Interview with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay

Editor’s note: This interview was conducted by Fr. Paul Robinson in August 2024, and later adapted for text. Minor abridgments and adjustments in wording have been made for better written clarity.

I thought we might focus in on your time as a Superior General of the Society, those twenty-four years between 1994 and 2018, and ask if you could speak a bit about that time. I want to ask you a little bit about the relations with Rome, but also about the momentousness of the task that was entrusted to you. Of all the things that happened during that time, what was the most challenging?

I really think that the relations with Rome were the most challenging. They were very important for the future of the Society. We can say that they started in 2000 and continued until 2017, so about seventeen years. It looks like an exterior process, but nevertheless, the questions given to us by Rome for the discussion obliged us to develop a deeper understanding of what we do, what our place in the Church is.

There were not only discussions; there were all kinds of relations, in fact. The period covers three pontificates, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. In spite of the differences that one can observe in these three periods, it was the same work: justifying our position and, especially emphasizing that there are problems in the Church and that it is up to them to resolve them, not us. A solution for the whole of the Church must be undertaken by the Church. While they were able to recognize that there are problems, they did not want to go back to their real cause. And this is also the fundamental reason why, up to the present, the relations do not seem to have led to much.

Nevertheless, we proved to Rome that we are Catholic…officially, we were able to reestablish relations. The relations are not perfect because the situation is not perfect, but nevertheless they are sufficient to keep a vital link with the Church. It is not relations with these people, or those people, but much deeper than that. The Society is a part of the Church, is in the heart of the Church. So, from this perspective, these relations have been beneficial. Every grace that we receive, we receive it through the Church, and the Church has a hierarchy. Thus, it is normal that we have relations, even if, in certain situations, these relations bring conflicts.

There are a lot of episodes in these discussions. We had crusades—I remember three crusades of the Rosary. It was really beneficial for us, and during that time we obtained two major points. One was the Mass, the liberation of the Mass, which has done an enormous good for the Church, and which continues to do so. The violent reaction presently against the Tridentine Mass, by people who really do not like the past of the Church and Tradition and try to smash down any memory or remembrance of it, and by that in a certain way cut the absolutely essential links of the Church with her past, are a consequence of that liberation. They would not have acted if they did not perceive something like a danger for them, while for us it is a great joy that the youth, and the young priests, are deeply interested in the Tridentine Mass, which is fundamentally the remedy to this crisis.

The other point was the lifting of the “excommunication”—we have always disputed the excommunication, but the fact that Pope Benedict said there is no longer an excommunication did also open the hearts of others and gave them a new perspective on what we represent, which is the Tradition of the Church. So these two points, we would say, were not for us—they were for the Church. And these two points did do good for the Church.

Then there was the main time of discussion, when there was a discussion that was directly theological. That took place from 2009 to 2011. Rome invited us to choose experts, and they would do the same. They were really theological exchanges and discussions.

Then there was another set of discussions, more colloquial, not directly technical, under Pope Benedict XVI, where four bishops—in fact, one auxiliary bishop, one bishop, one archbishop, and one cardinal—were asked to have contact with us and to continue theological discussions, less technical but equally deep. That was very positive. In getting to know us, these prelates learned to appreciate us, and some of them became friends with us to some degree. It is very clear that these people who had discussions with us must have reported to Rome, and all this has in some way opened the question of the crisis. The Church has heard the problem of these errors.

As such, there was a lot of good. It was quite intense; there were also a lot of headaches. There were also a lot of internal discussions and opinions on this subject, which is normal. We deal with points of the highest importance for our future, so it is normal that everybody feels involved and reacts one way or the other. But after this very long period of discussions, Rome returned to its requirements tied to an acceptance of the Council and the New Mass, and no longer wanted doctrinal exchanges to explore the causes of the crisis. So the relations came to a standstill. Right now, we could say it looks like a modus vivendi has been acquired, so there’s not development right now, but that’s in God’s hands. The whole story is in God’s hands, but it is very interesting to me to see how God’s Divine Providence has worked throughout all this.

What you said about those four members of the doctrinal discussion commission learning to appreciate us reminds me of something you told me one time, and that was that it’s always profitable to speak to conciliar prelates, to the bishops and to the priests. The impression I got from talking to you was that we usually make a good impression upon them, and the more they get to know us, the better it is. So these contacts are often fruitful for softening their position towards us.

It is true. I have always insisted, of anybody in the Society, that when somebody, say some prelate, comes to us—I say, “Don’t change anything. We are what we are, and that’s what we have to show them.” We don’t need to play the chameleon. In all our relations with Rome, we remained as we were. It is so clear that in the problem we are dealing with, there are elements beyond us—and so it’s not with human concessions or tricks that we are going to solve these problems. It must be completely supernatural. Showing what we are was appreciated and esteemed. I remember that Cardinal Brandmüller, who came to Zaitzkofen for the discussions, remarked, “These people are normal!” And I heard that several times, which shows what kind of bad reputation we carry with us, even to that level. But in seeing our joy, our happiness, they see that we are precisely normal. And it was also praise.

That has been my experience with everyone—people who are opposed, people who are in favor. And we have always insisted that we are what we are. It is a reality: we are Catholics, and we represent Catholicism. I remember Pope Benedict saying about us, “You represent much more than what you are.” And it is true. We represent today the past of the Church, what we call Tradition, precisely Tradition—this word transmittere, to transmit. We transmit the Church, constantly, only that—these words of St. Paul, “What I have received, I transmit.” These were also the words our dear Archbishop wanted to have on his tomb.

The whole Church is like this—the Church received from God the deposit of the Faith, and she has to transmit it. The grace of God comes through the Church. God wants the Church to be the instrument transmitting all these treasures, to make the faithful obtain heaven. All this is supernatural and is not from today—it is from all times. It’s above time. And so when we say we represent the past, we also include the future. So we carry that with us. And anybody who is honest sees that at a certain moment—and sees it not just at the level of theory, because we put it into reality, we incarnate these ideas. And there you can see that it is not just a question of conflict, of opposition, or of rebellion and so on. It is the whole past of the Church that we carry with ourselves, and we put it into practice. That is why there are fruits. The fruits are real, they are not theory, and these fruits could not be real if there were not a really deep reality which bears them. And that, for us, is an enormous consolation, to see that this work is continuing and benefiting from these treasures given to her by our founder. We continue this line, and it brings forth tremendous fruits.

I was wondering if we might go back to the beginning of your term, when you first started in 1994, taking over from Fr. Schmidberger. Could you speak a little bit about what that was like and the atmosphere at that time? That was also the time when we weren’t really having any relationship with Rome.

At that time, there were relations, but personal. Fr. Schmidberger would go to Rome at least once a year, and we had relations there, but they were at the level of persons rather than institutions. With the “excommunications” of 1988, something was broken in this flow of relations, it is true, though we continued to pay our visits to Rome. So we did not do much—we just lived like that for awhile. So it was a tranquil time within the Society—for although externally we were denouncing errors, internally, it was tranquil, because there was no direct implication or consequence ad intra of these types of personal relations. Fr. Schmidberger would visit this Cardinal and that Cardinal. Even Cardinal Oddi went to Écône, visited the tomb of Archbishop Lefebvre—and said, “Thank you, Archbishop Lefebvre!”—but there was no direct consequence of these things. In that sense, those years were rather peaceful—happenings here and there, but it was a period of growth in which we were taking care of ourselves. Little by little we grew: steadily, but nothing spectacular. But definitely constant, a steady growth in priests, in countries, in chapels, in faithful.

The new relations with the authorities truly began in 2000, after our pilgrimage. That was definitely the trigger for Rome to approach us. When the relations began, it was not a very easy beginning. One of the first things I would have to say was, “It’s a very good idea to try to solve the problem—but we have a big problem with you, and it’s that we don’t trust you.” And hence these requirements at the start were for reestablishing trust; this is why we asked for two signs, two concrete things—the freedom of the Mass and the lifting of the excommunications—which would happen years later in 2007 and 2009.

During that time when there were more relations, we were trying to know one another. There were not yet practical consequences. Then in 2011, after the first set of discussions, Rome said, to our surprise, that the discussions went well, when in fact a number of disagreements remained, although the conversations were always courteous. It was at that moment that Rome told us it would move on to the next step with the proposal of a practical solution. That is when things became complicated.

Why do you think that Benedict XVI in 2012 ultimately did not follow through with the personal prelature and the original terms under which the prelature would be established?

In September 2011, we received from Ecclesia Dei and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the proposal for a solution. The solution had a practical side, which was the canonical structure, and it was understood before that there must be a doctrinal agreement. We received the proposal, and at the same time, I received messages which were not official but which were from people who were very close to the Pope, which claimed, “The proposal you have in your hands does not correspond to what the Pope wants.” In the face of this contradiction, two questions arose. The first was, “What, then, does Pope Benedict really want for us? If this is not what he wants, what does he really want?” And the second question was, “Let’s suppose what he wants is good. Is he capable of imposing it on the Vatican and the whole Church?”

The answer to the second question, which was sufficient to determine our action, was clear: “No, Pope Benedict is not capable of imposing on the whole Church a good solution for us—even if he would want it, he is not strong enough.” Some have even thought that this was the cause of his resignation—he realized that he did not have the strength to govern the Church

Then the answer to the first question was not long in coming. After some back-and-forth, in May, I wrote a letter to the Pope saying, “I am facing this contradiction. Please tell me what you really expect from us.” So I did not say, “Do you want to do this, or that,” I just asked him, “Please, tell us.” That’s when he answered that we have to accept that Vatican II is an integral part of the apostolic tradition. I said, “I am not ready to accept that. It’s not true.” Vatican II wanted to be new, it wanted to introduce novelties—so by no means can it pretend to be an integral part of the tradition.

Pope Benedict had tried to say that there can be different interpretations of the Council, saying one is the right one and the other wrong. But the idea that Vatican II is an integral part of Tradition is simply false. There are too many contradictions, and the very fact that we are persecuted because we remain faithful to Tradition is the best proof of that.

The same thing holds for the New Mass. It was requested that we would accept not just its validity—which we do, provided everything is done correctly, following the rubrics with the intention to do what the Church does—but also its liceity: we would have to accept that the New Mass is licit. Now to understand this word—it means not just that the Church can make a liturgy, which we accept in theory, but that this one is good. And I said “no—I will never be able to say this Mass is good”. And that is why I had to say, “No, I cannot go ahead. It is impossible.”

The fundamental basis for understanding the pontificate of Pope Benedict is the hermeneutic of continuity: Pope Benedict tried, by all means possible, to demonstrate the continuity between the Council and Tradition, and to promote a mutual enrichment between the old rite and the new. Having this presupposition, he logically asked us to accept both the Council and the New Mass.

And these Roman demands were again imposed by Cardinal Müller in 2017: it was necessary to adopt the Council and the New Mass… These are unacceptable demands, and we are still there. It is essential to understand that, despite their apparent contradictions or divergences, the last two pontificates ultimately obey the same underlying logic: the endorsement of the Council’s attempt to reconcile the Church with the world.

When you took over in 1994 it was just three years after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre. Can you speak a little bit about his influence on your vision for the Society and also your vision of your own leadership, of how you would lead the SSPX?

It was very strong, very natural. We were in a train and the train was running, and so we just continued—we didn’t have much of a problem. The rails, the line, is given, and you just drive the train. Everything was given to us. The Archbishop in his wisdom, by choosing Fr. Schmidberger to be Superior, and by giving him guidance, secured this line. So the stepping-down of Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means a resignation: it was an act of prudence and wisdom, and extraordinarily fruitful. And so really I had no problem there, no worries of conscience about what I should do: it was just, continuing. The thing is working, so why change?

Is there a particular characteristic of Archbishop Lefebvre’s leadership that you found edifying and perhaps influenced your own choices?

I think even already in Africa he was governing without giving the impression that he was giving orders. He would indeed give the line, but it was never by an act of violence: it was just there. But that’s one of the characteristics of his personality—always kind, but at the same time, firm, even if necessary stubborn. We can see that especially in the hot years when they tried to suppress the Society, when they wanted to impose the New Mass. There is a clear, but simple—not violent—“No.”

At the time of the consecrations there was a kind of game on the side of Rome. On paper, they said they would give a bishop—but in practice, they refused all the names which were given. Rome gave us the impression that they were playing with us; and the Archbishop did not go into this game. He answered, when he realized it, by four bishops on the thirtieth of June. I call it his stubbornness. He did not see any good will: there was a conflict, and he did not see on the side of Rome a benevolence toward Tradition, he would tell us. And so he gave the [ultimatum of] several bishops and the date, while requesting maybe even from Heaven a sign. They have to show, do they really want us—do they really want Tradition? That’s why he did that. And the answer came, later on, which is a very interesting one—“Okay, one bishop, and the fifteenth of August, but still, give us other names.” But names had already been given. “Give us other names which correspond to the profile of the Protocol.” And Archbishop Lefebvre said something like, “What is this? What is this criterion corresponding to the profile of the Protocol? Who knows? Maybe they do. But we will present names, and names, and they will refuse them. We cannot go this way.” So he refused to enter into this game. He was looking always for Divine Providence—practical signs of Divine Providence. And when he saw them, he just followed.

I have another example of this stubbornness—I don’t know if that’s exactly the right word—trying to follow Divine Providence, which, once he thought it was there, would not change. It was about purchasing the seminary. So it was before Écône, and a castle was to be purchased, but the Archbishop had limits in his means, and so he said, “Okay, if they accept our offer of so much, we will go ahead, but if they do not, that will be a sign of Divine Providence that it’s not for us.” And they refused the proposal of the Archbishop. For him, it was clear: Divine Providence, it’s over. Later on, they would come back and they would lower the price to what the Archbishop had proposed; but this time the Archbishop would not go forward, and said “Divine Providence has spoken. It’s done.” And he would not turn back. I call it stubbornness, but maybe it’s steadiness, steadiness in judgment.

That was truly one of the marks of his personality: tremendously supernatural, and especially with the will to follow God’s will—and never to impose on God his own idea.

Your Excellency, you also have been extremely steady, during your priesthood, during your episcopacy, especially carrying such a huge task for twenty-four years as Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X. Would you be willing to say what might have sustained you during this time with this huge charge on your shoulders?

I would put certainly the Blessed Virgin Mary, but also and definitely the prayers of the members of the Society and of the faithful. I really have to say, these carried me. Divine Providence was there, clearly—I had signs. At the moments when I had to make a decision, I never had a doubt. Before, yes, a lot of questions. But at those very moments, God provided enough information, and knowledge, to be clear. He made it very clear every time what I had to decide. That was supernatural, and also an immense consolation that God was there. And these lead to the prayers and sacrifices of the faithful; that’s what really sustained me, no doubt.

Could you reflect a little over the history of the SSPX, about what the SSPX has given to the Church in these past fifty years? What contribution has it made?

I would say that it has simply kept the treasures of the Church, and especially the Mass. If the traditional Mass can still be celebrated in the world, it is thanks to the Society. Not only because the Society remained faithful to the Mass, but because it has known how to fight for it. The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict, for example, is his response to our request for the liberation of the Mass, for the good of the Church. This Mass, it is the heart of the Church. For me, we have already enough experience to say that it is the remedy of the crisis—not of everything, but is the core, it is the start. It initiated everything and everything is included in it—teaching, morals, discipline, everything—as the strength of the Mass, the grace that flows out of it. And that is our life, the life of the Society. Archbishop Lefebvre has given us this love of the Mass. Our contribution for the Church is this treasure, before anything else. When I say the Mass, in fact I include another element intrinsically united to it, the Catholic priesthood. You cannot have one without the other. And the holiness of the Church’s members depends on the priest; this is the way God wants his Church to operate. To remember the capital role of the priesthood for Holy Mother Church is to realize that it is equally, with the Mass, a contribution from Archbishop Lefebvre and so of the Society of St. Pius X.

We could add, then, of course, Mary, Fatima, for example, or the spiritual retreats, the Spiritual Exercises, which we have received and which we give. But fundamentally, our contribution is the Mass. It’s the heart of the Church. And I really think that if we still have, now, the Mass, it’s due to the great, great merit of the Archbishop.

If you could reflect a little bit about the life of Tradition today in comparison with the past, how have things changed over the decades, for the Church and the Catholic world, for the Society of St. Pius X, for the priests, and for the faithful?

There was firstly the act of John Paul II in 1988 by which he created the Ecclesia Dei commission, which had as its purpose to recuperate the priests and the faithful of the Society—that is, let’s kill the Society in the egg by drawing out, thanks to the Fraternity of St. Peter, all its strengths, priests and faithful.

When Pope Benedict published Summorum Pontificum, it was a bit different. There are different ways to read this act. One might think that, since the Society asked for it and obtained it, it was therefore for the Society, in making it easy to reconcile us… But it’s ultimately not true—it’s not what really happened. There is a very interesting note from Ecclesia Dei four years later, in 2011, which came back to Summorum Pontificum and tried to explain what Pope Benedict did. It’s an extremely interesting text.

It says first that the motu proprio is a universal law: universal law means that it’s not just for a particular group—it’s for everybody; and it is said particularly that the will of the legislator was to provide access to the Traditional liturgy to everybody in the Church. Then, in the aforementioned note, they speak of the consequences, of the practical application—and they say there that every priest has the free choice of the Mass. He can choose; it is not limited to groups. Its opponents tried to limit it to groups, or even to increase the numbers of what constitutes a group—all this is just wiped out in this note. It says, no, a group can be small, it can be from different places. That makes it easy. The note also allows the Breviary—it says the priest can take freely, at his disposal, he can use the old Breviary; he is no longer bound by the new one. That’s enormous! The Rituale, which is the book where you have all the blessings and all the sacraments and the exorcisms, the whole Rituale is at the free disposal of the priests. The Pontificale, at the free disposal of the bishops.

The reason, expressed or not, for such a broad and universal permission was that Pope Benedict knew the liturgical reform had some holes; and he wanted to fix them. He thought that, following his hermeneutic of continuity, Tradition could provide something. Thus, he tried to increase access to the traditional liturgy. He acted with a certain discretion, because he was aware there could be a lot of opposition against it. The use of the other liturgical books, for example, is not explicitly authorized by Summorum Pontificum—but in the note it is said. But this note is unknown. You can find it—it belongs to the official text—but it is so discreet that you hardly can find it. It was extremely interesting to see that.

You then have a number of groups who come directly from the Novus Ordo, and who want the Mass, a whole new movement, of new congregations, diocesan priests… There are those who are truly close to the positions of the Society; there are those who want what the Fraternity of St. Peter wants; there are those who want half-and-half, a mix of new and old. It shows you this panorama of different attitudes. For me, for now, you cannot expect better in the present situation of the Church. It would be an illusion to think that everyone can turn 180 degrees and go back to Tradition—it’s impossible. But with this—in French, we say florilège—with this quantity of different flowers, in the end, somewhere, Tradition makes gains. It takes time, but it is, for me, going in the right direction—even if it’s not happening directly and there are highs and lows, and not just happy things, and maybe rivalries—all this is the human side again of the Church. But little by little, that creates conditions for a possible renewal of Tradition.

At the same time, other changes are taking place: the Church is living for some years in a situation that has more and more conflicts, exacerbated today with the pontificate of Pope Francis, to a point unheard of since the Middle Ages. We don’t often see things like this—bishops’ conferences, a whole continent, opposing a decision of the Pope—you have to go back to the Middle Ages to find this. Or, bishops eliminated because they defend what the Church has always taught. It’s incredible, what we have to go through; it’s very special. And you can see there, in that situation of conflict, that Tradition is a pole of both attraction and contradiction in this history. That is very clear. Thus, in this context, there are bishops who look upon us with more benevolence and who appreciate us more; and at the same time there are always bishops who are completely against us. It is clear that as long as this crisis lasts, we will be controversial. We cannot be otherwise.

And precisely with Traditionis Custodes, there is a counterattack of the highest importance. Because there is this significant movement toward Tradition, which is very alive and which is attracting the youth, that has scared the progressivists. They realize that, if they let Tradition continue, their own program will be finished. The facts prove, more than ever, the degree to which the path which the Church has been on since the Council is an impasse—and no Pope, not even Benedict XVI, has had the clarity to recognize it and get off that path. The more time passes, the more it seems evident that the only solution to this crisis in the Church is in a true return to Tradition.