Was the Perpetual Indult Accorded by St. Pius V Abrogated?

Rev. Fr. François Laisney

A priest of the diocese of Siena, Italy, was in the habit of offering the Latin Mass. He justified this by referring to the perpetual indult granted by St. Pius V in his bull Quo Primum, dated July 14, 1570. The Archbishop of Siena submitted three questions about this to Cardinal Medina, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (SCDW). He replied June 11, 1999, in a very important letter. The first question is canonical in nature, the second, doctrinal, and the third, practical. To the last question, the Cardinal replied kindly, recommending that the Indult of 1984 be granted, and even that a church be reserved for the exclusive celebration of the traditional Mass. But the first two questions are more important, and the replies unacceptable.

The Traditional Mass Is Not Forbidden

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

The Cardinal answered: "No, because the Missale Romanum so-called of St. Pius V must no longer be considered as being in force." He only gives two reasons: an explicit notice of the SCDW of October 28, 1974,1 and a reference to Canon 6, §1, no.4 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Now, to my knowledge, since 1969 there is only one written docuмent emanating from Rome which unambiguously imposes the new Mass, the famous notice of 1974, "Conferentiarum Episcopalium." The notice claimed to prohibit all priests from using the Tridentine missal except for sick priests, or old priests over 75; and the faithful from attending. This notice is not even in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the collection of the Holy See's official docuмents. It is in no wise "confirmed" by the Pope.

An immemorial Mass, which is the fruit of the holiness of the first centuries, that has sanctified countless generations of the faithful, and which was, so to speak, canonized by Pope St. Pius V, cannot be surreptitiously prohibited by a little notice emanating from a Roman dicastery. The bull Quo Primum, in which the Sovereign Pontiff St. Pius V engaged the plenitude of supreme power in the Church, cannot be annulled by a notice of the secretary of a Roman Congregation; not even by the Cardinal Prefect of the same Congregation.

As for the supporting justifications cited in Cardinal Medina's response, Canon 6, §1, no.4 speaks about the 1983 Code of Canon Law, not the new Mass. A common principle is nevertheless invoked in this canon: when a new disciplinary law comprehensively treats of a matter in a new manner, then it "abrogates" the former law. This means that the former law is superseded by the very fact of introducing the new one which entirely disposes of the same matter in a different way (see Canon 20, 1983 Code of Canon Law). Even if - dato non concesso - this principle applied to the Ordo Missae, at the very most could one conclude that the common law is not the Tridentine Mass, but the new one; but most certainly one could not conclude that the supplementary clauses of Quo Primum granting permission in perpetuity to celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine rite were revoked. For common law is one thing, a particular permission is another.

Cardinal Medina wrote in his introduction: "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." This affirmation is contrary to Canon Law, which requires an explicit revocation, not to maintain, but rather to suppress acquired rights and privileges.

Acquired rights, and likewise privileges hitherto granted by the Apostolic See to either physical or juridical persons, which are still in use and have not been revoked, remain intact, unless they are expressly revoked by the canons of this Code (Canon 4).

Moreover, Canon 21 adds: "In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not to be presumed; rather, later laws are to related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them." And finally, Canon 28 says: "But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs...."

But the Tridentine Mass is not just the work of the Council of Trent; it is first and foremost the Mass of all time, multi-centennial and immemorial! These principles of Canon Law cited according to the 1983 edition are themselves permanent, and are the same as those affirmed in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (see Canon 4; 6 §2, 6 §4; 23; 30).

Theological Questions

The Power of the Pope Did Not Suppress the Traditional Mass

The second question was: "Can a Pope 'block' a rite forever?" The Cardinal answered:

No. On the power of the Church concerning the administration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Council of Trent expressly says (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 circuмstances, times, and places."2 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."3 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.

If it is true, and in no wise questioned, that all the popes possess the same plenitude of supreme power in the Church, it also remains true that the popes do not always engage the plenitude of their authority in each and every one of their acts. A simple comparison of the bull Quo Primum of St. Pius V and of the Constitution Missale Romanum of Paul VI shows most clearly that St. Pius V engaged all the plenitude of his apostolic power in this bull, but that Paul VI did not engage the same plenitude in his Constitution. One would seek in vain to find in this Constitution the expression of a plenitude of power: it "presents" the new Mass, does not even mention if this Mass is permitted or obligatory, nor whom it concerns, etc. In other words, this Constitution does not mention the nature of an obligation, or the subject of such an obligation, nor the possible exceptions (as St. Pius V mentioned rites more than 200 years old), nor the gravity of the obligation! Compare it with Quo Primum, and the difference cannot be missed. The last formula, cited by Cardinal Medina, is insufficient, because the expression "these Our decrees and prescriptions" is supposed to make reference to something, but to what? To the "presentation" of the new Mass? Yes, it was "presented," but was it "imposed"? Nowhere in the Constitution is this stated.

To take another example, look at the bull Divino Afflatu of Pope St. Pius X changing the rubrics, by which the holy Pope of the 20th century also engaged the plenitude of his pontifical power; or even the motu proprio Rubricarum of Pope John XXIII in 1960: the obligations are clearly defined, the abrogations clearly and expressly made. There is nothing like this in the Constitution of Pope Paul VI. One must then conclude with Cardinal Stickler and seven other cardinals (for a total of eight out of nine polled) that Pope Paul VI did not suppress the Mass of St. Pius V.

 

The Possibility That the New Mass Is Bad

Until now, we have abstracted from the fact that the New Mass "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent," as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci expressed it.4 But this topic cannot be left out of consideration, for, historically, it is because they were scandalized by the novelties that so many priests and faithful remained attached to the traditional Mass; and even now, what makes so many of the faithful return to the traditional Mass (even those of the Indult) is that they taste there the riches of truth and the interior life, in contrast to the penury offered them by the new liturgy. Let us consider first the possibility, and then the reality of such a "departure."

It is commonly taught in the Catholic Church that when the pope engages the plenitude of his apostolic power, he is assisted in a special way by the Holy Ghost, and thus he has a certain "practical infallibility" in the domain of law, parallel to his doctrinal infallibility in the domain of dogma. Even so, just as the infallibility defined by Vatican I is not in each and every one of the Pope's words, but only in the ex cathedra definitions, so also this practical infallibility is only found where it indubitably engages the fullness of his power, and not in each and every law or decision of the pope. Thus one finds this practical infallibility in Quo Primum of St. Pius V, but not in the Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI.

Does this mean that there is no other assistance of the Holy Ghost when the pope engages the plenitude of his power? Not at all. But in the ordinary exercise of his magisterium and his government, it is no longer each act taken individually which is guaranteed, it is the body of acts taken together, in the measure that it conforms to the tradition of the Church of Rome, which is guaranteed. The guarantee is only given to the whole, even though it is effected by the assistance of the Holy Ghost given to individual acts. In the same way, the guarantee that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" is only given to the Church as a whole, even though it is effected by actual graces and sanctifying grace given to individuals. To the degree that the pope departs from the tradition of the Church of Rome, its teaching or its government no longer benefits from this guarantee 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." The pope is not exempt from the duty of fidelity: to those who possess authority chiefly apply these words of St. Paul: "Here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful" (I Cor. 4:2).

By not engaging the plenitude of his apostolic power, and by not following the tradition of the Church of Rome, Pope Paul VI placed himself beyond this special assistance of the Holy Ghost: his new rite was not protected. It is because they have not considered this possibility that some have fallen into the sedevacantist error, rejecting the Pope himself because of the reforms, or else into the opposite error of justifying the reforms at any cost because they proceed from the Pope himself.

 

The New Mass Is Bad

It is impossible to name all the defects of the new Mass in this article. For that purpose we would refer the reader to the numerous books and articles on the subject (in English, Pope Paul's New Mass [available from Angelus Press, Price: $19.95 plus shipping and handling], and The Ottaviani Intervention, for example). Nevertheless we would like to point out the principle at the root of the evil in the New Mass. The liturgical reform was expressly ecuмenical, not according to the traditional model by which the Church has always sought the return of the scattered sheep to the unity of the Church by their conversion, but according to a new, liberal model, by hiding what separated us from non-Catholics. The new reformers went out of their way to please the Protestants by systematically removing from the Mass the majority of things that displeased them. Bugnini himself enounced the principle governing the reforms: "[We] desire to do everything to facilitate the path of union for our separated brethren, by removing every stone that could constitute even the shadow of a risk of stumbling or of displeasure."5 Thus, without actually denying Catholic dogma, they silenced it; they placed the light under a bushel; they failed in the duty of professing the Faith; they let a Protestant spirit be insinuated into the faithful, and very many lost the faith.

The Protestants themselves have affirmed that these reforms have

closed the distance between the Catholic Mass and the Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican cults. The use of the vernacular satisfies one of the demands of Luther and the other reformers who introduced it in the 16th century. The increased importance of the Bible and of preaching has gone the same way.6

To this partial list it would be necessary to add moving the altar facing the people, Communion in the hand, Communion under both kinds, the altar stone made optional, etc. The three principal dogmas that concern the Mass, namely its character of propitiatory sacrifice, the Real Presence, and the power reserved to the priest of consecration, are systematically silenced or hidden beneath ambiguous formulas. Far from converting the scattered flock, the reforms scatter the faithful towards Protestantism.

To weigh the gravity of the calculated silences of the new liturgy, one must listen to the judgment of Pope Leo XIII condemning the liturgical changes of the Anglicans:

Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between the "law of believing and the law of praying," under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium, and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.7

The modernist reforms have kept a few timid mentions of dogmas, but either they are made optional, or else they are shunted to days other than Sunday, or else they are falsified by treasonous translations, or else they are so surrounded by an ambiguous context that they do not suffice to nourish the souls of the faithful and protect them against the modern errors.

The noxiousness of the liturgical changes is well explained by Michael Davies:

Cranmer's programme for overthrowing the established liturgy had four stages....he deemed it imprudent to do too much too soon. The first stage was to have certain portions of the unchanged traditional Mass in the vernacular. The second stage was to introduce new material into the Mass none of which would, from the Catholic standpoint, be specifically heretical.

The third stage was to replace the Mass with an interim English Communion service of an ambiguous nature, "destined to give place to a work still more radically altered." While clearly intended to be Protestant, this service did not completely exclude a Catholic interpretation. The fourth and final stage was to replace this interim service by one which was specifically Protestant and could not be interpreted in any other way.

...[T]he psychology of this process was very shrewd. Few men have the courage to be martyrs, and even those with the strongest convictions will usually accept a compromise where this is possible without openly contradicting their most profoundly held beliefs. Such a compromise was possible with each of Cranmer's first three stages - and once a process of compromise has been entered into it tends to be self-perpetuating. A man who has begun the process of making continual concessions that weaken the expression of his faith, but do not actually repudiate it, is unlikely to make a stand when the point of repudiation is reached.8

Who can fail to see the danger posed by these omissions and compromises in the expression of the Faith introduced by the conciliar liturgical reforms? Because of them, how many have had the courage to refuse when a more "advanced" priest dared deny a dogma or a commandment of God (for example, by refusing the teaching of Humanae Vitae)?

 

Conclusion

We do not have the right to endanger our Faith, or that of children, by accepting a liturgy that harms the Faith itself. The faithful have the duty to keep the Faith and the traditional expression of the Faith. The Mass of all time is the Mass of the saints. It is all the more necessary today in a secularized world where the spirit of the world has spread among the churchmen. It is the divine remedy of our time; it is the source of all graces, for every grace comes from the cross of Christ. It is in the Mass that the martyrs have drawn the courage to shed their blood for the One who shed His blood for them. It is in the Mass that we find the strength to bear witness to the truth and to our Lord Jesus Christ by living a life truly in conformity to the model of the divine Crucified in a world that refuses the cross.

The more the Mass is attacked, the more we must cleave to it and make of it the true center of our lives: to live for our Lord Jesus Christ who offers Himself to the Father for us and gives Himself to us every day.

May the most blessed Virgin Mary, who stood at the foot of the cross, help us to remain faithful to the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ until death!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Footnotes

1. For the complete text, see Michael Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass, pp.569-70.

2. 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.

3. Cited from Davies, op. cit., p.554.

4. Tr. from passage cited by Davies, ibid., pp.55.

5. Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

6. Pastor J. Rilliet, Vatican II: échec où réussite?, p.178.

7. The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1995), p.402.

8. Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order, revised and expanded ed. (Ft. Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, 1995), p.162.

If it is true, and in no wise questioned, that all the popes possess the same plenitude of supreme power in the Church, it also remains true that the popes do not always engage the plenitude of their authority in each and every one of their acts. A simple comparison of the bull Quo Primum of St. Pius V and of the Constitution Missale Romanum of Paul VI shows most clearly that St. Pius V engaged all the plenitude of his apostolic power in this bull, but that Paul VI did not engage the same plenitude in his Constitution. One would seek in vain to find in this Constitution the expression of a plenitude of power: it "presents" the new Mass, does not even mention if this Mass is permitted or obligatory, nor whom it concerns, etc. In other words, this Constitution does not mention the nature of an obligation, or the subject of such an obligation, nor the possible exceptions (as St. Pius V mentioned rites more than 200 years old), nor the gravity of the obligation! Compare it with Quo Primum, and the difference cannot be missed. The last formula, cited by Cardinal Medina, is insufficient, because the expression "these Our decrees and prescriptions" is supposed to make reference to something, but to what? To the "presentation" of the new Mass? Yes, it was "presented," but was it "imposed"? Nowhere in the Constitution is this stated.

To take another example, look at the bull Divino Afflatu of Pope St. Pius X changing the rubrics, by which the holy Pope of the 20th century also engaged the plenitude of his pontifical power; or even the motu proprio Rubricarum of Pope John XXIII in 1960: the obligations are clearly defined, the abrogations clearly and expressly made. There is nothing like this in the Constitution of Pope Paul VI. One must then conclude with Cardinal Stickler and seven other cardinals (for a total of eight out of nine polled) that Pope Paul VI did not suppress the Mass of St. Pius V.