Letter of March 25, 1983 to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Nine American Priests of SSPX
Nine priests outline the grave problems in the Society of St.
Pius X in their March 25, 1983 letter to Archbishop Lefebvre and
the General Council of the Society. The priests would be expelled
the following month.
Your Grace and Rev. Fathers:
It is our understanding that the reason for which the Society
of St. Pius X was founded was to promote fidelity to Tradition,
by which is mean loyalty to the Church, her doctrine, more teaching,
worship, sacraments and discipline. That such an organization
was necessary was due to the fact that the reforms introduced
by Pope John XXIII set in motion a process that has resulted
in radical change, which constitutes a substantial rejection
of traditional Catholic doctrine, morality and worship.
History records that Your Grace was one of the voices of courage
and sanity at the Council and in the years following the Council
you refused to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. It
was natural that others who loved the Church and her traditions
would turn to you. It is no exaggeration to say that you became
a symbol to millions of loyalty to tradition and many souls
who might otherwise have been lost will spend eternity in heaven
because of what you have done.
Thus in the 1ight of these facts it is necessarily with great
sadness that we write to Your Grace and the General Council
of the Society about certain matters which we believe are so
serious as to constitute a substantial departure from the purpose
for which the Society was established and could bring about
its ultimate ruination - if they are not corrected. This we
must do out of loyalty to that purpose, but more importantly
out of loyalty to the Church.
Therefore, we respectfully manifest our grave concern over
certain serious developments which have arisen in the Society
in the hope that these matters will be resolved. We ask you
to give serious consideration to these points which are presented
to you by priests who have given you years of faithful service.
1. The Seminary
At the beginning of the school year Your Grace imposed reforms
in the Mass at the seminary in Ridgefield, i.e., liturgical
reforms imposed by John XXIII. As you know, these reforms are
a phase in the process begun in the 1950's, authored by Annibale
Bugnini, the creator of the New Mass, and brought to completion
by Paul VI. Since these reforms led eventually to the New Mass
in the Church, this caused great scandal at the seminary among
professors and students.
You said these reforms were necessary for "unity." But these
first reforms did not bring unity - which already existed at
the seminary. Instead, these changes in the Mass were a prelude
to the destruction of peace and unity. Up to that time the seminary
in Ridgefield was virtually free of problems. The conflicts
and controversy that were so characteristic of Ecône were unknown
in the American seminary. Here the seminarians were trained
in peace and serenity.
The quest for unity by John XXIII resulted in disunity. How
could his reform imposed on a traditional seminary of the Society
set the stage for anything but trouble? The imposition of these
reforms was subversive of the principle on which the Society
was to build: loyalty to tradition.
Furthermore, it is contrary to right reason to attempt to
counter the disorder of the liturgical revolution by imposing
in the Society an important phase of that revolution as the
liturgical norm we should follow. Why impose reforms which contributed
to an attack on tradition? Unity cannot be based on disorder
and novelty.
And so, as happened in the Church on the heels of the changes
of John XXIII, there followed a spirit of contention and division
in the seminary - a spirit which has led to the unhappy state
in which we find the seminary today, a place not at peace, but
in controversy and unrest. As a devil entered in when John XXIII
began with his reforms, so too has one entered the seminary
in Ridgefield since those same reforms were imposed. The devil's
name is legion.
2. Doubtful Priests
Over the past few years, the Society has accepted the service
of priests ordained by vernacular versions of the New Rite of
Ordination of 1968. On November 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued
his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, dealing
with the matter of the Sacrament of Orders. It was his intention
"to put an end to all controversy," as he said. He did this
by, among other things, decreeing and determining which words
in the form for the ordination of a priest "are essential and
therefore requisite for validity."
The English words of the form in the New Rite of ordination
so differ from the one Pius XII said were essential for validity
that the, introduce a positive doubt as to its validity. In
fact the doubt is not negative, but positive enough even in
your own mind, Your Grace, so as to justify the conditional
ordination of priests ordained in the New Rite.
And so you have in fact conditionally, ordained at least two
priests in America: Father Sullivan and Father [. . .]. Indeed,
you even asked Rev. Philip Stark to accept conditional ordination
and he, as you yourself told us, adamantly refused And yet,
after his refusal, you nevertheless allowed and continue to
allow him to work with the Society; and he is not the only doubtfully
ordained priest that you permit to do so - he is one of many.
Thus under the aegis of the Society, doubtful Masses are being
offered, doubtful absolutions are being given and dying people
are being anointed with an "Extreme Unction" that may be invalid
and of no more value than the anointing with oil done by a Protestant
minister.
How, one must ask before God, can the Society reject the doubtful
sacraments of the new Church only to replace them with doubtful
priests? How grave a sin this is! How false a pretense! Furthermore
the Society in the South West District has begun to import to
the United States priests whose theological training and manner
of ordination are under a similar cloud. As Your Grace knows,
this has been a source of scandal.
The employment of such priests strikes at the heart of one
of the reasons for the Society's existence: to provide unquestionably
valid sacraments for the faithful - for if a positive doubt
exists as to the validity of a priest's ordination, not only
are the sacraments he administers doubtful, but the faithful
are put into a position by the Society of choosing between the
doubtful sacraments of the new Church and the doubtful priests
of the Society. From the standpoint of Catholic morality this
is inadmissible.
3. Liturgical Changes
The First General Chapter of the Society, held at Econe in 1976,
adopted the principle that the Districts and the Houses of Formation
should follow the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics which
were customary at that time. This decision was never rescinded
or even discussed at the Second General Chapter held last year
at which your successor was selected.
In the case of the United States, we have always followed
the Missal, Breviary, Calendar and Rubrics of our holy patron,
Pope St. Pius X, which practice was sanctioned by the First
General Chapter. Of late, however, an attempt has been made
to force all the priests and seminarians in the United States
to accept the liturgical reforms of Pope John XXIII on the grounds
of uniformity and loyalty to the Society, thereby implying that
adherence to the non-reformed traditional Rites of St. Pius
X constitutes disloyalty.
Can it be that the Society has come to look upon loyalty to
tradition as disloyalty to the Society? 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 Society.
Is it possible that the Society which has been persecuted
because of its loyalty to tradition now persecutes priests for
their loyalty to tradition? What has happened? Can it be that
the Society now uses the same tactic which the reforming hierarchy
used to impose the reform that has destroyed our people and
our churches? Is not this, in the light of recent history, beyond
belief? Would we not be far more guilty in accepting this first
step than the priests of twenty years ago who did not have the
historical precedent that we have before our eyes?
As you well know, John XXIII made his original changes as
merely temporary steps in preparation for Vatican II. Father
Kelly wrote to you of this matter last year when it was announced
that you would strive to introduce the reforms of John XXIII
in the United States. To quote from Father Kelly's letter of
March 23, 1982:
It seems to me that the very nature of Rubricarum Instructum
is a temporary one, and, of course, it only remained in vigor
for four years. Thus in its text, John XXIII said that his reform
of July 25, 1960 was made with the understanding "that the more
important principles governing a general liturgical reform should
be laid before the members of the hierarchy at the forthcoming
ecumenical council," which he said he decided to convene "under
the inspiration of God." It is not difficult, then, for it to
be seen as the type of gradualism which eventually embraced
the reform.
Our people would be shocked by any liturgical change. To introduce
a change in the direction of the Council would be seen as one
step toward the changes of the 1960's. We simply could not stand
up in front of our congregations and tell them that we were
abandoning the Missal, Calendar and Breviary of our Holy Patron,
St. Pius X, for that of John XXIII - one, the greatest pope
of the century, the other, the originator of the aggiornamento
whose effects remain with us today.
In our opinion, for us to accept the Missal, Breviary, Calendar
and Rubrics of John XXIII would be to accept the first steps
toward the "liturgical reform" of Vatican II, which steps lead
gradually to the New Mass, and such would the way the laity
in America would interpret it.
Furthermore, and with all due respect, religious superiors
do not, under the canons and traditions of the Church, have
any power to legislate in liturgical matters. Such power belongs
to the Roman Pontiffs who are themselves limited. For though
the power of a pope is very great, it neither arbitrary nor
unrestricted. "The pope," as Cardinal Hergenroether once said,
"is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making
a righteous and beneficial use of the duties attached to his
privileges.... He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice
of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to
ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his
relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of
government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy-to
'feed'-...." (Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913),
vol. XII, "Pope," pp. 269-270) Thus obedience in matters liturgical
belongs to a religious superior only insofar as what he demands
is demanded by the Church and the legitimate demands of a Roman
Pontiff.
4. Dismissal of Priests
Over the past few years, a considerable number of priests have
been threatened with expulsion from the Society. Some have actually
been expelled. No provision was made for the support of such
priests. They were simply expelled and the Society washed its
hands of them.
It is indeed a flagrant violation of tradition, of the spirit
of the Council of Trent and of the Code of Canon Law, and has
always led to untold abuses and scandal to souls. While it may
be true that we live in difficult times and the letter of the
law cannot always be followed, nevertheless this is no excuse
to disregard the spirit of the law in the creation of "untitled"
priests.
As you know, "The canonical title is a surety for the decent
maintenance of the cleric in perpetuity." (Ramstein, Manual
of Canon Law, [Terminal Pub., 1948], p. 432.)
Canon 979 §2 of the Code of Canon Law states that "This title
must be both securely guaranteed for the entire life of the
candidate and fully adequate for a becoming livelihood..." And
canon 980 §2 says: "If, without an Apostolic indult, anyone
shall deliberately promote or permit the promotion to sacred
orders of a subject who lacks a canonical title, he and his
successors are bound to provide the latter...." "Alexander III,
in the Third Lateran Council, condemned bishops who should ordain
deacons and priests without a title, to support such priests
from the episcopal table... The Council of Trent maintained
the necessity of the "Title of Ordination" (Session XXI, Chapter
2), and "The Congregation of Propaganda in a response to the
Bishop of Natchez, 4 February, 1873, shows clearly that the
priest cannot be deprived of his means of support.... Grave
offences committed by him such as May even justify his deposition
from office, will not warrant the bishop in refusing him means
of support." (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1, "Alimentation",
p. 313.)
So ancient is this tradition of "Title" that some trace it
to the Council of Chalcedon in 451. All admit that since the
11th century it has had exactly the same meaning as it has in
our day. Is it the Society that will abandon the spirit of this
tradition?
This is a most lamentable practice which contradicts ancient
traditions and laws of the Church. Furthermore, this mode of
action by the Society implies that conformity to the statutes
is replaced by conformity to the whims of superiors as the norm
of right behavior.
A dramatic example of this is Your Grace's recent ultimatum
to a newly-ordained priest in which you threaten him with expulsion
because he would not incorporate into his Masses the reforms
of John XXIII. One might well wonder: "Where in the statutes
of the Society does it say that the liturgical norm for the
Society is the reform of John XXIII?"
5. Magisterial Authority
The present situation in the Church has generated many unprecedented
problems of a theological and practical nature - for example
the question of the in se validity or invalidity of the
New Mass, as opposed to the question of the attendance at the
New Mass. On the one hand, the definitive resolution of speculative
theological questions must await the restoration of normalcy
in the Church. On the other hand, we must apply Catholic moral
and dogmatic principles to practical problems.
The Society must not presume to settle such speculative questions
in an authoritative and definitive fashion, since it has absolutely
no authority to do so. Any attempt by the Society to teach and
impose its conclusions on matters of speculative theology as
the only positions suitable for a Catholic to embrace is dangerous
and opens the door to great evils -f or it assumes a magisterial
authority which belongs not to it but to the Church alone.
Now while in theory the Society may deny any claim to such
teaching authority, in practice it has acted as though it did
have such an authority. 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.
For example on Nov. 8, 1982 a young priest received the following
ultimatum on the resolution of a matter of speculative theology:
If you remain with our Society, you have to gradually clarify
your inner viewpoint and have to return to the attitude of the
Priestly Society, which seems to us to be the only right one,
under the given circumstances, as a talk with theologians this
past weekend has shown me again. Think about it seriously, because
with this decision your temporal and so much more your eternal
welfare is at stake to the highest degree. I will continue to
pray for you for divine enlightenment and humble submission.
Is this a threat of excommunication by a pope to a subject embracing
heresy? Does not the prediction and threat of temporal and eternal
ruination for a refusal to assent internally indicate the highest
teaching and ruling authority?
But alas this is not a pope speaking. These are the words
instead of Father Franz Schmidberger, himself a young priest
ordained in 1975 by Your Grace who will succeed you as head
of the Society, and who presumes to teach and threaten with
such authority. This is inadmissible!
To act in such a way puts the Society in the dangerous position
of assuming for itself rights and authority which belong to
the Magisterium alone. It creates the potential for schism and
worse. It is unacceptable from a Catholic point of' view. The
Catholic thing to do would be for the Society to refrain from
attempting to bind the consciences of its members on speculative
theological questions which are, in fact, open to discussion,
and which can only be settled definitively by legitimate authority
when the traditions have been restored.
6. Loyalty
The fundamental reason for the Society's existence is to promote
loyalty to the Church and her teachings. Unfortunately, it seems
that the distinction between the primary loyalty which we owe
to the Church and the subordinate loyalty we give to the Society
has become somewhat blurred in the practical order.
Priests, seminarians, and the faithful associate themselves
with the Society to the extent that the Society is loyal to
Tradition; they associate with it because they want the traditional
Mass, the traditional sacraments and the traditional teachings
and practices of the Church. The trust we have received from
them is based on this. It is the trust under which we have labored
in the United States these past ten years. We have received
this trust from them in a true contractual sense. The support
we have asked from them and received was a conditional support.
The condition was that we be loyal to Tradition and the people
would be loyal to us. It is not loyalty to persons or organizations,
but loyalty to the Church and her traditions that counts in
their eyes.
We believe it should be the practice of the Society to avoid
giving the impression that loyalty to the Society is on the
same level as loyalty to the traditions of the Church and the
Church itself. We priests cannot propose loyalty to the Society
as equal in value to loyalty to the traditional rites and doctrines.
Therefore, the primary motive of everything we do is loyalty
to the Church.
To the extent that any organization, including the Society,
would do things which conflict with the traditions and immemorial
practices of the Church, to that extent we reject these things
without hesitation or reservation.
7. Annulments.
The Society has recently enunciated a general policy whereby
it would presume the validity of the new Church annulments without
investigation. The only outcome of following such a policy will
be serious public scandal, grave damage to family life and complicity
with the new Church in its attack on the holy sacrament of Matrimony.
In answer to an inquiry from a layman concerning the status
of his second marriage (which we know to be invalid), the Secretary
General of the Society responded as follows:
On behalf of His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre I thank
you for your letter of July 23, to which he has given due attention.
His Grace thinks that in spite of all, one should adhere to
the decision taken by the Church. Although one may deplore that
the Church declares marriages invalid too easily nowadays, we
cannot affirm in a special case, without any serious reason,
that a declaration of invalidity is not valid. Thus you may
go on receiving the sacraments and have a Christian family life.
Since no investigation was made by Your Grace or by the Secretary
General, and since no grounds for the conciliar annulment were
mentioned in the original letter of inquiry, the meaning is
clear both from the words and the context. And that meaning
is that presumption is to be given in favor of the Conciliar
Church's annulments until the contrary is proved.
This is a tragic error, for the Conciliar Church has proved
its contempt for the sacrament of Matrimony by its actions.
Before the world the Church is held up to ridicule because of
the annulment practices of the Conciliar Church, which are more
contemptible than the actions taken against marriage by secular
tribunals. The policy of the Society must be to presume the
invalidity of all the Conciliar Church's annulments until it
is proved by traditional Catholic standards that the marriage
annulled was clearly invalid from the beginning.
To deal with such serious and sacred things in any other manner
attacks the sacrament, makes light of one of the most serious
and involved processes of the Church, poses a danger to present
marriages, is a scandal to people who suffer much because of
their respect for the sacrament and most especially is a mockery
of those who have lived out their lives in perfect chastity
in loyalty to the doctrine of the indissolubility of Christian
marriage.
In the light of the foregoing, we respectfully petition Your
Grace and the General Council of the Society to adopt the following
resolutions for the good of souls and the Society.
Resolutions
1. Priests doubtfully ordained, i.e., according to the New
Rite of Ordination, as well as schismatic priests or bishops,
and priests of questionable moral character, will be excluded
from working with the Society anywhere in the world.
2. The liturgy of Saint Pius X will be restored at Saint Thomas
Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, and a perpetual guarantee shall
be given for its exclusive use there and in the chapels associated
with the Society throughout the United States, which guarantee
shall be enforced by legal covenants.
3. Concerning the discipline governing the priests of the
Society: insofar as it is possible, the letter, and in all cases
the spirit, of the traditions of the Church, the decrees of
the Council of Trent and the 1917 Code of Canon Law will be
followed. The practice of the Society of creating, in effect,
untitled and unattached priests shall come to an end. And should
it be impossible to follow the letter of the law in these matters,
the spirit of the law shall be rigorously adhered to.
4. Respect for the magisterial authority of the Church as
the sole arbiter of theological questions shall be enforced.
Therefore, the Society shall faithfully adhere to the teachings
of the Church but shall never usurp that teaching authority
by attempting to settle definitively questions of speculative
theology. Neither shall it attempt to elicit, by threats of
expulsion or any other threats, internal assent to the opinions
of its superiors.
5. The Society recognizes and accepts the principle that our
loyalty to it is subordinate to loyalty to the Church and its
traditions.
6. Because of the reckless disregard of the Conciliar Church
for the sanctity of matrimony and its sinful and scandalous
policy of granting annulments, the Society presumes the invalidity
of all annulments granted by the Conciliar Church until it can
be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the marriage
bond of the annulled marriage did not exist in the first place.
For according to canon 1014 of the Code of Canon Law, "Marriage
enjoys the favor of the law; consequently in doubt the validity
of the marriage must be maintained until the contrary is proved...."
Conclusion
In the Apostolic Constitution by which he convoked the Council,
John XXIII spoke of his expectation of "a return of unity and
of peace." Instead, his reform brought ruination upon the Church.
Would that John XXIII had been mindful of the words of Gregory
XVI: "that every novelty attempts to undermine the Universal
Church." Instead, he instituted a reform that was, to use words
of Gregory XVI, "the height of absurdity and outrage" towards
the Church. For it was "to pretend that a restoration and regeneration
have become necessary to secure its existence and its progress;
as if it could be believed that it was thus subject to faintness,
darkness, or other alterations of this kind." (Mirari vos)
The reform of John XXIII could do nothing but bring ruin because
it departed from tradition. With this before our eyes, there
can be no excuse if we repeat the mistake of Catholics of the
'sixties. For them one can at least understand how they were
led away from tradition into the new religion by a process of
gradualism and servile submission. They were assured that they
were being obedient children heeding the voice of their shepherds
and the chief shepherd himself, the Pope. It was inconceivable
that the Vicar of Christ would set the Church on a path that
would result in the betrayal of tradition and the ruination
of millions. And so Catholics submitted to the process.
We write out of concern for the salvation of souls and the
Glory of God. There can be no question as to our motives. Witness
the growth of the apostolate in the United States over the past
ten years with a mere handful of priests - from saying Mass
in a garage in Wantagh, N.Y., to the churches and chapels, Mass
centers, and increased numbers of the faithful, schools, retreats,
missions, summer camps, educational endeavors, the seminary,
etc.
This demonstrates in a concrete way our loyalty and fidelity
to the reason for which the Society was founded in the beginning.
And we hope and pray that these problems will be resolved, in
order to insure that the flourishing growth of the Society in
the United States may continue in peace and true unity.
For us, over twenty years later, with history before our eyes,
there can be no excuse for accepting the first steps of the
process of reform. Neither can we sanction practices which amount
to a rejection of sacred traditions. We are fearful both for
the future of the Society and the good of souls. And so we take
this opportunity to present to Your Grace and the General Council
our concerns and the above resolutions.
We are resolved to continue the work for which we were ordained
and for which we have received the trust of the faithful. This
we intend to do in all tranquility even if the Society should
abandon us or that trust.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rev. Clarence Kelly
Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Rev. Daniel L. Dolan
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Rev. William W. Jenkins
Rev. Eugene R. Berry
Rev. Martin P. Skierka
Rev. Joseph Collins
Rev. Thomas P. Zapp