.png)
8 December, 1997
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary
Dear Friends in Christ,
Although it has been a little more than a month since I was last among you, you have not been far from my thoughts or my prayers. Many rumours have run rampant in the weeks since then, and I think it is necessary now to address some of them. Besides the rumours, I know that many of you have questions concerning the steps I have taken since I left and those also I shall try to answer. I think that I can rely on your own good memories of the time I spent among you to be able to ignore the most blatant untruths, and in this letter I would simply like to remind you of some of the themes you yourselves have heard in my sermons or catechism lessons. I hope by this letter to help you see some of the serious difficulties which necessitated my leaving the Society of St. Pius X. First, I shall dispel some of the false reasons being circulated concerning the motive for my departure. Then I shall speak of the two main factors which did force me to leave the Society.
As to the false rumours, I certainly did not leave because I was unhappy with the chapels which were under my care. Though there are always problems when you have to deal with people with different ideas on how to do things, I thought that there was great promise for spiritual growth and that whatever difficulties there were could eventually be overcome. I did not leave because I had any secret agenda either. Until the weekend before I left, I had not foreseen such a hurried departure. I did not leave the Society because I had a grudge against its leaders, though I was becoming alarmed by the growth of an increasingly sectarian spirit among some of them. Lastly, I did not leave simply because of my friendship with Fathers Fullerton and Urrutigoity. It is true that the episode at the seminary opened my eyes to many evils. It is also true that I saw the most unscrupulous conduct applauded and every form of lie approved since the incident at the seminary in May. But none of these things are the real reason why I left. In fact, even after these incidents, I was still planning to remain within the Society. That being said, the question must naturally arise: then why did I leave?
I left the Society of St. Pius X because of my devotion to the Church of Rome. I have always emphasized in my sermons the necessity of being Roman, of being united to the See of Peter. I told you all that to be Catholic is to be Roman. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that to be a Catholic means to embrace modernism and all the liberal changes. These I still oppose as much as ever. On the other hand, by breaking off all contact with Rome, one would fall into the opposite error, an error which would end, eventually, in Protestantism.
You may object that I knew that the Society was polemical in its attacks against modernism, and modernism has not disappeared. That is true. I agree that one may object to abuses, but this must still remain within certain limits. One must always guard a spirit of filial respect towards the authorities involved. To protest is not an absolute good; it requires that one continue to respect the office of those involved and look towards the common good of the Church. You cannot protest and cut yourselves off from the Holy See, pretending all the while that you are a Catholic. A Catholic always remembers that the Pope is the Holy Father, the father of all who are sons and daughters of the Church. One can never disown one's own father. Rome remains the supreme authority. But I fear that the Society is ceasing to be Roman in any true sense of the word. Concretely, two factors forced me to leave the Society: one on the Society's part and the other on Rome's, both of which are related.
You all know of the new Society Ordinances that appeared this year. You know of the granting of annulments by the Society, a thing which shows that the Society has entered dangerous ground. I was taught at the seminary that the Society could not give validly such annulments. Yet that is now official policy. Then there is the canonical commission with its "dispensations," some or which Rome alone can grant. I reject and will always reject any pretensions on the Society's part to "play the pope." All of this is very untraditional and un-Catholic. I must remind you that never in the history of the Church has any group of priests claiming to be Catholic taken to itself the authority to grant annulments. Only Rome or a diocesan bishop can validly do so. To receive such an invalid annulment and then to attempt to marry afterwards would certainly constitute a sacrilege. As to the "dispensations," the Church requires them in many cases for the validity of the marriage. Some of these have never been given, save by Rome. They are reserved to Rome by virtue of the Pope's authority. Yet the Society does not scruple to claim to be able to loose what Peter has bound, quite contrary to Our Lord's words, "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound also in Heaven..." The Society pretends that it is a case of necessity, but such is not the case unless one claims that the Pope is incapable of exercising his authority for the good of the Church, which would be tantamount to saying that he is not really the Pope. It is to set up another authority equal to Peter's in the Church.
The second reason which prompted me to leave is because of the two recent documents from Rome. These documents reaffirm what the Pope taught in his Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta" of 1988, namely that the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre were excommunicated for the crime of schism. However, they go further and affirm that the priests and deacons of the Society also incur this excommunication. Despite the attempts of Bishop Fellay last month to undermine their authenticity, I did what he should have done and what any person of common sense would have done: I asked Rome itself for a verification of these documents. They are real. And contrary to the claims of Bishop Fellay and Father Scott, they do give a reason why the excommunications are valid.
I am not saying that Bishop Fellay or Father Scott are trying to deceive the faithful. Rather, the Society is becoming self-enclosed in its own system of argumentation so that it can do nothing else than endlessly repeat the same arguments. They are no longer capable of understanding or of hearing the arguments of the other side. But despite the claims of the Society leaders, Rome does give a reason, and it is a theological one. To consecrate bishops against the will of the Pope can never be justified because such an action attacks the very source of unity in the Church. We in the Society of St. Pius X always argued a case of necessity, but Rome has answered the argument: such a case could not exist, for it would imply that there was a deficiency in God's providence over the Church. To save the Church, one should have to bypass the papacy, which is the source of all the Church's unity.
Moral Theology is very clear that when one is in doubt of one's situation in the Catholic Church, one must leave the uncertain situation. Since leaving, I have had more time to read Rome's arguments and they are very strong. They argue from Catholic Tradition, from the popes and the Fathers. Perhaps it might be good to provide you with one of these proofs that Rome can use. Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical letter "Ad Apostolorum Principis," says, "No authority other than the Supreme Pontiff's, no assembly of priests or laity, can assume to itself the right to name bishops. None can legitimately confer episcopal consecration without the certitude of a Papal mandate. A consecration conferred in this way is against human and Divine law, constituting a most grave attack against the very unity of the Church, and punished by excommunication."
This being said, let me address another of the objections brought against my leaving. Some have accused me of being too "intellectual" and thus deceived by the devil. If I were not so preoccupied with theology, they say, I would never have left the bosom of the Society. A simple faith is more pleasing to God, they protest. It is true that a simple faith is pleasing to God, but the same simple faith fortified by the catechism can provide the reasons why I was forced to leave the Society. Let us go back to our catechisms. I am sure we would all agree that if anyone tried to teach us a doctrine contrary to what the Church has taught in Her catechisms, we would have to be on our guard. This time of crisis has put all of us in a very delicate position. Due to the many dangers inherent in a position which involves resistance to the desires of so many bishops, a new spirit has gradually made itself felt in the thinking of a great number of Society supporters, and indeed, in the Society leadership itself. The original position of the great majority of traditional Catholics was that because of the disaster following the Council, it was necessary to take a stand against the various abuses being forced on one and all. That was good and necessary, but since then a new attitude of aloofness has entered. From resisting the abuses of authority, many have passed to an actively hostile attitude towards the authority itself. To this hostility is joined a desire, perhaps even unconscious, to remain totally separated from both the entire hierarchy and the community of the faithful. It is a subtle danger, but one all the more fatal if it is not actively resisted.
All of this has resulted in a new vision of the nature of the Catholic Church. The Society is creating its own type of hierarchy and commissions which can bypass completely the Catholic hierarchy. Let us go to the catechism now and look at what it teaches concerning the Church established by Christ. What is the Church anyway? The Catechism says, "the Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head." It is not enough to have the Faith: one must be subject to one's lawful pastors. Who are these? The Catechism continues, "By 'lawful pastors' we mean those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority, and who have therefore a right to rule us. The lawful pastors in the Church are: every priest in his own parish, every bishop in his own diocese, and the Pope in the whole Church." If one is not subject to the lawful pastors, one is not in the Church. Obviously, this subjection does not mean that one must obey sinful commands. It does, however, require that one must obey in all things except sin. There is no question that a person can simply ignore his lawful pastor as if he did not exist. The Catechism of Saint Pius X declares what such a person would be: a schismatic. What is a schismatic? "Schismatics are baptized persons who obstinately refuse obedience to the legitimate pastors, and hence are separated from the Church, even if they do not deny any truth of Faith." There is a problem then of speaking of a "novus ordo" Church, for it contains all those possessing legitimate authority: the Pope, the bishops, and the parish priests.
I would remind you that the true Church has other characteristics, for example, indefectibility. The Catechism says, "By the indefectibility of the Church, I mean that the Church, as Christ founded It, will last till the end of time." Yes, despite the crisis, the Church as Christ founded Her can never fail. The existence and preservation of the Church does not depend on the Society of Saint Pius X. Though the Society wants you to think that it is indispensable and that the consecration of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre were necessary to continue the Church, it is not true. Firstly, in reply, let me quote Archbishop Lefebvre himself in his book "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," "It has also been said that after me, my work will disappear because there will be no bishop to replace me. I am certain of the contrary; I have no worries on that account. I may die tomorrow, but the good Lord answers all problems. Enough bishops will be found in the world to ordain our seminarians: this I know."
More importantly, we know that Christ founded His Church on Peter, and established a hierarchy of the Pope and the diocesan bishops to rule the Church. That cannot change. Yet the Society wants you to think that it is the only candle in the darkness and sole preserver of Tradition - its leaders being all that is left of true Catholicism. You may ask me then, if this is true, why I did not see this a long time ago. I had read the catechism before now, obviously, so why the change? I had indeed read the catechism, but I was not taught the texts of the Magisterium and the Fathers which were necessary for a true understanding of this problem. I listened to the Society's arguments without questioning the truth of their assertions. I knew there was a crisis in the Church and that it was necessary to fight for Tradition. I did not question the means until I discovered that Rome had Tradition on its side in the dispute over the consecration of bishops.
I have been warned that the hierarchy is irreparably modernist, bent only on the destruction of the Church, and that 1 am compromising the Faith by being approved by "novus ordo" bishops and the "novus ordo" church. It is time to ask a few pertinent questions before proceeding any further. What do you mean by the "novus ordo?" The term "novus ordo" refers to an order of Mass. It is the new rite of Mass as distinguished from the rite codified in 1570. As I do not say this rite of the Mass, this cannot apply to me or to the other priests approved by Rome who say only the traditional rite of Mass. This is a big problem among traditionalists: a misuse of language. Do we mean by "novus ordo bishops" those who say the rite of 1969 or do we claim that this term refers to the whole of the hierarchy, a hierarchy that is now no longer Catholic? If we say that the "novus ordo" hierarchy is no longer Catholic, where is the visible hierarchy founded by Christ on the rock of Peter: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church?" if we consider the "novus ordo" hierarchy as the entire Catholic hierarchy, then we must be in communion with them. The same must apply to the word "conciliar." Is a conciliar bishop a Catholic bishop? Even Archbishop Lefebvre signed in 1988 a statement that he accepted the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition. Was he then a conciliar bishop? Is the Pope merely the head of the conciliar Church? If the Conciliar Church is really different from the Catholic Church, who is the head of the Catholic Church? Where are its bishops? These terms "novus ordo" and "conciliar" first were meant to indicate those actions of certain members of the Catholic hierarchy which were liberal or modernist. Now, however, the Society uses them indiscriminately for anyone who is openly in union with Rome.
Do not let fear lead you to abandon the very faith you are trying to keep. Would you dare claim that the hierarchy as Christ established it no longer exists, that the visible Church has proven utterly defectible? You are worried that I am in danger of losing the Faith by my leaving the Society and being approved by the present Church authorities. But visible submission to them is required for salvation. It is you, my dear friends, who must ask yourselves if the Society is under the Pope, and part of the Church. Submission to Rome is part of the Catholic faith. Is Bishop Fellay a bishop of the visible Church, i.e. of the Catholic Church that by definition is a visible body? If he has nothing to do with the visible Church then he is simply not Catholic, let alone a Catholic bishop. Does the Society have to answer to any legitimate authority for its actions? If not, then they have set up a parallel church. The Society proudly says it is not a part of the "novus ordo" Church. Therefore, it is not part of the visible Church founded by Christ which is ruled by the Pope and bishops.
I know where the true Church is. It is where it has always been: with those in visible communion with the Vicar of Christ. The Pope declared the bishops of the Society excommunicate and schismatic. According to Tradition, one is recognized as a Catholic only if the Pope receives him into ecclesiastical communion, and not vice-versa. There is certainly no visible communion between the Society bishops and the Pope. The recent documents from Rome only confirmed what every child who learned his catechism could have told us.
Be wary of learning a new faith not given to us from Tradition. I present to you the spectre of Luther as an example to us all. He redefined the Church and did so in terms frighteningly like those used now by the Society and some of its faithful. He said the Church was "the congregation of the faithful where the true gospel is preached and the true sacraments administered." Does that sound familiar? Have we not been told that the fact that the Society has the true Faith and the true sacraments proves that it is Catholic, and that if we hold to those two things it is enough? Luther had the same basic problem as the Society now has: to prove one is a Catholic (yes, Luther called himself a Catholic till the day he died) without any reference to a visible hierarchy to which visible union is necessary. He said that unjust excommunications did not bind one at all. This was the same thing that the Jansenist heretics claimed, "The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ and to the Church Herself by charity." The Church condemned this opinion in 1713. It cannot be held by Catholics.
I do not say that some men of the Church have not done many awful things during the last thirty years. I do not condemn the Society for wanting to preserve Tradition; it is the duty of every Catholic to do so. I exhort you to hold fast to the Faith revealed by God. Do not abandon the fight for the Faith. Yet you or I must never give up part of the Faith in order to preserve another part. The Society always rightly insisted that the Faith is a whole. No part may be sacrificed in this struggle for Tradition. That is why we must admit that the Society has done much good work in the past. However, now that it is changing the Faith to justify its separation from the hierarchy, I cannot remain within it. Let the simple words of the catechism teach you about the true Church. Do not be ruled by fear but by confidence in Christ who promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church, the Church in hierarchical communion with Rome. You do not have to trust the modernists. Trust the words of Christ and the catechism. His promises to preserve the hierarchy will never fail. Though many bishops or countries have defected in the past, such as in Germany, Greece, or Great Britain, the hierarchy as a whole can never do so. His visible Church built upon Peter is protected by God and so can never be overcome. If anyone preaches to you that the Church is found anywhere else than in the Pope and those visibly united to him, then know him as a heretic and do not believe him. He is one of those whom Christ warns us of, who say that He is to be found in the desert or someplace else. The Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, will likewise never be found other than where He said it would: gathered around Peter.
May God bless you with His grace and every blessing, and may Our Lady protect you all. I shall never forget all the kindnesses that you showed me while I was with you. You will always be in my prayers.
Yours in Christ and Our Lady,
Father Marshall Roberts
Comments