With a very heavy heart, I communicated to the Superior General my resignation from the Society St. Pius X on 30 December. In all eternity I will be grateful to Archbishop Lefebvre for the Catholic Faith and for the priesthood! With regret, however, I have had to realise in recent years that they have deviated bit by bit from the path laid out by him:
- The “Te Deum” in thanksgiving to the Motu proprio in which the Tridentine Mass was inextricably linked with the mass of Paul VI and in which the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council was demanded. Up until recently one could read on the internet that at the Priory St. Pius X in Munich the ‘Holy Mass (in the extraordinary form)’ was offered. In the seminary I learnt that we read the mass in the Tridentine rite, there is no ordinary or extraordinary rite, this is a completely untenable construct of Pope Benedict XVI. He who talks of an extraordinary rite, consequently must have in mind and accept an ordinary rite, the new mass.
- The gratitude for the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre said at a press conference in 1988: “So we are excommunicated by modernists, by people who would have been excommunicated by the preceding popes. What is this? We are condemned by people who have been condemned and who should be publicly condemned. That leaves us indifferent.” Archbishop Lefebvre always regarded the excommunication as null and void. But what is null and void does not need to be lifted. – Besides, with the lifting the injustice perpetrated against Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer continues to remain in force.
- The willingness to negotiate with Rome, although Archbishop Lefebvre already laid out clearly and unequivocally under which conditions this should happen in future. “Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions and ask: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII. Are you in full communion with these popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favour of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Fideliter Nr. 70)
- The bringing forward of a practical arrangement without a doctrinal clean-up of the heresies of the Second Vatican Council. In a spiritual talk on 21 December 1984 the Archbishop said: “So the canonical issue, this purely public and exterior issue in the Church, is secondary. What matters, it is to stay within the Church … inside the Church, in other words, in the Catholic Faith of all time, in the true priesthood, in the true Mass, in the true sacraments, and the same catechism, with the same Bible. That’s what matters to us. That’s what the Church is. Public recognition is a secondary issue.”
- Again and again I had to realise that no clear language was being spoken any more. So the second intention in the rosary crusade reads: “for the return of Tradition into the church…”. What is meant by “the church”? The Catholic Church as she was founded by Jesus Christ or the post-conciliar church? If it means the Catholic Church then no return is possible because Tradition is an integral part of the Catholic Church; if the post-conciliar church is meant then it is her who left Tradition. Then it is her who has to return to Tradition, not Tradition to the church.
These are the main reasons which have led to my decision. Despite warnings from the three auxiliary bishops, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop de Galarreta, despite warnings from the Society of the Good Shepherd, despite the knowledge of the attitude of Pope Benedict XVI, where nothing would move forward without the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, the talks and negotiations were continued.
One might argue: “Our Superior General did not sign anything.” – But he would have been ready for an agreement, without having solved the doctrinal differences, as his letter from 17 June 2012 proves. They were ready for the worst, but Rome did not want it. – Trust in the Superiors is now somehow shaken, it is destroyed.
At this point, I thank with all my heart my dear faithful for all your prayers and sacrifices, with which you have supported my priestly ministry. Gladly I recommend myself also in future to your prayers,
Fr. Martin Fuchs
Jaidhof, 5 January, 2014