May Your Holiness permit us, with an entire filial openness, to submit to you the following considerations. During the last twenty years the situation in the Church is such that it looks like an occupied city. Thousands of members of the clergy, and millions of the faithful, are living in a state of anguish and perplexity because of the "self-destruction of the Church." They are being thrown into confusion and disorder by the errors contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the post-conciliar reforms, and especially the liturgical reforms, the false notions diffused by official documents and by the abuse of power perpetrated by the hierarchy. In these distressing circumstances, many are losing the Faith, charity is becoming cold, and the concept of the true unity of the Church in time and in space is disappearing. In our capacity as bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, successors of the Apostles, our hearts are overwhelmed at the sights throughout the world, by so many souls who are bewildered yet desirous in continuing in the faith and morals which have been defined by the Magisterium of the Church and taught by Her in a constant and universal manner. It seems to us that to remain silent in these circumstances would be to become accomplices to these wicked works (cf. II Jn. 11). That is why we find ourselves obliged to intervene in public before Your Holiness (considering all the measures we have undertaken in private during the last fifteen years have remained ineffectual) in order to denounce the principal causes of this dramatic situation, and to beseech Your Holiness to use his power as Successor of Peter to "confirm your brothers in the Faith" (Luke 22, 32), which has been faithfully handed down to us by Apostolic Tradition. To that end we have attached to this letter an appendix containing the principal errors which are at the origins of this tragic situation and which, moreover, have already been condemned by your predecessors. The following list outlines these errors, but it is not exhaustive:
The documents containing these errors cause an uneasiness and a disarray, so much the more profound as they come from a source so much the more elevated. The clergy and the faithful most moved by this situation are, moreover, those who are the most attached to the Church, to the authority of the Successor of Peter, and to the traditional Magisterium of the Church. Most Holy Father, it is urgently necessary that this disarray come to an end because the flock is dispersing and the abandoned sheep are following mercenaries. We beseech you, for the good of the Catholic Faith and for the salvation of souls, to reaffirm the truths, contrary to these errors, truths which have been taught for twenty centuries in the Church. It is with the sentiments of St. Paul before St. Peter, when he reproached him for having not followed "the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2, 11-14), that we are addressing you. His aim was none other than to protect the faith of the flock. St. Robert Bellarmine, expressing on this occasion a general moral principle, states that one must resist the pontiff whose actions would be prejudicial to the salvation of souls (DE ROM. PON.I.2, c.29). Thus it is with the purpose of coming to the aid of Your Holiness that we utter this cry of alarm, rendered all the more urgent by the errors, not to say the heresies, of the new Code of Canon Law and by the ceremonies and addresses on the occasion of the Fifth Centenary of the birth of Luther. Truly, this is the limit! May God come to your aid, Most Holy Father. We are praying without ceasing for you to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Deign to accept the sentiments of our filial devotion,
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL ERRORS OF CONCILIAR ECCLESIOLOGY I. A latitudinarist (indifferentist) and ecumenical conception of the Church.The conception of the Church as "the People of God" is hereafter found in many official documents: the acts of the Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, Lumen Gentium; the new Code of Canon Law (c. 204.1); the letter of Pope John Paul II, Catechesi tradendae; the allocution in the Anglican Church at Canterbury; the ecumenical directory ad totam Ecclesiam of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians. It [this conception] breathes a latitudinarist interpretation and a false ecumenism. The facts manifest with evidence this heterodox conception: the authorizations for the construction of rooms which are destined for religious pluralism; the edition of ecumenical bibles which no longer conform to Catholic exegesis; the ecumenical ceremonies like those of Canterbury. In Unitatis Redintegratio, it is taught that the division of Christians "is for the world an object of scandal and the obstacle of the preaching of the Gospel to all creatures . . . that the Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as means of salvation." This same error is repeated in the document Catechesi tradendae of John Paul II. It is in the same spirit and with affirmations contrary to the traditional faith that John Paul II declared at the Cathedral of Canterbury, May 25, 1982, "that the promise of Christ inspires us with confidence that the Holy Spirit will heal the divisions introduced into the Church from the first times at Pentecost" as though the unity of the Credo had never existed in the Church. The concept of the "People of God" leads to belief that Protestantism is none other than a particular form of the same Christian religion. The Second Vatican Council teaches "a true union in the Holy Spirit" with heretical sects (Lumen gentium, 14); "a certain, though imperfect, communion with them" (Unitatis Redintegratio,3). This ecumenical unity contradicts the Encyclical Satis cognitum of Leo XIII which teaches that "Jesus did not found a Church made up of a number of communities that were generically similar, yet separate and without those bonds of unity which make the Church one and indivisible." Similarly, this ecumenical unity is contrary to the Encyclical Humani generis of Pius XII which condemns the idea of reducing to a vague formula the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church. It is also contrary to the Encyclical Mystici Corporis of the same Pope which condemns the conception of a "pneumatic" Church which would be an invisible bond unifying the separated communities in the faith. This ecumenism is equally contrary to the teachings of Pius XI in the Encyclical Mortalium animos. Concerning this point it is timely to expose and reject a certain false opinion which is at the origin of this problem and of this complex movement by the means of which non?Catholics strive to obtain a union of Christian churches. Those who adhere to this opinion constantly cite these words of Christ: "That they all may be one . . . and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (Jn. 17, 21 and 10, 16), and they claim that by these words Christ expresses a desire or a prayer which has never been realized. In fact, they claim that the unity of faith and of government, which is one of the marks of the true Church of Christ, in a practical manner, up to today, has never existed and today does not exist. This ecumenism condemned by Catholic morality and law, now manages to permit the reception of the Sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction from "non?Catholic ministers" (canon 844, N.C.), and encourages "ecumenical hospitality" by authorizing Catholic ministers to give the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to nonCatholics. All these things are contrary to Divine Revelation which stipulates the "separation" and rejects the union "between light and darkness, between the faithful and the unbeliever, between the temple of God and that of sects" (II Corinth. 6, 14?18). II. The Collegial-Democratic Government of the ChurchHaving undermined the unity of the faith, the Modernists of today strive to undermine the unity of government and the hierarchical structure of the Church. The doctrine, already insinuated by the document Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II, is taken up again, explicitly, by the new Code of Canon Law (c. 336). According to this doctrine, the College of Bishops united with the Pope, has an equal possession of the supreme authority in the Church, in a habitual and constant manner. This
doctrine-of a double supreme authority?is contrary to the teaching
and to the practice of the Magisterium of the Church, especially
in Vatican Council I (DS 3055), and in the Encyclical of Leo 11,
Satis cognitum. The Pope alone has this supreme authority which
he can communicate, in the measure which he judges expedient and
in extraordinary circumstances.
To this grave error is attached the democratic orientation of the Church, with the power residing in the "People of God" such as it is defined in the new Code. This Jansenist error is condemned by the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI (CS 2592). This tendency to cause the "base" to participate in the exercise of power is found in the institution of the Synodal and Episcopal Conferences, in the Priestly and Pastoral Councils, and in the multiplication of Roman Commissions and national commissions, as in the heart of religious congregations (concerning this, see Vatican Council 1, DS 3061; new Code of Canon Law, c. 447). The source of the anarchy and disorder which today reign throughout the Church is to be found in this degradition of authority. III. The False Natural Rights of ManThe Declaration, Dignitatis humanae, of Vatican Council II, affirms the existence of a false natural right of man in religious matters, contrary to the pontifical teachings which repudiate such a blasphemy. Thus Pius IX in his Encyclical Quanta cura and the Syllabus, Leo XIII in his Encyclicals Libertas praestantissimum and Immortale Dei, Pius XII in his allocution, La Riesce, to the Italian Catholic jurists, deny that reason and revelation found a similar right. Vatican II professes, in a universal manner, that "The Truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own Truth." This is formally opposed to the teaching of Pius VI against the Jansenists of the Council of Pistoia (DS 2604). The Second Vatican Council thus arrives at the absurdity of affirming the right not to adhere to, and not to follow the Truth, in order to oblige civil governments to no longer discriminate for religious motives, thus establishing a juridical equality between false religions and the true one. These doctrines, which have already been condemned by Saint Pius X in the Pontifical Mandate, Notre Charge Apostolique, are founded on a false conception of human dignity which comes from the agnostic and materialistic pseudo?philosophers of the French Revolution. Vatican II says that from Religious Liberty will emerge an era of stability for the Church. Gregory XVI affirms, on the contrary, that it is a supreme impudence to affirm that the immoderate freedom of opinion would be beneficial for the Church. The Council expresses in Gaudium et Spes a false principle when it says that human and Christian dignity come from the fact of the Incarnation, which has restored this dignity for all men. This same error is affirmed in the Encyclical Redemptor hominis of John Paul II. The consequences of the recognition by the Council of this false "Rights of Men" destroys the foundations of the social reign of Our Lord. They undermine the authority and power of the Church in its mission to cause Our Lord to reign in souls and in hearts, for the Church must direct the battle against the satanic forces which subjugate souls. The missionary spirit will be accused of exaggerated proselytism. The neutrality of States in religious matters is injurious for Our Lord and His Church, when it is a question of States with a Catholic majority. IV. The Absolute Authority of the PopeMost certainly the authority of the Pope in the Church is a supreme authority, but it cannot be absolute and without limits, since it is subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium (DS 3116). The authority of the Pope is subordinate and limited by the end for which this authority has been given to him. This end is clearly defined by Pope Pius IX in the Constitution Pastor aeternus of Vatican Council I (DS 3070). It would be an intolerable abuse of power to modify the Constitution of the Church and, in doing so, pretend to appeal to the rights of man against the Divine Right, as in religious liberty, as in the eucharistic hospitality which is authorized in the new Canon Law, as in the assertion of two supreme authorities in the Church. It is clear that in these cases and in other similar cases, it is the duty for each member of the clergy and each faithful Catholic to resist and to refuse obedience. Blind obedience is a contrary sense and no one is exempt from his responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God (DS 3115). This resistance must be public if the evil is public and an object of scandal to souls (St. Thomas 11,11, 33,4). The above statements are elementary principles of ethics. They regulate the relations of subjects with all legitimate authority. Moreover this resistance finds a confirmation in the fact that henceforth those who hold firmly to Tradition and the Catholic Faith are penalized; those who profess doctrines which are heterodox, or who effect sacrileges are in no way troubled. That is the logic of an abuse of authority. V. Protestant Notion of the MassThe new notion of the Church, such as Pope John Paul II defined it in the Constitution which precedes the new Canon Law, evokes a profound alteration in the principal act of the Church, which is the Sacrifice of the Mass. The definition of the new ecclesiology gives exactly the definition of the new Mass: it is a collegial and ecumenical service and communion. The New Mass cannot be better defined and the New Mass, just as the new Conciliar Church, is a profound rupture with the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. It is a conception more Protestant than Catholic and it explains all that which has been unduly exalted and all that which has been diminished. Contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent in its twenty‑second session, contrary to the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII, the role of the faithful in the participation of the Mass has been exaggerated, and the role of the priest, now become a simple president, has been diminished. The importance of the Liturgy of the Word has been exaggerated, and the importance of the propitiatory Sacrifice has been diminished. The meal of the community has been exalted and the Mass has been laicized, to the detriment of the respect and the faith in the Real Presence by transubstantiation. By the suppression of the sacred language, the rites have been infinitely multiplied. They have been profaned by worldly and pagan additions. False translations have been propagated to the detriment of the true faith and the true piety of the faithful. And yet the Councils of Florence and Trent had pronounced anathemas against all these changes and they had affirmed that the Canon of our Mass goes back to apostolic times. The Popes, Saint Pius V and Clement VIII, had insisted upon the necessity of avoiding changes and mutations, by perpetually keeping this Roman Rite consecrated by Tradition. The removal from the Mass of that which is sacred, and its laicization have led to the laicization, in a Protestant manner, of the priesthood. The liturgical reform in a Protestant style is one of the greatest errors of the Conciliar Church and one of the most ruinous for the Faith and grace. VI. The Free Diffusion of Errors and HeresiesThe situation of the Church, its state of searching, has introduced, in practice, the free-thinking of Protestantism. This is the result of the multiplicity of credos at the interior of the Church. The suppression of the Holy Office, of the Index, of the Anti-Modernist Oath, has provoked among modern theologians a need for new theories which bewilder the faithful and induces them toward the charismatic movement, Pentecostalism and base communities. It is a true revolution, ultimately directed against the authority of God and the Church. Grave modern errors which remain condemned by the Popes are now freely developing at the interior of the Church:
It is time that the Church recovered its freedom in order to advance the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Reign of Mary without being preoccupied with its enemies. (Angelus January 1984) The
Archbishop's Press Conference Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Regina Coeli House |
Holy
Father,