Clarification of Misinformation
An Editorial
IN OUR APRIL ISSUE we carried a Message of Importance to American Friends and Benefactors of the Society of St. Pius X from His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre. It came as a considerable shock to some readers but to others, particularly those living in the North-East District of the Society, it came as a welcome relief. Many of them had been troubled about the evident inconsistency between the attitude of the Archbishop in the crisis of the Church and the opinions of the priests in the North-East District. Had they not been readers of The Angelus they would not have known of the Archbishop's position as it had been studiously withheld from the faithful in most North-East District chapels for some years, notably since a statement by the Archbishop making it absolutely clear that he accepts Pope John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter and the New Mass as not intrinsically invalid, appeared in this magazine in January 1980. In part, His Grace said:
... It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.
... Must one conclude further that all these [New] Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.
... The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one ... Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings. We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the successor of Peter while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors.
And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope—we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.
... Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid.1
Some North-East District priests made no attempt to conceal their anger that the Archbishop's position had been made public by The Angelus, and even had the effrontery to claim that we had misrepresented the position of His Grace. Our readers living in the North-East District came to realize, in varying degrees, that there were two Societies in the United States—one in the South-West which was loyal to its legitimate Superior, and one in the North-East which had, for all practical purposes, repudiated the Archbishop's authority. We had prepared a comment on the Archbishop's Message to appear in our May issue but we decided to withhold it so that our reaction would not be too hasty, and that the indignation which we felt at the betrayal of the Archbishop by men to whom he had given the priesthood would not influence our thinking excessively. That feeling of indignation remains but several weeks of prayer and reflection enable us to offer you a considered reaction. We believe that our conclusions are self-evident and irrefutable.
We must ask our readers firstly to discount the written and verbal accounts of the event emanating from Father Clarence Kelly, former Superior of the North-East District. These reports are not truthful. They are pernicious in the extreme when they relate to "compromise" by Archbishop Lefebvre. His Grace's position has not changed!
We also deplore, in particular, the vicious rumors which are being circulated concerning the role of Fr. Richard Williamson. The impression is being given that all was peace and light in the North-East District and the Seminary until the arrival of Father Williamson, that he acted as a spy and a troublemaker, that he fomented the discord which led to the current breach, and that he has acted in a ruthless and unchristian manner towards the dissenting priests. Nothing could be further from the truth! As the Archbishop mentioned in his statement, "What was latent for many years has at last come out into the open." His Grace had been on the point of expelling the four ringleaders of the dissidents three years ago but they promised to adhere loyally to Society policy and he gave them another chance. They abused the Archbishop's trust in a cynical manner, and the extent to which they have placed Society property under their own control (in the case of Oyster Bay Cove, this was done in May, 1978) proves that what has taken place is the culmination of a long and cunningly calculated plan.
Father Williamson came to the United States at the request of His Grace and as his special emissary; all the steps he has taken have been in accordance with the Archbishop's wishes. The Seminary at Ridgefield was not an idyllic, united community before the arrival of Father Williamson, as the North-East priests allege. It had lost all credibility as a competent institution for training priests. We had found it necessary to inform His Grace that no more students from the South-West District could possibly be sent there. The presence of Dr. R. Coomaraswamy as a member of the faculty, and the endorsement given to his dangerous book2 in the Seminary journal, was, in itself, sufficient to remove any vestige of intellectual credibility from Ridgefield. It was also evident that the students there were not receiving a sound grounding in the Catholic faith, but were being indoctrinated with the bizarre theories held by some of the professors which were not in keeping with traditional Catholic doctrine. There was indeed superficial unity, but only because life was made intolerable for anyone who dared question the pseudo-magisterium of the dissident priests. Seminarians loyal to the Archbishop had to conceal their views, some left, others felt it necessary to have mail delivered to their homes and handed to them in order to protect their privacy!
Despite his desire to preserve unity in the Society and his pastoral and fatherly concern to keep these priests within the Church, the Archbishop could not permit such a state of affairs to continue indefinitely. The appointment of Father Williamson as Vice Rector of the Seminary at Ridgefield and as his Visitor, was His Grace's final attempt to achieve these aims, but as was the case with his previous attempts to reach a modus vivendi with the dissidents, it proved futile. We can now see, with hindsight, that His Grace would have been better advised to expel their leaders earlier. They might not then have managed to lead so many younger priests of the Society with them.
One of the complaints made by the dissidents is that the Archbishop denies priests of the Society the right to legitimate freedom of opinion on questions of speculative theology. They wish to be allowed to question whether John Paul II is a true pope, whether the New Mass is valid in se, whether the new Rite of Ordination is valid in Latin or in its various English versions, etc., etc. They allege that the Society is attempting to usurp the magisterial authority of the Church: "For it has proposed solutions to speculative theological questions and has threatened with expulsion or has actually expelled priests and seminarians who disagree with its teaching." The plain truth is that the matters they raise do not belong to speculative theology. There is no dispute about them whatsoever among theologians of competence—which is precisely what the dissident priests are not! We must speak bluntly and state that were the nine of them to combine their theological knowledge, and add that of Dr. Coomaraswamy for good measure, they would not add up to a theologian of even the most mediocre ability. Do not imagine that we, in the South-West District, claim great superiority in this respect, that we are all reincarnations of St. Thomas Aquinas. Far from it. But we have confined ourselves to carrying out the task entrusted to us by Archbishop Lefebvre, i.e., providing the faithful who turn to us with the traditional Mass and the sacraments in the traditional rites. We have not set ourselves up as a pseudo-magisterium, deciding whether or not we have a Pope, or pronouncing upon the validity of the sacraments approved by the Pope, and virtually excommunicating 99.9% of the Catholics in the world! The nine dissidents could search the length and breadth of the entire English-speaking world without finding a single competent theologian to endorse any of their speculations. The positive doubts which they claim exist on the matters we have cited exist only in their very wild imaginations. They have made the Society a laughing stock among the educated clergy of this country, which explains the limited support we have received from them. They are taken seriously by no one beyond their own ranks and by those who have mistakenly considered them to be spokesmen for the Archbishop. If they wish to find support for their schismatic speculations they will have to turn to the pitiable and excommunicated Ngo-Dhin-Thuc sect, represented in the United States by the Musey-Vezelis duo. Let those of the faithful who feel tempted to follow these dissident priests have no misapprehensions about where they are being led: the answer is out of the Church and into the same schism into which the Ngo-Dhin-Thuc "bishops" have led their deluded supporters. Those who refuse to be in communion with the Pope are not Catholic. While it may be true that not all of the nine have publicly repudiated Pope John Paul II, such a repudiation is a characteristic of their movement.
The dissidents have expressed bitterness at the Archbishop's insistence that priests of the Society must be willing to celebrate the liturgy as it was during the pontificate of John XXIII. What His Grace is insisting upon, principally, is that his priests avoid what amounts to Pharisaical precision. He is for a prudent use of the last missal promulgated by a reigning Pontiff which does not endanger the Faith! Pope Pius XII's reforms were the omission of the Judica me and the Last Gospel at certain High Masses (1960). Pope John XXIII dropped the Confiteor before Holy Communion and added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon (1962). In this vein, then, and to avoid any future Pharisaical adherence to any arbitrarily selected missal, the Archbishop has asked his seminarians to sign the following statement: "I, the undersigned, of............... year of ................ Seminary, testify that I accept to use the liturgical books [Missal and Breviary] edited in conformity with the decree of Pope John XXIII, dated July 25, 1960, and the corresponding liturgical calendar." The dissident priests have refused to use the Tridentine Mass with only these minor changes.
They attach great importance to the fact that Archbishop Bugnini was Secretary to Pope Pius XII's Commission for Liturgical Reform in 1948. Father Bugnini, as he was then, was a well-known liturgist and it is not surprising that he was selected for this position. The dissidents claim that he "authored" these reforms, which is a distortion of the truth. But, even if he had been, he would not have been able to introduce anything inconsistent with tradition under the vigilant scrutiny of Pope Pius XII!
This brings us to perhaps the most crucial point in the Archbishop's April 28th message. He states:
That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger for the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII [the Tridentine Mass], whereas there is a great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI [the New Mass] , which is unacceptable.
These are sentiments with which, we hope, all our readers will concur, particularly those who lived through these changes. Indeed, traditional Catholics under the age of forty will scarcely remember the liturgy as it was before the reform of Pope Pius XII. His reforms involved mainly the Holy Week liturgy, and when we speak of the traditional Holy Week liturgy, it is his reformed liturgy that we mean. It is this liturgy which has been used at Ecône; it is this liturgy which we use in the South-West District. Did any of us find that our faith had been endangered by the changes of Pope Pius XII? No! Did any of us hear a single complaint that these changes constituted a deviation from tradition? No! We shall publish the decrees of 1951 and 1955 so that our readers can examine the eminently sound reasoning which prompted Pope Pius XII to make these changes.
As regards the reform of Pope John XXIII, we use his calendar here in the South-West District. Tens of thousands of traditionalists around the world have purchased our calendar which is that of Pope John XXIII. If any of them have been "shocked," as the North-East dissident priests claim the faithful would be by the use of this calendar, they certainly have not conveyed their sense of shock to this office. While we may regret that Pope John XXIII made these minor changes in the rite of Mass itself, they in no way affected the integrity of the Mystery, or blurred its sacrificial nature in the slightest degree. To suggest otherwise is to manifest not a love of tradition but a tendency to paranoia. The reforms of Popes Pius XII and John XXIII were accepted without complaint or reservation by all the clergy living during these pontificates, including Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre. Thus, when the Archbishop made his historic decision to uphold Tradition, the traditional rites he was defending were those in use during the pontificate of Pope John XXIII. The dissidents object:
We simply could not stand up in front of our congregations and tell them that we are abandoning the Missal, calendar and breviary of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X, for that of John XXIII—one, the greatest Pope of this century, the other the originator of the aggiornamento whose effects remain with us today.
The schismatic attitude of these nine priests is made painfully clear in this statement. The principle enunciated by Archbishop Lefebvre, that a legitimate superior may be resisted only when the faith is in imminent danger, is one which will be discussed in a subsequent article. To resist a command of the Sovereign Pontiff is something which can be done only in the most extraordinary circumstances. Where liturgical changes are concerned, the principles laid down by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Mediator Dei would not be disputed by any Catholic possessing the most basic level of theological literacy. Pope Pius XII gave the following explanation of the right of lawful authority in the Church to reform the liturgy:
The hierarchy of the Church has at all times used this right in the matter of the liturgy, regulating divine worship and constantly enriching it for the glory of God and the benefit of the faithful. Indeed she has ever introduced changes—always respecting the substance of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Sacraments—in anything she considered not entirely suitable, and made additions, where the greater honor of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Trinity, or the better instruction and more fervent devotion of the faithful seem to require them. For in the liturgy there are human elements as well as divine. The latter, obviously having been established by the Divine Redeemer cannot under any circumstances be changed by men; but the human elements may be modified in various ways approved by the hierarchy under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, according as time, circumstances and the needs of souls may demand ... It follows that the Sovereign Pontiff alone has the right to permit or establish any liturgical practice, to introduce or approve new rites, or to make any changes in them he considers necessary.
There is not a shadow of a doubt that Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII were legitimately elected popes. There is not a shadow of a doubt that both popes were well within their rights in making the changes they did (even if we would have preferred them not to make these changes). By what possible right, then, do these dissident priests refuse to accept their reforms? Have they, perhaps, had a visitation from an angel of the Lord, telling them that the seat of authority in the Church has been transferred from Rome to Oyster Bay Cove, and that the power of supreme jurisdiction in the Church resides not with the Sovereign Pontiff but with Father Clarence Kelly? Listen to Father Kelly again:
Can it be that the Fraternity has come to look upon loyalty to tradition as disloyalty to the Fraternity? Most recently to our shock and dismay, a newly ordained priest was given an ultimatum—either to accept the reforms of John XXIII and to begin saying Mass according to the John XXIII missal or to leave the Fraternity. Is it possible that the Fraternity which has been persecuted because of its loyalty to tradition now persecutes priests for their loyalty to tradition?
What utter drivel! Since when has it been part of Catholic tradition for priests to reject reforms imposed at the command of the Sovereign Pontiff which in no way compromise the Faith? Obedience to the Pope in all lawful commands is one of the most fundamental axioms of Catholic tradition. What Father Kelly and his cohorts are preaching here has nothing to do with Catholic tradition. It is an example of individual clerics appointing themselves as the supreme arbiters of what they will or will not accept in the Church. There is a name for this attitude: it is Protestantism!
Let us take the matter a little further. Mention was made of a newly ordained priest who refused to accept the reforms of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII. His name was Thomas P. Zapp and he had been ordained only a few months. But it would appear, Thomas P. Zapp and the other dissident priests consider themselves great authorities on tradition. They have decreed that reforms approved by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII do not measure up to the demanding standards which they set. The fact that Pope Pius XII will almost certainly be declared a Doctor of the Church is of no relevance! Of what value is the judgment of Pope Pius XII when set beside that of these priests? The fact that Archbishop Lefebvre finds these particular reforms acceptable is equally irrelevant. It might be argued that Archbishop Lefebvre is one of the greatest bishops of this century, that he was appointed Apostolic Delegate to the whole of French-speaking Africa, that he is a fine theologian, that he was an outstanding defender of orthodoxy at Vatican II, that he founded the Society to which these priests had promised allegiance, and that there might be those who would consider that they should have had the humility to trust the judgment of this great bishop as to what was in the best interests of the Society and the Church. But, no, for these priests there is only one final court of appeal: themselves.
We appeal to our readers, to our priest readers in particular, to put this matter into perspective, to examine it calmly and without emotion. The idea of a newly ordained priest setting himself up as the ultimate arbiter of what does or does not conform to Catholic tradition goes far beyond the ridiculous. And the same can be said for the eight other dissidents. Not one of them can lay the least claim to be taken seriously as a theologian. Furthermore, the attitude manifested by young Fr. Zapp provides all the proof that is needed of the formation which Father Sanborn was giving to the seminarians. It may well be that the Archbishop is open to criticism as a result of the action he has taken with regard to the dissident nine. If so, it can only be that his charity and paternal solicitude for the priests in question influenced him in delaying his decision for several years.
Let us take this matter further still. What is to prevent any of the "eminent liturgists" from Oyster Bay Cove from concluding that St. Pius V went too far in his reform? St. Pius V forbade the use of a number of sequences which had been in use for centuries, an action regretted by some liturgical historians. Might it not be that they will examine these sequences and decide to restore all or some of them to the Missal? The logic which they use to repudiate the reforms of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII could equally well be applied to the reform of St. Pius V.
Again, let us imagine that Pope John Paul II or one of his successors restores order to the Church, and takes whatever steps he deems necessary for a return to tradition. What would the attitude of these priests be? Clearly, they would decide for themselves whether such a pope was traditional enough, and whether the measures he had taken went far enough, i.e., conformed to what these dissident priests decreed as satisfactory.
We do not yet know whether the dissident nine will, at least initially, claim to constitute a unified body with Father Kelly as their Superior. Should they do so we see no logical basis for such unity. If they are prepared to repudiate the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre when his judgment differs from theirs, what possible reason could any individual among them have for deferring to Father Kelly under similar circumstances? What we are faced with, then, is a group of nine priests each of whom, to all intents and purposes, is his own pope—nine mini-popes who recognize no authority beyond their personal opinions. Dear readers, we beg you to reflect and pray upon this matter. Our Lord gave no mandate to Fathers Clarence Kelly, Donald J. Sanborn, Daniel L. Dolan, Anthony Cekada, William W. Jenkins, Eugene Berry, Martin P. Skierka, Joseph Collins and Thomas P. Zapp to define what does or does not conform to tradition. It is with profound sorrow that we feel bound to state that those who would submit themselves to the guidance of these priests are imperilling their eternal salvation.
As is so often the case with those whose position is indefensible, the dissidents have decided that the best method of defense is attack. They have attempted to divert attention from their own squalid betrayal of the Archbishop and the traditionalist cause by publishing crudely offensive innuendoes concerning the South-West District, referring to "the doubtful sacraments administered by doubtful priests, priests that he permits to work with the Fraternity in other Districts, but which I would never allow in the North-East District." The principal objects of Father Kelly's petulance here are priests ordained under the new rite of ordination. Let us assure our readers that not a shadow of a doubt exists as to the validity of the ordinations of such priests who work with the Society. We are glad to have them with us. We are proud to have them with us. We know, and our readers know, that Archbishop Lefebvre would not for a moment countenance accepting the help of such priests if the merest shadow of a doubt existed as to the validity of their ordination. Contrary to what was stated in Father Kelly's recent letter, the Archbishop has never insisted that any priest be conditionally ordained. His Grace's policy is, and always has been, that if a priest feels that he has not been properly ordained and approaches him and requests conditional ordination, he will confer such conditional ordination. The Archbishop has never insisted or forced a priest to accept conditional ordination. We can assure our readers that the validity of the ordination of priests assisting the South-West District of the Society are as certain as the validity of Father Kelly's own ordination.
Any difficulties with priests which we, have encountered have been because of flaws in personal character and human weaknesses. These are the same flaws, and human weaknesses which have been found in priests of the North-East District. Because priests are human beings, these faults and weaknesses will most likely be found in priests of the future, just as they have been found in priests of the past.
It is as difficult for us to determine how a priest will act, once he begins to assist us as it is for His Grace to have known when he laid his hands on these dissident priests that they would one day rebel against him. For example, when questioned by His Grace as to how long he had held these "ideas" (i. e., that we have no pope, etc.), Father Dolan replied that he had always held these views, even while a seminarian at Ecône, but that he had been smart enough "to keep quiet." It is clear that Father Dolan purposely deceived his superiors, with the full knowledge that, had they known his views, he would not have been ordained.
In future issues of The Angelus we shall examine in detail some of the accusations which the North-East District dissidents have made against Archbishop Lefebvre, the bishop who gave them their priesthood, the bishop who is undoubtedly the Athanasius of our times. Here in the South-West District, whatever our personal faults, and we confess they are many, we at least have sufficient humility to submit our own judgments to that of the Archbishop.
In this issue of The Angelus we are content to conclude by setting out clearly the fundamental difference which separates us from the Oyster Bay sect. We are resolved to follow the example of Archbishop Lefebvre and remain within the Church to fight the satanic forces which are destroying her from within. The dissidents are following the example of countless heretics and schismatics and are claiming to be the one, true Church. The fact is that, if they refuse to recognize Pope John Paul II as the Sovereign Pontiff, clearly and unequivocally, they cannot be recognized as Catholics, and cannot be treated as Catholics. Like Montanus, Arius, Luther, Cranmer and Judge Rutherford, they claim to be the true interpreters of the Christian Gospel. Like these heresiarchs, like Satan, the prototype of all rebels, they are motivated and dominated by pride. "Thank God that we are not as other men," is their motto. So be it. Holy Mother Church is undoubtedly in the greatest crisis of her entire history. What she needs above all is Catholics who are willing to remain within the Church to defend Tradition, not self-appointed mini-popes to lead the faithful out of the Church into their new sects.
Many readers have contacted us to ask what their attitude should be towards the dissident priests. Should they, for example, continue assisting at their Masses if they are unable to find a Tridentine Mass anywhere else? Most certainly not. Their Masses are certainly valid, they may be said with reverence and dignity, but the dissidents are not priests of the Catholic Church. There is no distinction to be made between assisting at the Masses of these priests and those of any Old Roman Catholic priest, or priests of the Musey-Vezelis sect. Furthermore, those who assist at their Masses are condoning their rebellion against the Archbishop, and their scandalous seizure of Society property.
When Father Anthony Ward refused to obey the Archbishop several years ago and left the Society, Father Clarence Kelly, who had been named Superior in his place, was asked by the laity what the reaction of the faithful should be to Father Ward as regards the Mass and the Sacraments given from his hand (a tape recording of that question and answer session exists). Father Kelly answered that Father Ward was in rebellion against his lawful bishop; he refused to obey his bishop; he refused to accept his dismissal and in being estranged from his lawful bishop he was, in essence, a fugitive from his religious community. Father Kelly went on to state that the laity should not receive the sacraments from the hands of Father Ward, and that they should not support him in any way other than with their prayers. The advice given to the laymen at that time by Father Kelly was sound advice. It is the same advice which now applies to Father Kelly and those who are in rebellion against Archbishop Lefebvre.
Those who gave so generously to purchase the chapels in the North-East District believed that they were giving to the Society of Saint Pius X under the leadership of Archbishop Lefebvre. We hope that justice will prevail and that these properties will be restored to the Society. Until then we advise you to shun these priests completely. One or two of them may still claim that they recognize John Paul II as Pope, but as a group they do not. Those who subscribe to their journal, The Roman Catholic, should cancel it as a gesture of support for Archbishop Lefebvre. We recognize that this advice will leave many of you without the opportunity of assisting at the Tridentine Mass. We pray that it will not be too long before official Society priests can minister to you again.
Meanwhile, together with the Archbishop, we shall remain in the Church and resist her internal Modernist and Liberal enemies. We will conclude this Editorial by reminding you of some inspiring words on this subject spoken by His Grace on 1 November 1980, the tenth anniversary of the Society of St. Pius X:
"That is why we have resisted. We are not rebels, we are not schismatics, we are not heretics. We resist. We resist this wave of Modernism which has invaded the Church, this wave of laicism, of progressivism which has invaded the Church in a wholly unwarranted and unjust manner and which has tried to erase in the Church all that was sacred in it, all that was supernatural, divine, in order to reduce it to the dimension of man. So we resist and we will resist, not in a spirit of contradiction, not in a spirit of rebellion, but in the spirit of fidelity to the Church, the spirit of fidelity to God, the spirit of fidelity to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of fidelity to all who have taught us our holy religion, that spirit of fidelity to all the Popes who have maintained Tradition. This is why we have decided simply to keep going, to persevere in the Tradition, to persevere in that which has sanctified the Saints who are in heaven. Doing so we are persuaded that we are rendering a great service to the Church, to all the faithful who wish to keep the faith, all the faithful who wish to receive truly the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
+ + +
Addendum
|
|
1. This article, entitled "The New Mass & The Pope" is available. Please send a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Bulk copies will be supplied for the price of postage.
2. A review of Dr. Coomaraswamy's book will be found in our May, 1982, issue.
Current Issue
