Dear Dr. Jones,

I read with attention your article on the kidnapping of Sister Mary Cecilia in your March issue of Fidelity magazine.

A — Father Kelly and the Society of St. Pius X are not the same!

While your article contains a lot of good things and remarks concerning Father Kelly, I was most surprised and unhappy to see that it failed to tell your readers that the very reason underlying the expulsion of Father Kelly from the Society of St. Pius X was his sedevacantist position and all his schismatic tendencies which you rightly pointed out. You did some good enquiries concerning the Society of St. Pius V, but it seems you did not enquire much about the Society of St. Pius X. You say that: "The doctrinal issues were, to all but the initiated, miniscule." This is certainly not true. It was precisely the sedevacantist issue that made the archbishop to insist several times for the nine priests to correct themselves, and when they did not, and were stubborn in their refusal to correct themselves on that very important doctrinal issue, they were expelled. Given that your whole article criticizes the schismatic tendencies of Father Kelly et al, failure to point out the above is astonishing!

I find particularly disturbing in your article that you never refer to St. Pius X as saint, and to the Society of St. Pius X under its proper name, but twelve times (thus this is not a mistake!) you refer to it as just the Society of Pius X.

Secondly, you try to mix up the Society of St. Pius X with Father Kelly's group which is not honest since it is precisely the fidelity of Archbishop Lefebvre to the papacy that is the main difference between both groups.

B — Donatism?

Then afterwards, you accuse Archbishop Lefebvre as well as Father Kelly of "Donatism". Though for Father Kelly it may apply in a different form, it is certainly not true of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. He has always recognized the validity of the New Mass said properly; he even signed such a recognition in the protocol of May 5, 1988.

What the faithful search for in the Society of St. Pius X is not just good priests (we are far from being perfect!!!), but it is rather the good Mass. Many faithful have stayed with the Society of St. Pius X even though they had some priests brought into America who were not as good as they should be. They had to put up with a lot and they did so because they wanted a good Mass. Eventually we said to these priests that they had either to correct themselves or to leave; they preferred to leave. Yet the very fact that we had been patient with them for many years manifests that we are not at all Donatists.

The reason why there is an objective doubt on some of the modern Masses is not at all that the priest is bad, but that some (not all) of the modern priests explicitly reject the intention to offer a sacrifice. Now if that intention (not to perform a sacrifice) is prevalent upon that of doing the will of Christ, of doing what the Church intends to do, then they do not have the proper intention for the validity of the Mass, which is a sacrifice (Council of Trent: DB.948). This case unfortunately happens. Ask Father Matthew Fox if he has the intention to offer a sacrifice! One could add that in more than one case, the matter used for the Sacrament is not proper.

However, the main reason to avoid the New Mass is not just the abuses that are done in it. It is the fact that it has been made with the intention to please the Protestants and does not feed the Faith the way it should be. Now that does not make it necessarily a sacrilege if it is done by a new ordo priest with a certain reverence; yet we can still say it is not good. To make a comparison; suppose a teenager comes into the church and goes straight to his pew and sits down without any genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament: even though we cannot say that he formally did a sacrilege because he did not do any formal act of disrespect, yet he did not positively adore our Lord, and thus such an attitude is not good! In the same way the New Mass, even when it is said with the proper intention without positive things to dishonor our Lord, yet there is something lacking, which makes it not good. What is lacking? Let us ask Monsignor Bugnini, the author of the New Mass. He explicitly said that he took out of the liturgy all that could be "even the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren," that is, he took out of it the beautiful explicit profession of the Catholic Faith which was very useful for feeding the souls of the faithful. There is need to come back to the Traditional Mass in order to open wide the fountains of life; of the grace of our Lord upon the souls.

C — Tridentine Mass Leads to Schism?

 It is unbelievable that you write "The bridge from activism to de facto schism was the Tridentine Mass." First of all, there is no schism in being attached to the Traditional Mass. There is no schism in providing the Traditional Mass as a Good Samaritan when it has been denied it by the local clergy.

If you would have studied the history of the Society you would have seen that the reason behind all the activities of the archbishop was precisely that of the Good Samaritan. So many souls were hurt by bad priests who were changing everything in the Church, they were longing for the Traditional Mass; he provided it for them as the Good Samaritan took care of the wounded man on the wayside while the priest and the Levite passed by. To feed the hungry (physically or spiritually) is an act of charity, not of schism!!!

Secondly, it is not proper to describe Mrs. Greve's (mother of Sr. Mary Cecilia) desire to do something efficient for the transmission of the Faith to her children as activism. It is the duty of every parent to effectively transmit the Faith to their children. How many parents have been overwhelmed with sadness at seeing the faith of their children destroyed by the Modernist priests. It is on the contrary a joy to see the many good families, and even young families, attached to the Traditional Mass. Cardinal Gagnon was particularly impressed by this. Moreover, it seems clear that petitions, as those organized by "the CUF/Wanderer line" lead nowhere, while the effective upholding of the Traditional Mass has led many families to live a holy life. The search for proper food for the soul is not activism! Activism would on the contrary, neglect the food for the soul in order to go into action/petitions. The Mass is the supreme prayer of that of Christ on the Cross; we unite ourselves in the Holy Mass with His prayer: this is not activism.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to understand the position of those who do nothing in order to obtain the good food for their souls other than petitioning. In all objectivity, one has to acknowledge that if there would not have been Archbishop Lefebvre and the many traditional priests in Europe and in other countries, the Vatican would never have granted the Indult of 1984, nor the Ecclesia Dei commission of 1988. Thus, such benefit did not come through petitioning but rather through the courageous upholding of the Traditional Mass in spite of a certain persecution.

D — Persecution

The last word I just said is the key to understanding the situation of Archbishop Lefebvre.

He had started the Society in perfect legality according to the Canon Law, yet he has been persecuted for his upholding of Tradition and unjustly condemned several times. In the face of persecution, what to do? Either stop doing good and abandon the faithful, or to continue to help the faithful in spite of a certain illegality. I think the second approach is the one of the saints, such as Joan of Arc who was canonized even though she had been condemned as a "heretic," "schismatic," "witch," etc.; name it! The same may very well happen to Archbishop Lefebvre.

I enclose a photocopy of the beautiful sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1982 (the year of my ordination) where he clearly shows his attitude towards the present crisis of the Church. There is a certain mystery of evil. How far can evil go within the Church? Archbishop Lefebvre has never said that the Church is not the Church, that all the Catholics were not Catholic, that the pope was not a pope. He always said that the Mystical Body of Christ is disfigured by the modernist and evil persons within it (spiritual evil) as the physical body of Christ crucified was disfigured by the sufferings (physical evil). We remain faithful to this Mystical Body. The desire to be a sound branch in the tree, or a sound member in the Body, is nothing but natural, and the desire to fight against the virus in the Mystical Body of Christ is a sign of love for the Church.

Remember what Isaias said of the people of God in the Old Testament, which the Church applies in her liturgy to the physical Body of Christ on the cross and which does apply today to His Mystical Body: "A planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, non est in eo sanitas": "Woe to the sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they are gone away backwards. For what shall I strike you any more, you that increase transgression? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart is sad. From the sole of the foot unto the top of the head, there is no soundness therein; wounds and bruises and swelling sores: they are not bound up, nor dressed, nor fomented with oil."

Liberalism has destroyed the defensive powers of the Church against error which has spread all over. Liberalism is in the Church like AIDS in the body. In front of such a sickness there is need of strong remedies. The consecration of bishops in June, 1988 may be the one that Divine Providence has provided.

I enclose a passage of St. Augustine which I read five years ago and sheds some light on the accusation of schism.

May God bless you and all your readers.