OUR LADY OF FATIMA  CATHOLIC CHURCH

We Are Faithful Catholics 
and Here’s Why…

Our manifesto for keeping alive the Traditional Catholic Faith

Most Reverend Terence R. Fulham

I wrote this article 5 years ago and in a much different form. I have never circulated the article other than to two or three people for their private perusal. Parts of the article have appeared in summarized form in different columns but never in toto as here for the first time. Since I wrote this in September 2004 a number of critical ecclesial events have taken place which actually add to the argumentation of this article. Since the original writing, then, considerable modifications have been made to the text so that if any of those who read that version see this version it would behoove you to give this text more than scant attention since there is much additional material (and obviously a lot of deleted material that may eventually see the light of day in a different article since its content is most definitely not without much merit).

Recently here and there questions have arisen within the Novus Ordo hierarchy in France and Germany regarding the legitimate membership within the Catholic Church of laity who attend and frequent chapels operated by the Society of St. Pius X. Their objection is suspect as to the precise timing as we shall see at the end but their questions often cross a Traditionalist's mind from time to time as well so let's examine the bishops' objection:

In other words: by attending a Traditional chapel do you cease to be a member of the Catholic Church ? 

I will demonstrate that the answer is "no" and that this answer comes from Rome herself !

(1) There is no such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church" properly speaking
(2) Membership in the Catholic Church
(3) Union with the Pope a Strict Necessity of Means for Salvation
(4) Define your terms: Schism / Schismatic

A/ Dogmatic Theology

1. Pre-conciliar notions
2. Post-conciliar notions

B/ Moral Theology
C/ Canon Law

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law
2. 1983 Code of Canon Law

(5) Our Attachment to Tradition
(6) Our Right as Catholics to the Traditional Faith
(7) Was the Tridentine Mass Suppressed by Pope Paul VI ?

(1) There is No Such Thing as the "Roman Catholic Church" properly speaking

Yes you read that RIGHT ! As a title the words may seem somewhat startling but in actuality they are entirely true. In the earliest profession of faith the "Apostolic Creed" we read:

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church" (1)

and in the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" (381 AD):

"We believe (…) In one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" (2)

and in the Creed "Quicumque" called the "Athanasian Creed":

"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without doubt perish in eternity." (3)

From these three creeds the consensus is that the "Church" is officially called the "Catholic" or "Universal" Church, not the "Roman Catholic Church."

Commenting on the first canon of the current 1983 Code of Canon Law Reverend Ladislas Orsy S.J. writes as follows:

"The universal Catholic Church consists of particular churches in communion with each other and the Church of Rome. Each particular church is governed (with rare exceptions) by a bishop. The universal Church is governed by the Bishop of Rome. As the diocesan bishop is the principle of unity for a portion of the people of God, so the Bishop of Rome is the principle of unity for the entire people of God. The universal church is divided into the eastern and western branches, distinguishable mainly by the different rites they follow in the liturgical celebrations and by their separate administrative structures." (4)

Reverend John M. Huels O.S.M. commenting on the same canon:

"The Roman Catholic Church consists of twenty-two autonomous (sui iuris) churches, formerly called "rites", each with its own hierarchy, traditions, and discipline. All of these churches, while remaining juridically distinct, are united under the headship of the bishop of Rome, the Pope. (…) The Latin church sui iuris observes the Roman rite liturgy or a variation of it, the most notable variation being the Ambrosian rite of Milan. The twenty-one Eastern churches sui iuris observe five different liturgical rites, as follows:

1. Alexandrine rite: Coptic church, Ethiopian church

2. Anthiochene rite: Malankar, Maronite, and Syrian Churches

3. Byzantine rite: Albanian, Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Greek, Italo-Albanian,Yugoslavian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovakian, Ukrainian, and Hungarian churches

4. Chaldean rite: Chaldean and Malabar churches

5. Armenian rite: Armenian Church." (5)

Father Huels is incorrect in the use of the term "Roman Catholic Church" as we shall soon see but he is correct in the statement that the Catholic Church consists of 22 autonomous churches only one of which is the Latin Rite using the liturgical texts of the Roman Rite.

This being said, though, we intended at the beginning of this section to demonstrate why there was: "no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church properly speaking". To this end two extensive quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia the first consists of excerpts from the entry entitled "Catholic", the second excerpts from the entry entitled "Roman Catholic":

"Catholic, The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. (…) The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." (…) The reference (c. 155) to "the bishop of the catholic church in Smyrna" (Letter on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, xvi), a phrase which necessarily presupposes a more technical use of the word, is due, some critics think, to interpolation. On the other hand this sense undoubtedly occurs more than once in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180), where, for example, it is said of certain heretical writings that they "cannot be received in the Catholic Church". A little later, Clement of Alexandria speaks very clearly. "We say", he declares, "that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith" (Stromata, VII, xvii; P. G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century.(…)

With regard to the modern use of the word, Roman Catholic is the designation employed in the legislative enactments of Protestant England, but Catholic is that in ordinary use on the Continent of Europe, especially in Latin countries. Indeed, historians of all schools, at least for brevity's sake, frequently contrast Catholic and Protestant, without any qualification. In England, since the middle of the sixteenth century, indignant protests have been constantly made against the "exclusive and arrogant usurpation" of the name Catholic by the Church of Rome. (…)According to some, such combinations as Roman Catholic, or Anglo-Catholic, involve a contradiction in terms. (...) From about the year 1580, besides the term papist, employed with opprobrious intent, the followers of the old religion were often called Romish or Roman Catholics. (6)

"Roman Catholic, A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. (…) In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic". The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766) (…)

A study of (…) other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. (…) The term "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" undoubtedly originated with the Protestant divines who shared this feeling and who were unwilling to concede the name Catholic to their opponents without qualification. (…)

On the other hand the evidence seems to show that the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified name Catholic. (…) (I)n Elizabeth's reign, while in Acts of Parliament, proclamations, etc., before the Spanish match, Catholics are simply described as Papists or Recusants, and their religion as popish, Romanish, or Romanist. Indeed long after this period, the use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the government. Thus the "Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland" in 1661, began "We, your Majesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick clergy of Ireland". The same Practice seems to have obtained in Maryland; see or example the Consultation entitled "Objections answered touching Maryland", drafted by Father R Blount, S.J., in 1632 (B. Johnston, "Foundation of Maryland , etc., 1883, 29), and wills proved 22 Sep., 1630, and 19 Dec., 1659, etc., (in Baldwin, "Maryland Cat. of Wills", 19 vols., vol. i. (…)

With the strong Catholic revival in the middle of the nineteenth century and the support derived from the uncompromising zeal of many earnest converts, such for example as Faber and Manning, an inflexible adherence to the name Catholic without qualification once more became the order of the day. The government, however, would not modify the official designation or suffer it to be set aside in addresses presented to the Sovereign on public occasions. In two particular instances during the archiepiscopate of Cardinal Vaughan this point was raised and became the subject of correspondence between the cardinal and the Home Secretary. (…)

It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his "Tortura Torti" (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. "What," he asks, "is the object of adding ‘Roman’? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman" (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine." (7)

It might be legitimately argued that the previous two extracts represent a Preconciliar understanding of the nature of the Catholic Church since the date of publishing of the Catholic Enyclopedia was 1913. Happily, however, the same understanding of the Church being simply the "Catholic Church" and not the "Roman Catholic Church" continued after the Second Vatican Council. In his book The Church (1967) Hans Küng, by no means a traditional theologian, quotes from part of paragraph 13 of the Vatican II dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium and comments upon that extract as follows:

Father Hans Küng

"It follows that among all the nations of the earth there is but one People of God, which takes its citizens from every race, making them citizens of a kingdom which is of a heavenly and not an earthly nature. For all the faithful scattered throughout the world are in communion with each other in the Holy Spirit, so that "he who occupies the See of Rome knows the people of India are his members" (St John Chrysostom). Since the kingdom of God is not of this world (cf. Jn. 18:36), the Church or People of God takes nothing away from the temporal welfare of any people by establishing that kingdom. Rather does she foster and take to herself, insofar as they are good, the ability, resources and customs of each people. Taking them to herself she purifies, strengthens, and ennobles them. The Church in this is mindful that she must harvest with that King to whom the nations were given for an inheritance (cf. Ps. 2:8) and into whose city they bring gifts and presents.( cf. Ps. 71 (72):10; Is. 60:4-7; Rev. 21:24.) This characteristic of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord Himself. By reason of it, the Catholic Church strives energetically and constantly to bring all humanity with all its riches back to Christ its Head in the unity of His Spirit. In virtue of this catholicity each individual part of the Church contributes through its special gifts to the good of the other parts and of the whole Church. Thus through the common sharing of gifts and through the common effort to attain fullness in unity, the whole and each of the parts receive increase. Not only, then, is the People of God made up of different peoples, but in its inner structure it is composed of various ranks." (CE 13: cf. Doe 14 & 16).

(c) But does not all this point quite clearly to that Church which is commonly referred to as "The Catholic Church"? Has it deserved that title? Does this one Church not come closest to the idea of universality? Is it not geographically the most widespread, numerically the largest, culturally and socially the most varied, in terms of age the most long-lived? And yet the other Churches would question the very fundament of the catholicity of the so-called "Catholic Church", by questioning whether it remained true to its original nature, whether it is still supported in its original calling. In reply to this, we may well ask whether such a total judgment is possible under contemporary conditions. Can we assert that the so-called "Catholic Church" is lacking in all those features we have noted as belonging to the essence of the Church, can we say it is more lacking in them than any other Church? We ought not to judge too hastily either one way or the other; we have already encountered difficulties of the problem in connection with the unity of the Church. But let us here consider the question of catholicity, in which, as we shall see, the problems about unity recur in clearer form.

We cannot simply ignore one curious fact, which needs explaining: the fact that one Church, from the time of Ignatius of Antioch down to the present day, has very consistently retained as part of its title that age-old attribute which we have seen to belong to the fundamental character of the Church (cf. "Christian is my name, Catholic my surname" – Pacian, Ep. Ad Sympron, 1, 4: PL 13, 1055). It is true that other Churches have not only wished yo be catholic, but wished to be called catholic. But they have always found it necessary to add some further definition (Anglo-Catholic, Old Catholic etc.), precisely in order to avoid being confused with the one Church which has remained the "Catholic Church".

Some remarks of St Augustine have a peculiarly contemporary relevance: "We must remain true to the Christian faith and to the community of that Church which is catholic and which is called the Catholic Church as well by its opponents as by all the members of it. Whether they intend to or not, even heretics and schismatics, if they are talking not among themselves but to outsiders, can only refer to one Church as catholic, namely the Catholic Church. They can only make themselves clear by giving it that name by which it is known the world over." (Augustine, De vera religione, 7, 12; PL 34, 128.)

It is true that there were attempts to rename the "Catholic Church" the "Roman Church", quite simply, as though the "Roman" Church were quite simply the "Catholic" Church! By adding this word to the usual definition and speaking of the "Roman Catholic Church", it was hoped to dismiss the "Catholic Church" as an isolated particularist confessional Church, and at the time of the Counter-Reformation some Catholics were thoughtless enough to accept this label, which threatened the whole concept of catholicity by associating the Church with local limitations and making it seem a specific confessional group. There were even attempts, beginning at the time of the Reformation, to deny to the Church the title of "catholic" altogether. And yet none of these attempts altered the fact that today as always the simple name "Catholic Church" refers to the one "Catholic Church." (8)

Hence it follows that there is no "Roman Catholic Church" but the one "Catholic Church" that consists of 22 rites, one of which is the Latin Rite which uses the liturgical texts of the Church of Rome. All 22 rites accept the Church of Rome as their common head and all are members of the same Catholic Church. Next we consider how one becomes a member of the Catholic Church with specific reference to joining the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

(2) Membership in the Catholic Church

Membership in the Catholic Church is effected by:

a) Intellectual adherence to a common system of belief (the teaching of the Catholic Church) by an act of faith on the part of the believer.

b) The reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.

c) The willingness to share unity with other believers under the authority of the Chief Shepherd, the Pope.

Pope Pius XII taught as follows:

Papal Teaching: "In the Church they alone are to be counted as members who have received the baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith, who moreover, have not had the misfortune to separate themselves from the assembly of the Body, or been excommunicated by the legitimate authority by reason of very grave faults." (9)

In the 1983 Code of Canon Law we read:

Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.

§2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

Can.  850 Baptism is administered according to the order prescribed in the approved liturgical books, except in case of urgent necessity when only those things required for the validity of the sacrament must be observed. (10)

Thus membership for infants of the Latin Church is obtained by the "mutual agreement" of the child’s parents (or failing this the child is enrolled in the Father’s Rite) and by the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism "according to the order prescribed in the approved liturgical books"; for those over 14 years of age, membership of the Latin Church is obtained by the free choice of the petitioner and by the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism according to the same liturgical books.

There are, however, exceptions to this. In 1995 I received a reply from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission that delineated the exceptions (A photographic reprint of this letter is included below):

"It should be noted that for valid membership the Church does not require

a.) a public abjuration of error, but only profession of faith (cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum #25)

b.) the reception of any sacrament if the person is already baptized. (The unconfirmed are already members of the Church if baptized Catholics; Penance is obligatory only for those conscious or mortal sin);

c.) inscription in registers or any public ritual.

d.) She does not even necessarily require any action or authorization by an ecclesiastical minister since in an exceptional situation a person can become a member of the catholic Church through his sole intention when he accepts Baptism validly administered by a pagan, even if the ordinary way is for a Bishop to grant to a priest the faculty to receive an adult person into the Catholic Church." (11)

In making these statements, Msgr Perl wrote earlier in the letter that he had "taken counsel with an expert canonist". Hence I conclude from this that ultimately membership in the Catholic Church is essentially a profession of faith which is an interior act of the will. Since the will cannot be known by another without evidence, to claim that I or other Traditional clergy who are not in lock-step with the modern hierarchy are not Catholic is not tenable unless by some exterior sign (word of mouth or writing) we give the lie to our claim to adhere to Catholic faith.

(3) Union with the Pope a Strict Necessity of Means for Salvation

It is not enough to maintain that by Baptism and the common profession of faith that one is a Catholic. We must also be united with the visible Head of the Church, the Bishop of Rome also known as the Pope. The Pope is the immediate shepherd of the entire Church. Bishops are only the local administrators of his authority. The First Vatican Council (1869-70) had this to say on the question of the Pope’s immediate jurisdiction over each Catholic:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. (...) In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same filth, the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd. (...) This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. (...) Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. (...) if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, (...) or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful let him he anathema. (12)

From this it follows that every baptized Catholic who professes the teachings of the Catholic Church and is in union with the Church has the Pope for his immediate shepherd and teacher.

The Second Vatican Council stated the matter this way:

"This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.

"Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who -- by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion -- are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops." (13)

Union with the Papacy is strictly necessary for salvation and especially if people want to call themselves Catholic as Pope Pius IX wrote:

"In fact, it is contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic See. For it is necessary for all the other churches, that is, for all the faithful of the entire world, to be in agreement with this See by reason of its sovereign primacy, and he who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church, since he is already a sinner and a schismatic who raises up a chair against the one Chair of Peter, from which flow to all others the sacred rights of communion.

"All these declarations are so emphatic that we must conclude from them that a man who has been declared schismatic by the Roman Pontiff must cease absolutely to claim the name of Catholic so long as he fails to recognize an does not expressly revere that Pontiff’s power in its fullness." (14)

Thus, union with the Pope is the essence of Catholicity, withdrawal of union as will be seen is called schism.

(4) Schism / Schismatic

For the charge of "schism" or label of "schismatic" to stick several criteria have to be fulfilled as we shall see. Let us begin with a definition of schism from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

"Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (15)

We shall consider "schism" under three aspects: dogma, moral theology and Canon Law. In the case of dogma and moral theology we shall discuss "schism" as it was understood both prior to the Second Vatican Council and afterwards; with respect to Canon Law we shall consider "schism" as it understood in both the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the 1983 Code of Canon Law (the current law in effect). We begin with the Preconciliar understanding of "schism" from the point of view of dogma

A/ Dogmatic Theology

Prior to the Second Vatican Council, it was common for dogmatic theologians to present a rather stereotypical view of schism and its consequences. The following extract is taken from one such theologian as an illustration of the "cut-and-dried" approach taken before the council (namely a schismatic was considered "outside the Church"):

"One may, with the Vatican Council, distinguish a two-fold unity of the Church:

1. Unity of Faith

This consists in the fact that all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. (…)

2. Unity of Communion

This consists, on the one hand, in the subjection of the members of the Church to the authority of the bishops and of the Pope (unity of government or hierarchical unity); on the other hand, in the binding of the members among themselves to a social unity by participation in the same cult and in the same means of grace (unity of cult or liturgical unity).

The unity both of faith and of communion is guaranteed by the Primacy of the Pope, the Supreme Teacher and Pastor of the Church (centrum unitatis D 1960). One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy and from the unity of communion by schism. (…)

Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: (…)

c) Schismatics, as well as those who, in good faith, fundamentally reject the Church authority, or who dissociate themselves from the commonwealth of the faithful subject to her. Schismatics in good faith (material) like heretics in good faith, can, by a desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae), belong spiritually to the Church, and through this achieve justification and salvation." (16)

To read this one might well conclude the issue was closed. This would be far from the truth. Indeed in the early church "schism" had a slightly different emphasis, an emphasis that changed through the centuries:

"Schisms made their first appearance at a local Church level. However, the necessary solidarity of local Churches (obliged to safeguard both their unanimity in the confession of the faith and their mutual good relations) inspired canonical rulings which reserved the lifting of excommunication (the penalty for the crime of schism) to the bishop who first inflicted the censure. In the Roman Catholic Church, (a strict misnomer as we have seen – author’s note) because of its progressive centralization to the advantage of the Roman See and the development of a monarchic form of ecclesiology of the universal Church, schism came to be defined mainly in terms of a breach of communion with the Pope. (…) St. Thomas Aquinas studied schism less as a distinct phenomenon than as individuals or groups culpable of it or adhering to it. For him it was a sin against the peace which is a fruit of love. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q.39).

Counter-Reformation theology profoundly modified the way in which the theological nature of schism was interpreted. Hitherto, as long as grave differences in the matter of faith were not involved and above all as long as rupture with legitimate authority left intact the sacramental, hierarchical organism of the Church (episcopate, priesthood of apostolic succession), schism appeared as prejudicial to the unity of the Church. But, while the position of the separated part was irregular, no one imagined that the portion was shut out from the mystery of the Church, the fundamental riches of which it continued to share (episcopate, sacraments). The drama of separation was conceived of as taking place within the Church, considered essentially as a fellowship. By defining the Church as a hierarchically constituted society under the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome, and by identifying the Church purely and simply with the Roman Catholic Church, the Counter-Reformation made out schism to be a separation from the Church itself." (17)

However, in the immediate pre-conciliar period an evolution of thought could be observed with this statement by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical on the Church in 1943:

"For not every fault, even if it be a grave crime - like schism, heresy, or apostasy - is by its very nature such to separate a man from the Body of the Church" (18)

Pius’ assertion in Mystici Corporis that schism does not necessarily separate person from the Body of the Church represents a return to the older view described in (17) namely that "The drama of separation was conceived of as taking place within the Church, considered essentially as a fellowship." Indeed this is the viewpoint adopted at the Second Vatican Council and remains very much the teaching of the Church today. Father Dumont continues his article on "schism":

"The Second Vatican Council has recovered the traditional outlook by putting forward and ecclesiology of fellowship which, instead of emphasizing jurisdictional factors (…), stresses the sacramental and spiritual elements: sacraments (baptism, orders, Eucharist), sanctifying grace, theological virtues, gifts of the Holy Spirit. Henceforward, the entire reality of the mystery of the Church is to be regarded as overflowing the borders of its full and sole legitimate realization under the species of the Roman Catholic Church." (19)

Concerning the use of the somewhat disparaging term "schismatic" Father Dumont writes:

"From motives of charity, one nowadays avoids as far as possible using the term "schismatic" with reference to members of Churches and Christian communities which disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, all the more so if the people concerned have been born and received their religious formation in these communities. They cannot be held responsible for the state of division from us in which they live today. Besides, both parties must share responsibility for the creation of that division." (20)

Cardinal Ratzinger and "The Lefebvrists"

In an interview in January 1994 accorded to Il Regno (an Italian magazine) the then Cardinal Ratzinger was asked about the Church's pastoral outreach and approach to "Lefebvrists" in particular and other Traditionalists in general. He made these telling remarks: 

Il Regno: Six years ago in 1988 the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre ended in a dramatic manner, and you were closely involved in these events. How do you judge these things now? Weren't there moments of excessive "condescendence"? What future can one foresee for the partisans of Archbishop Lefebvre?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The Lefebvrist phenomenon is on the increase, even if it is not now talked about very much; There are enclosed monasteries, religious congregations, a university institute in Paris, seminaries everywhere in the world, with a large number of candidates preparing for the priesthood, a growing number of priests, chapels and churches. It is a question of a phenomenon of undeniable importance even if only from the number of priests who adhere to it, young ones who are often motivated by a great idealism.

As for future prospects, on the one hand I see a growing hardening on the part of its leaders - I think, for example, of their harsh critique of the new catechism - as well as other phenomena, which leave little hope of undertaking a new dialogue. On the other hand, I also see numerous lay people, often with a cultural formation, participating in its liturgies without identifying themselves with the movement. It is necessary to distinguish between the people in charge, who are very sure of themselves (they say that the next time it will not be Rome which imposes conditions but us), who show a surprising and preoccupying harshness, and on the other hand a number of people who participate at their liturgies without identifying with the movement, having the conviction of remaining in full communion with the Pope, and not withdrawing themselves from communion with the Church.

This is not an attitude of condescendence but of generosity, as we must concern ourselves with these people, who are often suffering. In the university world, I know people of different faculties who have tried to come back to the Church; but who often do not find understanding or sufficient generosity in the Church. In a Church open to a healthy pluralism, which naturally has its limits but which admits certain diverse expression, I believe that we should show comprehension and generosity to allow these expressions to feel really at home in the common and universal Church, and to reconcile themselves and thus eliminate the reasons for the schism. I recognise, for example, how the beginning of reconciliation was difficult for the Abbey of Barroux but which has now ended in spirituality and new joy at being truly in the Catholic Church. They have written a book against the criticisms levelled at the new Catechism. They themselves said to us: "Five years ago we could not have imagined that we were capable of doing this. Now that we are reconciled we are experiencing what it is to be reborn into a sense of Catholicity, and therefore into understanding of the teaching of the Church of today." It is only by building bridges to facilitate dialogue that we can at the same time define its limits more precisely. (21)

In regards to the Council, a greater desire for freedom and plurality of ecclesial expression was advocated by many of the Fathers. One of the periti (theological advisors to the Bishops at Vatican II) Father Hans Küng wrote beautifully of the diversity of the Church and the dangers of hierarchical suffocation of individuality:

"Variety within the Church is not an unavoidable evil. God Himself is not an inflexible montone unit, but the living Trinity. Further, He did not will to create one creature but a wonderful variety of created beings who are held together in Christ (Col 1:16ff). The multitude of creatures fallen away from the union with God has been joined together within the same Christ (Eph. 1:10). The manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10) was to become fruitful and made known in the Church until the end when God will be all (1 Cor. 15:28). In the Church there is one Spirit, but many gifts, one word of God, but many languages, one body, but many members, one people of God, but many nations. The variety in the Church is a gift of God, the Church surrounded endowed with variety (cf Ps. 44:10). Since the Middle Ages these words have been predominantly understood as the variety of virtues, of the Sacraments, of the hierarchic levels. But the ancient Church gave these words a deeper meaning in terms of the variety of the individual churches, peoples, rites, and languages.

This catholic manifoldness, however, is not only a gift of God, but it is also - and precisely for this reason – the task of the Church. This catholic manifoldness should not be neglected or even throttled (either by legal or illegal means!) but, instead, it should be preserved and protected. Indeed it should be fostered and developed (with all legal means) with all means available within the framework of catholic unity." (22)

Father Edward Schillebeeckx, a Dominican theologian–advisor at the Second Vatican Council also alludes to the abuse of power in the post-conciliar environment by Church hierarchs seeking to stifle the spontaneity to which the Council brought life:

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx OP

"The church as ‘communion’ does not stand over against the church as ‘institution’: each calls the other and needs the other. But the communal and institutional church – the church embedded in concrete reality – does stand over against a bureaucratic and centralist management if it allows a cramping church policy built on criteria which are not those of the gospel, with arbitrary and injurious attitudes towards men and women. (…)  Every time the church points to the kingdom of God, within its own ranks it will also constantly have to point to the term metanoia or renewal of life which is bound up with that key biblical concept. And metanoia is never completed. Without this renewal of life which has constantly to be embarked on anew, the church, instead of being the liberation movement that it was in its origin, becomes a power structure that oppresses men and women, diminishes them and makes them suffer." (23)

In keeping with the trends seen in the dogmatic understanding of the nature and consequences of schism the moral theologians show a similar shift in the understanding of the culpability or imputability of the sin of schism. A survey of the subjective accountability before God for the moral guilt incurred by schism by the moral theologians need not concern us here. That is more properly dealt with in the next section where we consider the canonical aspect of schism. In passing though, let us pause to quote a very insightful passage from a standard moral theology textbook used in many modern Catholic seminaries today. 

"Reviewing the many ambiguities of the situations and the partial accountability of Catholic authorities, we wonder whether those involved in the terrible event of separation committed, subjectively, the sin of heresy. Some would even doubt that they were involved in an objective grave sin of schism or heresy. However, truth and the cause for unity would be served poorly if we were to stop here.  We have to take another look and ask ourselves if, in the light of a covenant morality, a morality of grace and faith, we have always done our utmost in the common search for truth. Have we done all in our power to tear down man-made barriers opposing Christian unity ? Have we not sometimes indulged in disputes about secondary things, observing man-made traditions, like the clergy in the parable of the Good Samaritan, while neglecting the essential truths of the Gospel?" (24)

Father Bernard Häring C.SS.R.

Although the 1917 Code of Canon Law has been superceded by that Code promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983, nevertheless a familiarity with the old Code is necessary, especially with regards to the interpretations of the various canons given by the eminent canonists, since the new Code derives much of the legislation from its predecessor and needs to be understood in the light of previous understandings.

The canon in the old Code which treats of "schism" is canon 1325 §2. The following extracts from eminent canonists elaborate upon the nature and requirements for this crime to be committed:

"The sin of schism does not arise from aloofness based on personal grounds, but only when it repudiates the bond of ecclesiastical union with the Roman Pontiff as supreme head of the Church." (25)

"Schism. A schismatic is said to be one who refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or withdraws communion towards members of the Church subject to the same Roman Pontiff. Whence schism can be defined as: the voluntary and pertinacious separation of a baptized person from the unity of the Catholic Church. Unity contains two elements, viz. connection of the members amongst themselves and connection of the members with the Roman Pontiff the visible head of the Church. The double figure of this crime which is proposed by the code comes from the violation of these two connections.

Rebellion towards some particular bishop is not sufficient for the crime of schism, even if he be one’s own Ordinary, but what is required is rebellion towards the Roman Pontiff. (…) The simple disobedience to a command of the Roman Pontiff broadly speaking is not sufficient for schism but the refusal of subjection to the Roman Pontiff is required." (26)

"Definition. Schism. (the rending) is the spontaneous withdrawal from the unity of the Church, in as much as it consists in the communion of the faithful amongst themselves and in due subjection to the Roman Pontiff. (…) In the greatest sense the crime of schism truly involves the withdrawal from the Roman Pontiff as the supreme shepherd of the Church, to whose authority and judgment schismatics with rebellion or pertinacity refuse to be subject. Which withdrawal is restricted to obedience alone and is not extended per se to articles of faith." (27)

"For the crime of schism is not committed in the strict sense by one, who withdraws from his Bishop and from the communion of the faithful of his diocese, but does not refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff and to hold communion with the remaining universal faithful of the Church." (28)

The canonist James Corriden commenting on canon 751 of the new Code says:

"The definition of schism is slightly sharpened; instead of a simple refusal of subjection to papal authority or of communion with the members of the Church, the revised canon speaks of a rejection ("detrectatio"), an adamant refusal to submit to the pope or to remain in communion, comparable to a refusal to serve in the military." (29)

Thus, canonically speaking, several common features emerge from all these citations:

1/ Schism does not mean refusal to obey the local bishop.
2/ Schism does not mean refusal to obey the Pope broadly speaking.
3/ Schism does not necessarily place a Catholic outside the Church.
4/ Schism does mean a conscious act of rejecting the authority of the Pope as the Universal Pastor of the Church.

Hence for someone to state that this church, the parishioners and I are "schismatic" he would have to prove that we:

(1) Separated ourselves from the "assembly of the Body" (schism), or
(2) Have been excommunicated by legitimate authority for a specific crime.
(3) Refused to be subject to the Roman Pontiff; OR
(4) Rejected communion with the members of the Church subject to him, AND
(5) Did so pertinaciously ("which presupposes bad faith, such that the schismatic knowingly and willing tears asunder the unity of the Church.")

Consequently if one continues to adhere to the teaching of the Church, and if one preserves the ecclesial bond with the Vicar of Christ, then one cannot be labeled a schismatic.

In the articles of incorporation for Our Lady of Fatima of Spring Hill, Inc. (the corporation that operates the Church of Our Lady of Fatima) in article III the "purpose" of this Church is clearly set forth:

"(a) The purpose for which this corporation is organized is to preserve the traditional Roman Catholic religion and to provide the means whereby those who wish to practice that religion may be able to do so." (30)

Likewise on the front of the church bulletin can be found the following statement:

"Here at Our Lady of Fatima parish all the teachings, traditions and sacramental rites of the Catholic Church are preserved as they were prior to the Second Vatican Council." (31)

We have not changed anything: liturgy, doctrine, faith or morals as the Church received them up until the Second Vatican Council (1963 —65). Almost everywhere else the sell-out was on. The religious habits came flying off — new catechisms, missals, new everything and the result ? A church in terminal decline worldwide. The response ? War-weary Catholics around the globe began to organize and offer resistance to the disastrous decisions of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Here in Spring Hill in the mid-1970s a small group of faithful Catholics organized and built a Church with the aid of courageous priests who refused to roll over and go with the flow.

Strictly speaking no traditional parish anywhere in the world is under the jurisdiction of their local bishop. They say we are disobedient to them. The argument from our perspective is that if we obey their commands to be closed down, then Catholic Tradition fails by the wayside. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, for example, in founding his priestly society of St Pius X in 1970 was ordered by Pope Paul VI directly to close his seminary in Econe, Switzerland in 1976 because he was training priests the traditional way and ordaining them to celebrate only the Tridentine Mass. He refused point blank because, as he said, to do so would be to fail the Church in Her time of crisis, He was punished with a suspension, which according to Canon Law means the Archbishop was forbidden to exercise his orders (confess, celebrate Mass, confirm, ordain etc.) The Archbishop ignored the penalty and continued what he had always done.

The point is that those in authority are abusing that authority to actually suppress our right as Catholics to the Traditional Mass.

(6) Our Right as Catholics to the Traditional Faith

On the question of our right to the Traditional Mass Pope John Paul II spoke and wrote on this matter:

Clearly the late Pope conceded our right to the Mass and informed Bishops of their duty of allowing the faithful to have access to the sacraments. By and large the bishops ignored the Pope.

Monsignor Klaus Gamber an expert in liturgy who was instrumental in making many of the changes that brought in the New Mass and later had a change of heart had this to say in his book The Reforms of the Roman Liturgy Its Problems and Background:

Monsignor Klaus Gamber

"Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone to abolish the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least." (34) In a footnote to this paragraph he adds a very surprising observation, one very applicable to the situation of Traditionalists throughout the world: "The following point is worth pondering: As already discussed, according to canon law, a person’s affiliation with a particular liturgical rite is determined by that person’s rite of baptism. Given the reforms of Pope Paul VI created a de facto new rite, one could assert that those among the faithful who were baptized according to the traditional Roman rite have the right to continue following that rite; just as priests who were ordained according to the traditional Ordo have the right to exercise the very rite they were ordained to celebrate." (35)

In the preface to the French edition of Gamber’s book, the then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote the following:

"What happened at the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living, process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the fullness of a true liturgy." (36)

These words are as much a vindication of Gamber’s views on our right to the traditional liturgy as they are a stern indictment of the new liturgical rites especially when you consider that Cardinal Ratzinger was the number 3 head of the Church after the Pope and the Cardinal Secretary of State and is now the Pope himself ! Indeed first as a Cardinal and later as Pope he has consistently dealt with the issue of the Paul VI Missal and the right of Latin Rite Catholics to the Traditional Missal. As a Cardinal he wrote:

"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent." (37)

"The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries. Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a "Missal of Pius V", created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. (…) The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, (…) There is no doubt that (…) setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy to appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognize the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every "community" must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. (…) I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds-partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart." (38)

For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church's whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don't understand why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliations within the Church." (39)

"The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. Anyone like myself, who was moved by... the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for." (40)

As Pope Benedict XVI he wrote:

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. (41)

Art 1: (...) It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. 

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary. 

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted. 

Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it. 

§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it. (42)

Yet another Cardinal has gone on the record with regards to the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, Alfons Cardinal Stickler (prefect emeritus of the Vatican Library) addressed the Latin Mass Society of England, 20 June 1992 and made the following observations:

"So if many of the Bishops ask us "why do you follow The old rite?" We can answer very easily: -- the New rite was introduced after the Council as a matter of pastoral care, that means that the faithful should be animated more and more by the new form of rites to be better in Catholic truth and life. But many good people in the world who still believe in the truths of the Catholic Church are not satisfied about the innovations introduced into the Mass. Can you say then that the pastoral purpose has been reached? I think, through my own experiences that there is more and more dissatisfaction becoming stronger always in all the categories of age, social positions, even in many young people. Further, we are told that the truth about the Mass, about the center of the liturgy, is not really changed. But we can ask -do we have the same sense, the same reverence we have had before and perhaps still have when we assist at the old Roman Rite? Or do we have a loss of reverence, of awe for our biggest mystery, our faith in The Holy Mass? In the sacrifice? It was admitted officially when, two years ago, on the silver jubilee of the changing of the rite, authorities in Rome admitted that there was a great loss of awe in the Mass - the most important rite of our worship.

"This is the experience of all who travel around everywhere. We have lost what really is at the heart of our worshipping in the Holy Sacrifice. Many times we get the impression that it is the man being worshipped but not God. We have a community meal and not a sacrifice. I think that this was one of the most important changes in the general attitude vis-à-vis the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. When I studied theology I was told that the center of the Mass was the Consecration, the Communion is quite necessary for the priest but supposes the sacrificial act already done. Today at the center is the meal. What do we have to do when confronted with the situation as members of the association [the Latin Mass Society] you represent here? Firstly, we have to tell our bishops and our Priests that we are not satisfied with the New Rite, That we have good reasons for being attached to the Old Mass. We should explain all the reasons why it should be available for those who ask for it. We must also explain that the Holy Father has granted the privilege contained in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and wants to take care of the sentiments of those attached to the old Latin Mass. Our fidelity to the old Rite must always conform to the decisions of the Holy See, with all the conditions satisfied which the Holy See has laid down for this purpose. We should persist in our fidelity to this heritage Which is a heritage of truth, because we can be sure that also today, the old Latin Mass is completely valid and the lex orandi reflects the lex credendi. If we are faithful in oratione, we can be certain to remain also attached to the truth in credendo, in full devotion to our heritage Of faith." (43)

In 2004 Cardinal Stickler would be even more forthright about the disasters following the Second Vatican Council:

Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler's Letter - preface to the 
French 2004 re-print of the Ottaviani Intervention

The translation is given first, the French original is given below....  Alfons M. Card. Stickler S.D.B. Vatican City, November 27, 2004 Dear Friends, You wish to issue a new edition of the celebrated Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass of Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci. I can only fervently encourage you in this and I bless your undertaking that it might result in making this important text known to a greater number. Indeed, the analysis of the “Novus Ordo” made by these two eminent cardinals has lost none of its value nor, unfortunately, its timeliness. As a member of the preparatory commissions and an expert in liturgy at the Second Vatican Council, I myself lived through the profound upheavals which followed the liturgical reform. The decree Sacrosanctum Concilium would seem to suggest a reform in the bosom of the Catholic Church, and not an upheaval accompanied by a hasty fabrication of new rituals. These innovations opened the way too much for those who, perhaps without consciously willing it, would allow, as our pope Paul VI said, “the smoke of Satan” to enter the Church.

(7) Was the Tridentine Mass Suppressed by Pope Paul VI ?

Frequently the objection is made that Pope Paul VI suppressed the Tridentine rite of Mass in favor of the new missal. However, in 1986, the current Pope, John Paul II, organized a secret meeting of cardinals to discuss the question of the legal standing of the Tridentine Mass. The following extract from a newspaper report recounts the decisions:

"In the spring of 1989, a report appeared in the June/July issue of The Fatima Crusader stating that a Papal Commission of nine Cardinals determined that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed.

The report declared that in 1986, the Holy Father appointed a commission of nine Cardinals to examine the legal status of the traditional rite of Mass, commonly known as the "Tridentine Mass". The commission of Cardinals included Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini, and Tomko was instructed to examine two questions:

1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass?

2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?

The Commission, the account stated, unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass.

Regarding the second question: The Commission stated that priests cannot be obligated to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private.

The Commission also recommended that the Pope issue a Papal decree based on the Commission's findings and it was the Pope's intention to issue this decree in November of 1988, but the decree was never issued, due to pressure placed on the Pope from opposing Cardinals.

Report Contested

Not long after this, another reputable Catholic journal published a letter from Monsignor Perl from the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome. The letter was worded in such a way that it cast doubt on the legitimacy of the report regarding the Nine Cardinal commission. In response, the Winter 1989, issue of The Fatima Crusader published a competent rebuttle to Msgr. Perl's letter. Despite this, for some, a lingering uncertainty remained.

Cardinal Stickler Clarifies
the Controversy

On May 20, 1995 at the Christi Fidelis conference in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Alfons Cardinal Stickler gave an address entitled "The Theological Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass".[2] During the question and answer session after his speech, His Eminence was asked about the Nine Cardinal Commission of 1986 regarding the Tridentine Mass.

It is worth noting that the questions and answers were written down. The Cardinal was free to choose the questions he wanted to answer and he chose to reply to this one.

His Eminence began his remarks by recounting an incident where Eric de Saventhem (former head of Una Voce in Europe) asked explicitly if the Tridentine Mass had ever been forbidden. Cardinal Benelli never answered ... not yes, not no. Cardinal Stickler explained that Benelli "... couldn't say 'yes he (the Pope) forbade it'. He can't forbid a Mass that has been used not only for centuries, but has been the Mass of thousands and thousands of Saints and Faithful." The Cardinal continued, "the difficulty was that he (the Pope) could not forbid it, but at the same time, he wanted that the new Mass be said ... be accepted. And so, he could only say 'I want that the new Mass be said'."

"I was one of the Cardinals"

Cardinal Stickler then addressed the issue of the Commission. He related, "Pope John Paul II asked a commission of nine Cardinals in 1986 two questions:

First, "Did Pope Paul VI or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day?"

The Cardinal explained, "I can answer because I was one of the Cardinals."

He continued, "the answers given by the nine Cardinals in 1986 was 'No, the Mass of Saint Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been suppressed'."

The Cardinal also confirmed the incident regarding the Papal decree.

He related that of this commission of nine Cardinals, eight Cardinals were in favor, and one was against, a general permission to be drawn up making it clear that everyone could choose the old Mass as well as the new.

The Cardinal explained that the Pope seemed willing to promulgate this sort of announcement, but a few National Episcopal conferences who found out about the "danger" of this permission, came to the Pope and said "this should not be absolutely allowed because it would be the occasion or the cause of controversy in the people of God -- in the faithful themselves ... one against the other, and so on." Cardinal Stickler explained that in the face of this argument, the Pope abstained from signing this decree.

In answer to the second question, "Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating the Tridentine Mass?", Cardinal Stickler replied, "the nine Cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass."" (44)

Cardinal Medina Estevez's letter to Una Voce Florence

May 21st 2004

"Old Mass Never Abrogated..."

Translation of the Third Paragraph

"I reaffirm my personal opinion that the abrogation of the Missal of St. Pius V is not proved and I can add that in the decree signed by myself for the promulgation of the 3rd typical edition of the Roman Missal, there is not any abrogation clause of the ancient form of the Roman Rite. I say "of the ancient form" because there aren't two "Roman Rites", but rather two "forms" of this Rite, which has a substantial unity. And I can add that the absence of any abrogation clause is not casual, nor result of an inadvertence, but intentional" Dear Mr. Pastorelli, I read with interest the Newsletter you publish, (year III, n. 1, January - June 2004), with the title 'The Holy Mass is a Real Sacrifice'. I have been very interested in the subject from the time when I studied theology; in fact I chose as the theme of my doctoral dissertation, 'The notion of Sacrifice in St Thomas Aquinas'. Reading the afore-mentioned newsletter, I was surprised not to find, among the plentiful quotations, numbers 47-49 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, and numbers 1556-1572 and 1409-1410; 1414 and 1419 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, documents that are to be enumerated among the acts of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Holy Father. I reaffirm my personal opinion that the abrogation of the Missal of St Pius V is not proven and I can add that the decree that I signed promulgating the third typical edition of the Roman Missal does not contain any clause that abrogates the ancient form of the Roman Rite. I say "the ancient form" because there are not two 'Roman Rites', but rather two 'forms' of this Rite, which has a substantial unity. And I can also add that the absence of any abrogation clause whatsoever did not happen by chance, nor was it caused by inadvertence, but was intention. In the study that I am commenting on, it would have been useful to underline that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is relative to the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is absolute and which can not be multiplied. The words "to renew" could understand as "to do again", or "to multiply", "to remake" - something that would not be in accordance either with different texts of the Letter to the Hebrews ("eph'apax"), or with the well-known text of the Council of Trent. However, we try to express with our poor words and concepts what is ineffable. From what has been said before, the orthodoxy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is not to be doubted. In Jesus Our Lord, Jorge A. Card Medina Estevez

Conclusion ? The Tridentine Mass is as valid and as licit a Mass as it has always been since Pope St Pius V promulgated the Missal back in 1570 a conclusion that has since been vindicated by the present Pope, Benedict XVI.

Summary Thus far

So let us take stock of the situation, where are we left? The Pope’s own Cardinals told him the traditional rite is as flourishing today as it has always been. Paul VI did not and could not suppress the traditional Mass. The New Mass is "a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product". "A person’s affiliation with a particular liturgical rite is determined by that person’s rite of baptism". "Faithful who were baptized according to the traditional Roman rile have the right to continue following that rite." "Priests who were ordained according to the traditional Ordo have the right to exercise the very rite they were ordained to celebrate."

We have no other wish than to be faithful Catholics, living our Catholic Faith Tradition. We cannot be accused of being schismatic since as the canonist Father Ignatius Szal observed in his doctoral thesis The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics:

"There is no schism involved if one separates from his bishop and the communion of the faithful of his diocese, but remains subject to the Roman Pontiff and the Universal Church." (45)

We began this column by mentioning that here and there questions have arisen within the Novus Ordo hierarchy in France and Germany regarding the legitimate membership within the Catholic Church of laity who attend and frequent traditional Catholic chapels operated by the Society of St. Pius X and others. The questions can only have arisen as a smokescreen for things much more sinister: Summorum pontificum will soon be passing the two year mark in September - and after three years of its implementation (remember) the Pope invited the bishops of the world for their comments upon the success (or failure) of this venture, secondly, if the Pope were to re-excommunicate the SSPX then the chances of ever regularizing any Trads would be well and truly scuppered. I for my part know where Catholic Tradition is to be found and I will continue to live it and so can you too ! Was Bishop de Galarreta of the SSPX far from the mark when he recently observed that the chances of Rome returning to Tradition were to be spoken in terms of years rather than months ? I think not, fortunately, we never left it !

+TF

Footnotes

(1) The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Translation of the Denzinger) Herder, 1954, p7
(2) Ibid. pp35 & 36
(3) Ibid p 15
(4) The Code of Canon Law – A Text and Commentary, Canon Law Society of America, 1985, p 26
(5) New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Canon Law Society of America, 2000, p 49
(6) The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 3 New York, 1913 pp 449ff
(7) The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 13 New York, 1913 pp 121 – 23
(8) The Church, Hans Küng, Sheed & Ward, New York, 1967, pp 305 & 6
(9) Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Pontifical Teachings 1022
(10) English translation of the Code of Canon Law as found on the Vatican Website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
(11) Letter addressed to myself from Monsignor Camille Perl dated January 10, 1995
(12) Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ July 18, 1870 Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
(13) Lumen Gentium # 14
(14) Encyclical Quartus supra, January 6, 1873 Pope Pius IX Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions, 1962 p. 226
(15) Canon 751 [CIC 1983] Latin Original: "schisma, subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut commuionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio."
(16) Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, Herder, Missouri, 1960 pp 303 & 311
(17) Extract from the entry "Schism" by Christophe Dumont, Encyclopedia of Theology – The Concise Sacramentum Mundi, Edited by Karl Rahner, Crossroad, New York, 1991, pp 1532 - 33
(18) Mystici Corporis Christi June 29, 1943 Pope Pius XII Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions, 1962 p. 536 Latin Original: Siquidem non omne admissum, esti grave scelus, ejusmodi est ut-sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt-suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet.
(19) Op. Cit. p 1533
(20) Ibid. p 1534
(21) Christian Order, Rev. Paul Crane S.J. (Editor) November 1995 pp 498 & 499
(22) Structures of the Church, Hans Küng, Thomas Nelson & Sons, New York, 1964 pp 40 & 41
(23) Church – The Human Story of God, Edward Schillebeeckx, Crossroad, New York, 1990 pp 158 & 59
(24) Free and Faithful in Christ Vol 2, Bernard Häring, Crossroad, New York, 1979, p 282
(25)The Sacred Canons – A Concise Presentation of the Current Disciplinary Norms of the Church, John A. Abbo & Jerome D. Hannan, Herder, 1960, pp 562 – 3
(26) Institutiones Iuris Canonici Vol VI , Rev. Mattaeus Conte A Coronata O.M.C., Marietti, 1945, p 294 – 5 Latin Original: "Schisma. Schismaticus is dicitur qui subesse Romano Pontifici renuit aut cum membris Ecclesiae eidem Romano Pontifici subiectis communicare recusat. Unde schisma ita potest deifiniri: Voluntaria et pertinax separatio hominis baptizati ab unitate Ecclesiae catholicae. Unitas autem duobus continetur, scilicet connexione membrorum inter se et connexione membrorum cum Romano Pontifice Ecclesiae capite visibili. Ex violatione huius duplicis connexionis oritur duplex figura huius deliciti qualiter a Codice proponitur. Non sufficit ad delictum schismatis rebellio erga Episcopum aliquem particularem, etiam si sit proprius Ordinarius, sed requiritur rebellio erga Romanum Pontificem. (…) Non sufficit autem ad schisma simplex inobedientia praecepto a Romano Pontifice lato, sed requiritur, recusatio subiectionis Romano Pontifici."
(27) Ius Canonicum Vol VII , Rev. Francisco Wernz S.J. & Rev. Peter Vidal S.J. Gregorian University Press, 1951, p462 Latin Original: "Definitio. Schisma. (scissura) est spontanea discessio ab unitate Ecclesiae, quatenus illa consistit in communione fidelium inter se et in debita subiectione erga Romanum Pontificem. (…) Maxime vero delictum shismatis involvit discessum a Romano Pontifice tamquam supreme Ecclesiae pastore, cuius auctoritati et iudicio schismatici cum rebellione sive pertinacia subesse renuunt. Quae discessio restringitur ad solum obedientiam, non extenditur per se ad fidei articulos."
(28) Ibid. p 465 Latin Original: "Quare delictum schismatis sensu stricto non committitur ab eo, qui a suo Episcopo et a communione fidelium suae dioecesis recedit, sed Romano Pontifici subesse et cum reliquis Ecclesiae universalis fidelibus communicare non renuit. "
(29) The Code of Canon Law – A Text and Commentary, Canon Law Society of America, 1985, p 548
(30) Articles of Incorporation of Our Lady of Fatima of Spring Hill, Inc. Article III section (a)
(31) From the front cover of the "Our Lady of Fatima Spring Hill Church Bulletin" as it appeared in April 2004.
(32) John Paul II, Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei July 2 1988
(33) John Paul II, Allocution October26 1998
(34) Reforms of the Roman Liturgy Its Problems and Background, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, Una Voce, p 39
(35) Ibid. p 39
(36) Ibid. (rear cover of the book)
(37) Salt of the Earth, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1997 p 176
(38) Milestones – Memoirs 1927 – 1977, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius, San Francisco, 1998, pp 146 - 49
(39) "God and the World", Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 2002 p 416
(40) 26th July 2004 Preface to the second edition of "The Organic Development of the Liturgy", Dom Alcuin Reid
(41) Letter to the Bishops, Benedict XVI, July 7th, 2007
(42) Benedict XVI, Motu Proprio: Summorum pontificum, July 7, 2007 
(43) Alfons Cardinal Stickler address to the Latin Mass Society of England, 20 June 1992 which can be viewed at the L.M.S. website: http://www.latin-mass-society.org/sticklms.htm
(44) Cited in February 1998 edition of Catholic Family News
(45) The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics – A Historical Synopsis and a Commentary, Rev. Ignatius Szal, Catholic University Press, Washington D.C., 1948, p 2.

Copyright© Our Lady of Fatima Spring Hill, 10401 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida, 34608, USA