AGAINST “AGAINST THE RUMORS” : Fr Chazal's letter to father Rostand
+ Massena New York 09 Nov 2012-11-09
Dear Father Rostand,
Please do not blame me for posting this letter on the internet, because I have no other means to answer you publicly; and, secondly, we are very low budget and the internet is incredibly cheap. As soon as we have a paper publication, you shall also be able to blame us as paper pamphleteers as well… and to your heart’s content.
Your performance in Post Falls was quite impressive; I am truly impressed by the wit of some of your answers; your ability to dodge the questions at times. You have most of the quotes of the Archbishop on your fingertips, with the time and place. That is not my case,
even if I wish you could communicate more certain quotes, especially the directives the Archbishop left us between June 1988 and the time he died.
One of the main, and possibly the most effective accusation you make against us is that we supposedly accuse you to say and think things all the while you say the exact opposite.
So, first, I would like to state again what you said to me in Post Falls, and what I can make from the tape of your conference:
1 You told me that at this time, with guarantees, especially with the six conditions formulated on July 14th, a deal with Rome is possible, even if it is in a state of heresy.
2 You told me that you are neither in favour, nor against a deal, but that you leave this practical decision to Bishop Fellay, who is in the position, has the grace of state; and like
Archbishop Lefebvre, is the most likely to enjoy the necessary prudence to make the right decision.
3 You deny any serious slide of our order on the doctrinal level. For you, there might be some liberalism within us, but not more than in years past, proof of it being sspx.org that still attacks Vatican II.
Now, are these three points a fair statement of what you think at this juncture? Are you, like Bishop Fellay, going to tell me, that not knowing and refusing to acknowledge what you said many times, I make you say what you don’t say, or tell people that what you say is not what you think, in order to fulfill a subversive and dialectic agenda.
If we are agreed that 12&3 are a fair statement of what you think and preach, then, let us conclude honestly that we are at war, hopefully as gentlemen and especially as Christians.
As for 1, any deal with the new and modernist Rome is death to us, period. If we could
cobble 10 000 conditions, the scorpion would still kill us. Now, the six conditions have and insurmountable lameness and, especially, abandon the one condition that would suffice to place us, not to have a deal, but to submit to Rome: that is, that Rome truly and really returns to Tradition. (cf. my document “I accuse the counsel”)
As for 2 your reasoning is a petition of principle:
Major: Practical decisions belong to the Superior General
Minor: Signing a deal with Rome is a practical decision
Conclusion: It belongs to the Superior General, and not to us to decide if and when to sign with Rome.
Major: Bishop Fellay is the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre
Minor: Archbishop Lefebvre was proved right in his decisions
Conclusion: Bishop Fellay will make the right decision, (should he chooses to sign, even if he remains fallible).
I put those caveats in this last conclusion, because I think it is what you think and said at times, but the jist of your reasoning remains the same: we must trust Bishop Fellay; our unity revolves around him; he is truly faithful to the founder should he decide to sign or not to sign.
All this is a petition of principle by which, with much “aplomb” and “effronterie” you are ordering the sheep to follow the direction of a man who is in fact tied by a higher law than himself. You cannot postulate us to follow Bishop Fellay just because he makes a practical decision, or because he is a successor of a great person. Conciliar Popes are much more than that; and we cannot follow them, because, as members of the Catholic Church, we are not followers of a cult leader; and choosing Peter, Our Lord chose a man that had weaknesses (as well as a great power).
And as for 3, faithful joining us testify that priest spend years not mentioning the crisis in their sermons (Fr A., Fr B.); Fr. C. fell out with lay folks while blocking the reordering of books against Vatican II; Fr D. said recently in a sermon that the novus ordo mass is valid without the necessary distinctions; Fr E. told a priest in Indiana that the future hybrid mass will be acceptable. We do not have a week without any such examples of unchecked spread of liberalism, and I am not mentioning what happens on the wider picture (dici…)
Hoping to meet you again when I return from Asia, I assure you of my prayers and my devoted concern.
In Iesu et Maria,
François Chazal+