An African Layman's Response to Cdl. Sarah: You Cannot Convert the Enemy by Aping Him

Dear Emminence,

I hope God is keeping you safe and sound! Greetings from Uganda, in the heartland of Africa. As you might be aware, your brother in the episcopate (Cdl. Francis Arinze) collected together statements from a number of laity concerning their expectations from the person of the bishop. He probably had very little time at his disposal to answer all the queries a newly consecrated bishop might ask of his senior, one of such stature, having witnessed the winds of change in the Church such as from the times of Malachi Martin to James Martin. I am sure the names of these two Jesuits sound familiar to your eminence.

The so-called ‘outreach program’ by one of the two Martins is drawing souls from Uganda to hell, but neither those close to him at the Vatican nor the local bishops have called this out. Such a reality makes it appear as though the African episcopate has become a sad joke in many respects. I urge therefore that he be called out by you since the local bishops have not acted on this, and since you yourself have neither allerted the African Catholics nor called out one of your many brothers in the priesthood. African Catholics feel betrayed by their bishops because of this silence. Now however to your recent appeal to the SSPX.

The society founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Society of St. Pius X, SSPX) is very active throughout the world, even West Africa which is the region from which you hail. As far as I know, the SSPX has carried on its work of saving souls since its foundation, not without tensions that look ideologically motivated ‘from above.’ Nonetheless, this work was recognized by Benedict XVI and his immediate successor, through the faculties granted to the society in the Year of Mercy and the remission of the excommunications on the bishops prior to this. If the last of these did not recognize the legitimacy of the ministry by the SSPX priesthood, it nonetheless acknowledged that such a ministry exists, it is an avenue for many souls to find refreshment in the post-conciliar parched land; indeed a desert of faith.

I will therefore let you know why I greatly esteem Marcel Lefebvre and the society founded by him, and why you should too. Your eminence puts much emphasis on canonical attachment to Peter’s successor as a necessity not for the ministry of grace, but for unity. Nonetheless you probably know already that John XXIII in his encyclical letter on St. Leo the great (Aeterna Dei Sapientia) who is the doctor of the Church’s unity, points out the opinion of this great doctor, which is that the Church is one because her spouse is one, because the object of our faith is one, from which originates this unity in the first place. There is therefore no unity with the new arians who are spoken about by St. Pius X in his encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

If the new arians level at the SSPX the accusation of fomenting disunity, the latter can also accuse them of obscuring the faith with their transformations, their ‘seasoning’ (read corruption) of doctrine! If only they had been so creative as to avoid bringing to fruition those modernist changes lamented by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis no. 38! The dogmatic parts of the Church are ‘reformed’ or better stated, deformed. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in the document on interpreting the scriptures introduces novelties, the authorizing echelon degrades it to something that is ‘no longer an organ of the magisterium’ but ‘a team of scholars.’ Changes are made in Ecclesial teaching to match the winds of the time, so as to make the Vatican a neatly fitting piece in the European puzzle. The Church herself seems to be redefined and repurposed as though she has been irreversibly aging biologically (to use the idea of Cdl. Muller).

The 2016 synod which was rigged against the family says more about this state of affairs. You know more about this because you penned an article questioning the sort of ‘pastoral mercy’ that consists an attack on the family. By and large, you have shown yourself courageous on this front. Yet, the SSPX is made an object of opprobrium because it wishes to continue proclaiming the doctrine of truth from the time before the sovereigns of the Vatican began permitting contrary errors, if not penning them in official documents! The society doesn’t wish to play catch-up games with the new arians, and this suddenly becomes an affront to the Arians! But would they not be aping the mega-structure that claims to uphold the truth while they themselves (as you stated in your appeal) are wolves clothed as lambs?

And certainly, nobody knows more about bestial rage in clerical robes than a high ranking clergyman like yourself! After all, didn’t Our Lord Himself call out one of his disciples as a devil in John 6? He knew, we are told, who would betray Him. And while many successors of the apostles seem to have completed in themselves the rank of the enemy, I implore your eminence who is surely knowledgeable about the present danger to call it out. How would St. Peter Damian, the author of the Book of Gomorrah, a letter to Leo IX, respond to the crisis that has invaded seminaries in our time? Certainly not by euphemisms!

Moreover, when the criterion for unity in the Church seems nolonger to be the person of Christ (indeed theological pluralism itself is tolerated) but an unclear ecumenism, or even the ‘regnocentrism’ discussed by Benedict XVI (Jesus of Nazareth Part I), how do we predicate the unity desired between the SSPX and people who deny the Blessed Virgin Mary her title of ‘mediatrix of all grace’ as though they know nothing about St. Bellarmine’s Second General Controversy, the part which speaks about Christ’s mediation, how Our Lord is only called the one mediator because only He gave up His life for men; not that there are not therefore other mediators?

Your appeal therefore seems to confuse two points: 1) the ecclesial unity that is an article of faith and is not subject to erasure by the vicissitudes of the Church militant, and 2) the functional unity that is desirable for the Church on earth which is by God’s permissive will subject to vicissitudes on account of the malice of wicked men such as heretics and schismatics. Indeed, unity of governance is positively willed by God for which the office of Peter is established. But this perspective of the unity of the Church is in fact secondary to the unity of the faith of which the pope has to be the guarantor. But if he opposes himself to his predecessors in the many, he himself sets up an obstacle to this unity. This is what Leo XIV has done by undersigning a document which denies the Blessed Virgin Mary her title of mediatrix of all graces! To this, we may add his predecessor’s initiative via Fiducia Supplicans which, as you know, occasioned so much strife in Africa.

It is thus the case as you know, that the sovereigns of the Vatican themselves have occasioned disunity in the Church. It would be an anomally if what is lacking in the head be found in the members as the Council of Trent illustrates in the 24th session in its decree on reformation: “the state and order of the whole household of the Lord will totter, if what is required in the body be not found in the head.” I do not need to remind your eminence of the statement by one of your fellow cardinals who said in the time past that the Church appears as though it is without a rudder!

Therefore since you are closer to the source of unity which would be otherwise if the sovereign of the Vatican abdicated his responsibility, it seems to me that you should deal with Rome first, such that the wolves being removed, the Church can once again be one! Do not forget that Benedict XVI upon accepting his election and appearing on the benediction loggia, did not fear to point out at once that we should pray for him lest he run for fear of the wolves! In other words your eminence, you are aware of this as Benedict XVI was and as you indicate in your appeal. The origin of disunity is the wolves, not the SSPX. You know of the many signs of good will the society has shown to Rome; how in spite of this, the society and its theologians speak the same with the previous successors of St. Peter but find themselves opposed to the new theologians at the Vatican! These cannot suffer the simple piety of a member of Legion of Mary or a theologian calling Our Blessed Mother ‘the mediatrix of all grace’!

And yet, you ask the SSPX to bow before them without seeking guarantees, as though we ourselves have become Catholics without that first guarantee ensured through the profession of faith and renouncing the works of Satan and his pomps, or the renunciation of heresy! Doesn’t this entitle us to doctrinal clarity? Can your eminence guarantee that we have such clarity even today? So of course, I believe that your discussion of unity should bear the current climate of ambiguity in mind. Obedience presumes such unity and clarity, as indeed St. Pio whom you refer to in your appeal obeyed not because the order was just, but because the unity in faith and morals was then guaranteed, without which obedience to hierarchy can pose various obstacles as you must be aware!

Therefore your eminence, I hope you understand that we are removed from the Benedict era, and perhaps definitively so. We are moreover removed from the era of St. Padre Pio, and it appears, definitively so! You can judge for yourself how Benedict XVI would have reacted to Fiducia Supplicans, since you have an idea of his reaction to Traditionis Custodes. Indeed, even the sovereigns of the Vatican have shown divergent interpretations of Vatican II. How Leo XIV’s immediate predecessor applied the texts of the council is in significant rapture with Benedict XVI and this enters the official documents, Traditionis Custodes to begin with!

But if you and Cdl. Raymond Burke can for example demonstrate that Amoris Laetitia doesn’t conflict with Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II, I will be willing to discard the idea that the successors of John XXIII do not diverge in their application and therefore interpretation of the council’s texts. The SSPX might as well have no case against Rome were this not so, since not only do the sovereigns of the Vatican speak and put into circulation statements opposed to the popes who happily reigned before Vatican II, but even speak variously one against the other.

John Paul II is thus made to look like an anomaly when he calls the mother of Christ “the mediatrix of all grace,” while Benedict XVI is another anomaly when he claims the Tridentine Latin Mass was not abrogated, for Leo XIV’s immediate predecessor seems inclined to make us believe that it was destined for immediate extinction. It is shown in Traditionis Custodes as though councils and popes have reformed the liturgy every couple of centuries so long as they are cum Petro et sub Petro. Similarly, your eminence seems to show alignment with the pope as shorthand for being free from difficulties in conscience or as though obedience to the pope should be absolute whether he is a sinner or not! Shall we go to the times when St. Clare of Assisi resisted Cardinal Ugolino’s directives to change the rule of her order, both when the latter was her bishop and later after he had become pope, such that he was at last constrained to protect the privilegium paupertatis?

Lest I seem to hold out as a Church historian, I beg your indulgence to stop here and pray that this upcoming consecration of bishops by the SSPX should not be another occasion of pelting a priestly fraternity with unfounded accusations, but for the entire Church a time for examination of conscience.

May God bless and keep you!

In Jesus, Mary and Joseph.