Quo Vadis, Domine? - "Lord, whither goest Thou?": Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X

 

by Côme de Prévigny

for Renaissance Catholique

July 16, 2026

On June 16th, Pope Leo XIV made a statement outside his residence at Castel Gandolfo concerning the Society of Saint Pius X, which was then preparing to consecrate four bishops without a pontifical mandate. The Pope affirmed that this decision grieved him, while concluding that he intended to press forward. "If they make that choice," he said, "it saddens me deeply, but we must move forward."

Move forward toward what?

Écône: A Sign of Contradiction? - by Côme de Prévigny

 Écône: A Sign of Contradiction?

by Côme de Prévigny*

It has been repeated with evident satisfaction over the past few days: "The matter is settled. The schism is consummated. There is nothing more to expect from the SSPX." Very well. Granted. We should have turned the page by now. And yet the file stubbornly refuses to close and continues to occupy a prominent place in the news.

"Vatican II: Still Waiting to be Implemented?... -- A Comparison with the Reception of the Council of Trent" - by Côme de Prévigny

Vatican II: Fruits that will germinate, or spoiled fruits?

Côme de Prévigny

Rennaisance Catholique

Feb. 7, 2023

John XXIII wanted to "bring a little fresh air into the Church" and, sixty years ago, the most heated minds promised the Catholic world a real "springtime", an unhoped-for renewal that would undoubtedly give hope and youth back to the venerable institution. The crowds were to fill the sanctuaries while the workers were to find their way back to the baptisteries. Obviously, the decades have passed and the promises have not been kept. In the great naves, one can only breathe the odors of pigeon droppings and the mold of fungi favored by humidity. Churches have been deserted, seminaries have closed and dreams have been dashed. With the passage of time, the prophets of good omen have bent their foreheads terribly, and they mask their wrinkles to suggest every day that we wait another year to see a new dawn shine on Christendom. Until a few years ago, some well-informed observers ventured to tell us that it would take fifty years to expect to receive the fruits of the famous Council. Now we have to wait a hundred years. "It is true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have forty years to make it take root", Pope Francis warned without being discouraged. What is the truth of this? Should we be patient or has the essential message of the aggiornamento been received?

The comparison with the Council of Trent

"The Death of Benedict XVI: The Failure of the Hermeneutic of Continuity"

 by Côme de Prévigny

Much has been said about Benedict XVI in recent weeks. The major newspapers, not very complacent, have recalled that he was called "panzercardinal" when he was the Pope's guarantor of dogma. The more conservative media hailed him as the architect of liturgical pacification, the one who had the merit of publishing the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Perhaps we forget that with his death, a real page in the history of the Church is being turned, since with him the last great actor of Vatican II has disappeared. Even the last six surviving Council Fathers (almost one hundred years old), out of the two thousand five hundred, did not play the outsized role that he did as an expert. He attended the debates as a theological consultant to Archbishop Joseph Frings of Cologne and on many occasions lent his pen to this leading prelate. With Joseph Ratzinger also dies the last cardinal appointed under Paul VI, a key figure who took part in the great papal decisions of the last half-century, one of the eminent figures of the contemporary Church, whose role was to apply the decisions of the Fathers and then to interpret them.

An undeniable evolution

The Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X: Prospects for 2019 (Guest Post)

by Côme de Prévigny

The visit this past November of Father Davide Pagliarani, new Superior-General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), to the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome has revived the everlasting matter of the relations between the Holy See and the society founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, raising speculations on the possibility of having this body officially recognized by the Vatican. Inquiring minds wonder if a tendency that wants regularization or not has assumed command of the SSPX. Here and there, a commentator strives to know if doctrinal agreements should be reached before considering a practical agreement, reaching back to a configuration that resembles the situation of 15 years ago. But where, concretely, should these discussions lead? Should they wait until Rome has finally condemned Vatican II, or rather are mere safeguards enough? This point remains to be clarified.

Op-Ed: "SSPX: the Personal Prelature will outlive the various succeeding Pontiffs"

SSPX : The Personal Prelature will outlive the various succeeding Pontiffs

A special Op-Ed by

Côme de Prévigny

Should the Personal Prelature presented by Rome to the Society of Saint Pius X be accepted? Some present their negative opinion, based on the circumstances, but that is a badly formulated quetion. What should be asked instead is this: Can a canonical recognition be rejected when no unacceptable condition is attached to this concession? Abp. Lefebvre never refused a canonical structure by itself, when he was alive. He refused solely the demands conditioning the structure that he had originally sought and obtained, and that was unjustly removed from him.

He never wanted to break, of his own will, the canonical liaison that linked him officially with Rome, and even to this Rome infested with Modernists. Quite the contrary, he refused it: he challenged the publication of the break of this link, and appealed the decisions of the ecclesiastical authorities. Consequently, Abp. Lefebvre never faced the situation in which we find ourselves: the Society is offered a canonical structure unconditionally. Incidentally, on what basis can it be refused if no condition is imposed (and even if the conditions were neutral), and if one considers that the Pope, due to the divine mandate granted by Our Lord to Peter and his successors, continues to possess the supernatural power of binding and unbinding, despite all his woes? Would the current crisis make the primacy of Peter and the power of the keys of Catholic truths which are embarrassing, optional, and superfluous?

Setting things straight about the SSPX-Vatican talks:What exactly happened in April-June 2012? A guest article by Côme de Prévigny

A narrative has dominated the news on the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) in the past year: those difficult priests did not accept the extended hand of Pope Benedict XVI; hard-hearted people with stubborn demands, they missed the chance of a lifetime. As in the narrative created by news-creators such as John Allen Jr:

Short of standing outside their headquarters in Econe, Switzerland, in the snow and begging forgiveness like Henry IV at Canossa, Benedict XVI did everything possible to heal the split, and yet the society balked. In an Easter letter to friends and benefactors, Bishop Bernard Fellay asserted that Rome has imposed acceptance of the Second Vatican Council as a sine qua non -- a prerequisite, Fellay wrote, "to which we could not and still cannot subscribe."

Many observers believe it's now "game over," at least for the foreseeable future and barring some surprising concession on the Lefebvrist side. (Here's a prediction: Rejection of Benedict's overtures will go down as the "Camp David" moment for the Lefebvrists, comparable to Yasser Arafat turning down a 2000 deal that would have given the Palestinians basically 95 percent of what they wanted.) (Source)

We in Rorate have always stood for the regularization of the SSPX; one of our first editorials defended that "this is the time" for an agreement - and by "the time" we meant not 2006, but the Pontificate of Benedict XVI. Our readers know we have covered more extensively this matter than practically any other online source - even moments ago, on a matter reported on Sunday by the German press.

In April 2012, a probable regularization certainly seemed to be the case, and who can forget the (leaked) letter of SSPX Superior-General Bp. Bernard Fellay to his fellow bishops? On June 13, 2012, what seemed to be a meeting that would set the path for such reconciliation, following the acceptance by the Vatican of the negotiated Doctrinal Preamble, ended in flames as Bp. Fellay and his assistant met a Vatican side that suddenly came up with new demands - more stringent even than those contained in the May 5, 1988 Protocol. Why would the side that always has the upper hand in any Catholic discussion - that is, Rome - do this, that is, raise new stakes near the end if not from an interest to derail any agreement? Who in the Vatican forced the Supreme Authority's hand at the eleventh hour? Why?

We now know that, in the middle of Vatileaks (which were also made public at around the same time), the Pope's position gradually became untenable. We know that because of what would happen on February 11, 2013. We know now that his isolation, always present throughout the Pontificate, had become critical since the explosion of Vatileaks in the heart of the Pontifical Apartments - that Francis (rightly, it seems, considering what happened with his predecessor) has refused as his living quarters. And we can presume that the pressures on the Pope reached unbearable levels. Truly unbearable.

We asked our friend Côme de Prévigny to present a brief history of those decisive months: something happened in the Vatican between April and June 2012 that created the need for unprecedented demands, more stringent even than the contents of the 1988 Protocol; the "stubborn SSPX" narrative, regarding what took place in June 2012, is simply unsustainable.

____________________________________________

One year later

by Côme de Prévigny

Over one year ago, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith delivered to the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) a document presenting three necessary conditions for the canonical recognition of the work of Abp. Lefebvre, a famous document that should put an end to several years of discussions.

Some weeks earlier, the entire press indicated that the regularization of the SSPX was certain. Andrea Tornielli, the famous Italian Vaticanist, predicted: "In May should be reached the end of the road leading the Society of Saint Pius X, founded by Abp. Lefebvre, to full communion with Rome." Henri Tincq, a journalist with Le Monde, not known for any indulgence with the traditional cause, has covered religious news for decades. According to him, it was merely a matter of days: "the imminence of an agreement that should be signed between the Vatican and the Society of Saint Pius X, the stronghold of integrist Catholics, is not in doubt anymore." On April 19, his fellow journalist Bernadette Sauvaget, of Libération, wrote: "Since Tuesday, some Vaticanists have affirmed that agreement has been reached." All the echoes emanating from the Pontifical Apartments allowed for the confirmation, without much second-guessing, that the doctrinal declaration proposed by Bp. Fellay had been accepted by the Pope and already the most hostile observers considered that Rome that conceded all ground to "the Integrists". On the side of the Society, however, the expectation remained realistic, by insisting on the fact that the roadmap remained uncertain. Several relevant points, both doctrinal and canonical, remained open to clarification and the discussions were not yet over.

The text sent back to Rome was a declaration dated April 15, 2012, proposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and revised by the Superior General of the SSPX. In its great lines, it was a copy-paste of the May 5, 1988, Protocol of Agreement that Abp. Lefebvre had rejected not due to its doctrinal basis but because of its context (the points related to the Roman Pontiff or to the new Code of Canon Law are the same, for instance). The document negotiated twenty-four years later had its weaknesses, and its progresses that counterbalanced, on the other hand, those same weaknesses. For instance, the text speaks of conciliar formulations that are "not reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church", while the 1988 Protocol was limited to saying that they are "reconcilable with Tradition only with difficulty". There were the document signed by Abp. Lefebvre indicated "a positive attitude of study and of communication" regarding the Council, the one that Bp. Fellay had written was stronger because it neutralized any "interpretation of these affirmations that may lead to present Catholic doctrine in opposition or in rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium". Whatever the case may be, this counterproposal was presented, and it was said in the Roman halls that it would open the path to an imminent recognition. In order to prove that the search for unity begun by the founder was not seen as an optional point, the Superior General of the SSPX did not fear the public criticisms of his British confrere or the rebellious attitude of a friendly religious community.

However, the June 13 meeting three new points were superposed to these exchanges, which would, in a few hours, ruin the process begun many months earlier. Among these conditions was to be found the recognition of the continuity of the conciliar texts in relation with the preceding Magisterium, which contradicted the doctrinal declaration that mentioned, on the contrary, their non-reconcilable character. Moreover, the authorities introduced the need to recognize the "liceity" of the new mass, a new term that had been, it was known, the object of bitter debates. This had never been demanded, neither in 1988, nor of the different institutes regularized up to that moment. These new demands left the impression that there was a desire to interrupt the process very elegantly as well as suddenly, by the introduction of inadmissible points.

What were the motives for this about-face that was sudden and that was incongruous with the attitude adopted by Benedict XVI for so many years? Undoubtedly, the influence of certain heads of dicasteries strongly opposed to this recognition, as well as specific diplomatic pressures, had their influence on the inclination of the pope. A few months later, the latter resigned from his position in the stormy context of the Vatileaks. As a French university professor rightly remarked recently, these leaks have ceased as if by magic since pope Ratzinger stopped presiding over the fate of the Church. Does this mean that the dossier of relations between Rome and the SSPX is dead and buried and that the Traditional world will relive those days of silence that were the 1990s? It is true that Benedict XVI was very close, personally, to the matter. Nevertheless, the restart of relations in the early 2000s took place in the pontificate of John Paul II. In France, in any event, the Society of Saint Pius X had, on the ground, obtained more for its local pilgrimages from bishops supposedly far from it than from those considered conservative. Bp. Perrier, of Lourdes, opened for years his shrines, lending liturgical objects and ornaments, while the diocese of Versailles, governed by Bp. Aumônier, who knew Abp. Lefebvre well in the early years of his priestly life, never granted anything to the work that the latter founded.

Beyond these considerations, the dynamics of the traditional movement, invigorated by the liberation of the Mass and the lifting of sanctions affecting the bishops of the Society, will increasingly make clear the unavoidable character of Traditional groups. Ignoring them now seems hardly tenable.

Archbishop Lefebvre and relations with Rome

A guest-post by 

Côme de Prévigny

Following the consecrations conferred in Écône, Switzerland, on June 30, 1988, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, did not maintain further discussions with the Holy See while he lived. The grave decision to move forward with this ceremony doubtless had consequences for the relations between the Holy See and the Archbishop. The tension had reached strong levels, and the excommunication decree of July 2 proved it. Is it possible, without much imagination, to explain things otherwise?

An act of survival

We could carelessly think that the Archbishop had finally reached the conclusion that pursuing discussions with a  world of hardened neo-Modernist ideas would prove nefarious for the progression of his foundation, which only could prosper far away from this darkened world. However, it seems that this impression is nothing more than an unfortunate ommission.

Let us recall the context: up to the eve of the consecrations, Abp. Lefebvre tried to reach an agreement with the Holy See by all possible means. He did not cease to write to and communicate with some Cardinals and prelates whom he knew, in the heart of the Curia, during the 1970s-1980s, and he repeatedly affirmed that the solution would come from Rome. He went so far as to sign a protocol in May 1988. Concluding that he would have changed his mind diametrically within a single month would show him to be an ill-tempered and impulsive man - which was not the case. On the contrary, the affair of the consecrations came along as the fruit of long reflection, which did not prevent him from simultaneously pursuing discussions with the Apostolic See, as much as his strength allowed him to do. Only the approach of death constrained him to move on with "Operation Survival".

The May 5 Protocol is signed

In order to understand the mind of Abp. Lefebvre, it is necessary to note that he truly acted in articulo mortis. He says it himself in the consecration sermon. His death would come soon: "This will happen soon." And the ceremony of the consecrations would probably not have taken place if its author had not justified the state of necessity with the fact that he was out of recourses, and that soon he would be gone. To go back to negotiations following the consecrations would have inevitably meant going back on the act he had just accomplished. His action is explained solely by the fact that he felt he was at the eve of his death, and that it was a last resort, after which there would not be any humanly possible exchanges while he lived.

The talks after 1988

Beyond the 'in extremis' position in which he found himself, Abp. Lefebvre envisaged, in any even, a very quick resumption of the discussions with Rome. He wished that his successors would relaunch the process. In the press conference granted on June 15, 1988, to journalists assembled in Écône, in which he announced his firm decision to move forward with the consecrations and suspend relations with Rome, he reckoned that the interruption of this exchange would last, considering the gravity of the consecrations, for approximately two or three years.

"These events that we will live in these days will certainly be talked about, and there will be unexpected crowds at the June 30 ceremony for the consecration of these four young bishops who will be at the service of the Society. This was foreseen as such by Rome. The bishops consecrated for the Society will be at the service of the Society. And, well, these four bishops will be at the service of the Society, that is it. The one who will therefore have responsibility, as a matter of principle, for relations with Rome when I am gone will be the Superior General of the Society, Father Schmidberger, who still has six years of leadership before him. He is the one who will, eventually, maintain contacts with Rome from now on, in order to continue the discussions, if these discussions go on, or if contact is kept, which is unlikely for some time, because in L'Osservatore Romano a large headline will say, 'Schism of Abp. Lefebvre,' 'Excommunication'... Therefore, for x years, perhaps two years, three years, I don't know, there will be separation."

 It can be noticed there the great optimism of Abp. Lefebvre. He realized that there would be a temporary separation for a certain lapse of time. He himself outlived the consecrations by two and a half years. The absence of relations seemed natural to him, not due to a radical change, but due to the jolt provoked by the act of the episcopal consecrations. From 1988 onwards, Father Schmidberger became the designated responsible for relations with Rome, as the founder had desired. He did not resume relations after two or three years, or at the moment of the death of Abp. Lefebvre, as the latter might have imagined. Twelve years passed by, after six years of leadership of Father Schmidberger, plus six years of leadership of Bp. Fellay, for the "talks to continue". As it happens, the Society could be reproached more for their extreme prudence than by their rashness. But the sole judge for this chronology was, in any event, the man mandated to appraise this delay, that is, the Superior General of the SSPX. Thus wished the founder.

[Note: as always, guest-posts reflect the view of the author, and do not necessarily reflect an editorial position of the blog.]

The shadow of Ecclesia Dei

A guest-post by 

Côme de Prévigny

In Rome, the Traditionalist question is as intense as that of the commission that guides it, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and the structural evolution of the latter would alone account for tens of pages. Appearing sometimes as a bureau attached to a congregation, it is at times guided by a Cardinal, sometimes by a simple monsignor, this time by an Archbishop. The hierarchy that is above it may reveal itself as coercive, or it may seem, in other cases, purely symbolic. What is the role played by the couple Müller - Di Noia in this commission whose goal is, on the one hand, to deal with the relations of the Holy See with the Society of Saint Pius X, and, on the other, to preside over the fate of the regularized traditional world.?

Ten years ago, everyone saw in Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos the true masters of these questions. Holding both positions of Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, this typically Latin prelate left the first one to be exclusively in charge of the second. The task was not small insofar as Benedict XVI had some weeks earlier received Bp. Fellay, superior general of the Society of Saint Pius X, in order to proceed "by stages" towards a resolution of the disagreement with Écône. Following the departure of Cardinal Castrillón, Mgr. Guido Pozzo, though a simple secretary, and under the tutelage of a Prefect, seemed to be, from 2009 onwards, the true contact of the Society. Pope Ratzinger entrusted this dossier that was very dear to him to those who were close, his former coworkers at the Holy Office, even though Cardinal Levada - officially President of Ecclesia Dei - was not daily in charge of the matter. Should we think that the balance has remained the same once these two prelates were replaced?

All seems to point in this direction. Abp. Müller is, as his predecessor, essentially overwhelmed by the enormous Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which Ecclesia Dei is but a satellite. On the other hand, the man responsible full-time for the dossier is not a simple priest anymore (as current Abp. Pozzo when in Ecclesia Dei), but an Archbishop. Moreover, he is not only the secretary, he has the title of Vice-President. Abp. Di Noia had been up to then the secretary of a dicastery almost as prestigious as Doctrine of the Faith, that of Divine Worship, and all seemes to indicate that he would be placed at the helm of a great Roman office - some seemed to see him even replacing Cardinal Levada. The fact that he was named only a few days before Abp. Müller seems to strongly indicate that the Ecclesia Dei dossier was conspicuously removed from the latter in order to be entrusted de facto to a person with the appropriate stature and to defuse the nomination of the bishop of Ratisbon, very badly viewed in the Traditionalist milieux regarding which he had made multiple blunders.

Since then, several signs seem to reflect the division of tasks.

• 1. Throughout summer, Abp. Müller granted several interviews in which he mentioned the question of the Society. In one of them, he firmly foresees that "there will be no compromise" on the Council, adding that he does not "think there will be new discussions" with the Society. This firmness seems to be contradicted by the content of the communiqué of the Ecclesia Dei commission, dated from October 27, which contrariwise invites "to patience, serenity, perseverance, and trust" in the discussions between the Holy See and the work founded by Abp. Lefebvre. Apparently, the thinking of the titular president does not seem to have been considered in the writing of the declarations of the commission...
• 2. On November 3, a group of associations attached to the Traditional Missal organized a Pontifical Mass in Saint Peter's, Rome. Evidently, faced with such an event, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei was particularly involved with it, and its members could hardly miss this gathering. Abp. Di Noia and his several assistants were in the long procession that marched towards the altar of the Chair of Saint Peter. However, a significant member was missing, because the titular president, Abp. Müller, was not present at this ceremony.
• 3. On November 19, in the morning, Pope Benedict XVI welcomed in his private library all the members of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? All of them? Not exactly, because its president, that is, Abp. Müller, was missing, and one could simply forget that he was a part of it.

In the very heart of Ecclesia Dei, its president seems to be but a shadow. What consequence does this have for the work of the Commission? At the moment, nothing is written. The signs seem to contradict the facts. What is certain is that the autonomy of the Castrillón era at least had the merit of being clear.

Op-Ed (English - français) The basis for the future relations of the SSPX with Rome La base des prochaines relations de la FSSPX avec Rome

a guest-post by Côme de Prévigny 

The Spanish observers should be careful. This is not the first time they are mistaken on the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) by way of ready-made titles and misunderstood information. A few months ago, a colleague of José Manuel Vidal had affirmed that the discussions between Rome and Écône had ultimately failed. He was forced to turn around due to his rashness.

It is true that, on June 13, Cardinal William Levada had delivered to Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Society, a text to be ratified. Against every expectation, considering that the predictions had been optimistic, new and surprising demands had een added to the text and created an impasse following nine months of  negotiations. Even before the General Chapter had assembled, the Secretary General of the SSPX had been driven to state, in a letter dated June 25, that the Roman proposal was "unacceptable". Less than 48 hours later, the man responsible for the dossier, Mgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, had been placed under a Vice-President who took charge of the matter from then on. One week later, it was Cardinal Levada who took the path to retirement.

That the SSPX would state that the proposal of the predecessor did not suit it is clear. To affirm it is to force an open door. And the Pope already took it into consideration several weeks ago because he changed the interlocutors of the SSPX, admitting that the previous ones had failed on that famous June 13. By submitting the affair to an Archbishop Vice-President with whom he has direct communication, and not anymore to a Monsignor secretary, he reshapes relations with the Society on different bases.

The latest SSPX communiqué stated that it will address a declaration to Rome. This text will undoubtedly serve as grounds for the upcoming relations. Those who think that this is the endpoint, that those in charge of the Fraternity have definitively given up on the idea of putting an end to the injustices that burden them, and of fulling restoring the Tradition of the Church to Rome, risk being disappointed in the days and weeks ahead. Abp. Lefebvre said that the solution would come from Rome. It is precisely for this reason that he never stopped going there.

______________________________________________________

un post par notre invité Côme de Prévigny

Op-Ed (English - français) SSPX: Last-minute hurdles? FSSPX: obstacles de dernière heure?

a guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

On April 18, Andrea Tornielli titled on his blog Sacri Palazzi: "Fellay's response is positive". For him, the agreement had been made. Always well informed by the Romans responsible for the dossier, he deemed himself authorized to write: "the text of the preamble delivered by Bp. Fellay proposes some minor modifications of the version sent by the Vatican authorities." And, every day that followed it, the most optimistic rumors spread out. In support of what was known within the Vatican, from the very prelates in charge of the affair, Jean-Marie Guénois, always well informed, said from his corner: "It is a matter of days, and not of weeks anymore [...]. These last few weeks, the final points have been settled between Rome and Écône in order to better respond to the demands of 'clarifications' asked for by the Vatican on March 16." 

Yet, two months later, a thick fog descends upon the religious landscape. While all observers thought that they saw the Roman Pontiff decide once and for all the matter to which he had dedicated a good part of his pontificate upon the delivery of a new document to Bishop Fellay on June 13, the communiqué of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of June 14 foresaw an "additional moment of reflection". The one from the Society of Saint Pius X, of the same day, gave rise to the same uncertainty by evoking a "new phase of discussions". Even if it is known that this kind of rebound is usual in the end of difficult negotiations, one can only speculate, particularly since the number of Roman prelates who thought that the agreement would be formalized is quite larger than than those who seemed to want this new postponement. It is as if those who accused Bp. Fellay of never being able to decide suddenly found themselves with a beam in their eyes. 

Already within the Society, those spirits for whom an agreement with the Apostolic See is unthinkable began to delude themselves by imagining that their action had dealt a fatal blow to this fateful process which intended, in their view, to destroy them. If their reasoning were to be followed, it should rather be imagined that Rome would have taken advantage of the division of the four bishops to deal a fatal blow to the work of Abp. Lefebvre by moving on with the process until the end. The rebound of June 13 makes them look mistaken in every scenario. 

What was it then that happened between April and June? In the month of May, according to several agreeing sources, the feria quarta [Wednesday] meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, aware that they acted according to the will of the Pope, endorsed the final draft proposed by Bp. Fellay, following several movements of the text between Rome and Menzingen. The Pope imagined it - the Cardinals accomplished it. Despite a certain number of absentees and of some restriction of placet iusta modum, the text had finally had the consent of their Eminences, probably aware that they would not have to meet forever. On that day, the agreement was virtually concluded. On the basis of clearly defined positions on the occasion of the doctrinal discussions that had delineated the differences, Pope Benedict XVI was ready to grant to the Society that which Abp. Lefebvre had tirelessly asked from Cardinal Ratzinger: the assurance of a traditional episcopate independent from the pressures of the local conferences. 

If the internet offers a magnifying effect to the fiery sermons of some Traditionalist priests who think  they can undermine their hierarchy by having their words propagated by Sedevacantist websites, the web does not say anything of the real issues afflicting the Church. Bp. Fellay reached in mid-April the limits of the line granted to the Society by Abp. Lefebvre, at the very risk of causing dismay to some of his colleagues who increased the manifestations of their fears. Those Roman interlocutors who have provoked this rebound have probably not really perceived this. It is also likely that they feared the increase of the silent opposition of the German episcopate, who presented their own ultimatums to the Successor of Peter. The extreme reluctance of Bp. Fellay seemed to suggest that they hid themselves behind formulas that created an impasse upon several months of clarifications and discussions, thus risking their own disavowal.

Paradoxically, they have rendered a great service to Bp. Fellay, by allowing him to show that, while doing his utmost for the canonical recognition of the eminently Roman work of Abp. Lefebvre, his firmness remained intact, as is shown by the way by a letter of Father Thouvenot fraudulently released on the internet. The fact remains that  only the Pope has the power to bind and loose. Faced with all opposition - the strongest of which being that of those closes to him -, it is to him that belongs, in fine, the right to decide. After twelve years of discussions, at the end of seven years of pontificate, this man, who a few weeks ago said that enough injustices had been committed against the Society, will set in place the endpoint which he alone, as head of the Church, has the right to set in place.

____________________________________________

[French version:]

SSPX: The founder is keeping watch

A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

"The four Lefebvrist bishops split," Le Figaro says in its headline. And, it must be said, the division has never seemed so apparent since they were consecrated by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988. Only apparently, because, at times, the internal differences have been pronounced, but they have not always been known to all. Likewise, whoever made the decision to bring to the public square the correspondence, took a decision that was extremely grave in its consequences, insofar as the act risked to disturb what a Cardinal had once called "a thorn for the entire Church": the Society of Saint Pius X. But risking or disturbing is not sinking. The founder is keeping watch.

1. The trap of a fratricidal war.

There is a great danger of trying to split the Society in two different parts, by gathering behind two different camps antagonized forces that were, however, raised in the same mold through forty years of energy, of efforts, and of prayers, of shared resistance to the prevailing Neo-modernism, and this despite the desertions of some and the excesses of others. Those who are now rubbing their hands thinking of a hypothetical division are already showing their true faces.

On the one hand, they are the predators coming from Sedevacantist mini-chapels that have, as their main sign of charity, the fact that they hate one another, and that double their efforts to collect the bodies of  a fratricidal war. Abp. Lefebvre was categorical concerning these sowers of despair and destruction. Those who are today their American leaders are those same ungrateful sons who, in 1983, brought the aged archbishop before the courts in order to collect, in vain, the real estate "spoils" of the Society. They answer particularly to the names of Clarence Kelly, Donald Sanborn, Daniel Dolan...

On the other hand, there are all the adversaries of the Tradition of the Church who agitate to despoil the main force of opposition to the Liberalism that destroys our societies. All their contacts in the media have unanimously presented the object of the correspondence disconnected from its private setting, wishing to transform the divergences between the bishops into public opposition. And in Paris, anticlerical forces already eye with envy the church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, this bastion of Catholic restoration, that appears as an object of prey due to what are essentially human disagreements.

2.      Who will foot the bill?

To tell the truth, the SSPX bishops themselves are not following a pattern of division. It is one thing to counsel, even firmly, one's superior to consider the consequences of his actions. It is quite another to state publicly what one thinks. And it is still something else to cause a division when one's superior has not compromised on the faith, which does not then justify disobedience. Let us take the example of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. In 1988, after he had, on May 30, counseled Abp. Lefebvre against the consecrations, he nonetheless followed the founder and received the episcopacy from his hands. These last few days, even after the reception of his superior, he has called the faithful to unity in several different places.

But this, however, does not prevent the promoters of division from doing their work. Because, in the end, let us imagine a regularized Society: its priests will keep publishing the same weekly announcements, or pronouncing the same sermons. And its leaders will continue to criticize Assisi and the new mass. But a division for passionate motives will have as a consequence a decrease in the number of priests; the separatists will go to the large metropolitan areas, there where the greater number of faithful are found. On the other hand, in remote areas, the faithful will no longer benefit from the sacraments. And schools will close. Such will be the fruit of the division inspired by the enemy of God and by the historical enemies of the Society.

3.      A thorn for the Church.

The Society of Saint Pius X has a prophetic role in today's Church. If it were nothing more than the work of 550 priests along with their tens or hundreds of thousands of faithful, no one - and the Pope above all - would care for it. The Society is a thorn for the Church as the Society of Jesus was in its time, always condemned and regularized for its steadfast witness to the faith. The strongest souls are those that do not abandon everything under the impact of emotions, at the very gate of regularization or condemnation, that is, of the fact of a change of situation. They are those who manage to cross the ages and to withstand the circumstances with the same witness of faith. "A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee," says Psalm 90. 

This providential work lives essentially off two forces. First, the graces that God grants to it; then, the charism of its founder that remains the main opposing force to the new doctrines of the Council, whatever those who dispute the Society's legacy, on one side or the other, may say. It is not the sermon of a Father X or of a Father Y that will change that. It is not the admonition of a Prelate Z that will modify it. The Society is the bearer of a patrimony, that of the Church, that it transmits and will transmit, not only to some faithful, but to the largest number, in particular to the priests, whom Abp. Lefebvre had chosen as his preferred targets in a work that viewed itself primarily as priestly, apostolic, directed towards priests.

True, this work of the Fraternity does not possess the gift of everlastingness. But its founder recalled correctly that God did not have the cynicism of bringing souls to combat to finally abandon them, agonizing, on the battlefields: "I do not believe," he said, "that the good God could have said up to now, 'Go on, go on,' and that suddenly He says, 'Stop!' When the works are good, He wants them to go on."^[1] Abp. Lefebvre accepted huge sacrifices for the unity of his work. He will keep watch, one more time, that it may be liberated from the spirit of compromise as well as from that of despair, so that it may keep on advancing on this fine line that separates the Neo-modernist heresy on one side from the Sedevacantist schism on the other. 

_______________________________
[1] Interview of Abp. Lefebvre to Pacte, 1987 [Posted at 1200 AM GMT]

Benedict XVI: the last stage

A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

If there is a matter that seems to be an obsession in this pontificate begun seven years ago, it is the one related to the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX). Shortly following its outset, Benedict XVI met their Superior, Bp. Bernard Fellay, in his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo. That was on August 29, 2005. At that time, two communiqués, one by Rome, the other by Menzingen, indicated in unison that it had been agreed to "proceed by stages" in the resolution of problems. And the most lengthily prepared, most keenly discussed, and most vigorously contested texts of this reign were those that constituted these famous stags: the motu proprio that freed the Traditional Mass, then the removal of the excommunications of the bishops consecrated by Abp. Lefebvre.


The 264th Successor of Peter has a rendez-vous with history, come what may. He wants to fix a legacy, half-century-old, one which undoubtedly led him to give up on the Johns and the Pauls to revive the Piuses and the Leos, the Gregories and the Clements, the Innocents, and the Benedicts.Several journalists have remarked on this.


This obsession is first based on a matter of personal conscience. On May 5, 1988, following numerous meetings with Abp. Lefebvre, which had until then led the founder of the SSPX to Paul VI's office, and then to that of John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger reached a historic agreement. The prelate from Écône signed a protocol regularizing the work that he had founded eighteen years earlier. The confidence remained feeble because he was in guard before a Curia that continued to tirelessly celebrate interreligious meetings and to forbid, throughout the world, the celebration of the Traditional Mass. Just a few words from a Cardinal would suffice to make all fall apart. That Cardinal was... Joseph Ratzinger. On the previous day, he had whispered to the Archbishop the terrible idea of having some Masses celebrated in French in Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, the historic Paris church of the SSPX. Then, lacking support for it, he had been unable to obtain a specific and definite date for the consecration of the bishop that had been granted. First foreseen for late June, the ceremony was postponed to the Assumption, then following summer, then to Christmas. Confidence eroded. Just before departure, the Cardinal handed to Abp. Lefebvre a model of a letter asking the Pope for forgiveness. It was the last straw. On the following day, May 6, 1988, as the Curia rushed to call journalists to announce the long-expected news, a young priest coming from Albano presented to Monsignor Joseph Clemens, secretary to the Prefect, a letter that he immediately folded again, since his emotion was so intense. The Bavarian monsignor was undoubtedly the only one to witness the distress of his countryman, the Cardinal, as he delivered to him the note by which Abp. Lefebvre reneged upon his signature. For years, the Cardinal lived with this burden, a burden which he still mentioned to a Central-European bishop shortly before ascending to the chair of Peter.


Twenty-four years later, the Cardinal reaches the helm of the Church. Things are going badly, quite badly. All that might have indicated, a quarter-century earlier, that the Traditionalist restoration would never take place has failed. Wojtylian Neo-Conservatism has run out of steam. Charismatism has not managed to revert the trend. In the old Christian nations, the churches are empty, the belltowers fall in disrepair, seminaries close down and the so-called Catholic journals barely survive. What remains is the Pope's case of conscience, with which he busies himself shortly after his election, as one of his collaborators, who had become a Cardinal himself, affirms that the Society has become "a thorn for the Church". But, with the years gone by, the evils of the post-Conciliar period are to be rooted out, as so many bad fruits that the Roman Pontiff can only remove out of fear that they will infect the whole flock. In Austria, and in some European regions, the priests revolt. In the United States, religious women join forces against Rome, all in the name of the Council. Hostile media does not hold back in order to magnify the errors of a clergy that have embraced the world so much that, in some cases, they have taken on its moral vices. The very authority of the Church is mishandled. At the sound of noses that announce every month the end of the pontificate, some dicasteries seem to act individually. Not to mention those dioceses that do not profess the Roman faith anymore. And yet a shock weapon remains for Benedict XVI, this famous affair that worries him, that of the Fraternity. Each step that had brought him closer to it has indicated, at the same time, the growth of the hatred of the adversaries and of victory over them. Pope Ratzinger mentioned it to the Bishops on March 10, 2009: "And should someone dare to approach [the Fraternity] – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint." Isn't there in these words of the Pope, pitted against the world, a distant echo of that appeal he launched in the beginning of his pontificate asking for prayers so that he may not flee for fear of the wolves?


Truthfully, there remains no other choice. In the spring of 2012, the determination of Benedict XVI seems to be such that the SSPX may not even have the possibility of choosing. The statute will fall upon it from above, by mutual agreement or by force. The Pope wants its regularization with a resolute will, whether or not it accepts the Council, whether or not it accepts the new mass. He undoubtedly does not share the thinking of Marcel Lefebvre and of his disciples, according to whom religious liberty lands a fatal blow on the missionary spirit. Nevertheless, he has taken the chance of opening up doctrinal discussions which, all through the Church, have opened the gates of the questioning of the contested principles of Vatican II. Is the pope truly this sure of himself? By regularizing the Society, even though the doctrinal discussions have failed, he makes it understood, in some way, that one can be of the Church and not espouse the ideas of the last Council, leaving it as an option, as the new mass has been for the past five years. What is certain, and this personal dilemma recalls it, is that the Supreme Pontiff beloieves, before God, that the title of "Catholic" cannot be refused to the work of Abp. Lefebvre. This is the only concern that inspires him.


The road is not finished. Let us recall that, in 1988, regularization had failed for problems of a canonical nature that affect mutual confidence. And everything seems to point to the fact that Bp. Fellay is more than ever decided to keep the principles claimed by Abp. Lefebvre. Only the context is different. A quarter-century ago, papal determination was not this resolute. Besides, mercy has ceded room to persistence. And now the Roman Pontiff seems to establish, more than ever, a barrier against the fruits of the marriage between the Church and the world - a union that we cannot but identify as conciliar.

Victory tomorrow?

Guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

The hopes that the talks that having been taking place in the past twelve years between the Apostolic See and the Society of Saint Pius X bring each month turn the heads of some anxious souls from one extreme attitude to the other. If the regularization of Abp. Lefebvre's work fails, it would be the abomination of desolation for them. Even the bravest souls would wither away through the crossing of the desert and the end times would be the only object of our hope. If, on the contrary, this canonical regularization came to pass, the darkness would disappear, the Church would find anew her primitive youth, and the Conciliar hordes would be definitively vanquished.

The terrible reality seems more complex. In a lecture given to around 250 participants at the Society's Summer Conferences last August 15, Bp. Bernard Fellay cautioned against the euphoria which could take hold of those who impatiently await the much talked-about recognition. "Imagine, he said, that Rome recognizes us all of a sudden, I have a hard time believing this, but what would happen then? Do you believe that the Progressives will change their demeanor regarding us? Not at all! On the one hand, they will continue to reject us as they have always done, or they will try to make us swallow up their venom; we will refuse it, and the conflict will restart even more strongly, do not delude yourselves. If Rome recognized us, it would be even harder than they are now."

On the one hand, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X makes clear his determination not to "swallow up the venom" of Liberalism and, as a consequence, to keep up the legacy of Abp. Lefebvre who, was also for a time at the helm of a regularized Society, before it was condemned. Which did not prevent him from speaking up and from ensuring the full testimony of the faith. On the other, Bp. Fellay cautions against illusions. A regularization will not transform those resolutely opposed to the Motu Proprio and to the Tridentine Catechism into "Tradition-philes". The doors that were shut before the advancing pilgrimages of the Society will not suddenly open up, with the unrolling of red carpets. Liberal bishops might pretend to be compassionate regarding those brethren whom they decreed to be "separated"; they are likely on the contrary to display an uncontrollable rejection regarding those communities now promoted and henceforth completely regularized.

A second illusion, it seems to me, comes from the fact that many souls believe, often in order to ease one's own family arguments, that all conservative forces will unite in order to transform the world. Reality once again brings us back to the ground, because these groups assemble, on one side, biritualists, for whom the new Mass is sacred, and, on the other, Traditionalists, who consider it dangerous. One man responsible for an Ecclesia Dei community told me once that he thought the Society of Saint Pius X included within it healthy members and dangerous elements... Harmony will take some time to be established, and the [opposing] paths of the Chartres's pilgrimages will keep crossing for some time.

The crisis is long and, when he assembled for the last time the French priors of his Society, its Founder had warned them: "Prepare for a drawn-out combat". The day in which his work will be fully recognized by the authority of the Church will be undoubtedly marked by an agitation of spirits within the Church, because it will not be a small community with less than 0.2% of the priests of the world that will be recognized, but the Catholic patrimony that the Society will have hitherto kept. This turnaround will not be immediate. It will have been prepared and it will go on progressively. But the struggle between Liberals and Zelanti is very old and it has never been revealed to us that we would find rest on this earth. What remains to be seen is that the evolution of the Church will lead to the inevitable endgame. Generations of Progressives will disappear, their more conservative successors will climb in the hierarchy, and the safeguarding work assured by the Society of Saint Pius X will be each day more recognized. Sooner or later, both lines will meet.

Bishop Fellay to Rome: "We are ready."

A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

These words truly belong to Bishop Fellay. They were pronounced in Winona, Minnesota, on February 2, on the occasion of the conferral of the cassocks in the American seminary of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX). Do they summarize the entire thinking of the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X? In any event, not less than all those that were used, distorted or taken from their context, by some journalists who impatiently picked the headlines "The failure of the negotiations", or still, "We could not go further in the confusion". Moved by a growing panic as news of the regularization of the Fraternity move closer in time, Progressives and Sedevacantists now advance hand in hand, the first not even hesitating to quote the second. "From enemies that they were, they were made friends," says Holy Writ.

The truth is that Bishop Fellay has done nothing else than repeating what he said in Écône last December 8. The Society will not sign the preamble as it was presented on September 14 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. At the same time, he recalls that the work of Archbishop Lefebvre cannot be conceived separated from the Apostolic See: "We are not an independent group. Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome." There is found the entire attitude of Abp. Lefebvre, who went to Rome whenever he was called. Without fleeing when faced with traps, he preferred to discern them with prudence, he moved forward, as usual, by asking for evident signs from above. What mattered to the Archbishop, on the one hand, was to proclaim the faith, as it had been professed throughout the centuries, and, on the other, to keep relations with the Roman Curia, recalling that the solution would come from Rome. He distinguished with the same care the search for a regularization, a matter of prudence, from the proclamation of the faith, a matter of principle. As long as the latter is put in grave danger by a canonical regulation, it has priority over the juridical questions. The day in which the Superior judges this proclamation possible in a legal order, then it might be dangerous to neglect those souls hesitating to come hither for fear of censure.

In the past few days, eminent Cardinals have studied, it is said, the response delivered by the Society of Saint Pius X. Germans, Frenchmen, or Swiss, these high prelates are not considered to be an Areopagus that is indulgent towards the defenders of the Traditional Mass and catechism. It was actually despite their negative opinions that Benedict XVI took the decision to free the Traditional Missal and to revoke the censures weighing on the Bishops consecrated in 1988. Why would the pope suddenly act in a different manner? Mentioning Abp. Lefebvre, the Superior General of the SSPX merely indicated his availability: "if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready." The ball is on Rome's court, where the Pope has powers that are  much more extensive than Bp. Fellay, because he can, simply with his signature, confer the widest prerogatives to the work directed by the Swiss prelate from the Valais. He can eventually acknowledge this recent thesis that defended, in Rome, that, "the authority of the magisterium of Vatican II is that of a homily in the 1960s." Had not he himself affirmed that the Council "deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council"?

600 Joan of Arc : III - Persecution by the Church hierarchy as a road to sanctification

6 janvier 1412 – 6 janvier 2012

A special guest-series by Côme de Prévigny

Joan of Arc (III) : A Saint under excommunication

The river Seine runs through Rouen, site of Joan's execution. Following the Saint's burning at the stake, by order of the ecclesiastical court headed by the Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon, Cardinal Henry Beaufort ordered that her bones and ashes be thrown into the river, never to be found.  Joan of Arc was born exactly 600 years ago today, on January 6, 1412. (Image: mdxdt - CC.)

Left alone, Joan felt herself wavering. In the cemetery of Saint-Ouen, near Rouen Cathedral, before people and court, she signed in her last days an act of abjuration that had been presented to her and that she had not read, by placing under pressure a cross which represented, according to different interpretations, either acceptance or invalidation. On the following day, however, she retracted, and trusted in the need to conform to her voices. Even the greatest saints can feel tempted to be discouraged. It is nonetheless in their ability to rise up in such a situation that we recognize their spiritual strength and the heroic character of their virtues. Was not the Savior himself tempted in the Garden of Olives, before letting out a cry of sufferance, "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?"

But the supreme sacrifice was at hand. Joan was condemned to death. The sentence of excommunication is read to her, with the solemn form that the representatives of the Church conferred upon it. She climbs up the steps of the platform where was located the fire that was to consume her, officially condemned by the Holy Inquisition whose guardians indicated to her in the verdict, with the hypocrisy that was to be expected, that they sincerely thought that she, Joan, should have "preferred to remain faithfully and constantly in the communion, as well as in the unity of the Catholic Church and of the Roman Pontiff." [6] On her was placed a headgear on which the points of condemnation, that her detractors repeated unceasingly, were written: "heretic, schismatic, relapser". What pain is more vicious for the true servants of the Church than that of feeling isolated at the end of their lives, rejected by their authorities at the same time in which places of honor are often granted to those who mistreat the essential truths of the Faith? Jesus Christ, abandoned by his disciples, had not himself been condemned to be crucified, at the same time in which Barabbas, the worst of criminals, was liberated?


Joan climbs up towards martyrdom. Her skin would crimson, her hair would burn, her limbs would be carbonized by the flames, and already some of her accusers, such as Loyseleur, approached hastily the cart taking her to the place of her torment to ask her to grant them her pardon. Faced with such holiness, her distraught executioner  ran off and fell on his knees before a Friar Preacher: "I strongly fear I will be damned because I have burned a saint," a final confession that recalls the biblical words prefiguring the attitude of those who crucified Our Lord: "They shall look upon him, whom they have pierced".

A quarter-century after her death, the cause of the heroine of Orleans was revisited and the Church rehabilitated her officially. Until then, the number of those who believed that it was forbidden to judge the verdicts of the representatives of the ecclesiastical Institution was large. Pius XII celebrated this dignified end of a French heroine who was to one day obtain on earth, as she had in heaven, the crown of saints: "In the silence, the words of a martyr faithful to her vocation resonate, filled with faith in the Church, to which she appealed by invoking the sweetest name of Jesus, her only consolation. Through the flames that rise up, she stares at the Cross, certain that she will one day obtain justice." [8]

Is not Saint Augustine referring to the beautiful characters forged in Joan's image in these lines? "Often, too, Divine Providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When, for the sake of the peace of the Church, they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy and schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But, if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out: and, without forming secret congregations, they defend to the death and confirm by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church. The One who sees their secret combats crowns their victory in secret. This situation seems rare in the Church, but it is not without precedent, it presents itself more often than it can be believed. So Divine Providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the sanctification of souls and for the edification of the people of God." [9]

[Part I: A Saint in armor]
[Part II: A Saint in isolation]
_________________________
Notes:
[6] Transcript of the trial of Joan of Arc, 56th session, May 30, 1431.
[7] Transcript of the trial of Joan of Arc, ibidem.
[8] Pius XII, Radio message to France, June 25, 1956.
[9] Saint Augustine, On True Religion, VI, 11.

600 Joan of Arc : II - The danger of ill-motivated Church authorities

6 janvier 1412 – 6 janvier 2012

A special guest-series by Côme de Prévigny

Joan of Arc (II) : A Saint in isolation

Joan interrogated in prison by His Eminence Henry Beaufort, 
Cardinal-Bishop of Winchester 
(Paul Delaroche)

"God takes great pity on the people of France. It is necessary that you, Joan, that you go to France," her voices repeated to her unceasingly. She said it time and again, both to her brothers in arms as to her judges: she would rather a thousand times to return to the house of her parents than to enlist in such a trying adventure. But God had entrusted to her a mission to which she would remain forever faithful during the two decades of her earthly existence. She was obedient to the point of death, and death at the stake. Before a life that is so brief, so oriented towards God, how to avoid seeing in her a Christlike figure, a bearer of lessons for our times?

The Johannic epic, following a life as hidden as it was bright, seems as ephemeral as the predication of Our Lord through Galilee and Judea. The fortifications opened up before the attacks of Joan's armies, as the villages of the Holy Land were convinced by the invincible preaching of Christ. And, nonetheless, the acclamations at the gates of the cities were as a prelude to a tragic outcome, in which the Maid was to go up to the stake as the Son of God had carried His Cross up to Golgotha. Joan, the young shepherdess from Lorraine, was inhabited by God. Even amidst combats, she wandered away to kneel down and find council from the Creator. Jesus, the son of a carpenter, frequently withdrew from the band of his disciples in order to speak, face to face, with His Father.

The trial for sorcery started in Rouen against Joan was iniquitous. And yet it assembled the entire Establishment of the official Church. One hundred and twenty men took part in it, including a Cardinal, a prince of the Church, a great number of bishops, dozens of canons, sixty doctors in Canon Law or Theology, ten abbots, ten representatives of the University of Paris, the brightest part of ecclesiastical science in the heart of Christendom. In their presence, the shepherdess, despite her replied filled with common sense and inspired by the Holy Spirit, was condemned in advance, as the son of the carpenter seemed condemned beforehand when summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin. In the presence of this sign of contradiction, the English applied such an intense pressure on the court presided by the Bishop of Beauvais that it recalled that of the people used by the Hebraic authorities and who greatly influenced the decision of Pontius Pilate. Alas, not even the ecclesiastical authorities are protected from yielding to ideology, power, or the opinions of the age, to the detriment of the common good, and in such cases their verdicts, far from expressing the will of God, simply betray the mandate that was given to them.

In the course of Joan's trial, among those who used the most sacred titles in order to utter sentences that were true abuses of authority, there were plotters, such as the Count of Warwick, such as Pierre Cauchon, who made every effort to obtain death for Joan. After the English wardens had ensnared her and made her wear man's clothes in order to prevent their assaults, the Bishop of Beauvais rejoiced: "She has been caught," [4] he said to those around him, elated for finding a reason to sacrifice her on the altar of human whims. Also among these authorities were the adulators, the cowards who paved the way for the accusation, such as Abbot of Fécamp, who, not without incurring in false humility, presented himself as uncapable of speaking up after "doctors so numerous and so great that their like cannot perhaps be found in the universe" [5]. As Pontius Pilate, he washed his hands, thus giving support to the worst informers. It happens similarly in the course of the passion of the Church, with those who suffered in silence and with those who above all expected the direct condemnation of the defenders of traditional doctrine. The court that condemned Christ proceeded in the same way. Both judge and party, it delivered an unappealable decision. Discarding the most elementary rules of justice, it heard only the accusers and grasped at the most irrelevant details to soothe the hatred of Salome's heirs, who, moved by a hateful whim, one day demanded a head on a plate!


[Part I: A Saint in armor]
[Part III: A Saint under excommunication]
_____________________________

Notes:

[4] Transcript of the trial of Joan of Arc, Deposition of Friar Isambard de la Pierre, O.P.

[5] Transcript of the trial of Joan of Arc, 44th session, April 12, 1431.