Father de Tanoüarn the Good Shepherd Institute, one year later

 

By the French Connection
Angelqueen.org

November, 2007

 

It was during one of our regular phone conversations when the "French Connection" reminded me that Father de Tanoüarn had promised AQ another interview a year after the one he so graciously sat for in November of 2006. Although I did, in fact, recall Father's offer, for a number of reasons, I was somewhat less than enthusiastic about another interview. Because of simple day-to-day priority juggling, time for me as of late is extremely scarce. Another reason for my reluctance was, to be honest, that I'm simply not nearly as interested in the GSI as I was a year ago.

 

Please don't misunderstand. They're good men, good priests and good Catholics, in a good organization, who are doing a darn good job at propagating tradition, not only in France, but now, in several countries. Despite my rather unpleasant experience with them in Colombia, I do not harbor even a single drop of animosity toward the GSI. I just find them, well, boring.

 

There, I said it; "boring." 

 

Perhaps it's because they seemed so exciting to me a year ago that they seem so boring to me now. Then, they were going to be much different than the many groups under the Ecclesia Dei umbrella. As it turns out, they're not much different at all. Among the common traits they share with most ED groups is that they are consistaently dogged around by local prelates and hindered by bureaucracies, Roman and otherwise. This is no fault of their own, as the unwritten commandment within Ecclesia Dei in regard to traidtionalist groups seems to be "Thou shalt be somehow stifled." The GSI has learned the hard way over the past year that if the local bishop doesn't wish to have them around - and most don't - their ability to effectively operate within that diocese will either be very difficult or completely impossible. Another common trait the GSI shares with many ED groups is that, via word or deed, they don't mind stepping on the toes of the SSPX if ends justifies the means.   

 

"Hey why don't you do the interview," I suggested. Surprisingly, the French Connection thought it a good idea. I say surprisingly because FC's normal modus operandi is to deliver the well known priest or prelate (Bishop Williamson, Bishop Rifan, Father de Tanoüarn) to us, then humbly ride his bike off into the sunset. This time he would actually have to take credit for something.

 

So, here it is. The Second Annual Interview with Father de Tanoüarn of the GSI. Thank you and bless you Father. 

 

The Good Shepherd Institute was founded in September 2006 – can you give us some feedback of this first year?
 

Back then, some the SSPX called us “the mutineers” - a word that was supposed to indicate we were meaningless. They no longer do. Since September 8th, 2006, when it was erected, the Good Shepherd Institute has had 7 priestly ordinations, and 35 seminarians now study in the seminary we created in Courtalain. A handful of priests joined us – others didn’t formally join but are close to us. The Institute exists in Europe and Latin America. Among our seminarians are Poles and Brazilians – this indicates that we have a future there. In France, the Saint Eloi church in Bordeaux was erected as a personal parish February 1st, 2007. We have priests here and there, celebrating their private masses, but we did not –not yet– get the chapels we hoped for.

Doesn’t the Moto Proprio help?
 

Somehow, the bishops seem to grow stiff. It looks as if the Motu Proprio for the traditional Mass that was released July 7th made them seek vengeance on the “specialized institutes” as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos calls them, such as the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King – and, yes, the Good Shepherd Institute. In Avignon [Southern France] for instance, Bp Cattenoz started a transdiocesan group called “Totus Tuus” with priests celebrating the traditional Mass, in order to avoid resorting to our traditional institutes. In Marseilles Bp Pontier asks the faithful to move to another church where he imposes upon them a priest of his choice. Not to mention Lyon and Versailles, where the FSSP lost control over its biggest French congregations. There is no denying such difficulties, but at the same time the traditional Mass is prodigiously propagating among priests and the laity. When the traditional Mass is largely diffused and widely available, Catholics will stop fighting each other and harmony will prevail. Those attached to the new liturgy will learn on their own about the traditional usage, and their hostility will disappear by itself as it is frequently induced by their ignorance of it.
 

What specific role does the Good Shepherd Institute play in this whole context?
 

The way I see it, we have a double function. We are quite near the bishops as we meet lots of them. Real relations can be built that way little by little –at least with some of them. It takes time, but scars from the past can be healed and mutual trust can develop between individuals, beyond personal agendas. Another thing we do is we try to unify all the forces on favor of Benedict XVI’s ecclesial policy, by organizing public events – such as the congress we’re planning in Paris next January to thank the pope, at the occasion of which there may be a little surprise.

 

Speaking of Benedict XVI’s ecclesial policy, what part does the Motu Proprio play in it?
 

Pope Benedict XVI himself wrote the Motu Proprio, at least the essential parts of it – Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos indicated this to us by saying “I keep at your disposal the GERMAN original”. The pope proceeded with much strength and great prudence, he doesn’t impose a thing upon the bishops, but he sort of puts ‘the cause of the Mass’ in the hands of stable lay groups. Such groups have already appeared – it is inevitable that more will follow and grow in the future. In his letter to the bishops that accompanies the Motu Proprio, the pope doesn’t announce a revolution, he wishes “that all is done in peace and serenity” – at a quiet and peaceful pace. The pope acts in the Church’s time – that is a time that goes slowly but irreversibly, since it’s the Holy Spirit’s time. The irreversible thing here is the pope’s recognition of the legitimacy of the faithful attachment to the traditional liturgy.

 

Does the pope regard both missals as equals? He doesn’t say – but he commands “the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage” – a sacrality that “the mass according to the missal of Paul VI [should] be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto”. He commands “the spiritual richness and the theological depth of [the traditional] missal” – that are to “enrich” the new one. To me, that’s a clear indication of the pope’s mind on the liturgical question, to say the least.

 

However, didn’t the pope put the traditional rite aside, so as to speak, by calling it an “extraordinary rite” – as opposed to the ordinary rite, which is the Paul VI missal?

 

No. In fact, the pope does NOT speak of “two rites”. On the contrary he speaks of two forms of the one same Latin rite, which means both forms -whether ordinary or extraordinary- basically enjoy the same legitimacy and the same rights. That cuts out all the talk about our attachment to the traditional liturgy being a mere ‘nostalgia’ for ‘the old rite’– there is no ‘old rite’ but the extraordinary form of today’s rite. The Missal we use is recognized as the “Missale Romanum of Pope John XXIII,” and it has never abrogated.

 

What is required from the faithful is that they acknowledge the supernatural value and the objective sanctity of the new missal – in other words, its sacramental and sacrificial validity, by virtue of its promulgation by Pope Paul VI. Abp Lefebvre spoke of the ‘essential validity’ of the new missal and he required all his seminarians to recognize this essential validity prior to their ordination by swearing an oath. I swore that oath 20 years ago, and I certainly intend to keep to it.