La Liberté, May 11th 2001
This interview was published in the Swiss Valaisan daily newspaper La Liberté on Friday May 11th, under the title
Écône Wants Unity Without Concessions.


Small talk or real negotiations? Since the end of last year, the Vatican and the traditionalists of Écône have recommenced dialogue. The starting point of the outline for discussions: The pilgrimage of the Society of St. Pius X to Rome on the occasion of the Holy Year. Since then, several meetings have taken place; the last one would have taken place last week, as is rumoured from Écône. Of what do both parties discuss? If there is still dialogue, what is at stake? The Vatican is silent: Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission (in charge of traditionalist movements) will only speak when he has results to present, as it has been made known to the newsroom. On Ecône’s side, people are more talkative. Successor of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre at the head of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, one of four bishops whose consecration provoked the “schism” in 1988, explains his position in an interview given to La Liberté, the St. Galler Tagblatt and Basler Zeitung.

1- La Liberté: Did you expect Rome to seize the occasion of your pilgrimage to renew the dialogue?
Bp. Bernard Fellay: - There were forerunning signs. A year ago, Msgr. Perl, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission declared that the moment had come to deal with the Society. We were surprised at the extent and the speed with which Rome changed to a position almost radically opposite.

2- Why this urgency on the part of Rome?
BF- The Pope is coming to the end of his pontificate. He who wanted to be the champion of unity tries to remove this stain on his pontificate. Why has there not been any reconciliation beforehand? I think that Rome needed to realize that we are not as narrow-minded as is said.

3- For whom is the discussion more complicated, for you or for Rome?
BF- For us, there is a problem of trust. As regards to us, Rome has behaved in a destructive manner for many years. This attitude is unacceptable and must disappear. Rome’s actual tendency is totally different. We certainly have a right to ask ourselves why.
We are awaiting tangible answers on that point.

4- And what are the Vatican’s sensitive points?
BF- It is difficult to answer while the elements are still on the table. I would say simply that Rome seeks an extremely practical solution without approaching the fundamental questions.

5- What do you concretely wish from these discussions?
BF- That Rome says that priests can always celebrate the Old Mass. And the other element is that the declaration of the sanctions be retracted (excommunication of bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre; note from the editor).

6- What are the concessions that the Society is prepared to make for this reconciliation?
BF- We are ready to discuss, we even ask for discussion. We say to Rome: See for yourself, our movement is a valid response to the situation in which the Church finds itself. We ask that Rome consider carefully the reasons which are behind our attitude, which until now has never been done.

7- More concretely?
BF- We are ready to live with these people who have separated themselves more from us than we from them. This means recognition of the authority of the bishop, technically already effective. We feel Catholic, indeed. Our problem consists in knowing what is the reference.


8- Some within the Church put as a prerequisite condition a recognition of all of the Council.
BF- To accept the Council is not a problem for us. There is, however, a criterion of discernment. And that criterion is that which has always been taught and believed: Tradition. From which there stems a need for clarification.

9- Are you already speaking of this concretely with Rome?
BF- No, and that is why the discussions are not getting anywhere. Rome tells us that it would take too long to discuss all the details of the differences, but if we do not discuss them, they will remain entire.

10- Do you consider this urgent?
BF- Not as much as for Rome.

11- But do you not fear that time will separate you from one another?
BF- On the contrary.

12- Does the Society of Saint Pius X speak unanimously?
BF- Fundamentally, yes, contrary to what some would like to have others believe.

13- Who decides to have contacts with Rome, who gauges the results?
BF- From the moment that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre decided to consecrate bishops, it was clear that relations with Rome were the responsibility of the Superior of the Society. Consequently, mine.

14- Does Rome propose to the Society a personal prelature like that of Opus Dei?
BF- Let us say that things are going in that direction. The idea would be to give the bishops a real jurisdiction over the faithful.

15- And the Society of St. Pius X, to what status does it aspire?
BF- We need liberty of action. The faithful who wish to follow the Old Mass must be able to do so without harassment. The solution which is offered to the Fraternity of St. Peter (traditionalist movement which remained faithful to the Vatican; note from the editor) is unlivable: We let the local bishops decide everything, they who are, for the most part, radically opposed to Tradition. The reason which is evoked most often, which is false in my opinion, is that bi-ritualism would be unmanageable. But the bishops rightly perceive the liberty given to the Old Mass as a questioning of the post-conciliar reforms.

16- Questioning which you continue to wish for?
BF- That gives the impression that we reject all of Vatican II. However, we keep 95% of it. It is more to a spirit that we are opposed, to an attitude towards the change given as a postulate: Everything changes in the world, therefore the Church must change. There is here a subject for discussion because it is undeniable that the Church has lost a formidable influence in the last half-century. She still has an influence, but as an institution; the real influence, that of the bishops for example, is very weak. The Church is aware of this, but she acts as if she no longer has the solution. Her words are not clear. Look at the reaction at the moment of Dominus Jesus!

17- Yet was it not a “clear speech?”
BF- No. There are in the text some clear things, and it is against those that the "progressivists" reacted. But the extremely strong formulations, to which we are no longer accustomed and which pleased me, are moderated in almost every sentence with additions from the Council.

18- Are those formulations a sign for you that Rome approaches progressively to your positions?
BF- I'm not sure of it, precisely because of the mixture. We really have the impression that Rome is obliged to tread cautiously in order to maintain the unity in the Church.

19- Putting yourself in the shoes of John Paul II, how would you handle the real diversity of the Church?
BF- I think that we must return to the principles; to the nature of the Church, her mission, her being. The solutions brought to a real problem are too human, although there is certainly a human aspect in the Church. Now, one is looking, at all costs, for unity, which is certainly a great good, but not an end. It is the Faith that causes the unity. If, for the sake of unity, one sets aside a portion of Revelation, of which the Church is the depository, we touch the unity. On the contrary, if we affirm strongly those truths, there will necessarily be divisions. They already exist. And that is why we ask Rome to think twice before reintegrating us.

20- What would reconciliation with Rome change for you?
BF- Rome would recognize this position as valid, at least fundamentally.

21- A valid one among others or "the" valid one?
BF- The position of Rome, diplomatically and politically speaking, will certainly be that of pluralism - even if she believes the opposite. We ourselves are very prudent: For us, in the Church, there are some valid options and others that are not.

22- Do you suffer from divisions within the Church?
BF- When in one’s family things go wrong, it hurts. I do not suffer directly from the excommunication. But the state of the Church touches me. That, yes.

23- Some faithful of Ecône have recently made people talk: Anti-abortion posters, publicity page against the Gay Pride in Sion. What do you think about their action?
BF- I notice that they are not the only ones who are against the behavior of the Gay Pride parade in Sion. The bishop himself clearly stated what he thought. As to the manner, it is totally normal that those who are against something may let others know, and that freedom of expression be not unilateral.

24- But on the manner?
BF- I did not see anything very offensive on that page.

25- Not even "Aunts in Sion, diabolical temptation?”
BF- "Diabolical,” the bishop says it. When trying to promote an idea, one tries to find something that draws the attention, even if it is shocking. From that aspect, I think that it was well done (laughter). I think that there is a lot of hypocrisy behind the reactions to this publicity. To hold a Gay Pride in Sion, that is provocation, and it is totally normal that one react. It is unjust that one always justifies those who destroy Christian values.

26- In Fribourg, a Catholic city, there was no similar reaction to the Gay Pride of 1999.
BF- When one is half dead, one no longer reacts.

Salt and Light interview June 15th 2009

SSPX v Rome? 11 May 2012

Bishop Fellay 11 May 2012

Will there be an agreement? May 11 2012

LETTER FROM BISHOP FELLAY TO POPE BENEDICT XVI, JUNE 17,2012


To His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI

Most Holy Father,
It is with consternation that I present to you, who are now beset with difficult trials during which you have my poor prayers, yet another problem, instead of consolation.

Indeed on Wednesday evening, June 13, Cardinal Levada delivered to me, during a cordial meeting, a doctrinal declaration that I will not be able to sign. Disregarding my request not to revise the proposal that I had sent, because of the consequences that would entail, the new text repeats almost all the points of the Preamble of September 2011 that caused difficulties and that I had endeavored to avoid.

Unfortunately, in the present situation of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted.

I admit that I no longer know what to think. I had believed that you were disposed to postpone until later the resolution of the disputes that still remain over certain points of the Council and of the liturgical reform, much as the Council of Florence had passed over in silence the question concerning divorce on account of adultery among the Greeks, so as to effect a union. With such a view in mind I committed myself, despite rather strong opposition within the ranks of the Society, and at the expense of significant troubles. And I do intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications.

But now it seems to me that I was mistaken and that complete acceptance of the disputed points is in truth required before going further.... If some of my recent statements add a new difficulty, I am sorry, but that too was out of concern for clarity.

Moreover, given the massive opposition brewing in some circles of the Church, which fully intend to make the activity of the new prelature impossible, and given the pressure even of certain States, I do wonder how the plan could be carried out in these circumstances.

It seems to me that you alone can now change the course of events taking shape. It is obviously not a question of my exerting any pressure whatsoever, but simply of presenting the facts to you in order to know whether I am mistaken as to your intentions concerning our situation. Were you to deem it opportune, at this very delicate time, I make so bold as to ask you in your kindness to grant an audience (as discreet as possible) so that I may hear from your own lips your sentiments concerning our situation.

May Your Holiness deign to believe in my filial devotion and dearest desire to serve Holy Church.

Menzingen, Sunday, June 17,2012
+ Bernard Fellay