The last time that we attended the Society of St. Pius X's Our Lady's Church, Hampton was on Sunday, April 20, 1997. Since that day we have attended the Order of Mass of Pope Paul VI at various locations - being most comfortable with the vernacular sung Mass, which approximates a Missa Cantata and which is conducted with decorum and obvious reverence at a local Abbey.
We recommenced attendance at the Tridentine Latin Mass around June 1974 and attended only it until April. In that time, I would have to say that I have been as militant as any so-called "traditionalist". What series of events would thus lead us away from the "traditionalism" of the Society of St. Pius X?
Without doubt the first event to cause me to re-appraise my stance was the Fathers Hogan /Welsh affair - an event which would compromise the honour of one OR other of the parties, and which would have the lasting effects of the scandalous priest spoken of by Fr. E. Escribano, C.M. in The Priest at Prayer, p.65:
"If such a woe (be) upon him who shall hurt the conscience of one single soul, what will be, in the sight of God, the unworthy priest who by his perverse inspiration and example can root up morality and perhaps the faith of a whole parish, of a whole district, and for several generations?
(Emphasis added.) Such is our bad example's force of expansion!" One of the results of the affair was the removal of the SSPX District Superior, Fr. Laisney, and his replacement by Fr. Jean Violette - a French Canadian. The arrival of Fr. Violette in Australia was preceded by a most unfortunate article by him published in "Catholic" of July, 1994 under the title, Relations With
Public Sinners. His moral guidance was for the "traditionalist" NOT to keep company with his brother or sister who falls away, but to admonish him/her. One practical example of the effect of this type of advice has seen the shunning of the mother of a Hampton parishioner by her daughter and son-in-law. The reason? She attends the Tridentine Mass at Kew, in the Diocese of Melbourne, performed under the terms of the Indult. Fr. Violette's own Seminary teacher, Rev. Dr. T.C.G. Glover, J.C.D., was so repelled by the advice that he publicly reproved him in the following issue of "Catholic" for:
a) misapplying the principle of St. Thomas Aquinas regarding excommunication, and
b) of (apparently) being unaware that the misapplied principle "ceased with the first Code of Canon Law in 1917", and
c) being wrong, and giving false moral advice.
The August 27, 1994 District Newsletter from Fr. Violette included what would become the normal type of language for quite some time:
"...all those who want the traditional mass should...boycott the new mass, the new clergy, in fine this new religion." (If that is not a call to schism, it would not be hard to find another!) Further, he declared that "we do not accept the new mass as lawful...the traditional mass...IS THE ONLY FORM OF WORSHIP ACCEPTABLE TO GOD." (Emphasis as in the original. It is amazing how people can pontificate as to just what IS and what IS NOT acceptable to GOD! The ignorant must believe or else!) Further, in his November 1, 1994 newsletter he castigated those "conservatives" who returned to Rome after the 1988 Consecrations, declaring that "to associate in friendship or solidarity with them is implicitly to betray the Catholic Faith..."
Not surprisingly, these types of opinions drew reactions from, among others, Dr. Tim Pickford of Tasmania who, in an Open Letter To The Society Of St. Pius X of December 17, 1994 set out his reasons for it being "no longer possible for (him) to say with confidence, (that) the Society of St. Pius X is not in schism." In saying that he set out, in two closely typed pages, three events which led him to this conclusion:
The bringing to Australia of Fr. Violette, whose "overweening self-righteousness...enables him to appoint himself as judge of the Pope", and whose "statement does not match the facts" (a nice way of accusing Fr. Violette of carelessness with the truth!); "That Father Violette is, de facto
schismatic" he wrote, "is demonstrated by his deliberately turning away from fellow Catholic traditionalists, refusing and urging all others to refuse to cooperate with the Ecclesia Dei Society..."
That Dr. Pickford may have been correct in effectively saying that Fr. Violette was "careless with the truth", was demonstrated in Fr. Violette's circular letter of Mar. 1, 1995, where he took the opportunity to reply to Dr. Pickford. In the fourth paragraph of that letter he took two quotations
out of context from the second column, second and third paragraphs of Dr. Pickford's Open Letter. Unfortunately, he re-arranged Dr. Pickford's sequence by quoting his third paragraph first and (after editing out his first sentence), the second paragraph follows the third! The sentence omitted by Fr. Violette was "This statement does not match the facts." - which referred to Fr. Violette's second page first paragraph statement in his letter to the Faithful of August 27, 1994. An example of his editing "logic" is as follows:
W says to X: "I heard that a dog bit a man."
X says to Y: "W told me that he 'heard that a man bit a dog.' ".
Z says to X: "That's not true! W didn't say that at all!"
X responds: "It IS true those are W's exact words!"
And, in a sense, X is correct; it is just that X has repeated two of W's words a little out of order. Thus, X is able to salve his conscience.
In real life, Fr. Violette salved his conscience by responding (April 18, 1995) to my criticism of his method, by saying:
"Also the fact that I placed the third paragraph of Dr. Pickford's letter before the second I don't think changes the meaning of what he said. It can hardly be called manipulating words or concocting a quote like in the examples you give in your letter. Again my opinion."
One of the examples provided to Fr. Violette was a mixture from 2 Mac. 12:46, Matt. 19:18 and Gen. 3:17 - ALL actual words from Scripture, "just a little out of order":
“It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to murder thy wife."
The second event was the issuance by "Fr. de la Tour of the Society's Goulburn seminary (of) his own letter which sadly deals in half-truths" in relation to his criticism of "the Pope's book Crossing The Threshold of Hope "; and
The third event "was the publication of the blasphemous letter of Fr. Peek, who is also on the staff of the Goulburn seminary." (Actually, he is Rector.) He described Fr. Peek's letter as "a blasphemy because it is accompanied by a cartoon which would make the most rabid anti-Catholic blush." Fr. Peek would write:
1) in his Seminary Bulletin for July 3, 1996 of the New Mass: "...it is of itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil." Further, he would also state that "I am denying what Mr Davies says you can't: the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church.", (that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church.) and
2) in that of Sept. 18, 1996: "Our rejection of the Novus Ordo must be absolute... attend it?...only (as) for attending non-catholic functions...(a) sin...if he is aware of (it's) nocivity (sic.)...If I were ever to say the New Mass, know that I would be committing a mortal sin..."
In his editorial in the May 1997 issue of "Catholic" the editor, Mr Don McLean, stated that he had unsuccessfully sought clarification of the Society of St. Pius X's official position following publication in October, 1996 of "a piece from Michael Davies headed The New Mass and Indefectibility in which he puts his case that the New Mass is not intrinsically evil... We sought a response from Fr. Violette to be published at the same time", he writes, "and offered to hold the
issue for a week. He chose not to respond."
Fr. Violette's attempts to justify these matters only led him deeper into the mire and eventually, I think, earned for himself a rap over the knuckles from his Superior, Bishop Fellay. Four subsequent events seem to indicate that some of his own priests considered his statements as being "reformable"!
The first was on the occasion of the Tridentine Requiem Mass for the repose of the soul of Mrs Katie Foley on July 4, 1996 at the Diocesan Parish Church at Kew. The celebrant was a diocesan priest, Fr. Vel Maglica. Six priests were present on the Sanctuary, including the former SSPX District Superior, Fr. Gerard Hogan, who had flown over from Perth. Whether he had Fr. Violette's consent is unknown.
The second and third involved Fr. Todd Angele from Hampton, who allegedly issued an invitation to Archbishop Pell (Archdiocese of Melbourne) to the opening of the Society's new school at the end of January, 1997, and allegedly sought from Archbishop Pell authority to perform a Wedding Service on December 28, 1996 for Peter Reiners and Louise Oldham. (It must be remembered that Fr. Angele had a little earlier performed a couple of marriages that not only did not conform with the norms of Canon Law, but also appeared to have been illegal from the aspect of Australian civil law; the parties did not find out that they were not civilly married until some months later!) The matter of civil law compliance appears to have been solved by one of the SSPX priests obtaining civil marriage celebrant status.
In those events, both Frs Hogan and Angele must have either obtained dispensations from Fr. Violette - in which case, all concerned must have viewed his recent writings as being reformable", or they simply disobeyed his admonitions
a) to "refuse to cooperate with the Ecclesia Dei Society", and
b) to "boycott...the new clergy, in fine this new religion", and
c) "NOT to keep company with the brother or sister who falls away", and
d) NOT to "associate in friendship or solidarity with them...(for this was to) implicitly to betray the Catholic Faith..."
The fourth event is rather ironic; the son of two strongly traditionalist Hampton parishioners sought permission from a Diocesan parish priest for he and his non-Catholic fiancee to be married in a non-Catholic church by a non-Catholic minister. His parents quizzed the dreaded Novus Ordo parish priest as to whether it was permitted under the current Code of Canon Law and, when assured that it was permissible, they sought re-assurance from Fr. Robinson, at Hampton, who agreed that this was, indeed, permissible. In the meantime, it is alleged that Fr. Angele continues with the principle of marrying Catholic and non-Catholic in the Sacristy! (Generally speaking, the
new Code of Canon Law is considered by "traditionalists" as being suspect.)
Three instances follow regarding the necessity for the "traditionalist" to be careful regarding statements made by the Society's Superiors:
The first was brought to light by Mr Michael Davies in his Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre wherein he received a letter from the Archbishop qualifying the term "these masses" which he had declared to be incapable of fulfilling the Sunday obligation, etc. See An Open Letter From A Confused Catholic, pp.128/9 below.
The second matter was the subject of a sermon given at Hampton on Sunday,
August 8, 1996 by Fr. Kevin Robinson:
While Archbishop Lefebvre had never said that the Novus Ordo was in itself invalid or heretical or that it did not satisfy the Sunday obligation, at the same time he "never said that it wasn't invalid, nor that it wasn't heretical, nor that it could satisfy the Sunday obligation." (This, of course, rests
entirely on speculation and hearsay and even if true it would only demonstrate the Archbishop's mental reservation!)
In writing to the Sovereign Pontiff on March 8, 1980, how would it have been received if he had written:
As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical; "but neither have I ever affirmed that it is in itself valid or orthodox, or that it does satisfy the Sunday obligation." Wouldn't it be chutzpah to add: "I would be grateful (if you would) ...hasten (the) free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society ..., etc."?
The third event was the occasion of an interview of the SSPX Superior General by a traditionalist Italian newspaper, on Dec. 8, 1994:
"Q. What are your present relations with the so-called 'sedevacantists'? (For the readers, Sedevacantists are those who deny that Pope John Paul II is the legitimate successor of Peter as Pope, and hold that the chair of Peter is vacant)
"Reply: We have no relations with those who are OPENLY sedevacantist..."(Emphasis added.)
Thus, are SSPX priests who are crypto-sedevacantists the Marranos of the late twentieth century? How many SSPX priests would remain in the Society if an oath (similar to the anti-modernist oath style) was required on relevant occasions? Let's call it the "Anti-sedevacantism oath".
These appear to be not the only cases of selectivity practiced by Society priests. The Society's clay feet have been exposed by another matter. For the several years that Fr. Angele has performed the Holy Week ceremonies at Hampton, he has NOT conformed with the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII, and refused to conformed with the 1958 reform of the Holy Week ceremonies as instituted by Pope Pius XII and as contained in the 1962 and earlier Missals. He had told the choir on April 1, 1994 he would be omitting the Oremus, Flectamus genua and Levate (in the Prayers for the Jews) because the Jews had mockingly knelt before Our Lord; and, to another parishioner on June 3, 1996 he declared: "I would not genuflect for the Jews." The 1958 reform required the Oremus, Flectamus genua, and Levate to be said in all supplicatory prayers including those "for the Jews".
In a letter of June 26, 1995 to me, Fr. Violette stated that:
"With regard to the rubrics of Holy Week, it is unfortunate that all priests do not follow exactly the same. But these differences are not a danger to the faith and I (my personal opinion) do not consider this to be the worst of crimes. I would look at it differently if a priest totally refused the
restoration of Holy Week by Pius XII. But in all honesty, if the only complaint you have is with regard to the (omission of) the Flectamus genua/Levate at the prayers for the Jews on Good Friday and the (incorrect inclusion of the) Last Gospel at the Easter Vigil Mass, excuse me, but I find that petty."
Later, in a letter of March 19, 1996 to Mr Max Longford, he stated that:
"...the SSPX uses the reformed Holy Week of Pope Pius XII as it was a legitimate reform done by a legitimate pope. I know it is a debated question amongst some traditionalists, but a legitimate order from a legitimate superior must be obeyed (Emphasis added.)... All the Pope did was to restore Holy Week and especially Holy Saturday to the way it was before...the way it had been for nearly 1000 years, until the 11th century."
In a letter of July 4, 1996 to Fr. Angele, (a five page letter plus twenty two pages of appendices - reproduced in reduced form herein on pp.111/27), I contended that "A portion of my records and arguments are contained in the attached appendices marked '1' to '12' inclusive, which, I submit, present a prima facie case to justify a certain 'uneasiness' in respect of some aspects of
your administration of the parish." Further, I asked:
"Would you please provide to me a copy of an official order to you from Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Schmidberger or Bishop Fellay directing you not to comply precisely with the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII, and specifically to delete the 'Oremus, flectamus genua and levate' from the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy?", And, "Would you please, Fr. Angele, provide to
me evidence of your Superiors' command that you not adhere to the spirit of the apparently 'legitimate order from a legitimate superior (which) must be obeyed'.")
Further, I put the question to Fr. Angele: "To whom ARE you being obedient?" without receiving a response. Some of the above matters were potentially serious: for example, the use of altar boys, under the age of 18 years, in the sale of raffle tickets could have laid open every person so doing, directing authorising or permitting the sales to fines of $1,000 each for a first offence, and $2,500 for a second offence. Permitting tickets to be sold where the buyers of such tickets would not have a chance to win was also an offence liable to fines. (Fr. Angele had declared from the pulpit: "to win the prize you have to be present at the draw" - but this was not told to potential buyers of tickets during the preceding weeks!)
"Imprecise" claims included such things as statements that certain days were Holydays of Obligation (implicitly involving mortal sin for non-observance!) - whereas, very simply, they were not days of obligation and, therefore, no sin is involved in non-observance! It is the Church (not the SSPX) which has the power to determine just what is or what is not a Holyday of Obligation, an Indulgence, a law of fasting or abstinence, etc. Examples of SSPX claims are as follows:
a) the claim for January 1, "Circumcision of Our Lord & Octave of Christmas"
to be a Holyday of Obligation.
b) the same for "Monday 15th August is the Feast of the Assumption...a Holiday of Obligation."
c) also for "REMEMBER! Tuesday next (1st Nov..)...All Saints...a Holiday of Obligation."
Possible breaches of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 involved: the pulpit statement that the buildings of the new school at Tynong were "valued at 2.5 million dollars." No reputable valuer would value at $2.5 million dollars buildings in storage, bought for the cost of removal from a defunct school! Insurable replacement cost to the Society is another matter entirely! The pulpit
statement was made to induce the congregation to part with more money towards the project; yet Section 181.(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 reads as follows:
"181. Fraudulently inducing persons to invest money.
(1) Any person...by the reckless making of any statement promise or forecast which is misleading false or deceptive, induces or attempts to induce another person:
---a) to enter into or offer to enter into
------1) any agreement for or with a view to...lending or depositing money to or with any corporation... shall be guilty of an indictable offence & liable to level 5 imprisonment.
------2) 'Corporation' means any body corporate whether incorporated in Victoria, or elsewhere." The SSPX is a corporate body, registered as a business in New South Wales!
The pulpit statement was followed up with Fr. Angele's begging letter of June 25, 1996:
"The building that will be ours when this is done have been valued at 2.5 million dollars. This represents a saving of 2.1 million dollars which will set the completion of the entire project ahead by several years."
Note: 1. "...when this is done..."
2. "have been valued at 2.5 million dollars."
3. This concern was set out in Appendices 3 and 10.
On September 8, 1996 I approached Fr. Angele to enquire as to whether I could expect an answer to my letter of July 4th. His only reply: "You can --when I get around to it." End of conversation.
On September 13, 1996 I forwarded to Frs Angele, Violette and Peek copies of An Open Letter From A Confused Catholic - being nine pages of quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishops Fellay and Williamson, Frs Schmidberger, Violette, Peek, Angele, Robinson, Dolan, Michael Davies and many other sources. The Open Letter was somewhat rambling, but it demonstrated that there were a lot of conflicting patterns of thought within the Society including a high defection rate from the Society to sedevacantism and other directions.
As at April 20, 1997, having still had no response to my June 4, 1996 letter nor to the Open Letter, and with no realistic hope of ever receiving a reply (based on the fact, as pointed out to Fr. Angele in my letter of September 13, that of six letters written to him, I had received only two partial replies), I ceased supporting and attending Hampton. No enquiry has been received from the Hampton pastors as to reasons for our absence.
Subsequently, I have engaged in some considerable research and have attained a fresh view of the historical Church - a view which enables me to re-evaluate stances taken over the past twenty plus years. When I was a young boy, my view of Popes amounted to seeing them almost as super human beings - perhaps they had no need even for the bathroom! Well! It was practically sacrilegious to even think that they would be placed in an undignified position. Over the past twenty or so years, my view of the Church was that it could do almost no wrong! Any
wrongdoing being done was being done by the Robber Church of Patrick Omlor; the Conciliar Church of Cardinal Benelli; the Ecumaniacal Church of Hutton Gibson. The contention that Vatican Council II was before-hand declared null and void by the Bull Execrabilis of Pope Pius II was expounded and accepted; Papal Bulls were irreformable - any intending reformer being subject to the "the wrath of Almighty God and the Apostles Peter and Paul." (as per St. Pius V's Quo Primum ), etc. One of the teachers at the new SSPX Tynong school assured me that, in
reality, there had not been any bad popes; even accounts of Alexander VI are biased and very inaccurate. Well, I now believe that these contentions are very simplistic. Indeed, it is fair to echo the words of Fr. Josef Bisig, the Swiss-born Superior General of the Fraternity of St Peter, who was reported in AD2000 of April 1998 (p.9) when he left the SSPX in 1988 as saying: "I discovered many new aspects of the Church. In the Society we spoke only of the negative
aspects..."
I must thank the SSPX for setting the scene, allowing for the "traditionalist" scales to be lifted from my eyes. The data following has helped me in re-assessing my thoughts; the matters therein simply demonstrate the fact that popes, bishops and clergy and laity are, most certainly, human beings; that despite the human element and any false "holier than thou" dissent, the Church
continues.
There appears to be abundant evidence that popes have been men of their "times"; some have been very good, some very bad and others somewhere in between; at least one was mad! Some papal decrees have been issued, with the fullness of the Apostolic Authority, later to be reversed by the same Pope, or annulled or reversed by a successor. Whether one likes it or not - Pope Paul VI was technically able to abrogate, derogate, or obrogate the Quo Primum of St. Pius V. Further, as history shows, he was not limited to what the Council might have authorised - he was able to promote or suppress whatever pre-Conciliar, Conciliar or post-Conciliar measures he might deem fit. Furthermore, whatever one might think of the propriety, aptness, goodness or deficiency in any regard of the Order of Mass of Pope Paul VI , it was certainly within his authority to promulgate a new rite. Attitudes, which tend to believe that all decrees of past
popes are irreformable and still totally applicable to today's situations are, I think, immature and false.
This is not to say that the Pope did exercise all of the above rights, nor that they were exercised wisely! Nor is to say that what was officially promulgated equates precisely to the vernacular translations of the Order of Mass of Pope Paul VI ; it did not! Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have admitted in his recent autobiography that the manner in which Paul VI changed the Mass in 1969 provoked "extremely serious damage". However, the translations (or more precisely, the mistranslations) approved by the relative National Conferences of Catholic Bishops were "approved and confirmed by the Apostolic See", albeit with the stipulation that they "must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text." (Declaration on the meaning of translations of Sacramental Formulae, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Insauratio Liturgica, Jan. 25, 1974 [VC p.272].) It is still extremely difficult to reconcile the mistranslation of Christ "dicens...pro multis" as Christ "said...for all" - when he very plainly did NOT say "for all", but said "for many", which has, until 1969, always been "understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text", and which has never been so "mistranslated" or used in any Catholic, Orthodox or heterodox rite or Bible, and which remains "dicens...pro multis" in the promulgated Latin Order of Mass of Pope Paul VI.
It appears that, until recent times, Church officials have been largely unwilling to admit to past errors, and that attitude appeared to have been similar to that of the three blind monkeys! I believe I have demonstrated, in the following pages, that there were indeed an accumulation of accretions, legends and pious traditions which ought to have been dealt with well prior to
the Council of Trent, but some of which may well have been dealt with by Vatican II, even if devoid of "touch" or "feeling".
Pope John Paul II's "Crossing The Threshold of Hope" was published in 1994. He entitled the first chapter: The Pope: A Scandal and a Mystery. He drew attention to the fact that God had encouraged various persons to "Be not afraid", and that, despite Peter's denial of Christ - he was not rejected. He said of the papacy and himself: "We should not fear the truth about ourselves."
(CTTOH pp.3/14.) Encouraged by example from Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Pell has demonstrated to Australian Catholics a far greater degree of leadership and justice than previously prevailed.
The following ideas, as publicly held by certain SSPX priests in Australia, appear to me to be unacceptable:
Publicly denied by officers of the SSPX:
1. The Catholic Church since Vatican II;
2. Association or solidarity with non-SSPX Catholics;
3. Obedience to legitimate orders from legitimate superiors; and
4. That the new Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church. (Positively it is affirmed that the New Mass is not lawful; it is not acceptable to God; it is an adulterous union with its bastard fruits, and it is intrinsically evil.
Publicly affirmed by officers of the SSPX:
1. That all other Sacraments are suspected as being per se invalid and unlawful;
2. The pope, the bishops in union with him and the vast majority of Catholics who worship God in a way other than the way employed by the Society are deemed to be in a new religion.
3. Pope John Paul II is not only deplorably deficient in his teaching but is an absolute scandal....he is not a great Pope; worse, he is a bad Pope, and
4. If (this particular priest) were ever to say the New Mass, (he wrote) know that I would be committing a mortal sin.
5. The Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of antichrist. In the SSPX Good Friday liturgy 1,000 years of discrimination against the Jews is continued (by refusing to implement Pope Pius XII legitimat legislation in the 1958 Reform of Holy Week - to wit, refusing to include the Oremus, Flectamus genua and Levate in the Intercession for the Jews.)
6. "Now that a Catholic school is available I don't see how those who prefer public schools for their children can be excused from sin." (By implication - there were NO Catholic schools available for the education of Catholic children prior to the availability of the SSPX St Thomas College at Tynong.) .
7. In the majority of (officially Catholic) churches still operating, it is the abomination of desolation and a mockery of the truth which have replaced the Holy of Holies.
With publicly expressed ideas like these, I believe that one would do equally as well in supporting, for example, the Shuckardites or any other group following the many "Bishops at Large" or schismatic cultists who, ultimately, reap the effects of introverted isolation. Thanks to the extremism of some of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X in Australia, I now positively reject the above denied or affirmed notions.
F. John Loughnan
10 Glendale Drive
Chirnside Park 3116
AUSTRALIA
January 5, 1998
