Vatican II was far less than dogmatic, even though the title of one work called Dogmatic Constitution of the Church was little more than wordsmithing; removing juridical words for biblical terms. The one aspect of Vatican II was to better relate the role of Scripture to that of tradition.

Vatican II promulgated decrees on practical questions, rather than hard dogma. A short list of these decrees is presented here.

Pastoral Duties of Bishops

Ecumenism

Ministry and life of a Priest

Missionary Activities

Apostolate of the Laity

Social Communion

Religious Freedom

Attitudes towards non Christians

Christian Education

Vatican II, in most of these decrees, set forth loose description of factors that would ‘modernize’ the Roman Church. This modernization had unexpected side effects, not only for the Papal State but for parishes and parishioners as well. ²

This text will concentrate on one lively, and to some scandalous, debate regarding the drastic changes discussed to the liturgy (Holy Mass).

The story of part of this debate is essential and is posted here.

On October 30, the day after his seventy-second birthday, Cardinal Ottaviani addressed the council to protest against the drastic changes which were being suggested in the Mass. "Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal, among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation." Speaking without a text, because of his partial blindness, he exceeded the ten-minute time limit which all had been requested to observe. Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the Council Presidents, showed his watch to Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding that morning. When Cardinal Ottaviani reached fifteen minutes, Cardinal Alfrink rang the warning bell. But the speaker was so engrossed in his topic that he did not notice the bell, or purposely ignored it. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, a technician switched off the microphone. After confirming the fact by tapping the instrument, Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation. The most powerful cardinal in the Roman Curia had been silenced, and the Council Fathers clapped with glee. ³

Now we must understand that the discussions of the Curia must have rules. This point is not debated. Yet, it is VERY clear Cardinal Ottaviani had a valid point. The ancient Holy Mass, we call the Tridentine (or post Vatican II the Extraordinary Mass) was derived directly from the most ancient practices of the Apostles and church fathers. Much of the solid liturgical content may have been derived from the earliest ‘surviving’ liturgical document; The Liturgy of the Apostles (theorized to exist on or before 200 AD).

Several interesting issues were created during the lively debates.

One issue came me from the silencing of the faithfully Roman Catholic Cardinals in certain discussions. This was manifested by the implicit gathering of information from Protestant Observers.⁴ This will be discussed later in this text.

Another was the direct dichotomy of dogma set down in Vatican I that flew in the face of the actions of Vatican II. In Vatican I the mandate regarding Papal Supremacy was set forth, with no ambiguity or question. It was implicitly implied that the Pope was the sole and undisputed ‘teacher’ of the Roman Church. The Opinion among a large number of Cardinals and Bishops reflected that councils were no longer needed or licit.⁵

This created a secondary debate. Because Vatican II operated and debated as a democracy, it created a dichotomy regarding ‘Official Teaching’. Vatican II declared there must be a balance between the Magisterium and other points of view; that of bishops, priests and even the laity. This policy declared that the Magisterial teaching was the ‘Official Teaching as if it were a RIVAL that could trump the Pope. ⁶

This policy within the operations of Vatican II by definition negated the Papal Supremacy mandates of Vatican I.

Vatican II also contradicted itself in defining the college of bishops and the collegiality of the episcopal office, it soundly declares that not even bishops, acting apart from the Pope, have ANY AUTHORITY in the Church. ⁷

The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as the Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church) has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.⁸

Yet, Vatican II acted as a democracy and within the context of the changes to the liturgy may have overstepped the bounds not only of Vatican I and Papal Supremacy, but also of their own guidelines within Vatican II.

In light of this, there seems simply to be no way to read the teachings of Vatican II and find in them any basis for the postconciliar view promoted by some theologians that papal teaching can be legitimately rejected by Catholics. ⁹

The issue at hand, if bishops and cardinals can override the Pope and his authority clearly set down by Vatican I, then the normal Roman Catholic on the street may ignore church teachings also.

In using a democratic process to force changes to the liturgy, it can now be stated that the Bishops and Cardinals actually rejected Papal Teaching. The fracture of the church has begun.

Herein is the Papal Teaching that was rejected illegitimately by the Vatican II Council.

So, travel back in time to a previous statement. Historically Vatican II did recruit commentary and insight from the protestant community. Many of the ‘liturgical’ changes were designed to secularize and modernize (and protestantize) the ancient and accepted liturgy.

The issue at hand is abundantly clear. In 1570 Pope Pius V set forth absolute and without ambiguity a Papal Mandate and Papal Law called Quo Primum

(Promulgating the Tridentine Liturgy).

The document in question is posted in Appendix I.

There is one section that sets the tone of this discussion.

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

… We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils …

This is absolute and with great clarity.

Yet Vatican II over road Pope Pius V.

This is not possible, not if the church accepts the Vatican I Papal Infallibility.

If Pope Pius V, as declared by Vatican I, is infallible as all other Popes, then Vatican II changes to the liturgy were illicit. Or, as per Vatican I, is it being stated that only Popes AFTER Vatican I are infallible? Popes from before Vatican I all the way back to Peter are fallible? This is not even logical.

Also, it must be made very clear that within Vatican I, dogma was set that no one within the church may REJECT the finding of the Vatican I Council, or any Council. This creates an issue that has plagued Vatican II; Vatican II over rode the set dogma of Vatican I by changing the liturgy. ¹⁰

Is the Papal Bull of Pope Pius V valid forever?

Here one principle stands out: "Par in parem potestatem non habet": Equals have no power over each other. No one, therefore, can constrain his equals. This is particularly true of the supreme power. This is essentially the same power exercised through its different holders. It is necessary to give the most careful consideration to the full import of this principle. If a pope (to speak only of the highest religious authority) has the power to loose what another pope by the same power has bound, then he should use this right only for the gravest possible reasons: reasons which would have prompted his predecessor to revoke his own law. Otherwise, the essence of supreme authority is itself eroded by successive contradictory commands. ¹¹

Since Vatican II, and especially the past decade, detractors are doing everything possible to eliminate the Tridentine Mass. This should not occur, as the infallibility of Pope Pius V would GUARANTEE the Tridentine Mass exists in perpetuity. There is no reason why the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass cannot coexist in harmony.

There were excommunications for the belief in "Par in parem potestatem non habet": Equals have no power over each other. Many fought diligently onto the end of their career to show that potions of Vatican II were illicit and illegal by the Canons of the church, and a travesty that over road the valid and licit bulls that came out of Vatican I, and snubbed the ‘infallibility’ (or simply lawful power) of the preceding Popes.

Promulgating the Tridentine Liturgy

Pope Pius V - 1570

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION

From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all our thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with God’s help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass – We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.

It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale. Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. Further, as for those located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed; and We decree by this law that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to accept books of this nature without Our approval and consent, or without the express consent of the Apostolic Commissaries of those places, who will be appointed by Us. Said printer must receive a standard Missal and agree faithfully with it and in no wise vary from the Roman Missal of the large type (secundum magnum impressionem).

Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.

Appendix II

The Legitimacy of Quo Primum

Does Quo Primum, the 1570 papal bull of St. Pius V which guaranteed the right of every Latin Rite priest to say the Roman Mass, still have force of law?

Foreword

This canonical study of Fr. Raymond Dulac was written in 1972, thus at the beginning of the struggle to have the legal rights of Quo Primum recognized against those who claimed that the papal bull had been abbrogated; hence the traditional Roman Mass had been abolished and could only be offered with special permission.

Thankfully, In response to Bishop Bernard Fellay's request to Pope Benedict XVI to "free the old Mass", the legal rights of the Roman Mass were finally re-affirmed on July 7, 2007 via the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum.

Nonetheless, contention on the full legal implications (and application) of both Quo Primum and Summorum Pontificum (and likewise Pope Benedict's subsequent Universae Ecclesiae) persist, thus proving the continued importance of this article.

The jurisdiction of the bull, Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V

Biography of Fr. Dulac

This article was written by Fr. Raymond Dulac, who had studied at the French Seminary in Rome and was a doctor of theology and canon law. In addition to contributing to several French-language journals, such as Itineraires (of which this piece appeared in issue n. 162), he also founded the Courrier from Rome (Mail from Rome). Fr. Dulac was also one of the first professors at the SSPX's seminary in Econe.

The English translation of the following excerpts from Fr. Dulac's article are taken from Michael Davies' Pope Paul's New Mass.

I. Preliminary remarks

If the bull decrees a true law, it will be a human law whose authority is derived neither from the nature of things nor from Divine revelation, but emanates from the free will of the human legislator.

1. This legislator must manifest as clearly and fully as possible the nature and extent of his will:

2. He must state that he is laying down a true law, creating a juridical obligation, not simply expressing a wish, a recommendation, a "directive," or even perhaps a formal expression of his will which stops short at declaring itself as the imposition of a command on those subject to him.

• He must define the law’s scope in respect of time, place, and persons.

• Where necessary, he must lay down precise instructions for discharging the obligations contained in his legislative decree: what it commands, what it permits and, perhaps, certain privileges which it concedes.

• Where the legislation applies to subject matter which is not entirely new, the legislator must state precisely the relationship of the new law to previous law or custom.

                 a. Only partial derogation?

                 b. Total abrogation?

• Since the unwritten law of custom possesses a particular force peculiar to itself, he must state explicitly how much of it the new law maintains and how much it suppresses.

For the formal, official expression of these various intents, there are certain "legal rules," a set vocabulary, a propria verborum significatio, well known to jurists. The Church has never failed to observe them as singular guarantees against both arbitrary despotism and anarchy. It has been reserved for the "post-conciliar Church" to scorn them, and with them what its representatives call "legalism"; that is, a clear, honest, straightforward expression of intent on all subjects—dogmatic, ethical, disciplinary.

An "up-to-date" member of the hierarchy no longer dares to command, but speaks in ambiguous terms to give the impression of doing so. Thus he is able to retreat or advance, according to his assessment of the situation, without ever losing face. This is because he is hiding behind a mask. This new authority has given itself a new name: it calls itself service. Self-service would have been more apt!  Everyone does as he wishes, from the highest to the lowest.

II. The bull decrees a true law

1. It is a law carrying a juridical obligation expressed in traditional legal terms.

2. This law is not simply a personal decree of the Sovereign Pontiff, but most certainly an act of the Council (of Trent). St. Pius V referred explicitly to the "decrees of the Holy Council of Trent," which had given him this task after the Fathers had manifested their wishes with precision. This explains the official title of our missals: "The Roman Missal restored according to the decrees of the Holy Council of Trent, published by St. Pius V." The Council decreed its restoration, the pope ordered its publication.

3. The will of the legislator is invested with varied nuances which are given in detail in the lengthily enunciated final sentences, concerning which we have pointed out that this is not merely done for the sake of emphasis. As an excellent exercise in respectful attention, the reader can easily place each of these eleven terms alongside a corresponding provision of the bull. The eleven terms are:

4. Hanc paginam Nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis... [This notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition...—Ed]

5. The bull specifies minutely the persons, time, and places to which its provisions apply.

6. The obligation is confirmed by express sanctions.

7. The pope does not promulgate a new missal with his law; he restores the existing one. Nevertheless, he states clearly where that which existed before has been subjected to partial derogation or total abrogation. In this respect, the final Non obstant section is precise, specific, and rigorous, not simply making general mention of the former laws and customs now to be abolished, but listing each one of them by name.[1]

III. The bull respects established rights

It is characteristic of a truly great leader that the more firm he is in imposing obligations, the more scrupulous will he be in respecting rights: not simply the general and absolute rights of the abstract "person," but the historic rights of individuals and particular communities, even when acquired solely by custom.

Pope Pius V thus confirms two rights:

1. That of churches or communities which have enjoyed the use of their own missal, approved since its institution.

2. That of a missal similarly distinct from the Roman one, which can claim to have been in use for over two hundred years.

This confirmation of existing rights (...nequaquam auferimus) is not to be confused with the "permission" or with the "indult" which follow. The pope is confirming existing rights which he is content to maintain in his bull.

IV. The bull makes allowance for personal preferences

After confirming the right of religious orders, chapters, etc., to the peaceful possession of their own missals, Pius V permits such communities to renounce them in favor of his own, "si iisdem magis placeret"; if his own missal pleases them more. But on one condition, that this preference is approved by their bishop or superior as well as by "the whole chapter." Here again, the pope, while favoring his own missal in certain cases, does not wish to infringe established rights, and indeed, allows them priority. In this respect we must bear in mind that these particular missals are fundamentally identical with the Roman one, presenting purely minor variations.

V. The bull grants a privilege

This is an important point to which no one, so far as we know, has made particular reference.

1. The "contemporary mentality" (according to Bugnini) wishes to ignore privileges: considering exceptions to the common law as displaying an aristocratic mentality unworthy of an age which is simultaneously egalitarian and totalitarian. This age recognizes only rights and grievances or "wrongs."

2. The "post-Conciliar Church," living in that kind of world, offers two contributions of its own: transitory "experiences" and legalized law-breaking (imposition of the vernacular, Communion in the hand, laymen helping themselves to the chalice, general concelebration, etc.).

3. The Catholic Church, for Her part, personalized Her laws and sometimes allays or smoothes them by custom and privilege. Is this aristocratic? Let it be so, and so much the better! It displays remarkable conformity with the Gospel, which is a law of grace and consideration.

4. St. Pius V conceded, as we have seen, exceptions to the norms laid down in his missal. Now we see that, in addition to the obligation which the bull imposes, he adds a privilege which favors his own missal. This privilege is to be effective in all cases and at all times. "Furthermore, by virtue of the terms of these presents, in virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, We grant and concede..." and in this respect we wish to make seven observations:

• What stands out in this section of the bull is the use of the verbs "concedimus et indulgemus" which introduce it: their correct signification is of a favor which attains the legal status of a "private law." As, in the present case, the privilegium adds itself to the law; it must be understood as conferring a new authority upon it which takes precedence in all cases, present and in the future, where the law of Quo Primum might be made the object of a derogation. Therefore, even where the law ceased to bind, the privilege would still exist.

• The importance of this privilege is emphasized by the words "in virtue of Our Apostolic Authority," which the pope invokes before conferring it.

• This privilege is granted without exception to every priest, secular and regular, in every church, for every form of Mass.

• No superior may impede the use of this privilege for any reason, either privately or publicly.

• Those accorded the privilege cannot be obliged by anyone whatsoever, to use another missal ("a quolibet cogi et compelli"), or to implement even the slightest modification to the Missal of Pius V.

• This concession has no need of any additional permission, agreement, or consent. The bull states: "by the terms of these presents," which are thus considered adequate to suffice.

• Finally, it is a matter of a perpetual privilege ("etiam perpetuo").

This final statement leads us to a question which affects each and every legislative disposition of the bull: to what extent can a pope bind his successors? This is a great and delicate question, which will be limited in this instance to the case under discussion. It is obviously not a question of the pope as interpreter of the Divine Law, which is immutable, but of the pope in respect of ecclesiastical law.

VI. Is the bull valid forever?

1. Here one principle stands out: "Par in parem potestatem non habet": Equals have no power over each other. No one, therefore, can constrain his equals. This is particularly true of the supreme power. This is essentially the same power exercised through its different holders. It is necessary to give the most careful consideration to the full import of this principle. If a pope (to speak only of the highest religious authority) has the power to loose what another pope by the same power has bound, then he should use this right only for the gravest possible reasons: reasons which would have prompted his predecessor to revoke his own law. Otherwise, the essence of supreme authority is itself eroded by successive contradictory commands.

When philosophers discuss "divine power" they make use of a distinction which is infinitely more applicable in the case under discussion: what God can do in virtue of "absolute power" and what He can do in respect of His "regulated power."[2]

The matter has not been decided when one can say, for example: "Paul VI could validly abrogate the bull of St. Pius V." It remains to be shown that he is doing so legitimately.

Now this matter of lawfulness touches the very form and foundation of the new law—in the first place, involving the question of the mutability of law itself. Divine law contains the proof of its own universality and immutability within itself. But ecclesiastical law, like all human law, must add supporting evidence to its intrinsic proofs, even if this evidence is of the most obvious kind—purely conventional to begin with, but which by public consent eventually prevents the law from becoming arbitrary and artificial.

2. As to the form, the bull Quo Primum possesses all the conditions necessary for perpetuity. We have adequately demonstrated this by illustrating the terms used by the legislator.

3. As to content, its perpetuity is confirmed by three characteristics:

• The aim in view, which is that there, should be but one missal so that the unity of Faith may be protected and manifested by unity of public prayer.

• The method of its establishment, which is neither that of an artificial creation devised from a number of possibilities nor even a radical reform, but the honest restoration of the ancient Roman Missal: the honest restoration of a well-proven past being the best guarantee of a tranquil future.

• Its authorship, which is that of a pope acting with all the force of his Apostolic authority, in exact conformity with the express wish of an Ecumenical Council—in conformity with the uninterrupted tradition of the Roman Church—and, so far as concerns the principal parts of the missal, in conformity with the Universal Church.

4. Each of these characteristics taken separately, and still more when taken together, assure us that no pope can ever licitly abrogate the bull of St. Pius V, even if we admit that he can do so validly and without betraying either the Deposit of Faith or any fundamental law of the Church.

5. It seems indisputable to us that Pope Paul VI has not, in fact, made any such abrogation, even if one thinks only of the legal formulas that would be required, and which are lacking in his act.

6. Unfortunately, however, it seems equally indisputable that Pope Paul VI does favor the de facto abolition of the Roman Missal, whether by deliberate will, or connivance, or tolerance, or by constraint due to obscure pledges from which he cannot free himself—or which make him their prisoner.

7. He who resists the failings of a pontiff for a day serves the eternal papacy.

VII. Counsels concerning a respectful resistance

Four and a half years ago, publicly and in writing, we gave our first counsels concerning the reasons for, and legitimate means to be used in, resistance to the liturgical revolution authorized by the reigning pope. It was in September 1967, two years before the "promulgation" of the new Ordo Missae, but at a time when the portents of revolution were so clear as to confer upon the ordinary priest and layman the right and duty of such resistance.

Since then we have had occasion to reassert that position. Had it been erroneous or a source of scandal, it is unbelievable that neither the Holy See, nor the bishops, nor their "theologians," should not have condemned or at least refuted the arguments put forward. It is equally incredible that to date [this was written in January 1972—Ed] the author has not once been called upon to retract them.

We therefore offer the following criteria for conduct:

First Rule: The Missal of Paul VI cannot be said to be obligatory in any strictly juridical sense which would impose its use and exclude that of the "Roman Missal restored by the decree of the Council of Trent and published by order of St. Pius V."

Second Rule: The bull Quo Primum Tempore of St. Pius V has not been totally abrogated by the constitution of Paul VI, Missale Romanum, of April 3, 1969. At most, Pope Paul’s constitution derogates only certain particular details of the Tridentine Missal which will not be discussed in detail here.

Third Rule: Even if it is supposed that these derogations of Pope Paul are strictly obligatory, the fact remains that they leave intact the three privileges contained in the bull of St. Pius V, which have not been expressly abrogated by the present pope, and express abrogation is required by the principles of law.

The three privileges are:

1. The right of every priest to avail himself of the perpetual privilege discussed in Section V above.

2. The right of every priest to use, in preference to the Missal of Paul VI, the Tridentine Missal, which ratified a custom developed over the 15 preceding centuries and the centuries which followed.

3. The freedom of religious to keep the missal of their Order, or to use that of St. Pius V, in preference to the Pauline missal. (NB: Religious belonging to Orders with their own missal have a right to demand that their chaplain should use their own missal even if he does not wish to do so).

As a consequence, the faithful too have the right to partake of the first two freedoms, through their priests on whom these freedoms have been directly conferred. They may, therefore, legitimately ask their priest or their bishop to insure that Masses are regularly celebrated in the Tridentine rite.

We are so certain of this doctrine that we feel able to add this final recommendation: If—and God forbid—any superior of whatever rank should presume to deny to priests, religious, or faithful the exercise of these rights, they may and should denounce to the competent authority, by every legitimate means, this infraction of the bull of St. Pius V, as an "Unlawful Abuse of Their Authority".

 

Footnotes

1 Contrast with Pope Paul’s Missale Romanum, particularly in regard to its non obstant section.

2 Fr. Dulac is probably referring to the Summa Theologica, I. Q.25, A.5, ad 1. While God has the power to do anything, once He has willed to do it in a certain manner, and no other, He necessarily excludes other options, e.g., having made the human soul immortal, His power to annihilate it is naturally regulated or "ordered" by this decision. He could not annihilate something which He had intended to be immortal without contradicting His original intention. God’s "regulated power" is His power as submitted to His wisdom. Fr. Dulac wishes us to see the papacy as a continuing office and to appreciate that only the gravest possible reasons could compel such a manifest self-contradiction as the granting of a perpetual privilege by one incumbent, and its revocation by a successor.