Bishop Imesch And The Shrine

On May 8th 1999 at 2:00 P.M. the Shrine Board and Ordinary of the Diocese of Joliet, the Most Rev. Joseph L. Imesch met to discuss the status of the Shrine.
The meeting was cordial there was cake and coffee for anyone who might like some. The Bishop had some questions that he directed to the Board and the Members also had some that they asked of him. There were some moments of grave seriousness but Christian culture always prevailed.
The Pastor spoke up most humbly and respectfully begged, addressing Bishop Imesch as "Good Shepherd" and explained that the Shrine would like to know him this way also. "In the name of Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother" that there could be found a way for the Shrine to fit in with the Diocese of Joliet. All present listened and awaited the Bishop's answer. "You have two choices either you can continue as you are or you can come into the diocese."
Bishop Imesch named some of his concerns but said that he would be contacting other bishops who have done this in the USA.
"Then there is hope for this to happen?"
To which Bishop Imesch gave a positive reply.
"You will have the Liturgy of Trent:"
Bishop Imesch gave the closing prayer asking for God's blessing "on these good people."
As the bishop was leaving he blessed many Board members and upon leaving accepted the Pastor's reassurance "that this will work I promise you!" When asked what was the next step he replied, to Fr. Chester, "I need to talk with the other bishops; this is new and I will get back to you."
The pastor and board vice-president sent short letters reiterating what was said at the meeting and thanking Bishop Imesch for all he had done.
By the Grace of God may all this bring about a happy and fruitful relationship between the Shrine and the diocese and especially the Shepherd of Joliet.
A final Question posed to Bishop Imesch:
"Bishop, should we be afraid of the state of our souls if we attend Mass here at the Shrine?"
The Bishop answered, "No."
"Blessed Padre Pio ... intercede for us!"

Father Pastor's Letter to Bishop Imesch

May 12, 1999

Most Reverend Joseph L. lmesch
Office of the Bishop
425 Summit Street
Joliet, Illinois 64035-7193

Your Excellency,

Thank you for visiting the Shrine on May 8th.

I want to assure you of the dedication of all members of the Shrine, and myself personally, to work with you and your Chancery towards the acceptance of the Shrine into the Diocese of Joliet. We are eager to demonstrate our resolve to you with deeds.

Again, thank you for meeting with the board. Your visit had tremendous Spiritual impact on all.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Father Chester J. Przybylo
Shrine Pastor

August 27, 1999

Dear Bishop Imesch,

     Several years ago, I went to the Tridentine Latin Mass at the Shrine of Christ the King in Winfield. Recently, a good friend, who had gone to the Shrine for many years, gave me a copy of the Shrine's bulletin reporting the meeting between you and the Shrine board in May 1999.
     This report contains the following: "A final Question posed to Bishop Imesch: 'Bishop, should we be afraid of the state of our souls if we attend Mass here at the Shrine?' The Bishop answered, 'No.'"
     Could you please confirm this is the answer you gave to this question? Thank you for your time & help!

Yours in Christ,
John G. Pfeiffer
2844 Auxplaines St.
River Grove, IL 60171

Diocese of Joliet
Office of the Bishop
425 Summit Street
Joliet, Illinois 60435

September 16, 1999

Mr. John G. Pfeiffer
2844 Auxplaines Street
River Grove, IL 60171

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer:

          I received your recent letter regarding the celebration of the Tridentine Latin Mass at the Shrine of Christ the King in Winfield. I was surprised to read in quotes my response to the question concerning attending Mass at the Shrine.

          I thought I was quite clear in letting it be known to the pastor and the people at the meeting that they were not in union with Rome and that they could not consider themselves a Catholic church. I do not think I am the one to make a judgment about the state of any one's soul, but I can make a judgment about the ceremonies being held in Winfield.

          With every best wish,

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend Joseph L. Imesch
Bishop of Joliet

Society of Saint Pius X
District of the United States of America
REGINA COELI HOUSE

Your Excellency,          

I was very happy to hear of your visit to the traditional chapel in your diocese, and of your desire to obtain a canonical status for this shrine.
          However, not a small number of supporters of the Society of Saint Pius X attend Mass there, and I have been very concerned about the statements that you made concerning these good, faithful Catholics. In fact, I could hardly believe it when I was informed that at a meeting with the board last May you had stated that the faithful who assist at Mass at the shrine are not Catholics.
          How much greater was yet my surprise to read in a letter signed by you, dated September 16, 1999: "I thought I was quite clear in letting it be known to the pastor and the people at the meeting that they were not in union with Rome and that they could not consider themselves a Catholic church."
          With all due respect, Your Excellency, how do you dare make such an assertion? On what grounds can you possibly affirm that a Catholic priest, who celebrates the Mass of all time, the traditional Latin Mass, in virtue of the right given to him in perpetuity by a Pope who is a saint, Pope St. Pius V, is for this reason outside the Roman Catholic Church? Furthermore, what crime have these good faithful committed by adhering exclusively to the traditional rite of Mass, by holding fast to the prayers and devotions, and to the Mass that has saved so many souls in the past? What wicked deed have they done to merit the punishment of excommunication that you have just pronounced over their souls?
          As a Catholic bishop, you are perfectly aware of the Church's doctrinal teaching, pronounced many times over: "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus." By stating that this traditional priest and his people are "not in union with Rome," you are pronouncing, as shepherd of your flock, that they are outside the Roman Catholic Church, "outside of which there is no salvation."
          In objective fact, you are condemning those who knowingly and willingly attend the Shrine to the fires of hell, and this despite your assertion that "I do not think I am the one to make a judgment about the state of any one's soul." For in stating that they are outside the Church, you have already judged their actions as meriting eternal damnation. How do you expect these traditional Catholics, some of the few in your diocese who still believe in eternal damnation and in the doctrine that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, to take you seriously? How can you expect them not to think that you will be asking something from them in return for a canonical status.
          I feel it my duty to defend these innocent sheep, and to explain to you why it is that they will only attend the traditional Latin Mass, and that they will not attend the Novus Ordo Masses that you and your priests celebrate, nor will they accept the novelties of Vatican II and the ecumenism of Pope John Paul II, putting into practice the gravely erroneous Vatican II teaching that all religions are "means of salvation" (U.R. §3).
          There is only one reason for their stand, and that is to protect their Faith, the unchanging Catholic Faith. In the midst of the universal crisis of Faith, and loss of Catholic identity, that we see all around us in the modern church, there is only one sure way for the faithful to protect and keep the Faith; and this way is to hold fast to their traditional catechisms, to their prayers, to their devotions, to their Mass, to the teaching of the Popes before Vatican II who continually reiterated and repeated the same teachings and the same solemn condemnations of all novelty and Modernism in the Church. Attendance at the traditional Mass at the Shrine is a symbol of the Catholic refusal of the insults to God and the sacrileges which abound everywhere else in the diocese (e.g. Communion in the hand), wherever the New Mass is celebrated, and of the determination to keep the Faith as it has always been kept in the Church.
          The faithful have understood the words of the holy Pope and great enemy of Modernism, St. Pius X: "Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators but they are traditionalists" (Our Apostolic Mandate, §44). If for this, they merit to be declared out of union with Your Excellency, one wonders from what they are being excommunicated. Certainly not from the Catholic Faith, nor from the Magisterium of the Popes.
          It is in the light of all this that, for the good of the faithful, I believe that I have the duty to ask Your Excellency to precisely define your intentions for the future of the Shrine within the diocese of Joliet.
          In regularizing the Shrine's status under the Indult of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, it is clear that you will be obliged to accept the Commission's Protocol 1411/99 of July 3, 1999, which states that priests who use the Indult can, and on some occasions must, celebrate according to the Novus Ordo rite of Mass. I can assure you that the Shrine's faithful will consider this to be a betrayal of principle and a compromise, and that for many of them it will be unacceptable. If you consider this regularization to be a means of overcoming traditional Catholics' fixed and unchanging notion of Tradition, that is, the conception of Tradition on account of which Pope John Paul II accused Archbishop Lefebvre of being schismatic, then I fear that you will also fail. It is precisely because they refuse the evolving novelties of the post-conciliar church that they attend only the traditional Latin Mass.
          I believe that a clear statement of your intentions and purpose would be of great assistance for everybody at the Shrine of Christ the King. I do hope that you will reflect on these thoughts and decide to erect the Shrine in your diocese in virtue of the Bull Quo Primum of St. Pius V, as an exclusively traditional Shrine, and not under the Apostolic Letter of John Paul II Ecclesia Dei adflicta. It is the only guarantee for the Shrine to maintain its identity and its unity, and to continue to maintain the function of being a lighthouse of Tradition, as it has done for the past 25 years, without infiltration of the modernist post-conciliar spirit.
          I do hope to receive a response to this letter. Please be confident that I will make sure that it is communicated to those faithful of Christ the King Shrine who also support the Society of Saint Pius X. Please be assured of my prayers and my fervent desire that the traditional mission of Christ the King Shrine be maintained, for the glory of God and the salvation of many souls.

          With the hope of your blessing, I remain yours faithfully in Christ Our Lord,

          Father Peter R. Scott

          CC: Fr. Chester Przilbilzo

Diocese of Joliet
Office of the Bishop
425 Summit Street
Joliet, Illinois 60435

November 1 , 1999

Reverend Peter R. Scott
District Superior
Society of St. Pius X
2918 Tracy Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64109

Dear Father Scott:

          I received your recent letter and I was surprised to hear from you, since I had no knowledge that the Shrine of Christ the King in Winfield was connected to the Society of St. Pius X. I think it is more appropriate for me to communicate directly with Father Przybylo or the members of the Shrine.

          Let me clarify a few matters mentioned in your letter. To me, Catholic means to be united with the Pope, not just a particular Pope, but the living Pope. "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia." I have made no pronouncement about the state of anyone's eternal salvation, but simply told the people with whom I met that their definition of Catholic was not the same as mine. They have no connection with John Paul II nor do they have any connection with me, the local bishop appointed by the Holy Father.

          Your understanding of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" is totally different than my understanding of that theological term. I do not know of any Catholic person who would accept your definition of that term.

          If Father Przybylo wishes to communicate with me, he is certainly free to do that.

          With every best wish,

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend Joseph L. Imesch
Bishop of Joliet

Society of Saint Pius X
District of the United States of America
REGINA COELI HOUSE

J.M.J.
November 9, 1999

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