Fr. Abdoo's Answer to the New Zealand Bishops

Over the past few weeks, you have published in parishes throughout the country a Pastoral Letter warning Catholics about the activities of the Society of St. Pius X. As Superior of this Religious Congregation here in New Zealand, I wish to submit to Your Eminence and Lordships some points for your consideration.

It was some months ago that I visited you, Bishop Gaines, to point out that an inaccurate version of our "position" was emanating from your secretary's office. I said that I had no objection as to your informing the Catholic people of our rejection of certain reforms of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI, but requested that it at least be accurate information. Unfortunately, I find myself once more in the necessity of replying to mistaken information, on this occasion however, to all the bishops of New Zealand.

Your Pastoral Letter centers around two premises. The first is that our "position" depends on "private interpretations of the Council" and hence that we "depart from the fundamental Catholic principle that the Pope and the bishops of the world acting collectively are the ones to whom is entrusted the responsibility and the charisms, for deciding what is ultimately Catholic and what is not." I can only say that it is not true that we depart from this principle; that on the contrary, it is precisely because we follow this principle and not our own private interpretation, that we are compelled to reject certain reforms of Vatican II.

In fact for 200 years, eleven Popes, who foresaw this crisis (from Pius VI to Pius XII) have rejected the principles of Religious Liberty, Collegiality, and Ecumenism as formulated during and after the Council, declaring them to be detrimental to the Catholic Faith, affirming on many occasions that they contribute to the formation of a naturalistic humanitarian religion. The encyclicals Mirari vos of Pope Gregory XVI; Iam Vos Omnes, Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX; Libertas Praestantissimum, Humanum Genus, Immortale Dei of Pope Leo XIII; Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Lamentabili and the Letter "Our Apostolic Mandate" of Pope St. Pius X; Mortalium Animos, Divini Redemptoris of Pope Pius XI and Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII are but some of the documents of the Magisterium of the Church rejecting such principles. Clearly this is by no means a "private interpretation" by Archbishop Lefebvre or his "followers."

Moreover, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his book (Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique, p. 426), admits to this deviation from the preceding Magisterium of the Church and summarizes this with the following formula: "Vatican II is the anti-Syllabus." (It must be noted that Pope Paul VI explicitly refused on more than one occasion to engage infallibility as regards the conciliar decrees, which, at a Council of this kind, is unprecedented in the history of the Church. There was not therefore that special assistance of the Holy Ghost to preserve it from such deviation.)

The second premise of your letter is the following: "Without compromising the essentials of our Faith, we are obliged to find new ways of exposing it, teaching it and celebrating it that make it more accessible to people." In this we are in total agreement with you. Certainly if this only were the case, there would be no reason to oppose the reforms. But clearly this is not the case; clearly we are compromising articles of our Catholic Faith, we are diluting it to make it more acceptable to Protestants and the result is that by thousands, Catholics are gradually losing their Faith.

We need only look around us to see the truth of this: since the Council, vocations to the priesthood and religious life have dropped dramatically; priests and nuns have abandoned their vocations by the tens of thousands; there are countless faithful throughout the world no longer practicing their Catholic faith. In the Zealandia of July 12th, New Zealand Mass figures for 1986 were published: in Auckland there are 156,000 Catholics and only 33,000 attend Mass; in Hamilton diocese, out of 75,000 there are only 15,000 practicing; in Palmerston North diocese, out of 70,446, there are only 19,000; in Wellington, out of 83,000, 28,000 are practicing; in Christchurch, out of 68,000 there are 21,000 and out of 40,000 Catholics in Dunedin diocese, only 14,000 practice their faith. Is this what is meant by the second Pentecost of Vatican II? At the first Pentecost St. Peter and the Apostles converted souls to the true Faith by the thousands. Currently they are being driven away by the thousands! Surely you must, at times, ask yourselves why this is occurring! Why has the great "renewal" resulted in such a decline?

It is because we have compromised, firstly, by this false Religious Liberty. By it we have dethroned Our Lord. He is no longer considered as King of the Universe with right over all His creatures. The doctrine of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is now a thing of the past, overthrown by the decree of Religious Liberty which is a false Religious Liberty; for it puts the religion founded by God on the same level as religions founded by men. By giving error and truth equal rights, it gives men the right to violate God's right to be adored by His creatures in the way He Himself wishes to be adored. This decree and its consequences have instituted a new pantheon of all religions in the same way as the pagan emperors of Rome made their pantheon of all religions. The Italian Concordat of 1984, signed by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Casaroli, is an example of this.

From the false notion of Religious Liberty flows the post-conciliar conception of ecumenism. It consists in laying aside what divides us from our separated brethren and concentrating on what unites us so as to bring about unity—or, as you put it, Bishop Browne, at the Holy Trinity Cathedral on Saturday, March 21, to launch the Luis Palau Mission to Auckland "to come together in a unique way, so that differences can be put aside and the unifying message of Jesus Christ can be proclaimed." It all sounds very good and charitable, but the history of the last two decades shows that in practice this means a watering-down of the Faith as regards its specifically Catholic content so as to facilitate this unity.

This is more easily seen in the obvious deficiency in catechetical instruction for our children. I am by no means exaggerating in saying that you allow them to be taught a naturalistic, humanitarian version of religion which teaches vague notions of love, caring, sharing, joy, peace, social justice, human dignity, the right of man, life in community, etc., which is devoid of sufficient knowledge of the Commandments of God, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the life of grace in the soul—in fine, the supernatural and truly Catholic dimension of our religion.

Our liturgy has also suffered this dilution. The prayers have been stripped of their specifically Catholic meaning and replaced by ambiguous and Protestant terminology. No longer are we to offer to God the "Pure Victim, the Holy Victim, the Immaculate Victim," but the "fruit of the vine and work of human hands"; no longer is the priest to be set apart to offer the Holy Sacrifice but the "president of the assembly" will do no more than "commemorate the memorial of the Lord" (General Instruction to the New Mass, n. 7, 1969 ed.).

Was it not Cardinal Ottaviani who stated in a letter to Pope Paul VI on the 25th September 1969, accompanying the "Critical Study on the New Mass by a Group of Roman Theologians" that the "Novus Ordo represents both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic Theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent"? And if, on the other hand, we are not compromising our Faith, as you say, then why? why is there so striking a similarity between the New Mass of 1969 and Cranmer's 1549 Communion Service and the new Anglican Series III Communion Service? Why is it that Max Thurian, a member of the Protestant monastic community of Taizé in France, is reported in La Croix (30 May 1969) as stating that "the Novus Ordo Missae now makes it possible for non-Catholics to celebrate the Lord's Supper with the same prayers as Catholics"? Why is it that the famous joint Catholic-Lutheran Commission of West Germany (1985) affirmed that a common liturgy was now possible between the two confessions?

How can you, Bishops of New Zealand, palm this all off by saying that it is only our own private interpretation? The results of this liturgical "renewal" are before our very eyes in the figures for Mass attendance quoted above. The New Mass is devoid of the supernatural, reduced to the banal, but worst of all, Catholics no longer pray like Catholics, but more like Protestants. As a result they end up believing like Protestants! In support of this I need only quote to you a passage from the Angelus Newsletter of St. Mary of the Angels in Wellington of May 24, 1987, entitled "The Mass We Celebrate": "The Institution Narrative [what we used to call the consecration]…is a proclamation, not a dramatic re-enactment, and as the priest relates what Christ did, he holds up the bread and the chalice for the people to concentrate their gaze. Only afterwards does he kneel or bow in adoration, pausing for the people—memorial acclamation." This is, as you have undoubtedly noticed, pure Protestantism.

But it is not only in catechetics and in the liturgy that this ecumenism is practiced. This "renewal" has penetrated every fibre of the Church. We see ecumenical meetings and services now on a regular basis. You yourselves have now joined this new ecumenical body.

However, the most startling example of this is undoubtedly the World Congress of Religions at Assisi to pray for peace, organized by the authorities in Rome. There they invited representatives not only of Christian denominations but also of pagan religions. There were, for example, Jainists present who adore the rising sun. In St. Peter's Church, the bonzes adored the Dalai Lama, with his back turned to the tabernacle where a sanctuary lamp signaled the Real Presence; in St. Peter's also, a statue of the buddha was placed atop the tabernacle of the main altar; in St. Gregory's, the red Indians prepared their peace-pipe on the altar; in Santa Maria Maggiore, there were Hindus sitting around the altar invoking a whole range of Hindu gods; in Santa degli Angeli's, the Vicar of Christ sat in a semi-circle of wholly identical seats amidst the heads of the other religions so that there should be "neither first nor last." Newspaper titles read, amongst others: "Our Fathers who are in heaven…" "In the name of all gods…" "The peace of the gods…"

How can you therefore pass it all off by saying that it is just a different expression of the same Faith? Surely we are compromising for the sake of unity some of the most basic tenets of our Catholic Religion.

It is in the light of all of these that I find your statement to the effect that our "actions constitute a sin against the unity of the Church" quite incredible!

It is not considered a sin against the unity of the Church for you, Bishop Browne, to go and pray at the Evangelical Mission of Luis Palau, who is an apostate Catholic and encourage the Catholics of Auckland to attend; or for you to go and preach at the Milford Methodist Church on August 8th; neither is it considered a sin against the unity of the Church for you, Bishop Cullinane, to be on this ecumenical body and so reduce the Catholic religion to the level of one denomination amongst others; or for you all collectively to allow the EJD, as it seems, to finance Communist organizations in the Philippines, or to push what is pagan in Maori culture. Perhaps if we adored the rising sun or a statue of Buddha you would even invite us to a prayer meeting.

But for Roman Catholic priests to celebrate the same Mass as you yourselves celebrated on the day of your ordination, a Mass which has sanctified the Church for so many centuries and produced so many holy men and women, the Mass for which so many martyrs poured out their blood over the centuries to protect, now that you consider to be a sin against the unity of the Church. And I suppose then it must also be a sin against the unity of the Church to hold with all our hearts to the solemn teaching of so many Popes, the most outstanding of whom is a canonized saint, Pope St. Pius X. For that you say we have incurred canonical penalties? What canonical penalties can Catholic priests incur for upholding the traditional teaching of the Church? Where does this put St. Pius X?

On the other hand, what has happened to your Religious Liberty, to your freedom of conscience which you talk about so much in your Pastoral Letter: It works for the Hindus and Luis Palau—why not for traditional Catholics?

Furthermore, we are Roman Catholics—we will live and die as such. We pray for Pope John Paul II, that God grant him the necessary graces for his charge, but this does not prevent us from seeing the contradiction in the principles of Vatican II and the Solemn Magisterium of past centuries, guided by the Holy Ghost. All those Popes preceding the Council cannot be wrong.

In closing I wish to make one request: that you make a reasonable reply to this letter, instead of furnishing the faithful with a distorted version of our "position." If you can frankly prove to us that we are in error, we will desist from our apostolic activities here in New Zealand; otherwise, we will continue our work, confident that we cannot render a greater service to the Roman Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to the future Catholic generations of this country.

Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary,

Stephen Carl Abdoo,
FSSP Superior in New Zealand

24 July 1987

Requiescat in Pace