Skip to content

Splendor of Raiment: The Bishop’s Dress Code

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

QUESTION: I recently came across a picture of Bishop Clarence Kelly wearing a stole over a purple shoulder cape with a black cassock underneath, and I remember seeing old photos of Bishop Francis Schuckardt dressed just the same way. Were they both correctly dressed?

Also, I’ve seen newsletters from SSPX and several other traditionalist organizations that show their bishops offering Pontifical High Mass or conferring Holy Orders, but in some cases they don’t seem to be wearing all the proper episcopal vestments either.

What gives? Am I just being too picky? Are some of the bishop’s vestments optional? Or are they required?

RESPONSE: The vestments that a bishop is supposed to wear for any solemn liturgical function are all minutely regulated by the rubrics — the laws and norms that govern how the Sacred Liturgy must be performed.

According to these norms, Bishops Kelly and Schuckardt were indeed both dressed incorrectly, as were the other bishops depicted in the newsletters you sent along.

The rubrics for Low Mass do not leave me, a priest, free to omit wearing an amice or a maniple. So too, the rubrics for Pontifical High Mass and ordinations do not leave a bishop free to perform these functions without wearing all the prescribed vestments.

Since the rubrics that govern ceremonies celebrated by a bishop are highly detailed and complex, some traditionalist laymen, and even some clergymen, affect the attitude that such matters are trivial and not worth worrying about.

This, alas, betrays not only a contempt for a vast body of liturgical legislation developed over centuries, but also an ignorance of the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy. The Church’s ideal for public worship is not the rapid Low Mass, but rites that are conducted with as much solemnity and splendor as possible. The high point for this occurs when a bishop celebrates Pontifical High Mass.

Even non-Catholics acknowledge its singular beauty and significance. The English art critic John Ruskin (1819–1900) said that the apex of all Western Civilization was Pontifical High Mass in a Gothic cathedral.

Before turning to the specific “wardrobe malfunctions” of the traditionalist prelates depicted in the newsletters mentioned, I will define some terms, and then list the principal elements of correct dress prescribed for a bishop by the Church’s liturgical legislation (the Caeremoniale Episcoporum and Roman decrees) and approved commentaries.

I. What is Pontifical Mass?
————————————————————-
The general term “Pontifical Mass” refers to a Mass celebrated by a bishop that follows special rubrics which add to the dignity and solemnity of the celebration. It is called “Pontifical” not because the rite is somehow connected with the pope, but rather because it is celebrated by a pontifex — the Latin term for a high priest, which the rubrics sometimes use to refer to a bishop or prelate.

There are two usual forms of Pontifical Mass properly speaking:

(1) Pontifical High Mass: The bishop is assisted by at least 18 ministers, including an Assistant Priest, Deacon and Subdeacon.

The first part of Pontifical High Mass takes place not at the altar, but at a chair in the sanctuary (either at a throne on the Gospel side or at a backless chair called a faldstool on the Epistle side). A special book called the Canon Episcopale takes the place of the altar cards used by a priest, a hand-candle (bugia) is held next to a book when a bishop reads from it, and there are five servers to handle the additional items required (book, hand-candle, miter, crozier and the gremiale, a small apron for protecting the bishop’s vestments).

The bishop is vested in his “pontificals,” that is, not only the usual vestments that a priest wears for celebrating Mass, but also additional vestments proper to his rank that in one way or another signify the fullness of the priesthood that he possesses.

(Readers can get some idea of the complexity of Pontifical High Mass by viewing the DVD of Bishop Dolan’s 1993 consecration to the episcopate.)

(2) Pontifical Low Mass: The bishop is assisted by one or two chaplains (who stand next to him at the altar), two acolytes, four torchbearers, and (if necessary) a Master of Ceremonies.

The rite is conducted at the altar, and for the most part, follows the rubrics for Low Mass celebrated by a simple priest. The Canon Episcopale and the hand-candle are used, and if one of the chaplains is a priest, he assists the bishop by performing some functions of a deacon.

In addition to the Mass vestments worn by a simple priest, the bishop wears a purple zucchetto (skull-cap), pectoral cross and his everyday ring. If a bishop confers Major Orders during Pontifical Low Mass, however, he obliged to wear the same vestments as prescribed for Pontifical High Mass.

II. The Bishop’s Choir Dress.
————————————————————-
A bishop who is to celebrate Pontifical High Mass ceremonially recites the prayers of preparation for Mass and is solemnly vested for Mass by the deacon and subdeacon, either in the sacristy or in the sanctuary of the church itself.

For this, the bishop does not wear his usual black cassock trimmed with red. Rather, the rubrics assume that he arrives for the vesting ceremony wearing the more formal “choir habit,” which for a bishop consists of the following:

1. Purple choir cassock.
2. Purple choir cincture with two tassels.
3. Zuchetto. (Skullcap)
4. Rochet. (A knee-length garment of lace and linen with close-fitting sleeves trimmed in red. It is a sign of prelacy.)
5. Purple cape. (The mozzetta for an Ordinary, the mantelletta for other bishops.)
6. Pectoral cross on a green and gold cord.
7. Ring.
8. Purple socks. (Yes, purple socks!)
9. Roman clerical shoes with buckles.
10. Purple biretta.

In past ages, bishops wore this uniform all the time, until in 1870 Pius IX instituted a less cumbersome everyday uniform for bishops (called the habitum pianum). The Church nevertheless retained the more formal choir habit for solemn occasions.

III. Vestments Required for Pontifical Mass.
———————————————————————-
Attired in his choir habit, the bishop reads the Psalms of Preparation, during which the Master of Ceremonies invests the bishop with the special footgear (items 1, 2). The bishop then recites several prayers that recount the symbolism of the vestments and has his hands washed. After this the Deacon, Subdeacon and Assistant Priest solemnly vest him with the rest of the items. Here is what is required:

1. Buskins. (Loose-fitting leggings in the liturgical color of the day that the Master of Ceremonies puts on the bishop’s legs and then ties.)
2. Sandals. (Special fabric shoes, also in the color of the day, that the Master of Ceremonies puts on over the bishop’s buskins.)
3. Amice.
4. Alb.
5. Cincture.
6. Pectoral cross on a green and gold cord. (Strength against enemies; the victories of the Cross and the martyrs.)
7. Tunic. (Made of light silk, the color of the day. This is the garment of a subdeacon, symbolizing joy.)
8. Dalmatic. (Also of light silk, and slightly shorter than the tunic. This is the garment of a deacon, symbolizing salvation and justice.)
9. Gloves. (Color of the day, embroidered with crosses. Acceptance of the Sacrifice)
10. Chasuble.
11. Miter. (Two types are used at the same Mass: a precious miter with jewels and gold embroidery that is worn in procession and for shorter periods of time during Mass, and a golden miter that is worn when the bishop sits for longer periods of time. Helmet of salvation against the snares of the enemy.)
12. Pontifical ring. (Sevenfold gift of the Holy Ghost.)
13. Crozier.
14. Maniple. (Put on in the sanctuary at the prayer Indulgentiam.)

The symbolism of some items is self-evident, but three in particular merit an additional comment:

(a) Buskins and Sandals. The bishop’s feet are vested, according to the medieval liturgist Durandus, as an allusion to the verse that the liturgy applies to the Apostles themselves: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace.” (Nabuco, Ius Pont., 179)

(b) Tunic and Dalmatic. Bishops at Pontifical Mass must wear the vestments of a subdeacon and deacon because in bishops, said the medieval liturgist Durandus, “the degrees of all the Major Orders are most eminently present.” (Nabuco, Ius Pont., 182)

(c) Gloves. The vesting prayer for the gloves contains an Old Testament allusion: Jacob covering his hands when he presented his offering to his father to obtain a blessing; the bishop prays that through his sacrifice he may likewise receive a blessing, that of divine grace.

Above and beyond the particular symbolism of each vestment, moreover, the vestments for Pontifical High Mass represent another truth when taken together. Unlike a simple priest vested for Mass, a bishop who pontificates is “covered” from head to foot, immersed, as it were, in the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

One bishop told me that, the first time he was being vested for Pontifical Mass, he felt like a lamb being dressed for slaughter.

IV. Some Dress Code Violations
————————————————————-
Here are some of the more obvious dress code violations perpetrated by the various traditionalist bishops depicted in the newsletters I mentioned:

(a) Not wearing the tunic and dalmatic to confer Major Orders. “A bishop,” says the rubricist Nabuco “cannot confer sacred orders without pontifical vestments.” (Pont. Rom. Exp. 1:160)

Hence when a bishop must confer Major Orders (subdiaconate, diaconate, priesthood, episcopacy) but cannot celebrate Pontifical High Mass, he may celebrate Pontifical Low Mass, but he must wear all the pontifical vestments, including the pontifical tunic and dalmatic. (See Nabuco, Pont. Rom. Exp. 1:165; 1:261, 231)

When a bishop confers the sacred orders of subdiaconate, diaconate, priesthood or episcopacy, he is exercising the fullness of the priesthood. Omitting to wear all the vestments that symbolize his power is a glaring fault.

(b) Not wearing the pontifical buskins and sandals. Whenever he wears the pontifical gloves, a bishop is also required to wear this ceremonial footgear. Nabuco explains that the covering of the hands and feet is “correlative” and together they form “one vestment.” (Ius Pont., 179)

No matter what rubrics a traditionalist bishop follows — Pius X, Pius XII or John XXIII — all three require a bishop to wear the buskins and sandals (1) whenever he celebrates Pontifical High Mass, and (2) even when he confers Major Orders (subdiaconate, diaconate, priesthood, episcopate) at Pontifical Low Mass.

The John XXIII rubrics allow the bishop to put the buskins and sandals on in his room. The old rubrics prescribe that the Master of Ceremonies puts them on the bishop as he recites the Prayers of Preparation in the sacristy.

Omitting the required footgear is a serious fault, moreover, because “all tradition bears witness that the use of such vestments in solemn Masses and other sacred functions is most ancient.” (Nabuco, Ius Pont., 179)

(c) Wearing gloves at the end of Pontifical Mass. After the bishop has read the Offertory Verse and is seated, the deacon and subdeacon remove his gloves.

The bishop does not wear them again during Pontifical Mass, and “he must not put them on again after Communion.” (Le Vavasseur, Fonctions Pont., 1:26; SRC Decr. 3213 ad 6)

The only exception was when the Ordinary of a Diocese granted the Apostolic Blessing and Indulgence from the throne after the Last Gospel. (SRC Decr. 3605 ad 9)

(d) Wearing a stole over the mozzetta or mantelletta. One of these two purple capes is a part of a bishop’s choir habit (see section II). It is common to see traditionalist bishops of various persuasions wearing stoles over their capes when they impose hands at an ordination conferred by another bishop.

Though it is widespread, the practice is completely incorrect: “The Sovereign Pontiff is the only Prelate who may wear a stole over his cape,” (Nainfa, Costume of Prelates, 231), and specifically, “A stole should never be worn over the mantelletta.” (McCloud, Clerical Dress, 97)

The underlying reason is that the choir habit is worn primarily for formal assistance at the Divine Office, while the stole is principally a liturgical vestment worn for conferring sacraments and bestowing blessings.

At an ordination a prelate who is assisting in the sanctuary simply imposes hands while wearing his choir habit.

(e) Combining the choir habit and the ordinary cassock. This offense improperly combines two forms of clerical dress. It is as odd as a priest wearing a surplice over his clerical suit.

It violates what liturgical books call “the rule of harmony” or “the law of equilibrium.” According to this rule, “the main parts of a Prelate’s costume should match one another in material as well as in color. For instance, a Bishop should not wear a purple mozzetta over a black cassock.” (Nainfa, 237)

So the suspicion of our correspondent was correct: Bishop Kelly and his nemesis were improperly attired.

But in the matter of two-tone habits and incorrectly worn stoles, these two prelates had plenty of company: Archbishop Lefebvre regularly wore this mismatched outfit when I was in SSPX in the 1970s, and the bishops he consecrated all seem to have continued this “tradition.”

* * * * *

As regards any traditional Catholic bishop, it is indeed “now the brightness of souls rather than splendor of raiment that commends the pontifical glory unto us,” as the Preface for the Rite of Episcopal Consecration so eloquently proclaims.

That said, however, the Church herself established and minutely regulated a complex system of visible, material signs that point to the invisible, spiritual realities of a bishop’s powers. Those few real bishops who now possess these powers should be meticulous in learning and applying the rules that the Church’s law and traditions impose upon them when they exercise the fullness of their priesthood.

On this point, the bishops would do well, perhaps, to ponder the words of St. Theresa of Avila:

Know this: It is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: This is nothing, this is an exaggeration. (Foundations, 29)

Today, in liturgy as in theology, a casual or even contemptuous attitude towards the rules prevails in many traditionalist circles. It is often, alas, the product of ignorance, laziness or pride.

It is true that we faithful Catholics are far from the day when we could everywhere perform the Sacred Liturgy with the splendor that it truly deserves. But that may well be because most of us are also far from saying with St. Theresa:

I would give up my life a thousand times, not only for each of the truths of Sacred Scripture, but even more for the least of the ceremonies of the Church. (Life 33:3)

—————————

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CLEMENT VII. Caeremoniale Episcoporum. Ed. Malines: Dessain 1906.
LE VAVASSEUR, L, & J. Haegy. Les Fonctions Pontificales selon le Rit Romain, 6th ed. Paris: Gabalda 1932. 2 vols.
MISSALE ROMANUM. “Orationes dicendae ab Episcopo quando in pontificalibus celebrat.”
MCCLOUD, Henry J. Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church. Milwaukee: Bruce 1948.
NABUCO, Joachim. Ius Pontificalium. Paris: Desclée n.d.
_______, Pontificalis Romani Expositio Juridico-Practica. New York: Benziger 1944. 3 vols.
NAINFA, John A. Costume of Prelates of the Catholic Church. Baltimore: Murphy, 1926.
PONTIFICALE ROMANUM. “De Consecratione electi in Episcopum.”
SC RITES (“SRC”). Decreta Authentica. Rome: Polyglott 1898. 7 vols.
_______. Decree 3213. Olmucen. 5 March 1870.
_______. Decree 3605. Neapolitana. 23 February 1884.

Filed in Liturgy: Rubrics | Comments (0)

Can an Excommunicated Cardinal be Elected Pope?

Monday, June 25, 2007

QUESTION: The Constitution of Pope Pius XII that establishes the rules for a papal conclave says the following:

“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

I have several questions about this:

(1) What is the Church’s interpretation of this passage?

(2) Does it lift all excommunications, ecclesiastical impediments and censures for all the participants in a papal conclave? Does this also include the cardinal who has been elected pope, because that is what the term “passive” election seems to mean?

(3) If so, the passage means an excommunicated cardinal can be validly elected pope. Doesn’t this shoot down the fundamental principle behind the entire sedevacantist case?

RESPONSE: Over the years, many traditionalist writers in the SSPX camp, such as Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, Michael Davies, Fr. Dominque Boulet, and the Dominicans of Avrillé — and even conservative writers such as Fr. Brian Harrison — have cited this passage as a definitive answer to sedevacantism. Pius XII explicitly suspended any excommunications, ecclesiastical impediments and censures whatsoever for whoever was elected pope, so (their argument goes) a heretic could be elected a true pope.

But is this a correct principle to draw from the passage? We will address the broader question first, that of interpretation.

.
I. INTERPRETATION OF LAW
————————————————————————
Generally speaking, “interpretation” in canon law comes either from a public authority, such as the pope, his curia, etc. (this is called authentic interpretation) or from another recognized source, such as the teaching of canonists (and this is called doctrinal interpretation). (For a complete discussion, see Abbo and Hannon, 1:17.)

I have not been able to find a papal or curial pronouncement interpreting or explaining the passage in question. It appears with essentially the same wording in papal election legislation promulgated by Clement V (1317), Pius IV (1562), Gregory XV (1621), and Pius X (1904). So, its meaning must have seemed self-evident — at least to curial types.

Where there is no interpretation from a public authority — and this is frequently the case in canon law — you look to other passages in the Code and to the teaching of canonists (academic experts in canon law) to find out what the terms mean. By following this procedure, the meaning of the passage in Pius XII’s constitution becomes clear. So, we will now slog through the terminology.

(a) Censures. The “excommunication, suspension and interdict” that the pontiff mentioned are censures — punishments that ecclesiastical law inflicts on a wrong-doer to get him to repent. (For an overview, see Bouscaren, Canon Law, 815–6) Cardinals are exempt from incurring censures, except in cases where the law specifies otherwise. (Canon 2227.2)

In a papal conclave cardinal elector or a pope-elect who had nevertheless somehow incurred an excommunication would face some nearly insurmountable obstacles. The effects of this censure bar an excommunicate from administering or receiving sacraments, exercising jurisdiction, voting, appointing others to offices, and indeed, being elected to church office at all. (See Bouscaren, 831–4.) That would leave the pope-elect nothing but waving from the balcony and riding in the popemobile. (Not mentioned by Bouscaren…)

Censures are also sometimes called medicinal penalties because their purpose is to cure the wrongdoer’s stubbornness. This distinguished them from vindictive penalties, which directly expiate a crime, independent of whether the wrong-doer repents. (Bouscaren, 846.)

(b) Ecclesiastical Impediments. The term “other ecclesiastical impediment” mentioned in Pius XII’s Constitution is a more generic category.

One such impediment, for example, is the vindictive penalty of infamy — loss of reputation due to some horrible crime. Among other things, this penalty renders the criminal ineligible for church offices, dignities, etc. (Bouscaren, 849.)

This impediment, then, like excommunication, would bar a cardinal from either voting in a conclave or from being elected pope.

.
II. SUSPENSION OF CENSURES AND IMPEDIMENTS
————————————————————————
Having established the meaning of these terms in paragraph 34 of Pius XII’s Constitution, we can easily see the point of the law: to avoid endless wrangling about the validity of papal elections.

It then becomes easy to answer the second question: “Does it lift all excommunications, ecclesiastical impediments and censures for all the participants in a papal conclave?”

The answer is yes.

Does paragraph 34 also cover the case of an excommunicated cardinal who has been elected pope?

Again, the answer is yes, because the Constitution used the terms active and passive election, which mean, respectively, being able to vote and being able to be elected. So it is indeed correct to say that Pius XII’s Constitution explicitly allows an excommunicated cardinal to be validly elected pope.

.
III. AN ARGUMENT AGAINST SEDEVACANTISM?
————————————————————————————-
So now, the final question: “Doesn’t this shoot down fundamental principle behind the entire sedevacantist case?”

But here, the answer is no.

Most SSPX types, many sedevacantists, and even intelligent academics like Fr. Harrison assume that excommunication is the starting point for the sedevacantist argument, which they believe, goes something like this:

• Canon law imposes an automatic excommunication on a heretic.
• Excommunication prevents a cleric from voting to elect someone to office, being elected to office himself, or remaining in office once he has become a public heretic.
• Paul VI and his successors incurred this excommunication for public heresy.
• Therefore, they were not true popes.

Take away the possibility of excommunication with ¶34 of Pius XII’s Constitution (the anti-sede argument goes), and the sedevacantist argument disappears.

But they misunderstand. Excommunication is a creation of ecclesiastical law, and it is not the starting point for the sedevacantist argument. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Rather, for sedevacantism the starting point is another principle entirely: that divine law prevents a heretic from becoming a true pope (or remaining one, if a pope embraces heresy during the course of his pontificate.) This principle comes straight from those sections of major pre-Vatican II commentaries on the Code of Canon Law that deal with election to papal office and the qualities required in the person elected.

Here are a few quotes:

“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.

.
IV. SUMMARY: APPLES AND ORANGES
————————————————————————
Paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis suspends the effects of censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict) and other ecclesiastical impediments (e.g., infamy of law) for cardinals who are electing a pope and for the cardinal they finally elect. Thus, a cardinal who had incurred an excommunication prior to his election as pope would nevertheless be validly elected.

This law concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, however. As such, it cannot be invoked as an argument against sedevacantism, which is based on the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists that heresy is an impediment of divine law to receiving the papacy.

Anti-sedevacantist controversialists should therefore stop recycling arguments based on the passage in question. It has nothing to do with the position they oppose.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBO, J & J. Hannon. The Sacred Canons. St. Louis: Herder 1957. 2 vols.
BOUSCAREN, T. & A. Ellis. Canon Law: A Text and Commentary. Milwaukee: Bruce 1946.
Bullarum, Diplomatum et Privilegiorum Ss. Rom. Pont. Turin: Vecco 1847.
CLEMENT V. Constitutiones Clementinae. 1317. Cap. 2, Ne Romani ¶4, de elect. I, 3 in Clem.
CODE OF CANON LAW. 1917.
CORONATA, M. Institutiones Juris Canonici. 4th ed. Turin: Marietti 1950. 3 vols.
GREGORY XV. Bull Aeterni Patris, 15 November 1621. In Bullarum 12:619–27. ¶22
MAROTO, P. Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: 1921. 4 vols.
PIUS IV. Bull In Eligendis, 9 October 1562. In Bullarum 7:230-6. ¶29
PIUS X. Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, 25 December 1904. ¶29.
PIUS XII. Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 8 December 1945. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 36 (1946). 65–99. ¶34.
WERNZ, F. & P. Vidal. Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1934. 8 vols.

Filed in Canon Law, Sedevacantism: Objections | Comments (0)

The “Error” of Pope Nicholas I

Saturday, June 9, 2007

QUESTION: I’ve been having a debate with someone about sedevacantism. To prove that the Pope taught error in an official document, my opponent pointed out the letter of Pope Nicholas I to the Bulgars (Dz 335), in which the Pope says that those baptized in the name of Christ are not to be rebaptized (see Ott, 353, and Summa III, Q66, A6.)

Ott says it is an open question. St. Thomas in the body of the article seems to say that you need to use the explicit Trinitarian formula, while in the answers to the objections, he says the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ by a special inspiration.

Was Pope Nicholas in error?

RESPONSE: No. The theologian Pesch (Praelectiones Dogmaticae de Sacramentis 1:389) reproduces the whole response of Pope Nicholas, and states that the pope “was not being asked about the form for baptism, but about the person of the minister; and so he correctly responded that as regards the minister, all depended on his intention.”

QUESTION: My opponent also fired several statements at me, one of which was from Pope Adrian VI: “Many Roman Pontiffs were heretics, the last of them was John XXII.” Apart from not being able to find any Pope Adrian VI in any handy reference work, John XXII says himself that he never taught any such doctrine or even taught any such thing. Is the quote of Adrian genuine?

RESPONSE: The supposed quote from Adrian VI has been floating around for years.

The only source I have seen cited for it is Paul-Marie Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, (1908). During the reign of St. Pius X, this work was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. (Decree, 5 April 1906. See R. Naz, “Viollet, Paul-Marie,” Dict. Droit. Can., 7:1511)

I have never been able to locate Viollet’s book to check the primary source alleged for the quote.

QUESTION: Thanks for your response on Adrian VI and on Nicholas I. I’m not satisfied with your citation from Pesch — that the Pope was referring to the person of the minister and to his intention — because the passage in Ott (353) is speaking of the form.

RESPONSE: Ott is only a one-volume overview. It is unwise to rely upon Ott alone when discussing complex or disputed issues in the history of dogmatic theology.

Pesch was indeed correct. Other longer treatises on the sacraments say that the phrase in the response “in nomine Christi” did not refer to the form of baptism but to (a) “a quality of the minister” such as his intention (Doronzo, de Baptismo, 70; Pohl, Sacraments 1:224), or to (b) the distinction between the baptism of Christ and the baptism of John (Solà, de Sacramentis, ¶47-8).

All are agreed, however, that the response of Nicholas I was a private response — so it would not have any bearing on the sede vacante issue. The authorities we sedevacantists cite all refer to a pope who is a public heretic.

QUESTION: Moreover, St.Thomas (III.66.6) is also treating of whether the form “in the name of Christ” is sufficient for validity, and Dz 335 reads:”..if indeed they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ…” (Here he speaks of either/or.)

I don’t want to be a pest, but I don’t want to give an answer I can’t defend. However at the bottom of my Denziger Hunermann, there is a footnote that goes with this passage (Dz.H. 646): “For the interpretation of this sentence, cf. O. Faller, “Die Taufe im Namen Jesu bei Ambrosius”: Festschrift 75 Jahre Stella Matutina I (Feldkirch/ Vorarlberg 1931) 139-150; G. Barielle: DThC 2/I (1905) 184.”

If you have the time and the access to any of this material could you see what they say about this issue?

RESPONSE: The last citation is to an article in the Dictionnaire de Thélogie Catholique that discusses at great length the phrase “in the name of Christ” in the Fathers. The DTC’s explanation of the passage in St. Ambrose cited in Nicolas I’s response is in part as follows:

“Sometimes in the Fathers, a question arises about baptism conferred in the name of the Lord or in the name of Christ. Such an expression does not permit one to believe that there existed a baptism conferred in the name of Jesus Christ alone, to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Ghost.… The passage that follows in the treatise clearly shows that St. Ambrose was not speaking about the formula to be pronounced while conferring baptism, but rather about the faith in the Trinity required [on the part of the adult recipient] for the validity of baptism.” “Baptême d’après les Pères Grecs et Latins,” DTC 2:184.

Finally, SSPX-ers and those who hold a similar position inevitably point to cases of alleged “papal errors” (Honorius, Liberius, John XXII, etc.) in order to justify their contention that one may “recognize” someone as a true pope, yet simultaneously “resist” his teachings and laws. Catholic apologists, historians and theologians, however, have repeatedly — and I mean repeatedly — demonstrated that the allegations against these popes are false.

By continuing to circulate these allegations, SSPX-ers and the like put themselves in the theological company of the Gallicans, the Old Catholics and many other enemies of papal infallibility — not a great place to be for anyone who claims to defend Catholic tradition.

Filed in Sedevacantism: Objections | Comments (0)

Quo Primum: Could a Pope Change It?

Thursday, May 17, 2007

QUESTION: During a recent argument with a Novus Ordo friend, she told me that (according to her priest) popes can change whatever they want, as long as it is not dogmatic. We were discussing “Quo Primum.” I told her that it was forever, but she said that even if the pope said “forever” another pope can change it. What would you say to that?

REPLY: On this point, she’s right.

A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions.

The “forever” clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation.

In the 1960s faithful Catholics seized upon this language as a justification for disobeying the new liturgical legislation while simultaneously “recognizing” Paul VI as a true pope. This was unfortunate, because anyone who knows a bit about canon law can refute the argument very easily.

The argument also obscures the real reason for adhering to the traditional Mass and rejecting the New Mass: The old rite is Catholic. The new rite is evil, inimical to Catholic doctrine (on the Real Presence, the priesthood, the nature of the Mass, etc.) and a sacrilege.

If you send me your postal address, though, I’ll send you a consolation prize: some copies of a booklet I wrote, Welcome to the Traditional Latin Mass, that compares the old Mass and the New Mass.

Give a copy to your friend and tell her to give it to her priest. That should keep him busy for quite awhile!

QUESTION: So you are saying that a real pope can change a Papal Bull decree that another pope has made in perpetuity? Why would a pope decree something for all time, if another pope could change it?

REPLY: If it was a disciplinary Bull (establishing a church law), yes, another pope could change it.

The language was simply a standard formula in church legislation that referred to one of the qualities a law is supposed to have: stability.

Frequent changes in laws harm the common good because people do not know how to act — hence, laws are supposed to be relatively stable. But a human legislator (unlike God) cannot foresee all future circumstances, so his successor has the power to change existing laws if he decides the circumstances warrant it.

This reflects a general principle in law: An equal does not have power over another equal. No pope who used “perpetuity” in his disciplinary decrees understood the term to mean that no future pope could ever amend or replace his legislation.

And popes did in fact change some of the provisions of Quo Primum, even before Vatican II. In 1604, for instance, Pope Clement VIII issued new regulations for the Blessing at Mass, and in 1634 Pope Urban VIII changed the wording of the Missal’s rubrics and hymn texts.

Traditionalists should stop using the Quo Primum argument. It’s a canon law urban legend — as in “alligators in the sewers,” rather than Urban VIII!

Filed in Canon Law, Trad Controversies | Comments (0)