+  Ave Maria
11 February 1989

Dear Mr. Matt:

I was pleased to see that you printed my letter in The Remnant. May I offer you some considerations on the three remarks you made.

Competition?

Regarding the "competition" of the Indult Mass with the Society Masses, one must distinguish the intention of the bishop who provides this Indult Mass and the good it does to the people who go there. I am inclined to think that Cardinal Lustiger's intention to provide Indult Masses in Paris, France, is that of the competition; there are too many coincidences not to think that. However, if these Masses are said by good priests, giving good sermons, not allowing Communion in the hand and the like, then these Masses do a lot of good to the people who go there, even though the intention of the bishop who gives it, may not be good. One must neither condemn the good faithful or priest who benefit from these Masses, nor be blind to the bad intention in some of those who grant it for the sole purpose of luring people away from established Mass centers.

God certainly draws good out of evil. This commission, Ecclesia Dei, was intended just to "re-integrate" the faithful attached to Tradition in their dioceses. They did not foresee the amount of demand for the traditional Mass that was manifested on this occasion: these demands were the good drawn by God out of the evil of the intentions of those who tried to bring at a slower pace the novelties implemented in the dioceses upon the faithful attached to Tradition.

I should add that the fact that a local bishop provides an Indult Mass is not a reason not to attend the Society's Mass. First of all, though the Mass is the heart of the Catholic Faith, the heart alone is not sufficient to give good health to the body. There is need of good Catholic education for children, the visitation of the flock, the example of good priests, fostering of vocations, etc. These are serious questions.

Mysterious Remark?

As to what you call my "mysterious remark" about "leading souls away from the Tridentine Mass which the Society makes available," I think the criticism that has been allowed in The Remnant against Archbishop Lefebvre, is of such a nature to lead souls away from the traditional Mass which the Society offers. Such little remarks as the phrase "at least up until last June 30th" on page 3 of the January 31, 1989 issue, as if Archbishop Lefebvre was good until then, and then suddenly became bad and had to be avoided. Those are not good. There have been quite a few such remarks in the past few issues of The Remnant. The positive remarks made in the last issue were an improvement compared with some of the previous issues.

Divine Promises

As to your third remark, I think the words of Our Lord given to Peter, "he who hears Me hears you," and the promises of His assistance to Peter in a special way, do not oppose the action that Archbishop Lefebvre has done. Never did the Church teach that every single word of the Pope was an equal of the word of Our Lord. Remember that right after Our Lord promised the primacy to St. Peter (Matt. 16), Peter opposed Our Lord who had announced His Passion, and Our Lord called him Satan: "Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me because thou savorest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." That particular quote is often forgotten among conservative Catholics in our day. It is not necessary to remind you that Peter denied Our Lord and was not at the foot of the Cross, but rather St. John, alone, while all the other apostles had fled: the truth can be with one bishop alone, faithful to the Sacrifice of Christ!

Thus, to be faithful to Christ, does not mean to follow Peter when Peter denies Christ. Actions like that of Assisi can be compared to the denial of Peter; that does not mean that Peter is not the one to whom Christ has promised the keys and upon whom Christ has built His Church. We sincerely believe that one day will come when Christ will look upon the successor of Peter as He did look upon Peter himself after his denial. Peter will weep bitterly, and then come back and stand up for Christ and even give his blood for Christ. On the day of the Resurrection, St. John the Apostle, faithful to Christ at the foot of the Cross, was the first who reached the tomb. Yet, he waited for Peter and did not enter until Peter arrived. I am sure that the Society of St. Pius X and all those who are attached to the traditional Mass will do like St. John: they will wait for Peter. The solution to this crisis in the Church will have to come from Rome. Yet, in the meantime, exceptional measures may be taken in order to continue the Faith, otherwise there would not even be a St. John at the foot of the Cross, nor on the day of Resurrection.

Spiritual Starvation

I was interested by the remark of Father Emerson that not even a single bishop in the whole English-speaking world had contacted the Society of St. Peter. One must add that if the German and French Bishops' Conferences have been strong enough to prevent Cardinal Mayer from going to Germany or to France to perform the ordinations, though the Society was already established in these countries, how much more would the American Bishops' Conference be capable of preventing Rome from supporting the Society of St. Peter when they are not yet established in America?

Do the faithful have to wait until such priests may come to America in order to have the Sacraments? If they wait too long they will starve and die spiritually. It is better to get the Sacraments from the priests that Archbishop Lefebvre has ordained or other good traditional priests (such as Fr. Wickens, Fr. Schell, or others in America) in spite of the persecution that befalls these priests.

The New Mass

There is an important point concerning the New Mass which many seem not to understand. Fr. Emerson says the Society of St. Peter accepted professors who say the New Mass because, like "Archbishop Lefebvre, we recognize the validity of the New Mass, but unlike him, we are ready to accept the logical consequences of that recognition." Then Michael Davies says: "I have never been able to accept his (i.e., Archbishop Lefebvre's) opinion that the New Mass can be considered bad in itself." There is an important distinction to see: positively harmful or negatively harmful. Let me take the comparison of a food: a food can be poisonous in itself, or a food can be insufficient and lead to sickness because of its deficiencies. Even though the official text of the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin does not contain any positive heresy, yet it puts the faithful on such a diet lacking what they spiritually need. Therefore, it is not good; its deficiencies are a very legitimate reason to call it bad. Indeed, the very nature of good is a certain plenitude of being, and the very nature of evil is a privation of something due: a deficiency is thus evil.

St. Thomas says that the purpose of the liturgy is triple: 1) to foster and stimulate the piety of the faithful and the reverence towards the Sacraments; 2) to instruct the faithful; and 3) to obtain additional graces by the very effect of the prayers of the Church (IIIa, q. 66, a. 10). In the New Mass, there is a deficiency of all three! The reverence has been greatly diminished, the piety is oftentimes absent, the faithful are led to forget the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the proper role of the priest, the Real Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, etc., and the prayers are comparatively more directed towards this earth than towards heaven, as they are in the Tridentine Mass.

This is not my judgment... it is the guiding idea of the authors of the New Mass. Msgr. Bugnini himself said that he took out "anything that could be even the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren." That is, the Profession of Faith on the points that were denied by the Protestants has been carefully reduced to the bare minimum. Thus, the faithful are put on such a spiritual diet that they eventually faint, they do not have the strength to resist the pressures of the world. Thus, the Mass can be said to be bad and it is really bad inasmuch as it lacks the necessary spiritual ingredients which the faithful need. In particular the use of the New Mass weakens greatly the resistance against Modernism, while experience shows that the use of the traditional Mass strengthens the faithful in the Faith.

Thus to accept the validity of the New Mass (which is present as soon as there is a validly ordained minister with proper intention, matter and form) does not logically lead to accepting the use of it, contrarily to what Father Emerson says.

We live in a time where we could apply the parable of the Samaritan: the faithful are like souls wounded by robbers (who are sometimes clerics!). Most of the priests pass by and the Pharisees do not help them. Then a Samaritan, a stranger, a priest "not approved by the diocese" comes and helps them, and is criticized because "he is not under the bishop"! And people forget that the bishop has been sent many letters to which he did not answer: "he passed by" without compassion for the wounded souls. It is an act of charity to help the faithful in distress in this crisis of the Church; one is not obliged to wait for "permission" to do good, when those who ought to have done it have already "passed by"!

The May 5th Agreement

Moreover, Father Emerson says "that he would simply point out (to Archbishop Lefebvre) that the May 5th Agreement has been adhered to by Rome for us." This is not true: they do not have a bishop, not even a powerless bishop, as the May 5th Agreement had offered to Archbishop Lefebvre. Moreover, according to L'Osservatore Romano they do not have two members in the Commission. These are the two most important points of that agreement of which they have been deprived. So it is far from the truth to say that Rome has adhered to the May 5th Agreement for them.

When Father Emerson says "the Church cannot be saved by us, but rather is herself our salvation," I do agree wholeheartedly. However, it has to be understood properly: the Church is our salvation because she gives us the true Faith and the Sacraments which we need for our salvation. By keeping the Faith and the Sacraments in their integrity, Archbishop Lefebvre is saved by the Church, and helps many other souls to be saved by the Church. The members of the hierarchy are at the service of the Faith and not the Faith at their service. It is because of his fidelity to this unchangeable Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has been persecuted, and it is in order to continue to provide this Faith to many souls that he has consecrated bishops.

May God bless you and all your readers.