Your Excellency,
I would first of all like to thank you for kindly responding to my letter of October 13. You question the appropriateness of my communicating with you. The reason is that many of the faithful who attend the Shrine also support the Society of Saint Pius X in its combat for Catholic Tradition and for the true Mass. Consequently they look to the Society for guidance.
My last letter expressed their grave concerns. I am sorry that your response does not address these, and that it consequently leaves a shadow of ambiguity over your intentions with respect to the Shrine.
In particular, you did not indicate whether you plan to have the traditional Mass celebrated at the Shrine in virtue of St. Pius V's Bull Quo Primum, or not—that is, under the Indult of John Paul II. You did not indicate whether you are willing and able to promise that Mass will never be celebrated at the Shrine according to the Novus Ordo Missae approved by Paul VI in 1969, or not.
You did not indicate whether you are willing to accept the faithful as they are, attached to Tradition in its entirety, or not—that is that you are going to require some change or adaptation in their thinking. You did not indicate whether the faithful would be free from any and every effort to impose the ecumenism, novelties and liberalism of Vatican II, and the subsequent changes, including the new rites for the sacraments, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, or not. You did not indicate whether you could promise that there would be no preaching to bring them into line with the orientations of the post-conciliar church, or not.
It would also be interesting to know whether you would permit the Shrine to be erected into a parish of its own, or not—that is, that you would require the faithful to also belong to a parish of the diocese. These are the questions that the faithful need to have answered before they can decide how to vote concerning the future of the Shrine.
I am afraid to acknowledge it, and I think that you are also afraid to admit it, but I cannot help but be convinced that the answer to all these questions is in fact in the negative. This seems to be the consequence of the statement in your most recent letter: "their definition of Catholic was not the same as mine." This is a very revealing statement. For there can only be one Catholic Church, and if your definition is right, then theirs must be wrong, and they must be outside the Catholic Church, and you must refuse to accede to these requests. However, the contrary also applies, namely that if their definition is right, then yours is wrong, and they have every right to make these legitimate requests.
In fact, their definition of the Catholic Church is that definition contained in the Baltimore catechism, which all Catholics accepted until Vatican II, namely "The Catholic Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true Faith, the same Sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, and the bishops in communion with him." Which one of the elements of this definition is wrong? I challenge you to identify even one. If you were to find one you would by the very fact be condemning the whole Church before Vatican II.
Since this true and Catholic definition of the Church is, by your very admission, not the same as your definition, what then is your definition? Your letter of the feast of All Saints answers this question. Of all the elements required to make up the definition of the Church you have retained only one, namely union with the Pope and the local bishop. But what about baptism, the true Faith, assistance at Mass, and reception of the sacraments, are they not the whole reason for which the Pope and the bishops have received authority to govern the Church? Do they not engender the profoundly supernatural life that separates the divinely constituted Catholic Church from any other religious organization?
It seems to me that your idea of the Church has become hollow and legalistic, retaining only the shell of authority, without the reason for which that authority was established. You cannot be unaware that traditional Catholics are the first to defend that authority, but of what good is a spiritual authority that cannot pronounce concerning eternal salvation? Of what good is a spiritual authority that recognizes and accepts and pronounces its union with all kinds of false religions, Hinduism, Islam, and Lutheranism just to name a few, but rejects its own, those who truly believe in all the elements of this definition of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation?
Furthermore, it is entirely preposterous to deduce from the absence of a formal canonical status that the faithful of the Shrine "have no connection with John Paul II nor do they have any connection with me, the local bishop". They share with you all the elements necessary to be a part of the Catholic Church: namely baptism, the one true Faith, the one Sacrifice, and the same sacraments, the same submission to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff...do they not?
This leads me to my gravest concern, which is with respect to your statement that our understanding of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is "totally different than my understanding of that theological term". How could it be that two Catholics could have a "totally different" understanding of a defined dogma of Faith? Surely, the only possible interpretation of this is that one believes the dogma, and that the other does not.
For the record, I would like to take the opportunity of professing my Catholic Faith, in the words of the Fourth Lateran Council: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved" (Db 430), of Pope Innocent III: "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved" (Db 423), of Pope Benedict VIII: "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin...," of the Ecumenical Council of Florence: "It firmly believes, professes and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire..." (Db 714), of Pope Pius IX: "For it must be held by Faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter before God" (Db 1647).
How can it be said that these solemn teachings of the Church's Magisterium allow any doubt whatsoever as to the "understanding of that theological term"? Is it not clear that this dogma means that anyone who knowingly and willingly remains outside the visible boundary of the Roman Catholic Church will indeed suffer eternal damnation? How can you say that you know of no "Catholic" person who accepts this definition of the term, when it is in fact the obligation of every Catholic, under pain of heresy, of losing the Faith? I consequently invite you to make the same profession of Faith as I have done, and convince your people that we have the same understanding of this dogma.
If you refuse to make this profession of Faith, I must presume that, having meant what you said when you affirmed that your understanding is totally different from mine, you effectively deny the dogma. This is the error of indifferentism, which was clearly condemned by Pope Pius IX: "We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true Faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life" (Quanto conficiamur moerore, Db 1677), but which was taught by Vatican II when it taught that the false heretical and pagan religions can be means of salvation, as I mentioned in my previous letter.
Your Excellency, you are asking these good faithful to place themselves under your government. But why would they want to do this if you yourself state that it is not necessary for their eternal salvation? They have nothing to gain, but everything to lose: their Faith, their Mass, their sacraments, and their Catholic life centered around the Shrine, which functions as their parish. And if in fact, as it seems, you deny the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, how can they be blamed for refusing in conscience to place themselves under a bishop who gives every appearance of being heretical, of being himself excluded from the Catholic Church, and of leading their souls to eternal damnation?
I say these things not as a rash judgement, but simply that you might understand that the faithful have a right to clear answers to all of these questions, upon which their decision will depend. Please be assured that no one would be happier than I if we could work together in perfect orthodoxy and the uncompromising profession of the Catholic Faith, and if you saw the so-called "traditional" Catholics as the apple of your bishop's eye, the true Catholics upon whom you can depend.
I place all these considerations under the guidance and protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, who has crushed all heresies under her virginal feet.
Yours faithfully in Christ Our Lord,
Father Peter R. Scott
CC: Przybylo
