et qui sont en train de provoquer ce que l'on a appelé, à juste titre, une protestantisation.
[11:17] Y a-t-il, pour nous fidèles, des signes concrets de cet état de nécessité ?
[11:24] Je vous donnerai un seul exemple : la déclaration Fiducia supplicans, ce document du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la Foi qui autorise la bénédiction non sacramentelle
[11:41] De couples en situation irrégulière.
[11:41] Comment allez-vous expliquer cela à vos enfants ?
[11:48] Vous les emmenez à la messe le dimanche, et ils voient leur oncle vivant en concubinage, leur tante divorcée et remariée, s'approcher de la Sainte Table et recevoir la Communion.
[12:00] Comment leur expliquerez-vous que le divorce et le concubinage sont immoraux, et que normalement on ne doit pas recevoir la Communion dans ces circonstances ?
[12:07] Cette situation nous oblige justement à réagir, à protester, à défendre notre foi.
[12:14] D'où le recours à un épiscopat catholique qui n'autorisera pas ce genre de choses et ira même jusqu'à dire qu'il faut refuser la communion à de telles personnes.
[12:29] Voici une objection que l'on rencontre facilement : celle du dogme de l'indéfectibilité de l'Église.
[12:36] Ou bien vous rejetez ce dogme de l'indéfectibilité de l'Église, ou bien
[12:42] Vous considérez que c'est vous qui permettez à l'Église de demeurer indéfectible.
[12:49] Pourriez-vous simplement nous définir brièvement ce dogme et nous expliquer où vous vous situez par rapport à lui ?
[12:54] La question est très intéressante car derrière elle se trouve l'idée que l'on se fait de l'Église.
[13:00] Très souvent, quand j'entends ce reproche bien connu – « Ce n'est pas nous qui sauvons l'Église, c'est l'Église qui nous sauve » – c'est comme si, dans l'esprit de la personne qui fait cette objection, l'Église n'était pas nous, mais autre chose que nous.
[13:12] En réalité, l'Église, c'est nous.
[13:19] Pas seulement nous, les traditionalistes ou les fidèles de la Fraternité, mais nous, les membres de l'Église, les fidèles baptisés, depuis le Pape jusqu'au dernier des bébés baptisés.
[13:34] L'Église est indéfectible à travers nous, à travers ce que nous faisons précisément pour conserver la foi, pour sauvegarder les sacrements, par les actions des hommes,
[13:49] de la part du Pape, des évêques, et aussi des fidèles ordinaires.
[13:55] L'Église ne sera donc pas indéfectible parce que nous restons passifs face au Concile Vatican II, acceptant sans combattre toutes les mesures qui nous interdisent la vraie Messe, les vrais sacrements et le vrai catéchisme.
[14:09] L'indéfectibilité de l'Église passe par nous.
[14:14] Loin de remettre en question cette indéfectibilité, et loin de nous prendre pour l'Église, nous remplissons chacun, à notre manière, avec les grâces d'état que Dieu nous accorde, le rôle que Dieu attend de nous.
[14:19] Père, tout à l'heure vous avez invoqué l'état de nécessité pour justifier les consécrations épiscopales du 1er juillet.
[14:25] Mais l'état de nécessité justifie-t-il tout ?
[14:31] Par exemple, il y a des lois, comme la loi contre le meurtre d'un innocent, qui ne peuvent pas être contournées.
[14:36] N'y a-t-il pas une limite ?
[14:41] N'y a-t-il pas des lois qui ne peuvent pas être transgressées ?
[14:47] Oui, en effet.
[14:47] Nous le voyons bien, et vous le dites : c'est l'expérience la plus vécue.
[14:47] On ne peut pas tuer un innocent.
[14:56] L'avortement, par exemple, n'admet aucune exception, pas même si la personne souffre terriblement.
[15:01] Sur ce point, il ne peut y avoir de compromis.
[15:06] Cependant, nous devons... Il faut comprendre une chose : ces lois ne peuvent être transgressées précisément parce qu'elles ont été établies directement par Dieu lui-même.
[15:14] Elles appartiennent soit à l'ordre naturel, en vertu de l'existence même de Dieu — ces lois sont alors l'expression de ce que la nature et la justice exigent — soit à l'ordre surnaturel, lorsque Dieu nous les révèle par sa révélation, parce qu'elles concernent la situation de son Église.
[15:29] Par exemple, le fait que le Pape, Évêque de Rome, soit le chef de l'Église, lui seul et personne d'autre.
[15:37] Par conséquent, il existe des lois qui n'admettent absolument aucune exception.
[15:46] Mais ce ne sont pas les seules lois.
[15:52] Il y a
[15:58] D'autres : lois édictées par les êtres humains en dépendance des lois de Dieu, afin de les clarifier et de faciliter leur application dans des cas particuliers, variables et contingents.
[16:11] C'est la loi humaine : les lois civiles, comme les lois sur la circulation, et les lois du droit canonique.
[16:20] Dieu nous commande de sanctifier le jour du Seigneur : cela vient directement de Dieu.
[16:28] L'Église précise comment le sanctifier en nous demandant d'assister à la messe du dimanche.
[16:34] Ce commandement peut être sujet à des exceptions : si vous ne pouvez pas assister à la messe, vous pouvez quand même sanctifier le dimanche.
[16:41] Par conséquent, une distinction très importante doit être faite.
[16:51] Certaines lois n'admettent pas d'exceptions ; d'autres, selon les circonstances, le peuvent.
[16:51] Ce sont précisément ces lois qui entrent en jeu dans
[16:59] Le problème que nous abordons : les consécrations épiscopales.
[17:06] Spécifiquement, sur ce sujet, les consécrations épiscopales sont-elles conférées sans mandat papal contraire au droit divin ou au droit ecclésiastique ?
[17:14] C'est la principale objection soulevée contre nous.
[17:21] Il existe deux types d'objections.
[17:21] Soit on nous refuse l'état de nécessité, en nous disant qu'il ne nous autorise pas à recourir à ces mesures exceptionnelles.
[17:25] Soit nous l'acceptons, mais on nous dit que cet état de nécessité ne nous donne pas l'option morale de faire ce que nous sommes sur le point de faire, car ce serait contraire au droit divin.
[17:41] La réponse est très simple, car elle se trouve dans tous les traités de droit canonique.
[17:49] Le fait que le Pape se soit réservé le pouvoir des consécrations épiscopales, c'est-à-dire le pouvoir de consacrer d'autres évêques, est une mesure récente,
[18:02] Datant du 12ème siècle.
[18:02] On ne peut prouver qu'il remonte à l'époque des apôtres et qu'il est, par conséquent, l'expression du droit divin.
[18:15] L'histoire de l'Église montre qu'à un certain moment le Pape s'est réservé ce pouvoir.
[18:15] Pourquoi ?
[18:19] Parce qu'il y a eu des abus : les évêques consacraient un peu trop librement, avec des conséquences néfastes.
[18:26] Pour mettre de l'ordre, le Pape s'est réservé ce pouvoir.
[18:26] Mais c'est une question de droit ecclésiastique.
[18:32] On peut donc rencontrer des situations rares, exceptionnelles où, pour le bien de l'Église, il devient nécessaire de consacrer des évêques sans mandat papal, voire contre la volonté explicite du Pape.
[18:44] Nous l'avons vu lors de l'Ostpolitik de Paul VI : des évêques dans les pays d'Europe de l'Est ont consacré secrètement des évêques catholiques alors qu'ils savaient pertinemment que Paul VI y était opposé, pour des raisons politiques bien connues.
[18:57] Si je comprends bien, consacrer des évêques contre
[19:04] Les souhaits du Pape ne seraient pas un schisme, mais un grave acte de désobéissance.
[19:10] Quelle est la différence entre les deux ?
[19:10] Est-ce correct ?
[19:17] Ce serait un schisme si un évêque était consacré en lui donnant non seulement le pouvoir d'ordonner et d'administrer la confirmation — c'est-à-dire de donner les sacrements — mais aussi la juridiction, l'autorité.
[19:22] Ce serait un schisme.
[19:27] Pourquoi ?
[19:27] Parce que seul le Pape — et c'est une question de droit divin — peut accorder le pouvoir juridictionnel, c'est-à-dire établir un évêque à la tête d'une partie de l'Église en position d'autorité et de gouvernement.
[19:39] Seul le Pape peut faire cela.
[19:44] Faire cela à la place du Pape et contre sa volonté constitue une usurpation contraire au droit divin, et donc un schisme.
[19:50] Mais accorder le pouvoir des saints ordres sans accorder le pouvoir juridictionnel n'est pas un schisme.
[19:56] Ce serait peut-être, et c'est ce dont l'histoire de l'Église témoigne le plus souvent, de la désobéissance, car cela nécessite la permission du Pape.
[20:01] Mais il peut y avoir
[20:06] circonstances où ce ne serait même pas de la désobéissance, car ces circonstances exigent des évêques catholiques, et le Pape ne peut pas les refuser.
[20:18] S'il refuse, il abuse de son pouvoir.
[20:24] Il agit vraiment comme un tyran, car il les refuse pour des raisons illégitimes.
[20:29] Malheureusement, c'est ce que nous voyons aujourd'hui.
[20:37] On nous refuse des évêques pleinement catholiques — c'est-à-dire des évêques opposés aux erreurs du Concile — précisément parce que ceux qui nous les refusent, le Pape en particulier, sont attachés à ces erreurs, qui vont à l'encontre du bien commun de l'Église.
[20:52] Alors vous pensez que les consécrations du 1er juillet ne sont pas intrinsèquement mauvaises ?
[20:59] Non, elles ne le sont pas.
[21:05] Normalement, faire ce que nous faisons serait de la désobéissance dans une affaire sérieuse.
[21:05] Mais, compte tenu des circonstances, ce n'est pas le cas.
[21:05] Cela fait partie de ce que l'Évêque a appelé "Opération Survie".
[21:05] Normalement, le Pape ne peut pas

Full Transcript (Bilingual)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZzEz_nSdRI
Translation: fr

[00:00] As the consecrations approach, scheduled for July 1st, many members of the Fraternity have many questions.
Alors que les consécrations approchent, prévues pour le 1er juillet, de nombreux membres de la Fraternité ont beaucoup de questions.

[00:07] Why is this act legitimate?
Pourquoi cet acte est-il légitime ?

[00:15] What does Church theology say about authority and unity?
Que dit la théologie de l'Église sur l'autorité et l'unité ?

[00:21] We therefore wished to conduct an in-depth interview with Father Gleize to address these questions with the seriousness they deserve.
Nous avons donc souhaité mener un entretien approfondi avec le Père Gleize pour aborder ces questions avec le sérieux qu'elles méritent.

[00:26] We will ask him several questions to review, point by point, the doctrinal foundations of such a decision.
Nous allons lui poser plusieurs questions pour passer en revue, point par point, les fondements doctrinaux d'une telle décision.

[00:34] Father, before addressing the various points that justify these consecrations, can you tell us why this ceremony, which will take place for the time being without a papal mandate, is so important for the Fraternity?
Père, avant d'aborder les différents points qui justifient ces consécrations, pouvez-vous nous dire pourquoi cette cérémonie, qui aura lieu pour l'instant sans mandat papal, est si importante pour la Fraternité ?

[00:48] Important for the Fraternity, yes, it is.
Importante pour la Fraternité, oui, elle l'est.

[00:56] We will, in all likelihood, welcome
Nous allons, selon toute vraisemblance, accueillir

[01:05] 15,000 people to the seminary in Écône: it is therefore an unprecedented event, significant in itself.
15 000 personnes au séminaire d'Écône : c'est donc un événement sans précédent, significatif en soi.

[01:16] But beyond the logistical and organizational aspects necessary to manage these crowds, we must not lose sight of the fact that the consecration ceremony is ordered for the good of the entire Church.
Mais au-delà des aspects logistiques et organisationnels nécessaires pour gérer ces foules, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que la cérémonie de consécration est ordonnée pour le bien de toute l'Église.

[01:28] It is precisely the means by which the Church, with fully Catholic bishops, can persevere in its faith amidst this widespread crisis.
C'est précisément le moyen par lequel l'Église, avec des évêques pleinement catholiques, peut persévérer dans sa foi au milieu de cette crise généralisée.

[01:40] How can you say that this is for the Church when you are acting against Rome?
Comment pouvez-vous dire que c'est pour l'Église alors que vous agissez contre Rome ?

[01:45] The accusation of acting against Rome is nothing new.
L'accusation d'agir contre Rome n'a rien de nouveau.

[01:45] It was leveled at us as early as 1988.
Elle nous a été adressée dès 1988.

[01:54] Archbishop Lefebvre was already defending himself against it.
Monseigneur Lefebvre s'en défendait déjà.

[01:54] Recall the homily for the consecrations on June 30th: the Archbishop refers to this ceremony, which was apparently undertaken against the will of Rome.
Rappelons l'homélie des sacres du 30 juin : Monseigneur fait référence à cette cérémonie, qui aurait été entreprise contre l'avis de Rome.

[02:03] Here, a very simple distinction must be made between Rome, which we have
Ici, il faut faire une distinction très simple entre Rome, que nous avons

[02:09] Always recognized as the principle of unity and authority in the Church—we are Catholics, and Archbishop Lefebvre reminded us of this many times: “Far be it from me to set myself up as pope”—and the men in Rome, invested with these functions and positions of authority, but who, unfortunately, are imbued with these pernicious ideas that have generated, and continue to generate, this unprecedented crisis throughout the Church.
Toujours reconnu comme le principe d'unité et d'autorité dans l'Église — nous sommes catholiques, et Monseigneur Lefebvre nous l'a rappelé de nombreuses fois : « Loin de moi l'idée de me poser en pape » — et les hommes de Rome, investis de ces fonctions et de ces postes d'autorité, mais qui, malheureusement, sont imprégnés de ces idées pernicieuses qui ont engendré, et continuent d'engendrer, cette crise sans précédent dans toute l'Église.

[02:36] You often speak of a survival operation.
Vous parlez souvent d'une opération de survie.

[02:36] What does this survival entail?
Qu'implique cette survie ?

[02:44] It is about surviving when things become difficult.
Il s'agit de survivre quand les choses deviennent difficiles.

[02:52] Today, it is becoming difficult to be Catholic.
Aujourd'hui, il devient difficile d'être catholique.

[02:52] It is becoming difficult to find a Mass according to the traditional rite of the Church.
Il devient difficile de trouver une messe selon le rite traditionnel de l'Église.

[03:00] It is becoming difficult to hear an authentically Catholic sermon.
Il devient difficile d'entendre un sermon authentiquement catholique.

[03:06] And when I speak of this difficulty, I am not measuring it on the ultimately rather limited scale of the small
Et quand je parle de cette difficulté, je ne la mesure pas sur l'échelle finalement assez limitée du petit

[03:14] traditional world.
monde traditionnel.

[03:14] We must consider it on the scale of the entire universal Church, throughout the world.
Nous devons le considérer à l'échelle de l'Église universelle, dans le monde entier.

[03:19] What does it mean to survive?
Que signifie survivre ?

[03:27] It means continuing to breathe clean air while the atmosphere becomes increasingly poisoned.
Cela signifie continuer à respirer de l'air pur alors que l'atmosphère devient de plus en plus empoisonnée.

[03:32] We want to find ways to give souls clean air, truly Catholic preaching and sacraments, to save their souls.
Nous voulons trouver des moyens de donner aux âmes de l'air pur, une prédication et des sacrements véritablement catholiques, pour sauver leurs âmes.

[03:39] Don't you think you have a very pessimistic view of the state of the Church?
Ne pensez-vous pas que vous avez une vision très pessimiste de l'état de l'Église ?

[03:46] Perhaps that was the case in the 1970s and 80s, which led Archbishop Lefebvre to ordain the new bishops in 1988.
C'est peut-être ce qui s'est passé dans les années 1970 et 1980, ce qui a conduit Monseigneur Lefebvre à ordonner les nouveaux évêques en 1988.

[03:52] But today, we are still seeing a return to the Church, with many baptisms on Easter night throughout the Church, and so on.
Mais aujourd'hui, nous constatons encore un retour à l'Église, avec de nombreux baptêmes la nuit de Pâques dans toute l'Église, et ainsi de suite.

[03:58] Ultimately, is this state of survival still relevant?
En fin de compte, cet état de survie est-il toujours pertinent ?

[04:06] Yes, it still is.
Oui, il l'est toujours.

[04:06] We are not saying that the air has completely disappeared, nor that the atmosphere has become totally unbreathable.
Nous ne disons pas que l'air a complètement disparu, ni que l'atmosphère est devenue totalement irrespirable.

[04:11] We are simply saying that the air is poisoned.
Nous disons simplement que l'air est empoisonné.

[04:11] At first,
Au début,

[04:17] There was the massive influx, throughout the Church, of this poisonous atmosphere of the Council.
Il y eut l'afflux massif, dans toute l'Église, de cette atmosphère empoisonnée du Concile.

[04:23] This is what we saw in the 1970s and 80s: churches emptied, priests desacralized, abandoning their cassocks, going too far into the world to the point of sometimes abandoning their priesthood, and a completely desacralized liturgy, of which only the name remained.
C'est ce que nous avons vu dans les années 70 et 80 : des églises vidées, des prêtres désacralisés, abandonnant leur soutane, allant trop loin dans le monde au point parfois d'abandonner leur sacerdoce, et une liturgie complètement désacralisée, dont il ne restait que le nom.

[04:44] Today, since John Paul II and with Benedict XVI, we observe among Catholics a need for spirituality, seriousness, and the sacred.
Aujourd'hui, depuis Jean-Paul II et avec Benoît XVI, nous observons chez les catholiques un besoin de spiritualité, de sérieux, de sacré.

[04:51] This is true.
C'est vrai.

[04:51] But the atmosphere remains poisonous.
Mais l'atmosphère reste empoisonnée.

[05:00] Why?
Pourquoi ?

[05:00] Because this return to the sources remains based on false principles, the principles of liberalism.
Parce que ce retour aux sources reste fondé sur des principes faux, les principes du libéralisme.

[05:07] Moreover, the liturgy has not been reformed.
De plus, la liturgie n'a pas été réformée.

[05:13] There may be an attraction to the traditional liturgy, but the norm remains the modern liturgy.
Il peut y avoir une attirance pour la liturgie traditionnelle, mais la norme reste la liturgie moderne.

[05:17] The new liturgy, which is a liturgy designed to Protestantize.
La nouvelle liturgie, qui est une liturgie conçue pour protestantiser.

[05:26] And there are still these ideas of liberalism, with a new evangelization that forgets the fundamental role of the priest and maintains a very real and consistent ecumenical dimension.
Et il y a encore ces idées de libéralisme, avec une nouvelle évangélisation qui oublie le rôle fondamental du prêtre et maintient une dimension œcuménique très réelle et constante.

[05:35] So we are far from being out of the crisis in the Church.
Nous sommes donc loin d'être sortis de la crise dans l'Église.

[05:42] Indeed, Father, I see where you're going with this: it's the argument you often invoke and which is often defended by the authorities of the Society, that of the famous state of necessity.
En effet, mon Père, je vois où vous voulez en venir : c'est l'argument que vous invoquez souvent et qui est souvent défendu par les autorités de la Société, celui du fameux état de nécessité.

[05:53] Could you try to explain it to us, to define it in a few words?
Pourriez-vous essayer de nous l'expliquer, de le définir en quelques mots ?

[05:59] The most important word is "necessity."
Le mot le plus important est "nécessité".

[06:04] This means that, whatever one may think, one finds oneself obliged—one would wish it weren't so—to disregard, if one wishes to keep the faith, the application made by the authorities of Church law.
Cela signifie que, quoi que l'on puisse penser, on se trouve obligé – on souhaiterait qu'il n'en soit pas ainsi – de ne pas tenir compte, si l'on veut garder la foi, de l'application faite par les autorités du droit de l'Église.

[06:17] We respect the law: it is good.
Nous respectons la loi : elle est bonne.

[06:17] But the law is made to give souls
Mais la loi est faite pour donner aux âmes

[06:23] The means to be saved.
Les moyens d'être sauvé.

[06:23] It is meant to give faith, to give the sacraments.
Il est destiné à donner la foi, à donner les sacrements.

[06:29] Today, churchmen are applying these laws to impose the false principles of the Council.
Aujourd'hui, les ecclésiastiques appliquent ces lois pour imposer les faux principes du Concile.

[06:35] In this case, we disregard them.
Dans ce cas, nous les ignorons.

[06:35] We disregard these laws when they take away our catechism, when they take away our Mass, and when they turn our priests into meeting organizers instead of being fellow believers.
Nous ignorons ces lois lorsqu'elles nous enlèvent notre catéchisme, lorsqu'elles nous enlèvent notre Messe, et lorsqu'elles transforment nos prêtres en organisateurs de réunions au lieu d'être des coreligionnaires.

[07:00] Are there limits to this state of necessity?
Y a-t-il des limites à cet état de nécessité ?

[07:00] How far will you go?
Jusqu'où irez-vous ?

[07:04] If this continues, eventually you will no longer recognize the Pope and you will become Protestants.
Si cela continue, à terme vous ne reconnaîtrez plus le Pape et vous deviendrez protestants.

[07:04] You accuse the Church of becoming Protestant, but isn't the Society itself, by not recognizing the Pope, becoming Protestant?
Vous accusez l'Église de devenir protestante, mais la Société elle-même, en ne reconnaissant pas le Pape, ne devient-elle pas protestante ?

[07:15] I answer you with what Archbishop Lefebvre said: we do not criticize or reject the Pope, but what he does.
Je vous réponds par ce qu'a dit Monseigneur Lefebvre : nous ne critiquons ni ne rejetons le Pape, mais ce qu'il fait.

[07:21] The limit, therefore, is imposed upon us by the Pope himself.
La limite, par conséquent, nous est imposée par le Pape lui-même.

[07:21] He sets it,
C'est lui qui la fixe,

[07:27] Insofar as he departs from tradition and introduces false principles into the Church.
Dans la mesure où il s'écarte de la tradition et introduit de faux principes dans l'Église.

[07:35] We are resisting an invasion.
Nous résistons à une invasion.

[07:35] Our stance is a reaction, a secondary, consistent stance, intended to protect us against this unjust aggression stemming from the errors of the Council.
Notre position est une réaction, une position secondaire et cohérente, destinée à nous protéger contre cette agression injuste découlant des erreurs du Concile.

[07:51] We will therefore go as far as necessary to protect the faith, within the bounds of Providence.
Nous irons donc aussi loin que nécessaire pour protéger la foi, dans les limites de la Providence.

[07:58] It is not necessarily understood how a state of necessity can, in itself, justify recourse to these episcopal consecrations.
On ne comprend pas nécessairement comment un état de nécessité peut, en soi, justifier le recours à ces consécrations épiscopales.

[08:04] We see around us the communities formerly known as Ecclesia Dei, which recognize the hierarchy of the Church, which obey, at least in principle, and which nevertheless manage not to cooperate in error.
Nous voyons autour de nous les communautés anciennement connues sous le nom d'Ecclesia Dei, qui reconnaissent la hiérarchie de l'Église, qui obéissent, du moins en principe, et qui néanmoins parviennent à ne pas coopérer à l'erreur.

[08:17] Their seminarians are ordained priests, and so on.
Leurs séminaristes sont ordonnés prêtres, et ainsi de suite.

[08:23] Why should we not be able to adopt this way of doing things?
Pourquoi ne pourrions-nous pas adopter cette façon de faire ?

[08:23] I am simply asking you
Je vous demande simplement

[08:28] The question.
La question.

[08:28] I was actually asked this question by a priest from the Fraternity of Saint Peter, who himself answered it: have the promises of 1988, contained in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, been kept?
On m'a en fait posé cette question par un prêtre de la Fraternité Saint-Pierre, qui y a lui-même répondu : les promesses de 1988, contenues dans le motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, ont-elles été tenues ?

[08:40] No, indeed, they have not been kept.
Non, en effet, elles n'ont pas été tenues.

[08:40] That said, they still have their priests ordained every year, admittedly by diocesan bishops, but they can continue to benefit from and receive the sacraments.
Cela dit, ils ont toujours leurs prêtres ordonnés chaque année, certes par des évêques diocésains, mais ils peuvent continuer à bénéficier des sacrements et à les recevoir.

[08:52] And this remains precarious.
Et cela reste précaire.

[08:56] We saw this clearly with the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which clearly demonstrates Rome's intention to restrict these privileges.
Nous l'avons vu clairement avec le motu proprio Traditionis custodes, qui démontre clairement l'intention de Rome de restreindre ces privilèges.

[09:03] And I think there's something very important here: these concessions are always granted not for the good of the Church, but as a concession to these communities, who, moreover, have to demand them loudly and defend themselves to obtain even the smallest amount.
Et je pense qu'il y a quelque chose de très important ici : ces concessions sont toujours accordées non pas pour le bien de l'Église, mais comme une concession à ces communautés, qui, de plus, doivent les exiger bruyamment et se défendre pour obtenir le moindre petit quelque chose.

[09:20] For our part, we want—and this has been the initial idea—the good of the Church.
Pour notre part, nous voulons — et c'est l'idée initiale — le bien de l'Église.

[09:27] As Bishop de Castro Mayer said, we are
Comme l'a dit Mgr de Castro Mayer, nous sommes

[09:34] not asking for the possibility of celebrating Mass in a side chapel; we want the high altar, because we want the Church, the good of the Church.
Nous ne demandons pas la possibilité de célébrer la messe dans une chapelle latérale ; nous voulons l'autel principal, parce que nous voulons l'Église, le bien de l'Église.

[09:43] Father, you just spoke about Vatican II and the errors often mentioned: collegiality, ecumenism, the reformed liturgy.
Père, vous venez de parler du Concile Vatican II et des erreurs souvent mentionnées : la collégialité, l'œcuménisme, la liturgie réformée.

[09:54] But are these errors so significant?
Mais ces erreurs sont-elles si importantes ?

[10:00] You yourself said it: the atmosphere isn't completely poisoned.
Vous l'avez dit vous-même : l'atmosphère n'est pas complètement empoisonnée.

[10:05] Can't we set aside these flawed principles and continue to live healthily in the Church?
Ne pouvons-nous pas mettre de côté ces principes erronés et continuer à vivre sainement dans l'Église ?

[10:11] Or are they truly decisive?
Ou sont-ils vraiment décisifs ?

[10:11] You know the expression—I believe it's Pope Francis's—is that of the Church's compass.
Vous connaissez l'expression – je crois que c'est celle du Pape François – c'est celle de la boussole de l'Église.

[10:18] The ideas of the Council are just that: a compass.
Les idées du Concile sont juste cela : une boussole.

[10:23] And a compass shows the way; it therefore has a very concrete scope.
Et une boussole montre le chemin ; elle a donc une portée très concrète.

[10:29] These are not texts that remained a dead letter in the Council's records.
Ce ne sont pas des textes qui sont restés lettre morte dans les actes du Concile.

[10:29] These are texts that have led to very concrete reforms, that have changed the lives of Catholics,
Ce sont des textes qui ont conduit à des réformes très concrètes, qui ont changé la vie des catholiques,

[10:35] Their way of praying, the way priests live.
Leur façon de prier, la façon dont vivent les prêtres.

[10:43] We see it more and more: we are truly in an ecumenical Church.
Nous le voyons de plus en plus : nous sommes véritablement dans une Église œcuménique.

[10:48] What is the most important part—or at least one of the most important—of the Pope's activity?
Quelle est la partie la plus importante — ou du moins l'une des plus importantes — de l'activité du Pape ?

[10:54] It is the ecumenical meetings.
Ce sont les rencontres œcuméniques.

[10:54] We saw it with the ecumenical jubilee, or again with the Pope's congratulations to the new Archbishop of Canterbury, since she is a woman.
Nous l'avons vu avec le jubilé œcuménique, ou encore avec les félicitations du Pape au nouvel Archevêque de Canterbury, puisqu'il s'agit d'une femme.

[11:01] Ecumenism remains very much present, and it is the harbinger of indifference.
L'œcuménisme reste très présent, et il est le héraut de l'indifférence.

[11:06] These are not merely abstract ideas; they are ideas that have taken root in our lives in a very concrete way and that are bringing about what has been, quite rightly, called a Protestantization.
Ce ne sont pas de simples idées abstraites ; ce sont des idées qui ont pris racine dans nos vies de manière très concrète et qui sont en train de provoquer ce que l'on a appelé, à juste titre, une protestantisation.

[11:17] Are there, for us faithful, concrete signs of this state of necessity?
Y a-t-il, pour nous fidèles, des signes concrets de cet état de nécessité ?

[11:24] I will give you just one example: the declaration Fiducia supplicans, this document from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that authorizes the non-sacramental blessing
Je vous donnerai un seul exemple : la déclaration Fiducia supplicans, ce document du Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la Foi qui autorise la bénédiction non sacramentelle

[11:41] Of couples in irregular situations.
De couples en situation irrégulière.

[11:41] How will you explain this to your children?
Comment allez-vous expliquer cela à vos enfants ?

[11:48] You take them to Mass on Sunday, and they see their uncle living in concubinage, their divorced and remarried aunt, approaching the Holy Table and receiving Communion.
Vous les emmenez à la messe le dimanche, et ils voient leur oncle vivant en concubinage, leur tante divorcée et remariée, s'approcher de la Sainte Table et recevoir la Communion.

[12:00] How will you explain to them that divorce and concubinage are immoral, and that normally one should not receive Communion under these circumstances?
Comment leur expliquerez-vous que le divorce et le concubinage sont immoraux, et que normalement on ne doit pas recevoir la Communion dans ces circonstances ?

[12:07] This situation compels us precisely to react, to protest, to defend our faith.
Cette situation nous oblige justement à réagir, à protester, à défendre notre foi.

[12:14] Hence the recourse to a Catholic episcopate that will not authorize this sort of thing and will even go so far as to say that communion must be refused to such people.
D'où le recours à un épiscopat catholique qui n'autorisera pas ce genre de choses et ira même jusqu'à dire qu'il faut refuser la communion à de telles personnes.

[12:29] Here is an objection that one easily encounters: that of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
Voici une objection que l'on rencontre facilement : celle du dogme de l'indéfectibilité de l'Église.

[12:36] Either you reject this dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, or
Ou bien vous rejetez ce dogme de l'indéfectibilité de l'Église, ou bien

[12:42] You consider that it is you who allow the Church to remain indefectible.
Vous considérez que c'est vous qui permettez à l'Église de demeurer indéfectible.

[12:49] Could you simply define this dogma briefly for us and explain where you stand in relation to it?
Pourriez-vous simplement nous définir brièvement ce dogme et nous expliquer où vous vous situez par rapport à lui ?

[12:54] The question is very interesting because behind it lies the idea one has of the Church.
La question est très intéressante car derrière elle se trouve l'idée que l'on se fait de l'Église.

[13:00] Very often, when I hear this well-known reproach—"It is not we who save the Church, it is the Church that saves us"—it is as if, in the mind of the person making this objection, the Church is not us, but something other than us.
Très souvent, quand j'entends ce reproche bien connu – « Ce n'est pas nous qui sauvons l'Église, c'est l'Église qui nous sauve » – c'est comme si, dans l'esprit de la personne qui fait cette objection, l'Église n'était pas nous, mais autre chose que nous.

[13:12] In reality, the Church is us.
En réalité, l'Église, c'est nous.

[13:19] Not just us, the traditionalists or the faithful of the Fraternity, but us, the members of the Church, the baptized faithful, from the Pope to the newest baby baptized.
Pas seulement nous, les traditionalistes ou les fidèles de la Fraternité, mais nous, les membres de l'Église, les fidèles baptisés, depuis le Pape jusqu'au dernier des bébés baptisés.

[13:34] The Church is indefectible through us, through what we do precisely to preserve the faith, to safeguard the sacraments, through the actions of men,
L'Église est indéfectible à travers nous, à travers ce que nous faisons précisément pour conserver la foi, pour sauvegarder les sacrements, par les actions des hommes,

[13:49] of the Pope, of the bishops, and also of ordinary faithful.
de la part du Pape, des évêques, et aussi des fidèles ordinaires.

[13:55] The Church will therefore not be indefectible because we remain passive in the face of Vatican II, accepting without a fight all the measures that forbid us the true Mass, the true sacraments, and the true catechism.
L'Église ne sera donc pas indéfectible parce que nous restons passifs face au Concile Vatican II, acceptant sans combattre toutes les mesures qui nous interdisent la vraie Messe, les vrais sacrements et le vrai catéchisme.

[14:09] The indefectibility of the Church passes through us.
L'indéfectibilité de l'Église passe par nous.

[14:14] Far from questioning this indefectibility, and far from mistaking ourselves for the Church, we each fulfill, in our own way, with the graces of state that God bestows upon us, the role that God expects of us.
Loin de remettre en question cette indéfectibilité, et loin de nous prendre pour l'Église, nous remplissons chacun, à notre manière, avec les grâces d'état que Dieu nous accorde, le rôle que Dieu attend de nous.

[14:19] Father, earlier you invoked the state of necessity to justify the episcopal consecrations of July 1st.
Père, tout à l'heure vous avez invoqué l'état de nécessité pour justifier les consécrations épiscopales du 1er juillet.

[14:25] But does the state of necessity justify everything?
Mais l'état de nécessité justifie-t-il tout ?

[14:31] For example, there are laws, such as the law against killing an innocent person, that cannot be circumvented.
Par exemple, il y a des lois, comme la loi contre le meurtre d'un innocent, qui ne peuvent pas être contournées.

[14:36] Isn't there a limit?
N'y a-t-il pas une limite ?

[14:41] Aren't there laws that cannot be transgressed?
N'y a-t-il pas des lois qui ne peuvent pas être transgressées ?

[14:47] Yes, indeed.
Oui, en effet.

[14:47] We see it clearly, and you say it: it's the most vivid experience.
Nous le voyons bien, et vous le dites : c'est l'expérience la plus vécue.

[14:47] One cannot kill an innocent person.
On ne peut pas tuer un innocent.

[14:56] Abortion, for example, admits of no exception, not even if the person is suffering unbearably.
L'avortement, par exemple, n'admet aucune exception, pas même si la personne souffre terriblement.

[15:01] On this point, there can be no compromise.
Sur ce point, il ne peut y avoir de compromis.

[15:06] However, we must... One thing must be understood: these laws cannot be transgressed precisely because they were established directly by God himself.
Cependant, nous devons... Il faut comprendre une chose : ces lois ne peuvent être transgressées précisément parce qu'elles ont été établies directement par Dieu lui-même.

[15:14] They belong either to the natural order, by virtue of God's very existence—these laws are then the expression of what nature and justice demand—or to the supernatural order, when God reveals them to us through his revelation, because they concern the situation of his Church.
Elles appartiennent soit à l'ordre naturel, en vertu de l'existence même de Dieu — ces lois sont alors l'expression de ce que la nature et la justice exigent — soit à l'ordre surnaturel, lorsque Dieu nous les révèle par sa révélation, parce qu'elles concernent la situation de son Église.

[15:29] For example, the fact that the Pope, Bishop of Rome, is the head of the Church, he alone and no one else.
Par exemple, le fait que le Pape, Évêque de Rome, soit le chef de l'Église, lui seul et personne d'autre.

[15:37] Therefore, there are laws that admit absolutely no exceptions.
Par conséquent, il existe des lois qui n'admettent absolument aucune exception.

[15:46] But these are not the only laws.
Mais ce ne sont pas les seules lois.

[15:52] There are
Il y a

[15:58] Others: laws enacted by human beings in dependence on God's laws, in order to clarify them and facilitate their application in particular, variable, and contingent cases.
D'autres : lois édictées par les êtres humains en dépendance des lois de Dieu, afin de les clarifier et de faciliter leur application dans des cas particuliers, variables et contingents.

[16:11] This is human law: civil laws, such as traffic laws, and the laws of canon law.
C'est la loi humaine : les lois civiles, comme les lois sur la circulation, et les lois du droit canonique.

[16:20] God commands us to keep the Lord's Day holy: this comes directly from God.
Dieu nous commande de sanctifier le jour du Seigneur : cela vient directement de Dieu.

[16:28] The Church specifies how to keep it holy by asking us to attend Sunday Mass.
L'Église précise comment le sanctifier en nous demandant d'assister à la messe du dimanche.

[16:34] This commandment can be subject to exceptions: if you are unable to attend Mass, you can still keep Sunday holy.
Ce commandement peut être sujet à des exceptions : si vous ne pouvez pas assister à la messe, vous pouvez quand même sanctifier le dimanche.

[16:41] Therefore, a very important distinction must be made.
Par conséquent, une distinction très importante doit être faite.

[16:51] Some laws do not admit of exceptions; others, depending on the circumstances, may.
Certaines lois n'admettent pas d'exceptions ; d'autres, selon les circonstances, le peuvent.

[16:51] It is precisely these laws that come into play in
Ce sont précisément ces lois qui entrent en jeu dans

[16:59] The problem we are addressing: episcopal consecrations.
Le problème que nous abordons : les consécrations épiscopales.

[17:06] Specifically, on this subject, are episcopal consecrations conferred without a papal mandate contrary to divine law or ecclesiastical law?
Spécifiquement, sur ce sujet, les consécrations épiscopales sont-elles conférées sans mandat papal contraire au droit divin ou au droit ecclésiastique ?

[17:14] This is the main objection raised against us.
C'est la principale objection soulevée contre nous.

[17:21] There are two types of objections.
Il existe deux types d'objections.

[17:21] Either we are denied the state of necessity, being told that it does not authorize us to resort to these exceptional measures.
Soit on nous refuse l'état de nécessité, en nous disant qu'il ne nous autorise pas à recourir à ces mesures exceptionnelles.

[17:25] Either we accept it, but are told that this state of necessity does not give us the moral option of doing what we are about to do, because it would be contrary to divine law.
Soit nous l'acceptons, mais on nous dit que cet état de nécessité ne nous donne pas l'option morale de faire ce que nous sommes sur le point de faire, car ce serait contraire au droit divin.

[17:41] The answer is very simple, for it is found in all treatises on canon law.
La réponse est très simple, car elle se trouve dans tous les traités de droit canonique.

[17:49] The fact that the Pope reserved to himself the power of episcopal consecrations, that is, the power to consecrate other bishops, is a recent measure,
Le fait que le Pape se soit réservé le pouvoir des consécrations épiscopales, c'est-à-dire le pouvoir de consacrer d'autres évêques, est une mesure récente,

[18:02] Dating from the 12th century.
Datant du 12ème siècle.

[18:02] It cannot be proven that it goes back to the time of the apostles and that it is, therefore, the expression of divine right.
On ne peut prouver qu'il remonte à l'époque des apôtres et qu'il est, par conséquent, l'expression du droit divin.

[18:15] Church history shows that at a certain point the Pope reserved this power to himself.
L'histoire de l'Église montre qu'à un certain moment le Pape s'est réservé ce pouvoir.

[18:15] Why?
Pourquoi ?

[18:19] Because there were abuses: bishops were consecrating a little too freely, with harmful consequences.
Parce qu'il y a eu des abus : les évêques consacraient un peu trop librement, avec des conséquences néfastes.

[18:26] To establish order, the Pope reserved this power to himself.
Pour mettre de l'ordre, le Pape s'est réservé ce pouvoir.

[18:26] But this is a matter of ecclesiastical law.
Mais c'est une question de droit ecclésiastique.

[18:32] We can therefore encounter rare, exceptional situations where, for the good of the Church, it becomes necessary to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, or even against the explicit will of the Pope.
On peut donc rencontrer des situations rares, exceptionnelles où, pour le bien de l'Église, il devient nécessaire de consacrer des évêques sans mandat papal, voire contre la volonté explicite du Pape.

[18:44] We saw this during Paul VI's Ostpolitik: bishops in Eastern European countries secretly consecrated Catholic bishops even though they knew perfectly well that Paul VI was opposed to it, for the well-known political reasons.
Nous l'avons vu lors de l'Ostpolitik de Paul VI : des évêques dans les pays d'Europe de l'Est ont consacré secrètement des évêques catholiques alors qu'ils savaient pertinemment que Paul VI y était opposé, pour des raisons politiques bien connues.

[18:57] If I understand correctly, consecrating bishops against
Si je comprends bien, consacrer des évêques contre

[19:04] The Pope's wishes would not be a schism, but a serious act of disobedience.
Les souhaits du Pape ne seraient pas un schisme, mais un grave acte de désobéissance.

[19:10] What is the difference between the two?
Quelle est la différence entre les deux ?

[19:10] Is that correct?
Est-ce correct ?

[19:17] It would be a schism if a bishop were consecrated by giving him not only the power to perform ordinations and administer confirmation—that is, to give the sacraments—but also jurisdiction, authority.
Ce serait un schisme si un évêque était consacré en lui donnant non seulement le pouvoir d'ordonner et d'administrer la confirmation — c'est-à-dire de donner les sacrements — mais aussi la juridiction, l'autorité.

[19:22] That would be a schism.
Ce serait un schisme.

[19:27] Why?
Pourquoi ?

[19:27] Because only the Pope—and this is a matter of divine right—can grant jurisdictional power, that is, establish a bishop at the head of a part of the Church in a position of authority and governance.
Parce que seul le Pape — et c'est une question de droit divin — peut accorder le pouvoir juridictionnel, c'est-à-dire établir un évêque à la tête d'une partie de l'Église en position d'autorité et de gouvernement.

[19:39] Only the Pope can do this.
Seul le Pape peut faire cela.

[19:44] To do so in place of the Pope and against his will constitutes an usurpation contrary to divine right, and therefore a schism.
Faire cela à la place du Pape et contre sa volonté constitue une usurpation contraire au droit divin, et donc un schisme.

[19:50] But granting the power of Holy Orders without granting jurisdictional power is not a schism.
Mais accorder le pouvoir des saints ordres sans accorder le pouvoir juridictionnel n'est pas un schisme.

[19:56] It would perhaps be, and this is most often what Church history attests to, it's disobedience, because it requires the Pope's permission.
Ce serait peut-être, et c'est ce dont l'histoire de l'Église témoigne le plus souvent, de la désobéissance, car cela nécessite la permission du Pape.

[20:01] But there may be
Mais il peut y avoir

[20:06] circumstances where it wouldn't even be disobedience, because those circumstances demand Catholic bishops, and the Pope cannot refuse them.
circonstances où ce ne serait même pas de la désobéissance, car ces circonstances exigent des évêques catholiques, et le Pape ne peut pas les refuser.

[20:18] If he refuses, he abuses his power.
S'il refuse, il abuse de son pouvoir.

[20:24] He truly acts like a tyrant, because he refuses them for illegitimate reasons.
Il agit vraiment comme un tyran, car il les refuse pour des raisons illégitimes.

[20:29] Unfortunately, that's what we see today.
Malheureusement, c'est ce que nous voyons aujourd'hui.

[20:37] We are being denied fully Catholic bishops—that is, bishops opposed to the errors of the Council—precisely because those who refuse them to us, the Pope in particular, are attached to those errors, which run counter to the common good of the Church.
On nous refuse des évêques pleinement catholiques — c'est-à-dire des évêques opposés aux erreurs du Concile — précisément parce que ceux qui nous les refusent, le Pape en particulier, sont attachés à ces erreurs, qui vont à l'encontre du bien commun de l'Église.

[20:52] So you think the consecrations of July 1st aren't inherently bad?
Alors vous pensez que les consécrations du 1er juillet ne sont pas intrinsèquement mauvaises ?

[20:59] No, they aren't.
Non, elles ne le sont pas.

[21:05] Normally, doing what we're doing would be disobedience in a serious matter.
Normalement, faire ce que nous faisons serait de la désobéissance dans une affaire sérieuse.

[21:05] But, given the circumstances, it isn't.
Mais, compte tenu des circonstances, ce n'est pas le cas.

[21:05] It's part of what the Bishop called "Operation Survival."
Cela fait partie de ce que l'Évêque a appelé "Opération Survie".

[21:05] Normally, the Pope cannot
Normalement, le Pape ne peut pas

[21:09] , and indeed should not, refuse us this. He has a grave duty to give souls the means to

[21:17] sanctify and save themselves. Among these means is the fully Catholic episcopate.

[21:23] What would truly constitute a schism in an episcopal consecration? What constitutes a schism

[21:29] is precisely granting the power of jurisdiction that only the Pope can bestow.

[21:33] It is an usurpation. It is, in a way, exercising authority in place of authority,

[21:40] an act of supreme authority in place of supreme authority. This is what the

[21:46] Orthodox bishops did in 1054, and they remain schismatic because they

[21:51] still do not recognize the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. But, Father,

[21:58] how can you say that the consecrations of July 1st will not grant jurisdiction

[22:04] to the bishops, when for years the Society has acted as if it truly possessed

[22:09] jurisdiction? For example, by preaching, or even by declaring marriages null and void—I'm thinking

[22:17] of the Saint Charles Borromeo Commission. Several elements thus show that the Society acts

[22:24] as if it truly had jurisdiction over souls. You said it, and it's interesting:

[22:30] the Society acts as if, from the outside, it had jurisdictional power. But it

[22:39] doesn't, and it denies having it. We mustn't forget that the Society acts

[22:45] in this way under the law that provides for what is called a supplementary jurisdiction. What does

[22:52] that mean? It's an aspect of the state of necessity. When souls are destitute and

[22:56] need someone to act with authority for their own benefit—you gave the example

[23:04] of a declaration of nullity of marriage, made in a way that truly respects the rules of

[23:09] the Church—they can turn to someone and request a single act of authority. This means

[23:17] that we exercise authority on a case-by-case basis, at the request of souls. It is not the people

[23:25] who have given us a power we do not possess. It is not a power we have

[23:29] arrogated to ourselves. We respond, as the law stipulates, to the requests of souls. In a sense, it is

[23:37] these souls who, in quotation marks, grant us jurisdiction, that is to say, they authorize us

[23:42] to perform these acts of jurisdiction for their benefit. But it is not by carrying out dozens,

[23:49] hundreds, or thousands of individual acts of jurisdiction to come to the aid

[23:54] of these souls that we would possess jurisdictional power. Power descends from above,

[23:59] and it can only descend from the Supreme Pontiff. Here, we are dealing with something quite

[24:03] particular: exceptional measures provided for by law. They multiply

[24:08] due to circumstances, but that does not change the matter. They are exceptional measures.

[24:13] This is merely a jurisdiction, in the improper sense of the term, a substitute,

[24:18] in the sense I have just explained. For the faithful, how can one distinguish between leaving

[24:26] the Church and resisting a particular orientation? Concretely, how can one distinguish the bishops of

[24:32] the Society from the schismatic bishops? I will answer you first with an initial distinction: a

[24:40] An Orthodox bishop will refuse to recite the Filioque when reciting the Creed. The

[24:47] bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X do recite the Filioque; this signifies that they remain Catholic,

[24:52] unlike Orthodox bishops. This is a primary difference in the profession of

[24:57] faith. More fundamentally, the bishops of the Society recognize the very principle of

[25:03] the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. An Orthodox bishop does not recognize the Bishop of Rome

[25:09] as head of the Church. He rejects him. Certain ecumenical gestures may give the impression of this,

[25:17] but one should not be fooled. The Society and its bishops have always recognized the Pope for who

[25:23] he is. Once again, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, we reject not the Pope,

[25:29] whom we recognize for who he is, but what he does. We are therefore not leaving the Church,

[25:35] for leaving the Church means abandoning the Catholic faith, refusing to recognize the

[25:42] divinely instituted government of the Pope, or rejecting the true sacraments. We reject none of

[25:48] these three things. On the contrary, we protest against the harmful measures and false principles

[25:54] of the Council that tend to destroy or corrupt these three things: the Church in

[26:01] its governance, in its profession of faith, and in its worship. Far from leaving the Church,

[26:08] we remain in it, and we resist what seeks to destroy it. Archbishop Lefebvre said: “I do not want to

[26:16] be reproached, when I appear before God, for having contributed to the

[26:24] destruction of the Church along with others.” In this regard, Father, you wrote in several of

[26:30] your articles in the Courrier de Rome that the unity of the Church truly rests on faith,

[26:34] and not primarily on obedience. Could you explain again the true link between faith and

[26:41] obedience? One thing must be remembered: in a natural and temporal society, like the

[26:47] French Republic, you have obedience, and that's all. There is an authority, and people

[26:52] who obey through the laws. The Church is much more than that. The Church

[26:56] is a supernatural society, founded first and foremost on faith, that is, the adherence of the intellect

[27:03] to the truths that God reveals to us. Authority in the Church is established by God for

[27:09] this very purpose: to communicate His truths to us, so that our intellect can give them its full

[27:15] assent. Obedience in the Church, therefore, only has meaning in dependence on faith. All the

[27:21] laws of the Church exist to allow us to protect our faith, to profess it, and to draw

[27:28] all the necessary conclusions from it in our lives. This unity of the Church,

[27:33] which, as you said, rests first and foremost on faith, is supernatural; yet, it is

[27:39] quite evident. It is visible, yes, but visible through what is called the profession of

[27:46] faith. What is the profession of faith? It is what we do when we recite our

[27:50] Creed. It is precisely the same Creed. We are united in our faith, in particular because

[27:57] we sing the same Filioque in the Creed, which the Orthodox do not sing, and which,

[28:03] unfortunately, Pope John Paul II omitted to sing so that he could recite the Creed with them,

[28:08] even though they are not Catholic, in the context of an ecumenical meeting. Where is the unity

[28:12] of the Church at that level? It is precisely to maintain this visible unity that we profess the

[28:21] same faith on Sundays at Mass, every time there are religious services,

[28:27] and even in our behavior and our activities. We take the truths of the faith into account in the

[28:33] way we conduct ourselves. There is therefore a moral life that flows from what God

[28:39] has revealed to us. Adultery is condemned by the Gospel; therefore, divorce is not something a

[28:46] Catholic can condone. This has consequences. What do you say to those who

[28:54] truly place faith and obedience on the same level, and consider obedience

[29:00] almost more important than belief? It simply means they haven't understood the

[29:05] supernatural nature of the Church. This is somewhat the tragedy of these generations of Catholics, both before and after the

[29:13] Council: by constantly emphasizing the role of the Pope in the Church, they forget what the Church is.

[29:20] The Pope. There's a loss of the supernatural spirit. We no longer see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ,

[29:26] primarily charged with preaching Christ's word to us. We see him as a head of state,

[29:33] a man charged with enforcing laws and governing, without going beyond what

[29:38] one might find in a French president. It's a kind of

[29:44] desacralization and de-supernaturalization of the Church. By constantly insisting on obedience,

[29:50] we create a false unity, a temporal and naturalistic unity, no longer supernatural.

[29:57] To return to this question of unity of faith you were talking about, you said it

[30:00] should be expressed through our profession of faith. But precisely, this profession is

[30:06] given to us by the Pope. He is the principle of the Church's visible unity. Yes, but we must always

[30:12] return to the principles, that is to say, to the initial truths. Certainly, it is the Pope who gives it to us,

[30:18] but he does so because he is the Vicar of Christ. Consequently, he has no right

[30:25] to change the word of Christ. He transmits it to us, and it is always the same word.

[30:31] He is the Vicar of Christ. If we oppose him, it is not the Pope himself

[30:38] , as Vicar of Christ; on the contrary, we rely on the entire line of Popes throughout

[30:46] the history of the Church, who have been, one after another, like the unaltered echo of

[30:51] this word of Christ, always transmitted in the same sense and with the same meaning,

[30:57] as Saint Vincent of Lérins says. Today, we oppose not the Vicar of Christ,

[31:02] but a man invested with this power of Vicar who, unfortunately, abuses this power,

[31:11] diverts it from the expression of the true faith, and imposes errors already condemned or

[31:17] theological opinions already rejected. What is the right way to love the Pope in this

[31:22] crisis? The answer is always the same: to have an ever more purified gaze of faith. We must see

[31:30] beyond the person who is harming the Church and causing us suffering; we must see beyond this

[31:36] person the office, the Vicar of Christ, and pray that this man will be faithful to

[31:43] his office. We all have a stake in this. This is not about polemics: these are

[31:50] all-too-human reactions. Archbishop Lefebvre was far above this kind of reaction. He saw the good of

[31:55] souls and was concerned with bringing Rome back to tradition, as he said. Against

[32:02] all hope, he hoped for the Pope's return to traditional ideas, for the good of the Church,

[32:08] for the good of souls, and also for the salvation of the Pope himself. We pray for him as

[32:14] the head of the Church, but also as an individual, that he

[32:17] too may be saved. Isn't there still a danger of sliding towards sedevacantism? The danger,

[32:28] or rather the risk, exists. But it is, in a way, a risk inherent to the situation we are

[32:36] experiencing. It is not a risk we ourselves created, nor is it inherent to our

[32:42] person or our position; it is inherent to the situation. We are forced to

[32:48] acknowledge what we see: a papacy that is causing people to lose their faith. We are

[32:56] forced to react. But this does not mean that we believe there is no

[33:01] longer a pope, nor that there is no longer any authority in the Church. Not at all. It is simply

[33:05] a conviction we hold, perhaps contrary to what we are forced to experience,

[33:12] by living, it is true, somewhat as if there were no pope. But this does not mean that

[33:18] we acknowledge that there is no pope. On the contrary. This situation calls for prayer

[33:24] and study, to become ever more convinced and deeply entrenched. Above all, we must not

[33:30] forget that this situation, which may carry this risk, is not of our own making. It is

[33:36] Providence that has imposed it upon us. It is God who allows this. It is God who has

[33:42] placed us in this situation. If He has placed us here, as long as He allows us to remain so, He will grant us the

[33:49] grace to persevere and remain Catholic, preserving the faith and our reference to the See of Peter.

[33:58] I would also add common sense: a Church without a pope cannot stand, neither theologically

[34:03] nor according to sound reason. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, the possibility of sedevacantism is becoming a reality.

[34:11] in a dead end. The visible Church, in order to be visible, needs a visible leader.

[34:18] Father, you said earlier that there will be no schism

[34:22] during the episcopal consecrations to be conferred on July 1st in Écône, because

[34:27] Holy Orders will be given but not jurisdiction. Can we now turn to what is probably the

[34:33] most technical point? Can you explain to us what the power of Holy Orders is and what the power

[34:38] of jurisdiction is? The simplest way is to go back to Christ. As you know, Christ is priest,

[34:47] prophet, and king. He communicates his powers to men so that they can, after him, continue

[34:55] his work in the Church. What is the power of Holy Orders? It is the power of Christ

[35:02] the priest, that is to say, the power to sanctify, to give souls grace through the sacraments.

[35:08] It is therefore the power to administer the sacraments. It is acquired through a rite, a consecration. It

[35:16] is equivalent to the priestly character of the one who receives it, and it is a power that cannot be

[35:22] lost: it is indelible. It is given, through the rite, directly by God himself; the one who

[35:29] ordains, the consecrator, is merely God's instrument. The power of jurisdiction, on the other hand,

[35:38] is the power of Christ the King and also the Prophet. It is the power of Christ who teaches and

[35:45] governs us to enable us to obtain the salvation of our souls and to prepare us to

[35:52] receive the sacraments. This power is communicated to men through what is called

[35:57] jurisdiction. It is given by a man, by the Pope, by means of a canonical mission. It is an

[36:07] act of the Pope's will, which grants authority to a priest so that he may have authority over a diocese

[36:12] and be a bishop by virtue of that authority. It is a power that can be lost. The Pope can

[36:17] withdraw jurisdiction just as he can grant it. It is therefore the power to govern, to guide

[36:24] souls toward the end of society, through laws. These two powers are quite distinct, but there is

[36:31] a link between them in the Church. Why? Because the Church is a supernatural society. Its

[36:37] purpose is the salvation of souls. In the Church, therefore, government aims at sanctification.

[36:43] Jurisdiction is ordered to order. This is why these two powers are linked and must be

[36:53] coordinated in their exercise. There is also another important element: in the Church,

[37:00] power is sacred power. This is the meaning of the word hierarchy, which signifies sacred power.

[37:06] He who has the authority to govern in the Church must therefore be a sacred figure, because

[37:11] he is God's representative in the supernatural order. Consequently, it is fitting that,

[37:16] in the Church, he who possesses jurisdiction should also be consecrated and possess the power of order.

[37:25] You are establishing a distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. But how

[37:30] can we arrive at a perfect separability of the two, when most of the time,

[37:34] if not always, we observe that bishops possess both? We must

[37:42] n't confuse things. Just because, most of the time—as you said

[37:46] —they are not separate, doesn't mean they are inseparable. They can be separate. Why

[38:00] are they not usually separated? Because, as we have just said, the

[38:02] purpose of government is the sanctification of souls, and the one who governs is a sacred figure.

[38:08] Therefore, the one who governs must possess holy orders. There is a kind of connaturality, a destiny, even

[38:15] an aptitude, almost a requirement, between jurisdiction and holy orders. On the other hand, the reverse is

[38:23] not true. Therefore, one will very rarely, almost never, find someone who possesses jurisdiction

[38:28] without having holy orders. When the Church grants jurisdiction to someone who lacks the power

[38:33] of Holy Orders, it aims to grant that person the power of Holy Orders as quickly as possible. However, the reverse

[38:38] is not true. One can find—it is rare, but not extraordinary—within the Church,

[38:43] individuals who possess the power of Holy Orders without having any jurisdiction, and without any

[38:49] qualification or requirement whatsoever regarding jurisdiction. Why? Because

[38:57] these are bishops whose role is to sanctify: the auxiliary bishops. They come to assist the bishop.

[39:03] who is a bishop and who possesses jurisdiction, because he cannot suffice on his own for

[39:10] this entire work of sanctification. The bishops of the Society will be, and are, auxiliary bishops

[39:16] . They do not have jurisdiction. They simply have the power of Holy Orders to sanctify. There

[39:21] is perfect autonomy here, perfect separation, and this is entirely traditional

[39:27] in the history of the Church. One can therefore confer the power of Holy Orders without conferring jurisdiction.

[39:33] So you maintain that a bishop can validly and licitly receive episcopal consecration

[39:38] without receiving a canonical mission. Why is it theologically decisive to make

[39:45] this distinction? This is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre did not want to do,

[39:48] quite simply because he could not. Only the Pope can confer jurisdiction

[39:53] in the Church. If one confers jurisdiction in the Church in place of the Pope, it means one is

[40:00] usurping it. This is an usurpation: we are appropriating, arrogating to ourselves something that only the Pope possesses

[40:07] and can exercise. It is precisely to avoid being schismatic that we refuse to do what

[40:15] would be an usurpation. We must maintain a balance between two demands. We must grant the power

[40:21] of Holy Orders because there is a state of necessity: we cannot leave souls in distress,

[40:25] even if Rome opposes it. But on the other hand, we reasonably restrain ourselves so as not to

[40:32] go beyond what the situation requires and so as not to grant a jurisdiction that would be

[40:38] usurped and that would undermine our credibility. In this regard, can you explain and

[40:45] show us how the new ecclesiology of Vatican II blurs this distinction between

[40:51] the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction in the text of the Council? This is an important aspect of the

[40:56] problem, and it helps to understand why Rome considers us schismatic despite

[41:00] everything we may say. In the new ecclesiology—that of the constitution

[41:05] Lumen Gentium, in chapter 3—it is stated that episcopal consecration,

[41:13] within the framework of a rite, confers both the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction, which

[41:18] thus comes directly from God, and which every bishop possesses by virtue of his consecration. This is

[41:25] something entirely new, completely contrary to all tradition. At the time of the Council,

[41:35] Council Fathers, comrades-in-arms of Archbishop Lefebvre within the Coetus, and even others,

[41:39] remarked, in giving their opinion on the text of this schema, that it contained something

[41:43] absolutely new that could find no justification in the tradition of the Church. Nothing like

[41:51] it had ever been seen before. The consecrated bishop does not possess jurisdiction: it is the Pope who grants it to him.

[42:00] This, therefore, represents a new logic. In this line of reasoning, indeed, if we consecrate bishops

[42:05] against the Pope's will, and if the consecration ipso facto confers jurisdiction, then we can only

[42:10] conclude that there is a schism. But we can only conclude that there is a schism based on these

[42:18] false presuppositions of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II. Moreover, Father,

[42:23] doesn't the growing authority of lay people in the Roman Curia indirectly reveal the validity of

[42:29] this distinction? Yes. At the same time, this puts the conciliar authorities in contradiction with

[42:36] themselves. We see it clearly: they give positions of authority and jurisdiction to women,

[42:42] that is, to members of the faithful of the Church who, by definition, cannot receive the

[42:47] power of Holy Orders. This clearly proves that there is a distinction between the two. If

[42:51] they were consistent with themselves, they should consider that jurisdiction derives

[42:56] from a consecration, and they would then have to consecrate these people, which is not possible. There is

[43:02] therefore both a contradiction within the conciliar system, within the new ecclesiology,

[43:09] and an indirect acknowledgment of the correctness of the traditional position. For a non-specialist faithful,

[43:19] could the question be summarized without losing precision? Quite simply,

[43:26] episcopal consecration makes a bishop by giving him the power to confer the sacraments of Confirmation

[43:34] and Holy Orders. In concrete terms, the bishops in the Society, as we

[43:40] will have them and as we have them, are bishops who travel the world to give

[43:45] Confirmation and ordinations. They have no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is

[43:50] granted by the Pope, and we do not grant it because we are not the Pope. Father,

[43:56] may we move on to the objections? Gladly. What, fundamentally, do you find fault with in Cardinal

[44:02] Sarah's position? Cardinal Sarah is a man of goodwill, and we see that he is reacting up to a

[44:10] point. He has spoken quite strongly. But he is content with a unilateral appeal for

[44:18] obedience, and this appeal is repetitive. There is no real argument: "You are going to disobey,

[44:25] it's serious, obey, otherwise you will cause a schism in the Church." “One gets the impression

[44:31] that unity of faith no longer exists, and that it can no longer justify an action that, apparently,

[44:39] goes against obedience, but which, in reality, is entirely in line with just and

[44:44] true obedience, which has no reason to exist in the Church except to preserve the faith.

[44:51] Another objection, raised by the Fraternity of Saint Peter and based on Saint Thomas Aquinas,

[44:56] is that the bishop is like a prince in the ecclesiastical order. Should we understand

[45:02] by this that the bishop is defined above all by his power of jurisdiction? When quoting

[45:09] Saint Thomas, one must be very careful to place the quotation in its context and to

[45:14] see precisely what he is talking about. Saint Thomas spoke very little about the bishop from the point of view of

[45:24] jurisdiction—he does speak of it in Contra Gentiles, but very little elsewhere—because, for him,

[45:27] jurisdiction falls under canon law, which he does not deal with directly. It is not

[45:29] a theological matter.” Saint Thomas Aquinas, therefore, speaks primarily of the bishop in the context of the

[45:34] sacraments, that is, the power of Holy Orders. Indeed, he says that the bishop is a prince,

[45:39] a king. But he is so in the order of worship. This is what we see in a

[45:45] pontifical Mass: there is a throne, a king assisted by servants, who exercises authority,

[45:54] but in the order of worship, by analogy. Why? Because he gives the priests

[46:00] the power to consecrate the Body of Christ. Yes, the words prince, king, and regency are present

[46:07] , if you will; but this is entirely metaphorical and inappropriate, by analogy

[46:12] in the order of worship. This has nothing to do with a true jurisdiction corresponding

[46:19] to a true power of government. We must put things in context. We must also understand—as we

[46:27] have already said and we repeat here—that the power of Holy Orders is formally autonomous within

[46:33] its own order. It does not necessarily imply the power of jurisdiction. Not at all.

[46:40] The Church, as a society, needs both. There must be,

[46:47] in one way or another, individuals within the Church who possess both powers in order to exercise them,

[46:52] one for the sake of the other—jurisdiction for the sake of order. But this does not mean

[46:57] that every individual in the Church must necessarily possess both. And it certainly does

[47:02] not mean that the power of order requires jurisdiction. Absolutely not. You have

[47:13] responded extensively to Father de Blignières in the pages of the Courrier de Rome lately. What

[47:18] exactly do you criticize him for? Is it for minimizing the state of necessity? Or is it for being mistaken about

[47:27] the unity of the Church, particularly on the question of hierarchical communion, which, according to him, is

[47:32] a matter of divine right? I criticize, or rather I deplore—and I am not addressing Father

[47:41] de Blignières personally, whom I do not know and have never met, but his ideas and what

[47:46] he develops—first, that he repeats himself without renewing his arguments. He takes up the arguments of 1988,

[47:57] repeats them, harps on them ad nauseam, and does not respond to the arguments we have already

[48:04] raised and which we renew in an attempt to clarify the issue ever more precisely. He does

[48:11] not answer us; he repeats himself. What are these arguments? He tends, and increasingly so

[48:18] over time, to minimize the state of necessity. We see it. This minimization unfolds indirectly

[48:27] and takes the form of a reproach addressed to the Society: "You are exaggerating.

[48:34] " When we see this, we cannot help but think of the reflection that Archbishop Lefebvre

[48:40] made about Dom Gérard when the latter, after the consecrations, took the wrong path that

[48:44] We know. The Bishop said, "He no longer sees the gravity of the errors." Because the state of necessity

[48:52] is measured by the gravity of the errors. They minimize them: there are errors, there are indeed things

[48:59] that are wrong in the Church, but it's not so serious as to… We can

[49:03] clearly see that they said nothing about Fiducia supplicans, or very little, or not enough.

[49:11] There is a truly marked weakness in the reaction to errors, and it's growing

[49:17] . So, on the one hand, there is the minimization of the state of necessity, and on the other hand, the famous

[49:23] argument of divine right, according to which the requirement of a papal mandate for the consecration of bishops

[49:28] by the Pope is a requirement of divine right. But no, that's not true. All

[49:35] canon lawyers say so. The law states that the Pope reserves the consecration of bishops to himself. But this

[49:43] reservation dates back to the 11th century. Father Cappello, in his well-known treatise, demonstrates and proves this.

[49:48] Why this reservation? Because there were abuses. The Pope therefore reserved this power to himself,

[49:52] but it falls under ecclesiastical law. No explicit mention of this requirement, according to which only Saint Peter and his successors could

[49:58] consecrate other bishops, is found in the sources of revelation.

[50:04] No, absolutely not. It would have to be proven before it can be asserted.

[50:10] Yet it is asserted to say that we cannot do what we are about to do, and that,

[50:16] consequently, it would necessarily be schismatic, or intrinsically evil, against divine law.

[50:21] They assert it, but they do not prove it. That is not true. It is a measure of

[50:27] ecclesiastical law, which therefore allows for an exception due to the circumstances. The bishops of

[50:34] Eastern European countries did so during the communist persecution, despite the opposition of Paul VI, who was then

[50:43] engaged in his Ostpolitik. Some might say this argument is self-serving, but it

[50:53] remains a matter of common sense that should resonate with the conscience of Catholics. Archbishop Lefebvre

[50:58] was not a madman. He was a man of the Church, a great bishop. He had long enjoyed Rome's confidence

[51:06] . He had been to Africa; he knew its theology. I can attest to this, as I was

[51:12] in charge of the archives at the seminary in Écône: you should see the sheer number of pages he filled in

[51:17] his fine handwriting with the study of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church Fathers, and the early popes. He knew

[51:23] canon law. I therefore do not believe he acted entirely recklessly. He knew

[51:28] what he was doing. He said so and explained himself by citing studies by canon lawyers in the sermon

[51:37] at the consecration. This is therefore a miscarriage of justice. Another objection that could be raised,

[51:44] Father, is that the very liturgy of consecration seems to demonstrate the profound link

[51:50] between the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction in the episcopate.

[51:54] I am thinking, for example, of the episcopal ring, but also especially of the crosier and the enthronement that

[51:59] takes place at the end of the liturgy. All of this seems to show that there is an intrinsic,

[52:03] deep, fundamental, almost necessary link between episcopal consecration and the power of

[52:10] jurisdiction. It is quite beautiful, moreover. We will see this in the ceremony: at the end,

[52:16] the bishop is accompanied, he leaves with the crosier and takes possession of the flock. Indeed, this

[52:25] could give the impression that consecration confers jurisdiction. But

[52:33] a distinction must be made, which can be illustrated by a similar, though not identical, example.

[52:39] Look at the coronation of the kings of France. There, too, you have the presentation of the insignia of

[52:52] power: the crown, the scepter. The king is crowned, but he is already king. In France, he

[53:02] is king from the moment the previous king dies: "The king is dead, long live the king," even before he is consecrated.

[53:07] Another interesting example: when the pope, in former times, received the tiara at the

[53:15] papal coronation, he was already pope. What does this mean? There can be a simultaneity between

[53:24] episcopal consecration and the bestowal of a symbol corresponding to something else: the power

[53:31] of jurisdiction. But this simultaneity, this synchronization, does not mean that

[53:38] episcopal consecration is the cause and source of this power of jurisdiction. The liturgy

[53:44] He did things this way, and it's easily explained. Ordinarily, most of the time,

[53:51] the consecrated bishop already possessed jurisdiction, having received it beforehand, and the liturgy expressed this. The

[53:59] liturgy therefore remains what it is, even in the rare, though not extraordinary, case where the

[54:06] consecrated bishop does not receive jurisdiction. What ultimately matters is not so much the

[54:11] details of the liturgy, but the form—insofar as the episcopate is a sacrament, which is

[54:16] disputed—for there is a form and a substance. Now, in the very expression of the form, you have

[54:25] no mention of the power of jurisdiction. The form of the rite indicates what is caused by the rite; here,

[54:33] what is designated is the power of Holy Orders, and by no means the power of jurisdiction. Contrary

[54:40] to all these objections, do the statements of figures outside the Society, such as

[54:46] Bishop Strickland or Bishop Schneider, confirm the Society's position and analysis? They

[54:56] primarily confirm the Church's traditional doctrine, quite simply, because

[55:01] the Society has no analysis of its own. There is only the Society's fidelity to Church doctrine

[55:06] . It is both fortunate and heartening to see two bishops reflect, evolve, be clear-sighted,

[55:15] honest, and upright, and draw their conclusions. What is impressive about Bishop Schneider

[55:22] is that he has evolved considerably. He is becoming more aware of things, he is moving in the same direction,

[55:29] always more and always better. He is taking a stand, he is courageous, because he is taking our side

[55:35] and defending us. But it must be clearly understood—and here we return to the initial point—that

[55:42] consecrations are not for the Society. He is taking a stand for the Church, and he defends the Church through

[55:50] the Fraternity. Indeed, this is very beneficial. Does this external support change

[55:56] anything about the nature of the arguments, or simply their visibility? It does

[56:01] n't change the nature of the arguments. It simply gives them much more weight in terms of visibility.

[56:06] We can see, therefore, that it is not only we who are saying this in what would be

[56:12] a self-serving argument; it is also being objectively observed by people who are not

[56:17] part of our Fraternity and who have no particular interest in doing so. This therefore lends it added

[56:24] credibility. You explained to us earlier why the accusations of schism

[56:29] would be futile concerning the consecrations conferred on July 1st in Écône. But there is still the

[56:35] threat of excommunication. What are we to make of this? Will this excommunication be automatic? What

[56:42] will its value be? In 2026, as in 1988, we must adhere to the letter of the law; Otherwise, we

[56:52] get lost in imaginary things and no longer know where we're going. The law is very clear. This

[57:01] was also highlighted by a German canon lawyer whom Archbishop Lefebvre quoted in his homily of

[57:06] June 30, 1988. The law states that anyone who acts against ecclesiastical law, or the

[57:17] law in general, driven by grave necessity, is excused from any offense. Therefore: no offense,

[57:26] no punishment. The law also stipulates that even if someone acts in this way is

[57:34] mistaken, erroneous, or in bad faith, and even commits an intrinsically

[57:40] evil act, as long as they are driven by grave necessity, there would certainly be an offense,

[57:46] but the punishment should be mitigated, because the extenuating circumstance that led them to act out of necessity is taken into account

[57:53] . The punishment would therefore necessarily be less than excommunication, by the

[57:58] very nature of the law. Whatever the hypothesis considered, according to the letter of the law,

[58:05] we should be no more liable to excommunication in 2026 than we were in 1988.

[58:11] This would not only be fundamentally unjust, but contrary to the very letter of the

[58:17] law. Father, is there a difference between 1988 and 2026? Something has changed,

[58:29] and something hasn't. Both are true. What hasn't changed is us. And without

[58:35] any presumption, we must face this. I think it's very important, because it's

[58:42] striking and can serve as an example: precisely, we haven't changed. One might have

[58:49] expected it—because that's generally what happens when there's this kind of initiative.

[58:57] Truly schismatic, breaking with the Church—leading to fragmentation. Society splintered at the

[59:04] same time as it broke with the true Church. We saw this among the Orthodox: an

[59:11] immediate and seemingly endless fragmentation of autocephalous churches. We also see it in

[59:15] Protestantism. Yet the Fraternity remained as straight as an arrow and as united as one,

[59:24] in its threefold unity of worship, profession of faith, and governance. There are, of course, always

[59:32] the human stories inherent in the history of the Church, with this or that isolated defection

[59:37] of this or that priest. But society itself has maintained its unity. I emphasize this: the unity

[59:45] of its Catholic faith, without veering into exaggeration or hardening,

[59:50] without falling into sedevacantism. It has also experienced a rejuvenation,

[59:58] with young priests ordained every year, and an internal balance at all levels,

[01:00:05] even from a purely human perspective. On the other hand, in present-day Rome,

[01:00:12] things have changed. The crisis has certainly worsened, particularly under

[01:00:21] Pope Francis. But even under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we saw a deepening of the crisis,

[01:00:26] with an intensification of ecumenism, which is fostering an increasingly

[01:00:32] indifferent mentality. If you ask an ordinary Catholic today, they will tell you—

[01:00:40] because they believe it and because it has become a unanimous conviction—that salvation can be found

[01:00:45] in all religions. They believe it because it has been said. So, the

[01:00:52] crisis has worsened on all levels. In that respect, yes, there has been a change in present-day Rome,

[01:00:59] and that is what justifies our initiative all the more. Can we say that the principle of

[01:01:07] 1988 remains the same in 2026, namely the desire to transfer the power of order without transferring the

[01:01:13] power of jurisdiction? Yes, it is still the same principle. I would even say that it

[01:01:17] lends us all the more credibility. This worsening of the crisis still does not tempt us

[01:01:26] to replace the authorities in place. We remain in our place. We want the salvation of

[01:01:33] souls, and we are taking the necessary steps. Precisely because the crisis is worsening, we do not see,

[01:01:37] from a human perspective, any real hope of a return to tradition on the part of the conciliar authorities.

[01:01:42] We must therefore take the necessary steps to continue, but only as much as necessary, and no more. Do you think

[01:01:49] that the media's focus on the schism at Écône somewhat obscures the theological argument? Undoubtedly

[01:01:56] , as always. Remember the consecration ceremony: during his sermon,

[01:02:00] Archbishop Lefebvre paused and alluded to the journalists, saying that the media would

[01:02:07] not help us in this regard. That is the role of the media, their usual mission: to be there,

[01:02:15] to write their story, pushing whatever is in vogue. There is a single way of thinking,

[01:02:23] and that is manipulation, not information. The mechanism will therefore certainly come into play. It

[01:02:30] may come into play in different circumstances, because today, thanks to or because of the internet,

[01:02:38] alongside the official media, we have a multitude of independent and parallel media outlets. But this only

[01:02:45] exacerbates the circus surrounding the Magisterium. It is confusion. Yes, there will certainly be this

[01:02:53] demonization, this kind of screen preventing people from seeing clearly. All the more reason to pray,

[01:03:00] reflect, study, take a step back, and always maintain a clear perspective. Father, what should

[01:03:09] a member of the Society remember first and foremost as July 1st approaches? The most important thing

[01:03:16] to remember is that, if it hadn't been for the consecrations of June 30, 1988, there most likely would have been no

[01:03:24] members of the Society, because there would have been no Society at all. I mean, there

[01:03:30] would no longer have been a Society as it is now, as it has remained, faithful

[01:03:33] to itself. There would also have been no communities. This shows the full importance of this

[01:03:41] founding act of Archbishop Lefebvre, which gave us the means to persevere through the crisis.

[01:03:48] The consecrations of 2026 are therefore part of a continuity, a repetition made possible

[01:03:55] thanks to this initial initiative of Archbishop Lefebvre. This simply means that we continue

[01:04:01] to work for the salvation of souls in complete safety, by the grace of God. What danger do we face?

[01:04:07] What is the danger in this context? The danger that lies in wait for us is always the same: believing we have arrived.

[01:04:14] We must not forget that we take the means that God gives us,

[01:04:18] and that these means must be used according to God's will. It is not because we

[01:04:24] once again have four young and effective bishops that everything is won. The salvation of our souls is

[01:04:32] never won. We must always persevere to the end, remain faithful in faith,

[01:04:39] in humility, in self-distrust, and in surrender. In such a situation, Father

[01:04:45] , what concrete act of faith must each faithful person who truly wants to remain Catholic make, in your opinion

[01:04:52] ? I believe that we must truly believe in the indefectibility of the Church. We

[01:04:57] spoke about this earlier, and we must believe in this indefectibility while fully understanding

[01:05:03] what it means. The Church is indefectible, but the Church is us. Once again,

[01:05:08] we are not the only traditionalists, nor are we the only faithful of the Society: it is everyone,

[01:05:14] all the baptized. The Church is infallible because each person, in their place, corresponds to the graces

[01:05:20] God gives them to work out their own salvation and contribute to the salvation of others. That is what the Church is: the

[01:05:26] Pope in his place, the bishops in their place, and each faithful person in their place. The Church is not

[01:05:32] an entity separate from us. The objection raised against us—"It is the Church that saves us, and it is

[01:05:48] not we who save the Church"—when one reflects on it, is meaningless and,

[01:05:50] moreover, betrays its origins. There is an entirely artificial, even antitheological, dichotomy here

[01:05:57] between the Church and us. But we are the Church. The Church is us: the Pope, the bishops,

[01:06:03] the faithful. We were told often enough at Vatican II that the Church is the people of

[01:06:07] God. Indeed, the Church is steadfast because we work and contribute, at our own level,

[01:06:15] with the graces God bestows upon us, to this perseverance. This is what we must not

[01:06:21] forget: believing in God's help, which can never fail us. You have just highlighted

[01:06:27] the act of will that must be made. But as for the act of intellect, what

[01:06:32] is the fundamental distinction that must be understood? It is essential to understand that the Church

[01:06:39] is a society of a supernatural order. It is the mystical body of Jesus Christ. It is not a

[01:06:46] society like any other. Its unity rests on the gift of God's grace. This is first and foremost the gift of

[01:06:54] faith. The unity of the Church, fundamentally, is the unity of the profession of its faith. Faith is the

[01:07:01] beginning of salvation. Dependent upon this, and in service to it, is the unity of governance.

[01:07:07] The governance of the Church, once again, only has meaning if it is there to maintain this

[01:07:17] profession of faith. The gravity of the present moment lies precisely in separating the two. Finally,

[01:07:23] in conclusion, Father, you now have thirty seconds to convince us of the

[01:07:28] validity of the 2026 consecrations. The glory of God and the salvation of souls. The Superior General has

[01:07:35] said it and repeated it after Archbishop Lefebvre, and that is what motivates us. I would say it is apostolic,

[01:07:42] missionary, and charitable. Thank you. At the end of this interview, one point emerges very clearly: the

[01:07:51] question of the consecrations cannot be interpreted solely from a disciplinary or media perspective.

[01:07:57] On the contrary, it requires and demands a proper understanding and sound knowledge of

[01:08:02] the Church's doctrine on unity and authority. It also requires,

[01:08:07] and perhaps above all, a sound understanding of what true and just

[01:08:13] obedience to the Pope should be. Thank you, Father, for your insights and your answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZzEz_nSdRI

Summary

TL;DR — The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is preparing for new episcopal consecrations on July 1st, acting out of a perceived

Résumé / Summary (fr)

En bref — La Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pie-X (FSSPX) se prépare à de nouvelles consécrations épiscopales le 1er juillet, agissant par