With Tradiitonis custodes, Pope Francis intended to ban the Perpetual Mass of the Church, codified by St. Pius V in the 16^th century according to the canons of the Council of Trent. This Mass, however, was created neither by that Pontiff nor that Council. They merely codified the same Mass that had been said since the time of the Apostles. This Mass, consequently, has been identified with the Catholic Church for her entire History. It is her Perpetual Mass.

In 1969, Pope Paul VI created a New Mass, which he de facto enforced on the Church, while he theoretically admitted a right for the Perpetual Mass to be said. Now, Pope Francis abolished de jure the Perpetual Mass of the Church.

This new decision raises the question of whether a Pope has the right to abolish the multi-secular Mass of the Catholic Church. Great theologians of the past discussed this possibility and concluded that a Pope who separates himself from the traditional ecclesiastical cult of the Church becomes schismatic.

Today, TIA inittiates to post the opinions of some of these theologians to help our readers better understand the complex situation we are living.

To demonstrate that “Pope can separate himself illegitimately from the unity of the Church and from obedience to the head of the Church and, therefore, fall into schism, Cardinal Torquemada uses three arguments:

“1. (…) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church and in relation to whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ (1) or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able without doubt to fall into schism.

2. The Pope can separate himself without any reasonable cause, just for pure self will, from the body of the Church and the college of priests. He will do this if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, dil. 11, or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the universal Councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship.

For example, not wishing to observe personally something from the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of the ecclesiastical cult. This would take place in case he did not wish to celebrate with the sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he did not wish to make “The Sign of the Cross” like the other priests make it, or other similar things which have been decreed in a general way for perpetual utility, according to the canons Quae ad perpetuam, Violatores, Sunt quidam and Contra statuta (25, q. 1).

Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism. The consequence is good; and the antecedent is not doubtful, for the Pope, just as he could fall into heresy, could also disobey and pertinaciously cease to observe that which was established for the common order in the Church. For this reason, Innocent says (c. De Consue.) that one ought to obey the Pope in everything as long as he does not turn against the universal order of the Church, for in such a case the Pope must not be followed, unless there be reasonable cause for this.

3. Let us suppose that more than one person considers himself Pope, and that one of them be the true Pope, but considered by some to be probably dubious. And let us suppose that this true Pope comported himself with such negligence and obstinacy in the pursuit of unity in the Church, that he did not wish to do everything he could for the reestablishment of unity. In this hypothesis the Pope would be considered as a fomenter of schism, according to the way many have argued, even in our days, in connection with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII” (2)

1. As is obvious, the sin of schism is not committed in any act of disobedience whatsoever, but only in that in which one denies the very principle of authority in the Church, breaking thus the ecclesiastical unity (see Saint Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II. 39, I; M. J. Congar, Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, article “Schisme”, col. 1304). Such a conception is presupposed by Torquemada in the text cited. We make this observation because it might possibly appear to the reader that the passage transcribed above grossly confounds “disobedience to the law of Christ” with schism – which would have the absurd consequence that for any sin whatsoever the Pope would become schismatic. Torquemada is, moreover, one of the greatest defenders of the principle that a scandalous and immoral but not heretical or schismatic Pope conserves the Pontificate (see Summa de Ecclesia., lib. II, cap. 101).
2. Cardinal Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, pars I, lib. IV, cap. 11, p. 369 v

(Arnaldo V.X. Silveira, The Theological Hypotheis of a Heretic Pope
available here, p. 181)

Posted on August 14, 2021

Related Topics of Interest

  Celibacy Is ‘a Life of Greater Perfection’

  The Single Vocation: The Answer for a Broken World

  Virginity Develops a Man’s Personality Much More than Marriage

  Historical Precedents for Lay Celibacy

  Virginity Confers to the Soul the Noblest & Highest Moral Dignity

  St. Rose of Lima: Lay Celibate by the Wish of Our Lady

  Virginity Is Embraced for the Kingdom of Heaven

  Virginity Frees from the Divided Heart that Comes with Marriage

  Virginity, Original Sin & Marriage






Related Works of Interest