April 2000 Print

Rev. Fr. Patrick de la Rocque

Certain well-informed Roman circles have disseminated the official letter [Protocol No. 947/99/I (See letter in its entirety below)] in which Cardinal Medina asserts that the measures taken by Pope St. Pius V in the bull Quo Primum have been abolished. What about it?

Firstly, we can only express our surprise at the sight of a Roman Congregation officially treating of a matter outside its domain. For, in fact, the interpretation of the legal aspects of a document, no matter what its object, belongs by right to a particular dicastery, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. Thus it is an abuse of authority by the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to allow himself to assess the juridical standing of the constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI. Therefore this letter of Cardinal Medina, notwithstanding its official protocol number, has no proper juridical weight.

A second preliminary remark needs to be made. We must once again, but this time with Cardinal Medina, underline the fact that Pope Paul VI's apostolic constitution Missale Romanum contains no explicit abrogation of the ancient liturgical law; and, this contrary to what has always been done heretofore in similar documents. Let us profit from this official acknowledgment; it is rare, and, hence, precious.

Our agreement stops there. For Cardinal Medina nonetheless concludes that the old missal was totally abolished, basing himself upon the unexpressed intention of the legislator: Pope Paul VI, he tells us, even if he did not write it, still had the clear intention of interdicting the missal of 1570, and that alone is sufficient. And he adds: "If the will of the Pontiff (Pope Paul VI) had been to leave in force the preceding liturgical forms as an alternative that could be freely chosen, he should have said so explicitly." We can only underline the canonical inadequacy of such reasoning. For, in fact, the opposite is true. In case of doubt, canon law tells us (1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 21), the revocation of an anterior law is not presumed. Moreover, the revocation of a privilege must be explicit: coercitiva sunt restrigenda, the adage says. That means that in a matter of interdict, the text must be unequivocally clear in order to be binding. It must have the kind of explicitness that is clearly lacking in this case, and which was necessary since the scope of the reform was so broad.

THE REAL PROBLEM

For all that, let us come to the exposition and defense of the perpetual privilege conceded by the bull Quo Primum Tempore of St. Pius V. From a canonical point of view, it is clear that a sovereign pontiff cannot decree a law that binds his successors. Here also there is a well-known adage: par in parem potestatem non habet—a peer does not have power over his peer. In this sense, it is established that the term in perpetuo implies donec aliter provideatur: the law is considered to be in force in perpetuity (by its nature, it can extend down the ages) but nevertheless remains reformable. To deny this would be to deny all homogeneous liturgical development, which would be absurd.

The question is to know what the perpetual character of the bull Quo Primum applies to. It is on this point that the reading Cardinal Medina makes leads directly to sophism. For the key text has two quite distinct elements:

1) There is the promulgation of an ecclesiastical law by which Pope Pius V establishes, with all the nuances of the text, the Roman missal of 1570 as the one to be used by the entire Latin Church. In this domain, the in perpetuo implies donec aliter provideatur: on that we are agreed.

2) But the text of St. Pius V equally contains, beyond the universal law, a particular measure: whatever may be subsequent liturgical reforms, for the celebration of the Mass, it will always be allowed to hold to the rite promulgated by the bull of 1570. This disposition is not a matter of universal law; not because it does not concern the universal Church (on the contrary, any priest in the Church can benefit by it), but because it does not oblige as by precept. It is only a permission, not a law. If there is a precept, it is only indirectly, as a corollary to this permission: no superior can frustrate this privilege by any kind of prohibition whether external or mental.

It was on this second point that the question was raised by Msgr. Bonicelli, and it was left unanswered by Cardinal Medina, since he only considered the legal aspect. To fill the void requires us to analyze the nature of the privilege conceded by St. Pius V; the significance to be attached to the in perpetuo will become concomitantly clear.

CONTEMPT FOR CUSTOMARY RIGHT

In order to understand the pope's disposition, it is necessary to understand somewhat the nature of the liturgical reform undertaken at the instigation of the Council of Trent. Unlike the reform of 1969, Pope St. Pius V only established the rite by restoring a custom: far from composing a new ordo Missae, he purified an already existing rite of all the accretions of the two preceding centuries. "Let the missals be restored according to the use and ancient custom of the holy Roman Church": such had been the order of the Council of Trent (Acta, ed. Goerresgesell, vo1. 8, p. 921). Hence there are two elements of the bull Quo Primum: the promulgation of an ecclesiastical law, but also the official recognition of an already existing custom, considered as immemorial in light of its antiquity. If, then, the bull first promulgated a disciplinary law that was eventually reformable by a successor, it secondly recognized in this rite all the characteristics of an immemorial and universal custom: it granted to every priest in every age the concession to celebrate Mass according to this rite, whatever the subsequent ecclesiastical laws might be.

This is because it is the nature of an immemorial custom to be unable to be overturned by an ecclesiastical law (1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 28). The eventual abrogation of the missal of 1570 could be envisioned if it were to come pass that this rite was unused for many decades, and that in its place another missal had been adopted universally as a result of a disciplinary law: then it would be possible to discuss whether a new custom had removed one's right to an immemorial and universal custom.

But this is only a textbook case. Considered under the aspect of custom, no pope has the power to abrogate, by a simple disciplinary law, the concessions recognized by St. Pius V, for no pope has power over immemorial and universal custom. To claim the contrary would be an abuse of power. The great theologian Suarez (1548-1617) has very strong words on the subject: he does not hesitate to consider the hypothesis of a schismatic pope in the case where such a prelate would overturn all the traditional rites (De Caritate, disp. l2, sect. l, no. 2, vo1. 12, p. 733).

To affirm the existence of a customary rite is not tantamount to denying the authority of the pope in the liturgical realm: the pre-existing custom does not prevent him from the promulgation of a new ecclesiastical law (which will have the force of law), but it forbids him to impose the reform violently, by means of sanctions. The possibility of following the preceding custom is reserved to every priest, taken individually, as by an indult. Such are the great principles of liturgical law, which the text of St. Pius V reiterates and solemnly applies.

THE FIGHT OVER THE MASS

In the light of these principles, what is at stake in the fight currently taking place over the Mass appears. The modernists know that the only way they can abolish the Tridentine Mass is by making the custom disappear, hence their obstinacy in restricting as much as possible the celebration of the old Mass. Pressure, threats, unjust coercion are used under the fallacious pretext of obedience. Despite this almost total oppression, the Tridentine rite has been defended and has been perpetuated, and this for the simple reason that benefiting from the concessions made by St. Pius V seems more and more, not a privilege, but a duty.

Following the public denunciation of the grave doctrinal deficiencies of the Novus Ordo Missae by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, Archbishop Lefebvre never ceased showing us how it behooved priests, all priests, to avail themselves of the privilege accorded in perpetuo by St. Pius V. His message was simple and holy; it reached well beyond the confines of the Society of St. Pius X.

In the midst of this great combat are to be found men like Cardinal Medina. They also have a certain attachment to the Tridentine rite, an attachment due, it would seem, to a legitimate sensibility in liturgical matters. They would like, in some way, for the rite of old to spread and continue. Their intention is not otherwise when they seek to impose bi-ritualism on Ecclesia Dei priests, priests of whom Cardinal Medina claims to be the friend and protector. By proceeding in this way, he thinks that he can make these priests more "acceptable" in the eyes of the local clergy, and thus enhance their influence. Did he not himself encourage the Archbishop of Siena to apply the indult of the motu proprio of 1988 broadly and generously?

But by acting in this way, the Cardinal is deceiving himself. By strictly submitting the celebration of the Tridentine rite to the "fatherly benevolence" of bishops who want nothing to do with it, he undermines the strength as well as the extension of the immemorial custom. By the facts, he is acting like an enemy of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. It is urgent that he realize this.

(Translated from Fideliter, No. 132, Nov.-Dec. 1999)

 

Rev. Fr. Patrick de La Rocque was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X at Ecône, Switzerland in 1992. He is a professor at the Society's International Seminary of the Holy Curé d'Ars, Flavigny, France.

 

.

Protocol 947/99/I

Congregatio de Culto Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum Prot. 947/99/I

To His Excellency the Most Reverend Gaetano Bonicelli

Metropolitan Archbishop of Sienna - Colle Val d'Elsa - Montalcino

 

Most Reverend Excellency:

Your letter of April 12 arrived at this Dicastery, a letter in which you ask a question concerning the freedom to use the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V after the Council of Trent to every priest who desires it, basing this freedom on the in perpetuity (in perpetuo) of the motu proprio promulgating the Missal, July 13, 1570.

Since this question began to be raised by the publication of the current Roman Missal, and since this Congregation has not avoided its duty to clarify the question, this reply will be limited to recalling the essential points.

Even though there is not to be found in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI an explicit formula abrogating the so-called Roman Missal of Saint Pius V, nevertheless it was clearly the will of the supreme legislator in liturgical matters to promulgate a renewed text of the Roman Missal that would take the place of the one until then in use. If the will of the Pontiff (Paul VI) had been to leave in force the preceding liturgical forms as an alternative that could be freely chosen, he should have said so explicitly. This being the case, and by the light of subsequent documentation, as well as of usage, one must affirm that the Roman Missal anterior to the Second Vatican Council is no longer in force as an alternative that may be freely chosen for the whole of the Churches of the Roman rite.

After the liturgical renewal willed by the Vatican Council II, groups were formed of Catholics strongly attached to the liturgical books, and especially the Missal, previously in use. These groups, and we are speaking of those who are in full communion with the Catholic Church and her Magisterium, expressed the desire to be able to continue using the preconciliar liturgical books. The Holy Father John Paul II, moved by a paternal desire not to go against the liturgical and religious sensibility of these groups, allowed them to be able to use the Roman Missal of 1962, if they were authorized to do so by the local bishop; and he equally demanded of the bishops to receive with kindness and generosity these persons who feel profoundly tied to the preconciliar rile and, at the same time, profess a sincere adhesion to the Magisterium of the Church and obedience to the legitimate pastors. The desire of the Pope was expressed in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (July 2, 1988, A.A.S. 80, 1988, 1495-1498). On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the publication of the motu proprio, the Holy Father confirmed the general lines of this document in his discourse pronounced October 26, 1998 (Osservatore Romano, 26-27 October 1998, p. 8).

Here, then, are the answers to Your Excellency's questions:

"Can every priest use the Tridentine Missal without seeking any permission, since St. Pius V has assured him of the faculty in perpetuo?"

Answer: No, because the Missale Romanum so-called of St. Pius V must no longer be considered as being in force. Concerning the obligatory nature of the Roman Missal now in usage, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship published a notice, published in Notitiae 10, 1974, 353. Analogously, one might refer to Canon 6, Section 1, No. 4 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, together with Canon 19.

"Can a pope establish a rite forever?"

Answer: No. On the power of the Church concerning the administration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Council of Trent expressly says (DS 1728=Dz 931) "that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, preserving their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places."¹

From a canonical viewpoint, one must say that, when a pope writes "...We concede in perpetuity," it must always be understood as saying as well "until it is otherwise disposed." The special attribute of the Roman Pontiff's sovereign authority is to not be bound by purely ecclesiastical laws or to the dispositions of his Predecessors. It is bound by the immutability of the divine law and the natural law, and by the Constitution of the Church. Thus, if with the motu proprio of St. Pius V, one looks at the apostolic constitution (April 3, 1969) by which Paul VI promulgated the Missale Romanum actually in force, one finds the following words: "We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our Predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."²

It is clear that the authority of the Council or of the Roman Pontiff is not exercised in an arbitrary manner, but as keeping in sight the common good of the Church.

"What can I reply based on the law?"

Answer: To the positions exposed above, it is necessary to add the favorable concession of the indult for the utilization of the old Roman Missal in the terms and according to the modalities indicated in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. If, in your diocese, there were a group of people who desired to celebrate the rite in force until the postconciliar renewal, Your Excellency could authorize it according to the faculties granted by the indult of this Congregation dated October 3, 1984 (Notitiae, 1985, pp. 9-10).

One could envisage several possibilities:

a) Schedule a Mass in a church or oratory at a fixed time, on Sunday or a weekday, without prejudice to the faithful who follow the current Roman Missal.

b) Assign to the faithful attached to the preceding system a church or chapel reserved either exclusively or partially to their use.

c) If the group were large, one could also assign them a chaplain (see Code of Canon Law Canon 515, Section I), as is done in several dioceses in the United States of America or Canada.

This is what I am able, after taking counsel, to reply to Your Most Reverend Excellency....

+Georges A. Card. Medina Estavez, Prefect

m. Mario Marini, secretary

1. Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. by Roy J. Deferrari from the 30th edition of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum (Missouri: B. Herder Book Co., 1957) p. 286.

2. Cited from the complete text provided by Michael Davies in Pope Paul's New Mass, pp. 589-70.