Members of the San Luigi Orders – Archbishop Joanny Bricaud (Tau Jean II), his work and his succession

Jean-Baptiste (Joanny) Bricaud (1881-1934) was Patriarch of the Universal Gnostic Church in France. He was a Prelate-Commander of the Order of the Crown of Thorns and, together with his wife Eugénie, was of vital importance in the preservation of its archives and spiritual tradition in the last years of Prince-Abbot Joseph III.

Bricaud had entered the minor seminary in preparation for the Roman Catholic priesthood, but instead took up secular employment in a bank and continued an extensive exploration of Gnostic and kabbalistic traditions that had begun while he was a seminarian. He had contact with French esotericists Elia Alta and Charles Henri Détré (Teder) (1855-1918) and became involved with the Eliate Church of Carmel and the “Work of Mercy” which had been founded in 1839 by Eugéne Vintras (1807–1875), as well as the Johannite Church of Primitive Christians, founded in 1803 by the Templar revivalist Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat (1777–1838). He became a member of the Martinist Order and in that capacity met Gerard Encausse (Papus) (1865-1916) who was head of that order, in 1899.

The Gnostic Church in France had been established by Jules-Benoît Stanislas Doinel du Val-Michel (1842–1903), a librarian, Grand Orient Freemason and spiritualist. In 1888, while archivist at the Library of Orléans, Doinel discovered a charter dated 1022 by Canon Stephan of Orléans, who was a Gnostic forerunner of the Cathars and was burned at the stake in that same year as a heretic. This inspired Doinel to make a detailed study of Cathar and Gnostic teachings, and convinced him that it was Gnosticism that was the essential religious basis for Freemasonry.

Following a mystic consecration by the avatar of Jesus Christ in a vision, Doinel announced that the year 1890 was to begin the “Era of the Gnosis Restored” and became Patriarch of the Gnostic Church. The new church was to have both male and female bishops, the latter to be known as sophias, and they would take a mystic name prefaced by the Greek letter Tau (which represents the Tau Cross) or the Egyptian Ankh. Among the first bishops consecrated by Doinel, who became known as Tau Valentin, was Papus. Membership of the church was restricted to those who, in the view of its hierarchy, were “of high intelligence, refinement and open mind”.

The Gnostic liturgy was strongly Roman Catholic in influence (perhaps prefiguring a similar influence in the later Liberal Catholic Church), with a Gnostic Mass as the central ceremony, and two other main rites from the Cathar tradition, the Consolamentum and the Appareillamentum.

In 1895, Doinel resigned as Patriarch and converted to Roman Catholicism. He now launched a series of bitter attacks on his former church, which naturally endeared him to the Roman hierarchy. However, he repented of this behaviour, and was readmitted to the Gnostic Church as a bishop in 1899 by his successor as Patriarch, Léonce-Eugène Fabre des Essarts (Tau Synesius) (1848-1917).

It was Tau Synesius who consecrated the twenty-one year old Joanny Bricaud as a bishop of the Gnostic Church in 1901. Papus, who wanted to see a more directly Martinist and Roman Catholic-modelled body than the more general esotericism of Tau Synesius, encouraged Bricaud to found his own church as a schism of the Gnostic Church, which he did in 1907, adopting the name Gnostic Catholic Church and the title of Tau Jean II. In February 1908, the Episcopal Synod of the Gnostic Catholic Church elected Bricaud as its Patriarch, which event marked the point at which Bricaud’s jurisdiction, subsequently known as the Eglise Gnostique Universelle, became acknowledged as the successor jurisdiction to the Gnostic Church of Doinel, the Carmelite Church of Vintras and the Johannite Church. Papus conditionally consecrated Bricaud in 1911, from which date the Eglise Gnostique Universelle was considered to be the official church of Martinism. Eventually, in 1926, the remnant of Tau Synesius’ church also chose to unite with Bricaud’s Eglise Gnostique Universelle.

In 1908, an exchange of orders between Papus and Theodor Reuss (Merlin Peregrinus) (1855–1923), founder and head of the Ordo Templi Orientis, led to a commission to Papus in respect of authority within the Rites of Memphis and Mizraïm, and to Reuss in respect of establishing the Eglise Gnostique Universelle in Germany (which he did through subsuming it within the OTO).

Bishop Paulo Miraglia Gulotti had been consecrated by Prince-Abbot Joseph III in 1900 for work in Italy. On 4 December 1904, Gulotti consecrated another French esotericist, Jules Houssaye (Abbé Julio) (1844-1912). Houssaye consecrated Louis-Marie-François Giraud (1876-1951) as Mar Louis on 21 June 1911. After Bricaud had become Patriarch of the Eglise Gnostique Universelle, he had contact with Giraud, a bishop of the Eglise Catholique Gallicane, who ordained him deacon and priest on 25 July 1912 and consecrated him on 21 July 1913, thus bringing the Eglise Gnostique Universelle within the Vilatte succession and the historic Apostolic Succession proper, via the lineage of the Syrian Orthodox Church.

On 20 May 1914, Bricaud received a further conditional priestly ordination and episcopal consecration from Albert Laurain de Lignieres, who was the French co-adjutor to British Old Catholic bishop Arnold Harris Mathew and also a bishop of the Eglise Catholique Gallicane. Laurain de Lignières had been consecrated in 1909 by Henry Marsh-Edwards (1866-1931), one of the British bishops consecrated by Prince-Abbot Joseph III. Pursuant to this, Bricaud was appointed Bishop of Lyons in the Eglise Catholique Gallicane.

On 10 September 1919, Bricaud received a warrant via Theodor Reuss to establish the French Sovereign Sanctuary of the Orders of Memphis and Misraïm. On 30 September, he established a Supreme Grand Council of the Confederated Rites, which consolidated the Masonic and associated esoteric bodies that were under his aegis.

Bricaud and the Ancient British Church

According to Richard, Duc de Palatine’s work “The Right of Succession”, in which he discussed the Apostolic Successions he had received from his consecrator Mar Georgius of Glastonbury, Catholicos of the West, Bricaud appointed John Yarker the English representative of L’Eglise Gnostique Universelle, L’Ordre Martiniste, the Rite Ancien et Primitif Memphis-Mizraim, and L’Ordre de la Rose Croix. Palatine continues, “The Grand Orient of France, being based upon the Gnostic doctrines, extended John Yarker Jr. the Hand of Friendship with the proviso that all the Gnostic and Chrestian Orders were to remain separate from the common Masonic Lodges…Dr. [Herbert James] Monzani Heard [Mar Jacobus II (1866-1947), fifth British Patriarch and a bishop of the Catholicate of the West] was consecrated a Bishop of L’Eglise Gnostique Universelle, and thus through him the Chrestian/Gnostic lines of the Right of Succession passed into England.  John Yarker Jr. died in 1913, but before he died he passed to Dr. Heard the whole of his authorities both secular and religious. Dr. Heard did consecrate and initiate Dr. Hugh G. de Willmott Newman [Mar Georgius of Glastonbury] into L’Eglise Gnostique Universelle and also into all the Masonic Orders Dr. Heard gained from John Yarker Jr.” These statements indicate that Yarker was towards the end of his life consecrated a bishop of the Eglise Gnostique Universelle, presumably by Bricaud, and then that Yarker in turn consecrated Heard, who consecrated Mar Georgius. Mar Georgius never publicly referred to holding any Gnostic succession (although documentation exists attesting to his Masonic and Rosicrucian authorities), but in doing so he was surely simply following the common practice in the membership of esoteric bodies in those days (and sometimes still) of maintaining silence lest his motives and involvement should be misunderstood by others. Mar Georgius was also a bishop of the Apostolic Episcopal Church, which since 1977 has been united with the Catholicate of the West and is today part of the Abbey-Principality of San Luigi, and thus this succession has passed to the present Prince-Abbot of San Luigi.

Bricaud and Prince-Abbot Joseph III (Vilatte)

In February 1922, Prince-Abbot Joseph III was in France once more, and there he began to correspond with Bricaud. They continued contact after his reconciliation with Rome in 1925, and from 1927 onwards, Bricaud and his wife-to-be Eugénie (Mother Angelique Sophia) (they would marry in December 1929) were key to Prince-Abbot Joseph III’s plans for the continuation of his work.

By 1927, Prince-Abbot Joseph III had determined that he would not remain within the Roman Catholic Church. He had gained much-needed rest and respite from his time there since 1925, as well as welcome financial support through his Papal pension and from donors in the United States. However, he was frustrated by the Roman authorities’ unwillingness to allow him to celebrate Mass in public and felt that his mission demanded a more active witness. He intended to travel to the United States where he would conduct his mission through the Order of the Crown of Thorns and through the nascent Order of Antioch, which he planned in detail. In addition, it was planned that he would resume the headship of the American Catholic Church on the intended resignation of its Primate, Archbishop Frederick E.J. Lloyd.

For many years it was thought that many of the documents and artefacts associated with Prince-Abbot Joseph III – all of which had been seen by the future Prince-Abbot Edmond I during his visits – had been either destroyed in a fire at his home, or seized and subsequently destroyed at his death by the Roman authorities. In fact, neither was the case. A great deal of thought went into the best place for the safekeeping of this substantial archive. As correspondence of the time shows, Prince-Abbot Joseph III viewed Prince-Abbot Edmond I as his closest friend (see letter from Prince-Abbot Joseph III to Prince-Abbot Edmond I of 19 July 1925: “you are my Chancellor-General and my most sincere and faithful friend for ever”.) However, Prince-Abbot Edmond I was at the time and for some years to come still a priest in the Protestant Episcopal Church. Prince-Abbot Joseph III remembered the ill-treatment he had received at the hands of that church, and understandably feared that his most prized possessions would not be safe in an Anglican vicarage. A decision was taken as a result that they should be entrusted to Archbishop Lloyd in Chicago, who was both independent ecclesiastically and possessed of considerable financial means. Correspondence between Prince-Abbot Joseph III and Lloyd was smuggled in and out by the Bricauds, without the knowledge of the Roman authorities, and this was then followed by the archives themselves. One letter refers to the skirts of Mme. Bricaud concealing more than her virtue!

The Bricauds were key to the spiritual developments of Prince-Abbot Joseph III’s last years. A complete Missal, Service Book, Ritual and Pontifical was prepared by Bricaud under the nihil obstat of (and with an extended forward by) Prince-Abbot Joseph III. This is dedicated to Mother Angelique Sophia. It was subsequently translated from French into English by a professor of the University of Chicago under the commission of Mrs Lloyd. The nature of the work is esoteric, with a concluding section explaining its meaning with reference to Pythagoreanism, the symbolism of the triangle, and the use of Hebrew characters. There are three forms of the Divine Liturgy (the Rite of Perfection): one for bishops, one for priests, and one exclusively for the use of sophias. Although it might at first appear that Prince-Abbot Joseph III through his nihil obstat had given his support to the ordination of women in this Gnostic context, his subsequent response to Bricaud on the matter showed that this was not the case. In subsequent publications, the main form of this liturgy (the “Wadle Mass”, or “Divine Liturgy of the Antiochene Malabar Rite of the Holy Catholic Church”) has been referred to as originating under the authorship of Lloyd, but comparison has shown it to have originated with the Bricaud Missal.

++Bricaud Cross

Bricaud and the American Chapter of the Order of the Crown of Thorns

In addition, a complete plan was formulated for an American Chapter of the Order of the Crown of Thorns, under the patronage of St Louis. Central to this work was a jewelled pectoral cross given by Bricaud to Prince-Abbot Joseph III (photographed at right). At the beginning and end of each meeting of the Chapter, three gold-framed photographs were venerated: in the centre, of Prince-Abbot Joseph III wearing the Bricaud Cross, and to the sides, of Prince-Abbot Joseph III and Bricaud, and of Bricaud and Mother Angelique Sophia. The Chapter members each wore the Bricaud Cross in rotation during meetings, regardless of ecclesiastical or chivalric rank.

Unfortunately, relations between Bricaud and Prince-Abbot Edmond I did not proceed as planned. The intention had been for Prince-Abbot Edmond I to be fully involved (as befitted his office) in the American Chapter and the work taking place in Chicago. However, Prince-Abbot Edmond I regarded Bricaud as having turned Prince-Abbot Joseph III against him and having supplanted him as his closest friend and confidant for his own gain. Indeed, Prince-Abbot Edmond I went to his grave believing that Prince-Abbot Joseph III had betrayed him through reposing his trust in Bricaud.

Prince-Abbot Edmond I rejected Bricaud’s approaches during the early 1930s and as a result the American Chapter was separated from the canonical jurisdiction of the Order as a whole, eventually becoming closed to non-members of the American Catholic Church. After the deaths of Lloyd in 1933 and Bricaud in 1934, the archives moved from Chicago to Laguna Beach in California where Archbishop Lowell Paul Wadle (1900-65) succeeded Bricaud. For several years, relations between Prince-Abbot Edmond I and Wadle were publically at odds – Prince-Abbot Edmond I condemning Wadle for his esotericism and heresy, and Wadle condemning Prince-Abbot Edmond I for his social respectability and “selling out” to the Episcopalians for a paycheck. However, in private, they formed a highly productive relationship, and in 1960 formal union was entered into by the two prelates. In 1971, the American Chapter was reabsorbed into the general administration of the Abbey-Principality under Prince-Abbot Edmond II.

The succession to Bricaud

Bricaud had consecrated Victor Blanchard (1878-1953) (Paul Yésir) on 5 July 1920. However, this act did not negate the fact that much of the relationship between Bricaud and Blanchard was antagonistic. Blanchard had not accepted Bricaud as head of Martinism in France and in 1921 had established his own Martinist body, the Martinist Order and Synarchy. Unlike Bricaud’s body, this did not restrict membership to men who were Master Masons, admitting women and non-Masonic members. Blanchard also received many other esoteric authorities during his career and on 14th July 1938 proclaimed that he was the Universal Grand Master of the Rose-Croix and of all the initiatic orders of the entire world. On 28 January 1945, Blanchard consecrated Robert Amadou (Tau Jacques) (1924-2006), who on 17 September 1988 (pictured at right) conditionally consecrated Archbishop Bertil Persson of the Apostolic Episcopal Church, consecrator of the present Prince-Abbot of San Luigi.

Bricaud in 1907, and then again in 1918 or 1919, consecrated the Haïtian Lucien François Jean-Maine (Tau Ogdoade-Orfeo I) (1869-1960), who had previously received consecration from Tau Synesius and other Gnostic bishops, and who was at that time living in France and later Spain. Tau Ogdoade-Orfeo I was also a Voudon high priest, initiated in his father’s temple. About 1910, he was given a charter by Papus for the Ordo Templi Orientis in Haiti and the French West Indies. Aspects of the O.T.O. had much in common with the Voudon heritage into which he had previously been initiated. The Spanish-Haitian development of this body would be designated Ordo Templi Orientis Antiqua after 1921.

Tau Ogdoade-Orfeo I had also received the Rites of Memphis and Misraïm from his first consecrator Tau Orfeo VI (Paul-Pierre de Marraga) of the Spanish Albigensian Gnostic Church (From Tau Orfeo VI he had also inherited a line of episcopal succession through the French Eglise Constitutionelle that originated with Pope Benedict XIII). In consequence, Tau Ogdoade-Orfeo I was able to impart to Papus a number of the higher grades in Memphis and Misraïm and in return, Papus gave him charters for those Orders he had received from John Yarker and Theodor Reuss. Significantly, Tau Ogdoade-Orfeo I did not maintain his esoteric authorities separately from his Gnostic church authorities. Frater Joseph has written of this, “For under the combined influences of the O.T.O., Martinism, Gnosticism, and Voudoo-not to mention the Fraternitas Lucis Hermetica-the Spanish and Haitian branches of the Rite of Memphis-Misraim gave up entirely their quasi-masonic character and became completely esoteric and Gnostic orders of magic, i.e., The Gnostic and Esoteric Order of Misraim. or of Egypt and the Gnostic and Esoteric Order of Memphis, within the larger, totally occult and much more ecclesiastical “Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraim”. This point must be emphasized because there are other branches of the Rite of Memphis-Misraim which claim to continue a masonic character, while it is only interested in continuing the Gnostic and apostolic succession and the magical currents of initiation.” (Frater Joseph, History of La Couleuvre Noire, in Skoob Occult Review, no. 3, London: Skoob Books Publishing, Ltd., 1990).

In 1921, having returned to Haiti and married, Tau Ogdoade-Orfeo I developed his own occult initiatic system called La Couleuvre Noire (The Black Snake), since as a Black man he was excluded from much Western European esoteric activity. This work has survived to the present day, as has the succession of Memphis-Misraïm bishops from Tau Ogdoade-Orfeo I. Returning to and slightly amplifying Frater Joseph’s account, we learn that “On January 18, 1966, an American Martinist, Tau Ogoade-Orfeo IV [Michael Paul Bertiaux], born January 18, 1935, was consecrated to the episcopate for the Rite of Memphis-Misraim. The consecration took place in Chicago, with Tau Ogoade-Orfeo II [José Marraga y Adhémar (1893-1969) as principal consecrator] and Tau Ogoade-Orfeo III [Hector François Jean-Maine (1924-84)] acting as the co-consecrator. Later, Tau Ogoade-Orfeo IV received the complete magical consecrations and currents of the Ecclesia Gnostica Hermetica on August 10, 1967. The Ecclesia Gnostica Hermetica carried the magical currents of the secret work of the O.T.O. and the Choronzon Club, and thus united the Crowleyan (Germerian) and Neo-Crowleyan (Choronzon Club and G.B.G.) successions with the Gnostic and Hermetic traditions inherited from the Vilatte succession of bishops.” Bertiaux then on 16 June 1979 consecrated Archbishop Forest Barber of the Apostolic Episcopal Church, through whom this heritage has passed to the present Prince-Abbot of San Luigi.

Bricaud died on 21 February 1934 and was succeeded as Patriarch of the Eglise Gnostique Universelle by Constant Chevillon (Tau Harmonius (1880-1944)). According to the account of Mme. Bricaud, Chevillon worked closely with Bricaud in his last years, and indeed the two men are buried in the same tomb. Bricaud certainly consecrated Chevillon, probably in the mid-1920s, but no record of the exact date of this event has survived. Chevillon was consecrated again by Giraud on 5 January 1936. At the time of his assassination by agents of the Vichy government during World War II, Chevillon had consecrated no bishops. His successor was René Chambellant (Tau Renatus (1907-93)) who was consecrated in 1945 by Edouard Gesta (Dr X), who had been consecrated by Blanchard on 28 January 1945. After World War II, the church was placed in a state of dormancy and Chambellant relocated for many years to Africa.

While there would be a continuation of elements of the work of the Eglise Gnostique Universelle through the churches led by Robert Ambelain and his successors, this would essentially be a work of revival and rebirth that continues in many Gnostic churches of today, perhaps illustrating that its inner traditions and their spiritual teachings are capable of creating their own organizational frameworks through the transmission of initiatic and episcopal successions.

Holy Water and incense blessed by Bricaud is today part of the San Luigi archive, as are some of his vestments and items from the Vilatte archive that he helped save. He remains one of our most important forefathers and a continuing presence and inspiration.

Feast of the Most Precious Blood in France

July 1st is the Feast of the Precious Blood of Jesus and Saint Joseph René Vilatte first Gallican Patriarch and Prince Grand Master of the Order of the Crown of Thorns.
At Lingolsheim the Mass will be celebrated at 6 p.m. Also on Sunday, July 3rd at 10:30 Solemnity of the Precious Blood of Jesus.
On this occasion the relics of the Holy Cross, the Holy Crown of Thorns and Mount Calvary are displayed on the altar.

Easter 2022

easter2022

“The grace of Easter is a great silence, an immense tranquility and a clean taste in your soul. It is the taste of heaven, but not the heaven of some wild exaltation. The Easter vision is not riot and drunkenness of spirit, but a discovery of order above all order—a discovery of God and of all things in Him. This is a wine without intoxication, a joy that has no poison in it. It is life without death. Tasting it for a moment, we are briefly able to see and love all things according to their truth, to possess them in their substance hidden in God, beyond all sense. For desire clings to the vesture and accident of things, but charity possesses them in the simple depths of God.” – Thomas Merton OCSO (1915-68)

Treaties of Friendship with the Orders of the Royal House of Lusignan

In the early years of the revival of the Order of the Crown of Thorns (the last decades of the nineteenth-century) friendly contact was in place between the Order and the Royal House of Lusignan, several of whose members served as Patrons of the Order.

Now, in the twenty-first century, this relationship has been reconfirmed with the signing of Treaties of Friendship between the Abbey-Principality of San Luigi and two Orders of the Royal House of Lusignan, the Order of St Catherine of Mount Sinai and the Order of St Blaise.

2022.3.25 ToF A-P San Luigi_OSCMS_Page_12022.3.25 ToF A-P San Luigi_OSCMS_Page_2

2022.3.30 ToF_AP_San Luigi_OStB_Page_12022.3.30 ToF_AP_San Luigi_OStB_Page_2

Partnership with the Ordo Equestris Reginae Caeli

The Abbey-Principality has entered into an agreement of partnership with the Ordo Equestris Reginae Caeli, a religious order of knights in the spirit of the Benedictine tradition. The Prince-Abbot is a Grand Cross Chaplain of the Order while the Præceptor Generalis of the Order, H.E. Dom David Perez y Alvarez, is a Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown of Thorns.

More information about the Order and its charitable works can be found at its website https://www.oerc.eu

Small Charities Coalition

The San Luigi Orders Charitable Trust in the United Kingdom has been a member organization of the Small Charities Coalition and Charity Trustee Network since September 2013. The Small Charities Coalition has recently announced that it intends to close in March 2022. As yet, there is no alternative organization for small charities in England that are below the financial threshold for registration with the Charity Commission; should there be one in the future, we will consider joining it.

While the charitable status of the Trust has been unaffected by this news, it has been decided that in view of the present existence of multiple incorporated bodies that represent the Abbey-Principality of San Luigi, the Trust has fulfilled its purpose and should be dissolved.

On “Traditionis custodes”

The Apostolic Letter “Traditionis custodes” issued by Pope Francis recently has caused considerable concern to those who have a devotion to the Tridentine Rite. It has been necessary before responding to analyse carefully the detail of the Apostolic Letter itself, its accompanying documentation, its context, and then the responses of others to its contents. In our response, it is also necessary to set out certain priorities, so that we are seen both to uphold our brethren in full communion with the Holy See and also to state in truth the position from where we ourselves stand.

The latitude in interpretation in the language of the Apostolic Letter itself would permit an intelligent and literal interpretation that would, perhaps surprisingly, allow it to be interpreted as supportive of the status quo within the obedience of the Holy See, with the addition of some key caveats. Having examined a wide range of responses, including from the bishops of the Roman obedience, we find that some bishops are indeed minded to take this approach. Others have more regard to the modernist context that surrounds the Apostolic Letter, and have interpreted it in such a way as to lead them to prohibit the celebration of the Tridentine Rite either partially or fully within their dioceses, or to require of their traditionalist parishioners that they give explicit written assent to the provisions of the Apostolic Letter and the Second Vatican Council as a condition of continuing their chosen form of worship.

It is difficult not to have sympathy for some of the issues that the Holy Father raises. He says truthfully that the Church is divided and that the basis for at least some of this division is adherence to the Tridentine Rite and an opposition to the modernist reforms of Vatican II. Again, we are aware that it is possible to interpret the decisions of Vatican II in a traditionalist rather than a modernist light, but this is a minority viewpoint and not one that seems to be in evidence in the context of the current Apostolic Letter. Rather, it seems to us that the Holy Father is making explicit a dilemma for those of the Roman obedience. Firstly, he appears to want unanimity in both the full acceptance of Vatican II and on the modernist interpretation of Vatican II that he himself holds along with the majority of Catholics. Secondly, for those who are unable in conscience to accept this, what he is taking away is the prospect of forming a distinct traditionalist community within the Church that has the capacity for growth and ultimately for influence. The spirit of the Apostolic Letter is that the Tridentine Rite, where not extinguished altogether, is to be driven to the margins. This comes at a time when the traditionalist expressions of the Church have been those that have been growing in the most visible way, particularly among the young, and where there have inevitably been other questions that have arisen as a result of the cognitive dissonance between the expression of traditionalist worship and teaching, and the modernist emphasis of the Papacy.

As Christians, our aim should be to bring healing where there is division, and wherever possible not to be the cause of further division. It would not be possible to be involved in the work of ecumenism without having as an aspiration that such work would result in new ways of working together and of emphasising the fact that, however disparate our churchmanship, much more still unites us than divides. A starting-point for such work is a respect for those who differ from us. These differences ultimately reflect the fact that mankind is diverse, not uniform, and if we are to have the proper regard for the fact that each one of us is made in God’s image, we should avoid crude or sweeping attempts at collectivisation or centralization.

The history of the Church is not one of papocentralism nor of the Church as a centrally governed direct hierarchy. The government of the Church has historically been entrusted to its bishops, who have differed widely in their theology and polity while preserving the deposit of faith. The place of the Pope in such a structure is certainly not entirely without an obvious overarching power, but it is much more in line with the Orthodox view of the Papacy as a primacy of honour rather than one of jurisdiction. Had the present Apostolic Letter been issued some centuries ago, the view that might have been taken then would have been much more equivocal than in the modern Church. It could well have been said, and it would not have been without significant scholarly support, that if a Pope were to err in his teaching or polity, it was largely permissible to ignore any such aberration without significant spiritual or practical consequences accruing.

Our first priority in considering a response to Traditionis custodes is that of the salvation of souls. This is the supreme law of the Church. The Declaration of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Dominus Iesus (2000) states,

“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church. (IV:17)

We are then given the conditions for a church to be a “true particular church”, viz. Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist. In practice, the second condition is only possible if the first is present.

Moreover, such separated churches are not separate in that they do not belong to the Catholic Church, “The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.

Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

It follows that the separated churches draw upon the same divine essence as the (Roman) Catholic Church. They are elements of a single church, not a sign of a church that consists of many disparate parts. It follows that they are as much partakers of the Holy Roman Church as is the Holy See. It is then for them to define the nature of their relationship with Rome.

Our concern in writing is not that those traditionalists under Papal obedience should now consider attending the Traditional Latin Mass in separated churches and communities, although that may in certain cases be an option for them to consider. They do not need to leave the Roman Catholic Church in order to do so; Canon 844(2) of the current Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law states, “Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.” 

Rather we would wish that those who find themselves in spiritual crisis due to the Apostolic Letter should have a clear understanding of their priorities. The first priority must be to ensure that the sacraments they and others receive are unambiguously valid. We do not say at all that the text of the Mass of Paul VI is not valid, but we do say that where the Mass of Paul VI is accompanied by an overtly modernist interpretation it may give rise to doubts in the mind of the faithful who are aware of the opposition of modernism and Marxist so-called “liberation theology” to the inspired and settled teaching of the Church through the ages. Likewise, assent to both Vatican Councils requires the faithful to profess beliefs about the Church that are not in accordance with the tradition of the Church but instead speak of modernism and the desire for a centralised, “managed” church that is at odds with its history before the past two centuries. Lastly, we should remember that obedience to the teachings of the Pope is not a sine qua non for the faithful, particularly if those teachings are perceived to be partisan or at variance with the unambiguously valid tradition of the Church. Tradition is not the preserve of the Pope to change or abrogate; it is the preserve and treasure of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. The title of the Apostolic Letter is accurate in that tradition has guardians; a guardian values and nurtures his charge rather than destroying it.

We should also approach these problems from another perspective; if a person feels that the Tridentine Rite and traditionalist theology draw them closer to Jesus and offer them the spiritual nourishment necessary for their journey in faith, who should stand in their way? Should such people be force-fed modernism, or alternatively forced out of full communion with the Pope altogether? The Pope speaks of division in his writings, and yet it seems that (presumably inadvertently) his response to that division will act to proliferate that division still further, and intensify the polarisation between traditionalists and modernists that he says he wishes to heal. We find that the response of a number of Roman Catholic bishops in supporting the continued celebration of the Tridentine Rite within their dioceses is encouraging and to be commended. Where bishops are minded to prohibit its celebration, they are presumably aware that they are forcing a set of difficult and heart-rending choices upon the faithful. At their most extreme, these questions may lead some traditional Catholics to embrace the beliefs known as sedevacantism or sedeprivationism which we do not endorse.

We note that some papocentrist Catholics who belong to groups and societies who have seen fit to attack us in the past have seen the Apostolic Letter as an opportunity to be seized to promote their modernist views. One such writer says of Vatican II and the replacement of the Tridentine Rite with the Mass of Paul VI that “in the opinion of the most recent Popes, many of these things that were antiquated and no longer had any place in today’s modern society just had to go so as not to continue to shock or offend in the modern age.” Such ideas, whether held by the recent Popes or not, are both shameful and heretical. The Church is not concerned with “shocking” or “offending” others. Indeed, the precepts of the Christian faith, for which many of the saints embraced martyrdom, should rightly shock and offend any who oppose them, be they modernists or Marxists. Of course such opponents of tradition are also opposed to the ideas of traditional monarchy and of the nobiliary traditions within the Church.

Let us remember that we are not called to be of this world (John 15:19); and indeed many of the problems which the early Christians encountered in ancient Rome have unfortunately returned amid the crisis of faith of our world during the past century. Jesus has the answers to these problems, and any who find answers that are inconsistent with His teachings are to be regarded as false shepherds.

We note that there is reference in the Pope’s writings to the Society of St Pius X, which continues the expression of the Roman Catholic Church as the church was constituted before Vatican II. We find the position of the SSPX unsatisfactory because its insistence on upholding Vatican I creates a tautology. The SSPX at once upholds the incorrect proposition that the Pope is infallible, and yet refuses to accede to Vatican II despite its blessing and active promulgation by the “infallible” Pope Paul VI and all his successors, together with the college of bishops. The truth is that the Pope is not and never has been infallible; infallibility is attributed solely to the college of bishops not merely of the Roman Catholic Church but instead of the entire undivided Church speaking through an Ecumenical Council under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Within a profoundly divided Church as we see today, there can be no valid Council.

It follows logically that the only consistent and accurate voice representing Tradition within the Roman heritage is that of the Old Catholic understanding, accepting the pre-1870 position of the Church and adhering to neither Vatican Council. The Old Catholic position incidentally has been on numerous occasions affirmed as theologically consistent with the position both of the Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion. Moreover, Roman Catholic canonists of the past century have repeatedly stated that the sacraments of the various branches of the Old Catholics are valid notwithstanding their partial or impaired communion with the Holy See.

The Tridentine Rite remains the normative liturgical form within our communion and is understood in the context of a traditional liturgical interpretation. Not being in full communion with the Holy See, we are not bound by the Apostolic Letter as a matter of discipline, though as always we should consider the views of the Pope with the respect that they are due. We continue to hold Pope Francis in prayer and also pray for the healing of the Church so that Jesus’ own prayer may be fulfilled, “that all may be as one” (John 17:21).

+EDMOND P.