Sign up to receive new OnePeterFive articles daily

Email subscribe stack

The Collegium’s Position on Tradition

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Editor’s note: we continue our weekly serialisation of Dr. Edward Schaefer’s new book A Simple Man’s Case for Tradition. This book is an excellent introduction to Traditionalism and provides an easy way for Trads to introduce the movement to fellow Catholics who are seeking deeper answers to today’s questions. Proceeds from the book sale also help promote the Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum, one of only two traditional Catholic colleges in the United States.

Read the Introduction
Read chapter 1: Equally Valid and Holy
Read chapter 2: the New Mass
Read chapter 3: Latin
Read chapter 4: Practice & Belief
Read chapter 5: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Read chapter 6: Modernism
Read chapter 7: Tradition and the Family
Read chapter 8: By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them
Read chapter 9: Ubi Caritas

Epilogue

This book does not make specific recommendations about how one should live the faith, other than making the point that tradition should be an important part of that process.  However, embracing tradition in the Church today is a challenge, because traditional teaching and practice are being suppressed and those who embrace tradition are being oppressed.

This challenge is felt at The Collegium, too, because of the institution’s dedication to tradition.  The faculty’s deliberations about how to pursue tradition has resulted in the position paper below, which gives reflections on magisterial authority, the virtue of obedience, the traditional Latin Mass, the responsibility of the clergy and the laity regarding the traditional Latin Mass, and the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes.  It will serve as the basis for decisions we make about the best way to proceed in our pursuit of the truth and embracing tradition in that pursuit.

The Collegium’s Position on Tradition and the Traditional Latin Mass

Magisterial Authority

Thomas Pink makes a distinction between Magisterial teaching, which makes claims on the consciences of the faithful, and “official theology” which, while perhaps even given by those with magisterial authority, makes no such claims and is not backed by any character of infallibility.[1]

  • Examples might include the writings of saints like Robert Bellarmine, a member of the Holy Inquisition, whose writings carry the weight of the authority of a man of great intellect, but whose conclusions are only guaranteed from the force of the premises.  St. Robert Bellarmine is not the magisterium.  Another example might be that of St. Thomas Aquinas, whom the popes have held up as the light of the Church, but still whose writings do not enjoy magisterial character.

The Magisterium has the power to teach, and to issue laws and disciplines for the governance of the Church.[2]

However, as Pink points out, the Magisterium enjoys the character of infallibility (when it does so) only regarding its ability to teach doctrine.  It enjoys no such character in matters of governance.[3]

  • While theologians such as Bellarmine and Suárez admit only in theory that the Magisterium could err in matters of discipline, they admit of no such possibility in practice.  Even Donum Veritatis, while admitting that matters of discipline do not enjoy the character of infallibility, these decisions are still “not without divine assistance” and so require a certain obsequium on the part of the faithful.
  • Pink points out a problem with this claim: “This passage denies legislative ‘infallibility’ but fudges what follows from this denial.  Of course, since ecclesial authority is divinely instituted, its acts must in this respect, as the Congregation insists, have their source in Christ.  But if legislative infallibility is excluded, then some ecclesial legislation could still be faulty.  As faulty, how would that legislation be divinely assisted?  Surely the faultiness would at most be divinely permitted as an evil.  And again if faulty, how far then, depending on the fault, could legitimate criticism and even disobedience be morally excluded?”[4]

Jeremy Holmes discusses the meaning of obsequium religiosum in cases where, involving non-infallible teachings or disciplinary acts, one can still “religiously submit” through disagreement.[5]

  • “Disagreeing with a non-infallible teaching [or by extension, disciplinary matter] does not mean withdrawing that which makes the obsequium religiosum a meaningful act: in a given case one may not comply, and yet the reverence that normally drives compliance is still present.”[6]

Raymond Cardinal Burke makes clear that the plenitudo potestas of the pope is his jurisdictional primacy “in all its judicial, legislative, administrative and magisterial aspects, and more narrowly, the principle that prelates derive their jurisdiction from the pope.” Additionally, it was also his power by which “existing law and established procedures might be suspended, abrogated, clarified, or supplemented.”[7]

  • Cardinal Burke also makes it clear, as did Pope Benedict XVI, that this is not an “absolute” power but a power “subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantee of the obedience of the Church.”[8]

The Traditional Roman Rite, commonly called the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), must be said to belong, in part, to the deposit of faith.

  • Much like the Gospels which were written by human authors over a course of time, or the definitions of the Faith defined by solemn ecumenical councils over centuries, both of which belong to the deposit of faith, the Roman Mass itself is cultivated from that which Christ gave to the Apostles and which developed under the care of the Roman Pontiffs.
  • As such, no legislation attempting its suppression can be valid or licit.
  • As Michael Fiedrowicz has said, “The celebration of the liturgy in its traditional form thus constitutes an effective counterweight for all levelings, reductions, dilutions, and banalizations of the Faith.”[9]

Obedience

Obedience to proper authority is a critical virtue in Catholic living.  It is also an intrinsic part of Benedictine spirituality, which guides The Collegium.  Thus, it is a matter that every Catholic and every member of The Collegium community must take seriously.

The Collegium is committed to developing the virtue of obedience in every student and every member of the faculty and staff.

The Collegium recognizes that through obedience, that is, through submission to a higher authority, we imitate Christ, Who was “obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross.”[10]  We also recognize that obedience, when rendered to morally licit authority exercised legitimately, serves the common good.[11]  For example, obedience to morally licit authority exercised legitimately serves the right ordering of social structures.  Without such obedience a family, a college, or even a society collapses into chaos.  Of course, “if rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would [not serve the common good, and, therefore,] would not be binding in conscience.”[12]

Because of our human condition, practicing obedience presents challenges.  On the one extreme, we can be deficient, not obeying rightful, morally licit authority exercised legitimately.  On the other hand, we can practice the virtue to excess, obeying decrees or orders that are inherently not rightful, morally licit authority exercised legitimately.  The Collegium’s observation is that Catholics today, including clergy, seem overly concerned with being deficient in the virtue, sometimes to the extent of practicing it to excess, in contradiction to the common good.

This is, perhaps, because the consensus of tradition states that unless we are asked to commit a sin, we should submit obediently to those in authority over us, not assuming that we can make better judgments than they.  However, the story of the Church does not show this principle to be applied unilaterally, since sometimes a situation results in practicing obedience to excess and in contradiction to the common good.  For example, although Pope St. Paul VI had forbidden underground bishops in Czechoslovakia to perform priestly ordinations, Karol Cardinal Wojtyła disobeyed the orders of the pope and ordained priests in that country.  Also, in 1977, bishop Josyf Slipyj consecrated Ukrainian Catholic bishops against the express will of Pope Paul VI.[13]

The pope’s orders were not intrinsically sinful, and they were legitimate within his purview.  However, it could be argued that they were not morally licit, that is, that they did not serve the common good.  That was the prudent judgment made by Wojtyła and Slipyj, and they acted accordingly.  In this case, the common good was access to the sacramental life of the Church in a time of crisis, for which ordained priests, who confect and administer the sacraments, and consecrated bishops, who ordain priests, were necessary.  In addition, since the sanctifying grace received through the sacramental life of the Church is necessary for the salvation of souls, it is also proper to say that the common good in this case was the salvation of souls, which is “the supreme law of the Church.”[14]

In summary, obedience is a critical virtue in Catholic living; it is an intrinsic part of The Collegium’s life; it must be practiced with diligence and prudence – neither deficiently nor excessively; and it must always be ordered to an objectively common good.

Regarding the Traditional Latin Mass

Christ established the Eucharist on Holy Thursday when He said the first Mass.  This Mass was received by the Apostles and carefully adapted to various cultures, according to parameters set by the Apostles as a result of instruction given to them by Christ Himself in the ways of right worship.  In the city of Rome, the Mass became known as the Roman rite.  Its essential parts were codified between the 3rd and 4th centuries,[15] and this Mass of the Roman rite was solidified in all but minor details by the 7th century.[16]  This Mass today is commonly called the traditional Latin Mass (TLM).  As a rite established by the Apostles, that is, an Apostolic rite,[17] this Mass is an indispensable part of the lex orandi of the Church; this Mass contributes toward the holiness of life and an increase in faith; and this Mass encapsulates all that the Church is and all that she believes (the deposit of faith).[18]  Therefore, this traditional Latin Mass is a rite of worship that we have a responsibility to preserve, defend, and pass down to future generations.[19]

Regarding the Traditional Latin Mass and the Responsibility of the Clergy and the Laity

The pope, every bishop, and every priest has the responsibility to preserve, defend, and pass down all that was given to us by the Apostles, including the worship of the Church and the deposit of faith contained therein.  While the pope does have supreme (not ultimate) juridical authority over the worship of the Church, no pope, – or bishop, or priest – has the moral authority to suppress any part of the Apostolic tradition or to suppress access to any part of the deposit of faith contained therein, including the traditional Latin Mass.[20]

Therefore, when a pope, a bishop, or a priest attempts to suppress the traditional Latin Mass or access to the traditional Latin Mass, it is an act that is in contradiction with his proper authority and moral responsibility.  In such a case, no member of the faithful has an obligation to obey such an act.[21]  Indeed, in such a case, that is, when a member of the clergy fails in his responsibility to preserve, defend, and pass down the Apostolic tradition and the deposit of faith contained therein, the faithful’s own duty to preserve, defend, and pass down the Apostolic tradition and the deposit of faith contained therein is heightened.

Because obedience to proper authority is critical to living a Catholic life, the decision to disobey an act of a pope, a bishop, or a priest cannot be taken lightly.  Moreover, every Catholic must always be wary of “personalizing” such a decision, that is, making a decision that is based on a moral code that is personal and relative.

Regarding Traditionis Custodes and The Collegium

With regard to the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, the document attempts to suppress access to the traditional Latin Mass, a part of the Church’s Apostolic tradition and a primary means through which the deposit of faith is expressed, conveyed, and inculcated.  Therefore, it exceeds the moral authority of the pope.  The document is also based on a false – factually incorrect – premise, that “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”[22]  Therefore, the document not only exceeds the proper moral authority of the pope by attempting to suppress access to the traditional Latin Mass, a part of the Church’s Apostolic tradition and a primary means through which the deposit of faith is expressed, conveyed, and inculcated, it is also juridically flawed, because it is not possible to make valid laws based on false or factually incorrect premises.[23]

Therefore, if the pope or a bishop attempts to suppress the TLM, it is an illegitimate use of his power and authority.  In such a case, we must suffer through this Passion of the Church.[24]  At the same time, as long as there is a legitimate means to offer the Mass at The Collegium, we will do so.

The Collegium is dedicated to serving students and families whose faith has been nourished by the TLM.  Families whose children attend The Collegium have made this Mass a cornerstone of their efforts to cultivate and pass down the faith to their children, and The Collegium sincerely assumes the responsibility and obligation to pass on the faith in the manner that these students’ first teachers expect.

Continued next week.

Editor’s note: buy the full book in print by clicking the cover below.


[1] Thomas Pink, “Papal Authority and the Limits of Official Theology,” in Ultramontanism & Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Catholic Faith, edited by Peter Kwasniewski (Lincoln, NE: Os Justi Press, 2024), 23-41.

[2] Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (Rome: 18 July 1870), ch. 3: “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” (emphasis added).

[3] Pink, 26. Cf. Donum Veritatis, 17: “For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.” (emphasis added).

[4] Pink, 38.

[5] Jeremy R. Holmes. “On Non-infallible Teachings of the Magisterium and the Meaning of Obsequium Religiosum,” in Ultramontanism & Tradition, 155-160.

[6] Ibid, 159. Holmes gives the case of someone running through the Church, leaping the altar rail and intruding upon the sanctuary (which one would never do normally out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament) in order to preserve the Blessed Sacrament from desecration.

[7] Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, “The Plenitudo Potestas of the Roman Pontiff in Service of the Unity of the Church,” in  Ultramontanism & Tradition, 3-15, 8.

[8] Ibid, 12. Citing “Il Primato del Successore di Pietro nel Mistero della Chiesa” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1998.

[9] Michael Fiedrowicz, The Traditional Mass: History, Form, and Theology of the Classical Roman Rite, translated from the German 5th edition (2019) by Rose Pfeifer (Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2020), 301.

[10] Phil. 2:8.

[11] See Catechism of the Catholic Church, revised ed.,no. 1903.

[12] Ibid.

[13] See Kennedy Hall, SSPX: the Defence, 144-146.

[14] Code of Canon Law (Rome: 1983); Canon 1752.

[15] Michael Fiedrowicz, The Traditional Mass, 6.

[16] Ibid., 10-12.

[17] See John Lamont, Disputation on the 1970 Missal, Part One: “Is the Mass of Paul VI Licit,” Section Three: “The Divine Origin of the Roman Rite, Dialogos Institute (2022); accessed on 19 April 2024, https://dialogos-institute.org/blog/wordpress/disputation-on-the-1970-missal-part-1-dr-john-lamont/.

[18] See The Deposit of Faith: What It Is and Why Catholics Should Know About It, Life-Site News (24 May 2023); accessed on 19 April 2024, www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/the-deposit-of-faith-what-it-is-and-why-catholics-should-know-about-it/.

[19] See 2 Thess. 2:14 and Jude 1:3.

[20] See Fr. Chad Ripperger, The Limits of Papal Authority over the Liturgy (Keenesburg, CO: Sensus Traditionis Press, 2023).

[21]Catechism of the Catholic Church, revised ed.,no. 1903.

[22] Pope Francis, motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (Rome: 16 July 2021), art. 1; accessed on 20 April 2024, www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html.

[23] See Fr. Réginald-Marie Rivoire, SSVF, Does Traditionis Custodes Pass the Juridical Rationality Test?, Post-Rescript revised edition, translated by Rev. William Barker, FSSP (Lincoln, NE: Os Justi Press, 2022).

[24] See Eric Sammons. “Power versus Authority in the Church.” Ultramontanism & Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Catholic Faith. Edited by Peter Kwasniewski. Os Justi Press, 2024, 75-77.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...