Your Excellency, there are some who are asking what the reasons are that led to your consecration having been done with so much discretion. Wouldn’t it have been better to have given greater publicity to such a joyous event?
The consecration had to be done this way so as not to have been hindered. Bishop Williamson’s situation remains delicate. We chose this monastery because it is a little distant and provides certain measures of security. Moreover, there is adequate space here which makes it easy for liturgical ministers. Overall, there was a need to avoid any type of disturbance, and this was accomplished successfully.
Your Excellency, can you tell us anything about the signature of the 1988 protocol? Were you with Archbishop Lefebvre in those days?
I was not; instead, I was made aware of these facts just like any other member of the Society. On the 5th of May of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome, in which the pope recognized the right to consecrate one of the SSPX priests a bishop. At this time, it was considered to be something necessary in order for the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to survive after his death, but such a thing was also the bait and the hook to obtain the Archbishop’s signature. I think that when Archbishop Lefebvre signed this document he had a moment (temporary indeed) of weakness, as was the case with Saint Joan of Arc, and like her, he wrote, after the “worst night of his life”, a retraction letter to the Vatican representative, by which he nullified the protocol. Bishop Fellay cannot take advantage of this moment of weakness which was later retracted to say he is imitating Archbishop Lefebvre’s conduct. “I went too far”, Archbishop Lefebvre would say later, referring to the signature of the protocol. Archbishop Lefebvre had no illusion about the Roman diplomacy and the Roman interlocutors, as is demonstrated in many of his declarations and in the non-diplomatic determination that appears in the fundamental declaration of 1974 about the two Romes: the Eternal and the modernist, or the two churches: the Catholic and the conciliar. And Bishop Fellay, in the in which he confuses the current, official, modernist Rome with the Eternal Rome, he makes himself unfaithful to Eternal Rome, guardian of the Truth. He confounds the conciliar church – about which Arch. Lefebvre spoke so much – with the Catholic Church. For Bp. Fellay there is only one church and only one Rome: but this is the antithesis of Arch. Lefebvre’s position.
Your Excellency, recently we have been able to read many criticisms about yourself. For sure, the devil is not very happy with this consecration. What could you tell us about this?
What happens is that we intend to continue as much as possible the line of Arch. Lefebvre, and for this reason we receive attacks from the right and from the left, just like it happened to Arch. Lefebvre.
From the right and from the left?
Yes. On the left are those that are carrying out the integration of the SSPX into the conciliar church, and on the right are the sedevacantists. Sedevacantism is an excessive simplification of the situation (and sometimes it is not exempt of sentimentalism, even though this may be understandable) that was not accepted, on a prudential level and after a deep examination, by Arch. Lefebvre and by theologians and canonists of high level that he was able to consult. On this one must speak about the true grace of state in Arch. Lefebvre, who had to some degree the same role of Saint Athanasius against modernism. We have no doubt that Providence put him here to guide us in this crisis of the Church, that has only gotten worse after his death, but continues to be essentially the same. We cannot say that Francis has a greater responsibility than Paul VI or John Paul II for the development of the crisis that Arch. Lefebvre, Bp. De Castro Mayer, Fr. Calmel and so many other great theologians confronted.
On the other hand, Menzingen says that Your Excellency and Bp. Williamson recognize the Roman authorities “in a purely rhetorical manner”.
No more and no less than Arch. Lefebvre. Hence the sedevacantists also attack us, and in a very violent way.
Your Excellency, in your Masses do you pray for Pope Francis?
I follow Arch. Lefebvre’s instructions about this matter: pray for the pope and denounce his heresies, like Saint Athanasius and so many saints who had to oppose the popes of their times.
Concerning these liberal and modernist popes, and the question of the Catholic Church vs. the conciliar church, does Your Excellency agree with the position of the Dominicans of Avrillé, as exposed in the article titled: “One Hierarchy for two Churches”?
Let us continue with the theme of the pope. In the previews interview we asked Fr. Faure what would he do if Francis invited him to go to Vatican. And now we as Bp. Faure, what would you say to Francis?
Above all I say this interview is impossible in practice, since a sine qua non condition is the presence of Bp. Williamson and other priests, being excluded any type of “negotiation” with an agreement in view – whatever it is – while, as Arch. Lefebvre used to say, there is no radical conversion on the part of Rome, accepting, in fact and in right, all the encyclicals prior to the Vatican II, as also the condemnations against liberalism and modernism that they include; but this apparently will not happen before the third world war (that seems near). I would say to the pope:What Church do you belong to? To the Catholic Church or to a falsification of the Church?. Your function is to confirm your brothers in the Faith. I would remind him of the words of Saint Paul: your authority was given you “unto edification, and not unto destruction”. (2 Cor. 13, 10), to edify and not to destroy catholic faith and morals. I would say him the following, citing Arch. Lefebvre: Do you agree with all the great encyclicals prior to John XXII, and with all the popes till Pius XII, inclusive? Are you in “plain communion” with those popes and with their teachings? Do you accept the anti-modernist oath? Are you in favor of Our Lord Jesus Christ’s Social Kingdom? If you do not accept the doctrine of these predecessors of yours, it’s useless to talk to you. It is because we are faithful to the eternal Rome that we are obliged to separate ourselves from the modernist and liberal, current and official, Rome. It’s not because Menzingen lets to be seduced, that Bp. Williamson or I are going to fall in the same snare.
Coming back to the critics and lies about your person, some of them are extremely ridiculous. Therefore, pardon us this question that we make with the purpose to honor the truth and to protect some simple and excessively gullible souls: Can you tell us something about the circumstances around the burial of your father?
In March 3, 1986, my father’s body was taken to my home to hold a vigil. Thus he was placed upon my bed, and not upon the floor, as the sedevacantists claim. That they say the names of the witnesses! Personally, I can name Fr. Canale, SSPX, who celebrated the Requiem Mass, Fr. Ricardo Olmedo, SSPX, the seminary professors who knew the facts, the seminarians that today are priests, Fr. Schmidberger, SSPX, who was in the Mass and in the cemetery, and also the members of Mesuda family, who were great benefactors of the seminary when it began and who were present to the veiling ceremony. These ones lately sheltered, moved by mercy, twenty seminarians that got out of the seminary after the sedevacantist rebellion of 1989. My father is buried in the little cemetery of the Society. All the seminarians and many priests and faithful attended his mass. In this episode there was nothing abnormal and nothing to hide; but what we have here is an example of the sedevacantist logic to say Bp. Faure is Jew: I was born in Algeria; Jews are numerous in Algeria; therefore, “I must be a Jew”. But, as muslins are much more numerous, maybe I am a marrano muslim? Against all calumnies and inventions so ridicule, I have in France a well done the genealogical tree of my family that I will make public when I go back there.
And what can you tell us about the crisis of the Argentinian seminary, in 1989? They also blame you for this.
About the crisis in the Buenos Aires Seminary I clarify that I arrived in Mexico in September 24, 1985, five days after the terrible earthquake, soon after I was appointed Superior of the Mexico District, but this crisis took place in 1989, in the wake of the sedevacantist rebellion against Arch. Lefebvre. The rector, one professor and many priests of this tendency had influenced half of the seminarians of La Reja, that waited for the visit of Fr. Schidberger in 1989 to leave the seminary wholesale and get into a “seminary” made by a secular group in Mexico. A complete failure: a little group of them remained in an abandoned monastery near Cordoba, Argentina, and afterwards around Luján, and finally in El Bolsón (southern Argentina). Therefore, it is an evident lie that the supposed scandal of the burying of my father, that happened three years before, had provoked the immediate departure of these twenty five seminarians. Bp. Tissier writes about these facts in the biography of Arch. Lefebvre. (page 546, 2nd ed., Edi. Clovis, 2002).

Leave a Comment