Response of Fr.François Laisney, SSPX to Archbishop Capalla’s response to SSPX Open Letter

N°1: Contrary to the “New Mass” of Paul VI, which was “the production of experts” as Cardinal Ratzinger himself said in a preface to the book of Mgr. Gamber on the Liturgy, the Traditional Mass was not “made” at the request of the Council of Trent, but rather “restored”, i.e. it was the Roman Mass of centuries passed which Pope Saint Pius V restored (taking off novelties introduced by the Renaissance) and extended to all the Latin Patriarchate: thus the Saints before the Council of Trent already said the Traditional Mass, i.e. the Mass a Saint Thomas Aquinas offered was substantially the same as the Traditional Mass of today. Thus it is false to say: “This form of the mass originated in the 16th century after the Council of Trent.”

N°2: That there is a new form of Mass, we do not deny, but as you yourself say: “the latter came after Vatican II”: it was not even the Mass said at the Council; it was a novelty, prepared by a commission in which there were six Protestant ministers!

N°3: That many souls were wounded by the novelties, scandalized by the carelessness with which the Blessed Sacrament was handled, by some sermons, and by the new morals of some members of the clergy is not an “inappropriate” mention: it is a sad fact. Many felt: “they are changing ourholy religion!”

N°4: the Society of Saint Pius X is not an “excommunicated group”: there has NEVER been any decree excommunicating the Society of Saint Pius X. As you know the principle in Canon Law, “favorable things are to be interpreted widely but unfavorable ones are to be given a strict interpretation”, therefore it is absolutely illegitimate to extend to hundreds of priests and thousands of faithful a [questionable] decree that excommunicated at most 6 persons! Moreover, Canon Law itself says that in case of perceived necessity, automatic excommunications do not apply, so it does not even apply to these six persons who certainly acted perceiving a case of necessity. And if there is a doubt whether or not this applies to them, in case of doubt the favourable case should be taken. But it seems that, when dealing with the Society of Saint Pius X, people tend to extend condemnations to the hardest point, much beyond the Law: if that is not “persecution”, what is it?The faithful have a legitimate right to get from the priests the sacraments of the Church, in the age-old rites of the Church, which embody the age-old Faith of the Church. If they are not given these rites by the local clergy, then there is “absence of a regularly ordained priest” and thus a case of emergency, thus jurisdiction is then given by the Canon Law to the priests who serve these faithful

I do not know the content of the Doctrinal Preamble, but it is beyond doubt that both Bishop Fellay and the whole Society of Saint Pius X is attached and professes the Catholic Faith in its fullness and integrity. So if this preamble clearly and unambiguously expresses that same Catholic Faith, we will have no difﬁ culty to accept it. If it is ambiguous, then there may be need to clarify the ambiguities.

Indeed, ambiguities and calculated silences have been the plague of the modern church teaching in the past 40 years; and we have been mistreated because we teach the Faith without ambiguity, without calculated silences. Because we ﬁ rmly believe the Athanasius Creed: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which Faith except every one do keep whole and undeﬁ led, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity… it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believes rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ” Who “is the Way, the Truth and the Life”, and “no one goes to the Father but by Him” (Jn 14:6-7). Now, how many of the local clergy preach these truths openly and without calculated silences, if they still believe it. If they don’t believe it, they have lost the Catholic Faith, because one cannot reject a Creed of the Church without losing the Faith. Now, it does not belong to us to judge the individuals, and we do not; let each one judge oneself, whether one really believes these truths.

Because they wanted this Catholic Faith “whole and undeﬁled”, some faithful from Davao have asked us to come and help them… like the Good Samaritan we helped them. That help is available to every one who wants it. It is no disrespect to anyone to offer the Catholic Faith in ﬁdelity to the unchangeable deﬁ ned teaching of the Church.

You suggest us “to wait for the ofﬁcial guidelines from the Holy See”: sorry, we do not wait to do good. The Good Samaritan did not “wait for ofﬁcial guidelines”. And he was right. We will welcome these guidelines when they come, but in the meantime we do come to the help of those who asked.

Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary,

Father François Laisney

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John-mary chijioke mbah on November 3, 2011 at 9:13am

Good!

They always say Traditionalists claim to be good(God) forgeting that that is an attribute of one who has the truth (Jesus) cos he will always teach with a kind of authority that will irritate anti-christs.

Jesus called people 'blind' because they were ignorant to the truth, and they saw his teachings as blasphemous. If these people who say we claim to be God don't know/ understand/believe the spirituality in christ's teachings(True catholicism) then they shouldn't be in His catholic church as priests.