Do Traditionalist Priests

Have Authority in the

Catholic Church
Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Do Traditionalists Think That Their Priests Have Jurisdiction?..........................................1
Prayers..................................................................................................................................2
Organization.........................................................................................................................3
Is Jurisdiction Dogmatic?....................................................................................................4
Is Jurisdiction Dogmatic in the Case of Confession?..........................................................4
Summary..............................................................................................................................8
What Is the Traditionalist Teaching on Jurisdiction?...........................................................8
What Are the Consequences of These Actions?...................................................................9

Introduction
There is much concern whether Traditionalist priests and bishops actually have
authority to function in the Catholic Church. There has been some discussion on the
possible invalidity of the Orders of some Traditionalists. Some doubt the validity of
Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination and consecration by Achille Cardinal Lienart, who was
suspected of being a high level Freemason. A small group suspects the validity of the
consecrations performed by Bishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dihn Thuc. However, if one
examines both cases, there is no reason to doubt the validity of these Orders, just as there
is no reason to doubt the validity of the Orders of the Old Catholics among others.
This is not therefore a question of validity of Orders, but that of whehter or not
the exercise of these Orders is legitimate under Catholic Church Law. Catholics have
been forbidden to participate in the Sacraments of non-Catholics, such as the Old
Catholics and the Orthodox, because these Sacraments are not legitimate. Basically one
cannot separate Sacrament from the objective sacrilege of recieving them from a non-
Catholic minister. But what is to be said of the Traditionalists?
In order to legitimate administer the Sacraments, a priest or bishop must be in
visible communion with the Catholic Church and therefore with the Pope. If this visible
communion is lacking, the priest or bishopis in schism, and therefore forbidden to
administer the Sacraments with a few exceptions.

Do Traditionalists Think That Their Priests Have

Jurisdiction?

1
 As we have seen, heresy can be expressed in two ways; by words, and by actions
or lack of action. Anything can be expressed these two ways. Traditionalists certainly
think their priests have the necessary jurisdiction, and they say as much in their
conversations. However, actions speak louder than words. It is these actions we will
analyze.

Prayers

Prayer, in some respects, is a quasi-jurisdictional act. Prayers in the liturgy

certainly have some jurisdictional relationship. Certain prayers are said by the superior on
behalf of his flock, whether he be the pastor or local bishop. (Extreme Unction, Solemn
Baptism, Nuptial Blessing, Blessing of Ashes on Ash Wednesday, etc.) Of course, the
superior may, in most cases, delegate another in his place. However, some prayers should
ONLY be said by the superior, such as the saying of the Angelus. The person who leads
the Angelus should recite the prayer at the end, by himself. (Such can also be observed in
Catholic households, where the father is the superior.) In fact, the Church has established
an order in determining who shall say these prayers when the superior is not present.
At public functions in Church, our actions (clergy and laity alike), are governed
by the rubrics. (Canon 2.) Violation of the rubrics ranges from a venial fault to a mortal
sin. Obviously, a priest who says the Consecration in a wrong manner, sins more
grievously than a server who omits kissing a cruet. Anytime the priest says "Oremus" (let
us pray), he should recite the following prayer or prayers by himself, on behalf of those
present. For instance, the Angelus, as mentioned above, as well as the prayers after Low
Mass (where the rubrics prescribe that the prayers, "O God, our refuge, and our strength,"
and the St. Michael's prayer), should be said by the priest ALONE. Many times a prayer
said on behalf of the people is said by the priest standing, such as the prayer at
Benediction and at the end of Litanies.
In some places, any time the priest or other leader says "Let us pray," the people
immediately join in the prayer. (This is not done if the prayer is in Latin, because most do
not know the Latin prayer.) Actually, they are usurping a function which properly belongs
to the one leading the prayer, if he truly has jurisdiction. In most places, the St. Michael's
prayer after Low Mass is said by priest and people together. Such is at least a sinful
disregard for the rubrics, which are divinely inspired. We make much of retaining the
Mass, but refuse to obey the rubrics of that selfsame Mass. (volumes could be written on
the liturgical abuses found among traditionalists.)
You might think this is a small matter; however, we think this tendency to join in
prayers, in violation of the rubrics, may lead to a false notion of the priesthood of the
people, which is heretical. We happily condemn the Conciliar Church on this account, but
are leaning in the same direction ourselves.
These rules, as outlined, are laudably observed in Catholic households, as well.
For this reason, we shall outline the basics. In religious houses, the Angelus and meal
prayers are always led by the acting superior. In the home, this would be the father; in his
absence, the mother, the oldest child, etc. (If, for some reason, another child is in charge,
then they have authority from the parents and should lead themselves.) Other prayers,
such as the rosary, may be led by anyone; but the closing prayer, "Pray for us, O Holy

2
Mother of God, etc.," and the prayer following, are also reserved to the acting superior. In
case of a litany, the one who leads the litany usually leads the prayer. In Catholic
households, these rules may be strictly adopted, and can be modified at the wish of the
parents. Since parents have ordinary jurisdiction over their household, they may delegate
that authority to others. The parents may designate someone to lead the meal prayers each
evening, and do rightly. Also, they may designate one of the children to lead a litany, but
keep the closing prayers for themselves.
Whatever you do, be consistent. Don't consider a radical change of the household
routine, but introduce the idea that certain prayers are said by one alone, on behalf of the
rest.

Organization

Where does jurisdiction come from? Some say God, others say from the Church,
still others say from the people. God provides jurisdiction through his Church. Christ said
to St. Peter, "I give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 16:19.) St. Thomas
tells us that these keys are those of Orders and jurisdiction. Christ told Peter:
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19.) Not only does Peter
receive the key of jurisdiction, but he governs its use on earth. Therefore, jurisdiction
comes from God through His Church, by way of the Pope.
However, what have we done in this time of confusion? Many Catholics wishing
to have a place for mass, in order to attract priests, have formed corporations and
organizations for this purpose. These organizations proceed to buy a building and to look
for and hire priests to provide the sacraments. Does this sound familiar? In fact, the
Protestants often work in the same way. They provide the church and hire and fire the
preacher. I can understand why people, who are putting out a great deal of money to buy
a church and support it, would want to retain some control. They know, even if they don't
say it, that their priests have no visible authority over them; they know, that many priests
are no more than hirelings, who seek their own well-being, rather than that of the faithful.
They seek a way to get rid of priests, who place their souls in danger. Many priests who
look good today, fall tomorrow into error and heresy. However, canon law provides that
the Church alone has the right to erect churches or chapels and appoint pastors.
In fact, we may not erect chapels, per se. By retaining for ourselves the right
which belongs to the Church, we are saying that the priest who stands at the altar is our
employee, not God's. He is not sent by God, but we have asked him for ourselves. We
have implicitly made the priesthood a "career," rather than a vocation. We are reserving to
ourselves ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which is never conferred on laymen, except by the
Pope in rare cases. If this priest were our pastor, then he would have full control of the
Church property, the collection, etc. He could employ lay trustees to assist him, but the
final decision would always rest with him. However, these priests, at best, have delegated
jurisdiction for some acts from the Church through the Pope. This jurisdiction is
extremely limited. Until a pope again sits on Peter's Chair, we should pray in our homes
and study, rather than erect chapels for ourselves, which will probably lead us into
schism.

3
 What is more, these actions could be considered simony. (We have touched on
this crime, briefly, in an earlier section, but will now explore it in greater detail.)
"Simony:" (from Simon Magus, Acts 8:18.) The deliberate intention of buying
and selling or otherwise trafficking in sacred things." Any bilateral agreement can be
simoniacal, according to Canon 728. There are three basic types of simony listed by
moralists, and we shall discuss how these apply to traditionalist activities:
1. Manus a manu, a gift handed over, such as money or any movable or
immovable good. When you contract with a priest to come for Mass and offer him money
for his services, this is simony. The spiritual goods are to be offered gratis, although
donations can be given at the same time the spiritual goods are delivered. But the second
the priest comes for the money, he commits simony. A priest should be ready to dip into
his own back pocket to provide his transportation, rather than giving even the appearance
of simony. It would probably be permissible for a priest, provided he was canonically
capable, to come to a place and for a collection plate to be left and the proceeds given
straight to the priest. Anything involving lay interference or offering of a set fee, is
against canon law and in some cases, simony, as well.
2. Munus a lingua, when praise, flattery, intercession, etc., are offered as the price
of some spiritual good one expects to receive from another. This is probably the most
common form of simony. People are always praising Father for his "sacrifice" for the
Faith. However, should Father commit some breach of law, canonical or even moral, they
hesitate to make the fraternal correction required by divine law. This failure is implicit
simony, because they will happily praise him before and after the infraction, but fail to
fulfill their divine law obligation to question the Father's actions. They are afraid that if
they question the priest's behavior, they will lose his services and thus, commit simony.

Is Jurisdiction Dogmatic?
Is Jurisdiction Dogmatic in the Case of Confession?

The Code of Canon Law (872) states: "Besides the power of orders, the minister,
to absolve sins VALIDLY, must have either ordinary or delegated power of jurisdiction
over the penitent." The question is the source of this law. Does this law proceed from
divine law, or from ecclesiastical law?
1. The Council of Trent states that jurisdiction is required for the valid absolution
of sins. "Therefore, since the nature and essence of a judgment require that the sentence
be imposed only on subjects, there has been the conviction in the Church of God, ...that
this absolution, which the priest pronounces upon one over whom he has no ordinary or
delegated jurisdiction, has NO value. It seemed to be a matter of VERY GREAT
importance to our most holy fathers for the discipline of the Christian people that certain
more atrocious and grave crimes should be absolved not by anyone indiscriminately, but
only by the highest priests...." (Denzinger 9O3.) Canon 9: "If anyone says that the
sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but an empty service of
pronouncing and declaring the one confessing that his sins are forgiven...: let him be
anathema." (Denzinger 919.) Trent further states in Canon 11: "If anyone says that
bishops do not have the right of reserving cases for themselves, except those of external

4
administration, and that on his account the reservations of cases does not prohibit a priest
from truly absolving from reserved cases...: let him be anathema." (Denzinger 921.)
2. The Council of Florence directs the following question to the Wycliffites and
Hussites: "Likewise, whether he believes that a Christian, in addition to contrition of
heart, is obligated out of necessity for salvation to confess to a priest only (the priest
having the proper faculties), and not to a layman or laymen however good and devout."
(DZ 670.)
3. The Council of Florence states: "The fourth sacrament is penance... . The words
of absolution which the priest utters when he says: Ego to absolvo, etc., are the form of
this sacrament, and the minister of this sacrament is the priest who has either ordinary
authority for absolving sins or has it by commission of a superior." (DZ 699.)
4. Pius VI stated the following in condemning the errors of the Svnod of Pistoia,
No. 37. The teaching of the synod, which declares concerning the authority for absolving
received through ordination, that "after the institution for dioceses and parishes, it is
fitting that each one exercise this judgment over those persons subject to him, either by
reason of territory or some personal right," because "otherwise, confusion and
disturbance would be introduced"; since it declares, that in order to prevent confusion
after dioceses and parishes have been instituted, it is merely fitting that the power of
absolving be exercised upon subjects; so understood, as if for the valid use of this power
there is no need of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, without which the Tridentine Synod
declares that the absolution conferred by a priest is of no value--false, rash, dangerous,
contrary, and injurious to the Tridentine Synod; erroneous." (See Number 9O3, quoted
above.) (DZ 1537.)
5. Clarence McAuliffe, S.J., in his Sacramental Theology, p. 300, et seq., has the
following to say in Conclusion 11: "No one except a priest can administer the sacrament
of penance. To do so, even a priest needs special faculties...."
"Dogmatic note: The first part is of divine faith from the Council of Trent (DZ
920, CT 809): "If anyone says ...that priests alone are not the ministers of absolution ...let
him be anathema."
"The second part is also of divine faith from the same council (DZ 9O3, CT 769),
when it states that it ratifies as most true, what the Church has always held; namely: 'that
the absolution which a priest confers on one over whom he has neither ordinary or
delegated jurisdiction ought to be reckoned of no worth.'
"From this statement, it follows as Catholic doctrine that a priest does not receive
faculties by ordination alone. The council supposes that the minister is a 'priest'; i.e.,
validly ordained. Yet, it says that his absolution is of no worth, unless he has either
ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. Consequently, he did not receive this jurisdiction by
mere fact of his ordination... .
"Part 2: Even a priest needs special faculties.
"Proof 2: From theological reasoning, the argument follows in form.
"Judicial power involves the exercise of jurisdiction; but the power to absolve or
retain sins is judicial power: Therefore, the power to absolve or retain sins involves the
exercise of jurisdiction.
"Proof for the major. A judge binds or looses the wills of men by imposing or
liberating them from obligations. This involves the exercise of jurisdiction, which he
cannot assume on his own authority. He must have public power.

5
 "Proof for the minor. It is clear from the second conclusion.
"Proof 3: From the practice of the Church, as revealed by the prescriptions of
canon law.
"The Code of Canon Law (Canon 872) states: 'Besides the power of orders, the
ministers, to absolve sins validly, must have either ordinary or delegated power of
jurisdiction over the penitent.'
"From this declaration, it is evident that delegated jurisdiction to absolve is not
conferred by priestly ordination or episcopal consecration. That ordinary jurisdiction is
not granted, follows from the fact that no man receives a parish or diocese by his
ordination.
"Objections:
"4. Perhaps jurisdiction is given at ordination, but the Church is empowered to
regulate its use." (Ed. note--The Society of St. Pius X teaches, that in this time, universal
jurisdiction for confessions is granted with their priestly ordinations.)
"Answer: If jurisdiction were conferred by ordination, the Church could not take
it away. She cannot remove those powers that come directly from God when a sacrament
is conferred.
"5. If jurisdiction must be obtained from the Church, the Holy Father could not go
to confession, because he cannot be subject to anyone.
"Answer: The pope acting as supreme ruler of the Church, grants jurisdiction to
his confessor. But when the Holy Father goes to confession, he acts in a private capacity.
6. Reverend H. Rolfus, D.D., in his Explanation of the Holy Sacraments (1898),
states: "In regard to absolution, these things are to be borne in mind:
"1. Absolution is not merely a declaration that God has remitted the sin; it is a real
judicial act, which the priest performs in virtue of the powers granted to the apostles
(Matthew 18:18).
"2. No one has power to absolve from sin as in the place of God, except a
rightfully ordained priest, who has received from his bishop, faculties which have not
been subsequently withdrawn. These faculties, however, extend only to the limits of the
diocese of the bishop by whom they have been conferred. For instance, a priest who has
powers for the Dioceses of New York or Westminster, cannot hear confessions in any
other diocese, unless the bishop of that diocese has given him faculties, either for the
whole diocese or for some special place or particular occasion, such as when he is
helping in a mission.
"3. In order that his absolution may be valid, the priest must have authority or
jurisdiction over the person to be absolved. The Holy Father has jurisdiction over the
whole of Christendom, the bishop over his See, the 'priest in his parish. Assistant priests
have the same jurisdiction as the parish priest for any particular occasion. The superiors
of religious orders have jurisdiction over the members of their order. But, in the case of
danger of death, all these limitations are removed; and if no rightly authorized priest is
within call, a priest who has been suspended, nay even an apostate priest, can hear the
confession of a dying man or one in danger of death and give him absolution."
7. Fathers Callan and McHugh in their A Parochial Course in Doctrinal
Instruction, Vol. 2, p. 305, et seq., make the following statements:
"II. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance must not only be a priest validly
ordained, but he must also be duly authorized. 1. The priest in ordination receives the

6
power of forgiving sins, but he cannot exercise that power, unless duly authorized by
proper ecclesiastical authority. Just as a judge cannot pronounce sentence of cases outside
his own district, so the priest cannot forgive sins, except within the limits of his
jurisdiction. That this authorization is necessary for a priest to forgive sins is evident from
the practice of the Church from the very beginning. 2. In danger of death, the Church
gives jurisdiction even to priests who are not approved."
8. Callan and McHugh proceed to quote from the Catechism of the Council of
Trent: "We come now to treat of the minister of this Sacrament. That the minister of the
Sacrament of Penance must be a priest possessing ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, the
laws of the Church sufficiently declare. Whoever discharges this sacred function must be
invested not only with the power of orders, but also that of jurisdiction."
9. Whether it is Necessary for One to Confess to One's Own Priest, Summa
Theologica (Supplement), Question 8, Article 4. This is THE seminary textbook which
has received papal approbation and commendation by several popes, the last being Pius
XII, who stated ...that you could believe everything St. Thomas says in the Summa!
"Further, as a bishop is to his diocese, so is a priest to his parish. Now, it is
unlawful for a bishop to exercise the episcopal office outside of his diocese. Therefore, it
is not lawful for one priest to hear the confession of another's parishioner.
"Hence, whoever is appointed a dispenser of this sacrament (Penance), must be
such as to be able to command that something be done. Now, a man is not competent to
command another, unless he has jurisdiction over him. Consequently, it is essential to this
sacrament, not only for the minister to be in orders (as in the case of the other
sacraments), but also for him to have jurisdiction: Wherefore, he that has no jurisdiction
cannot administer this sacrament any more than one who is not a priest; for since a priest
does not absolve a man, except by binding him to do something, he alone can absolve;
who, by his command, can bind a penitent to do something.
"Objection 2. Further, the minister of this sacrament is a priest, as also of the
Eucharist. But any priest can perform the Eucharist. Therefore, any priest can administer
the Sacrament of Penance. Therefore, there is no need to confess to one's own priest.
"Reply Objection 2. The sacrament of the Eucharist does not require the power of
command over a man, whereas, this sacrament does, as stated above: And so, the
argument proves nothing. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to receive the Eucharist from
another than one's own priest, although it is a real sacrament that one receives from
another.
"Reply Objection 5. In those cases, wherein the penitent has reason to fear some
harm to himself or to the priest, by reason of his confessing to him or to the priest by
confessing to him, he should have recourse to the higher authority, or ask the permission
of the priest himself to confess to another; and, if he fails to obtain permission, the case is
to be decided as for a man who has no priest at hand; so that he should rather choose a
layman and confess to him."
When St. Thomas discusses confessing to a layman, he discusses a medieval
practice which was used by many. No one in any way claims that such confession is
sacramental in character, but it can supply for the penitent's duty until a priest with due
faculties can be approached.
St. Thomas here compares the confession made to an unauthorized priest to that
made to a layman, which are of equal effect; worthless. (It should here be noted that

7
while confession made to a layman outside of danger of death or grave necessity is
worthless, several canonists have agreed that confession to a layman in danger of death
and even the absolution of censures by a layman in such a case, is of a quasisacramental
nature. The case St. Thomas is considering here is one outside of grave necessity
(absence of priest) in a case of danger of death.)
"Reply Objection 6. The necessity of confessing to one's own priest does not
straighten the way of salvation, but determines it sufficiently."

Summary

1. The Council of Trent states, that jurisdiction is required for the valid absolution
of sins.
2. The Council of Florence implies this necessity in its questioning of notorious
heretics.
3. The Council of Florence requires jurisdiction in its discussion of the
requirements for the Sacrament of Penance.
4. Pius VI reaffirms Trent by condemning a contrary error.
5. Clarence McAuliffe, S.J., states that the requirement for jurisdiction is of faith.
6. Reverend H. Rolfus, D.D, in his Explanation of the Holy Sacraments, (1898),
states: "In regard to absolution, these things are to be borne in mind:...."
7. Fathers Callan and McHugh require jurisdiction. In fact, they add: "That this
authorization is necessary for a priest to forgive sins, is evident from the practice of the
Church from the very beginning." This indicates, that this is more than mere
ecclesiastical law, but a charge given them by Our Lord Jesus Christ!
8. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was compiled by Saints Charles
Boromeo and Robert Bellarmine, by order of St. Pius X, backs up the statements of Trent.
One must remember, that Pius XII ordered pastors to teach the faithful from this book on
a weekly basis.
9. Finally, St. Thomas states, that it is better to confess to a layman than to an
unauthorized priest, in addition to holding the "common and constant" teaching of the
church.
Therefore, it is AT LEAST of divine Law, that jurisdiction is absolutely essential
for the valid absolution of sins! Therefore, it is a heretical proposition to hold the opinion
that jurisdiction is not required. There is no question that to deny this teaching of the
Church is mortally sinful.
From thence, proceeds the next question:

What Is the Traditionalist Teaching on Jurisdiction?

The practice of "traditionalist" priests in the 1970's, was to act as if jurisdiction

was not at all important in the absolution of sins. Priests by some reasoning or lack
thereof, proceeded to minister to the faithful all the sacraments they requested; namely,
Holy Communion, Confession, Solemn Baptism, Extreme Unction, and Marriage, just as
if they were these people's pastors. The people presumed that these priests were
knowledgeable and proceeded on the assumption that they would act within the laws of
the Church. Due to the total lack of study by priests themselves after their ordinations in

8
the '30s, '40s, and '50s, both laity and these priests were totally uninformed on the laws
and doctrines of the Faith in these matters.
When I was at Econe, we were taught (this is commonly held by seminarians and
priests), that the required jurisdiction for confessions proceeded immediately upon
ordination, although it had never done so before in the history of the Church. The
Society's jurisdiction supposedly proceeded from the Church, although the Society was in
total disobedience to the man they called Pope. (The subject of papal jurisdiction is a
study unto itself, so we shall not discuss it here.)
In the 1980's, people began looking more closely into these matters. For the first
time, a few priests realized that they had better prove they could operate as they do. Many
theories have been advanced, but we don't have the space here to prove them all wrong.
However, they all proceed from what Canon Mahoney calls "theological and canonical
gymnastics."
Basically, when you walk into a traditionalist chapel or make use of the
sacraments of traditionalist priests, you are making the assumption that all priests have
universal jurisdiction. The average traditionalist will make use of any priest he desires,
assuming that ALL priests BY ordination alone have the power to absolve them from
their sins. The priests promote this by their actions of absolving any and all who present
themselves for absolution, wherever they might be. In practice, they ignore the
requirements of jurisdiction. Of course, we are in no way discussing here the other forms
of jurisdiction, which are totally ignored in setting up chapels, and administering some of
the other sacraments. Obviously, we are NOT including a person who makes use of the
sacraments of a priest who is operating with valid faculties and within his jurisdiction.
However, these priests are very few, indeed.

What Are the Consequences of These Actions?

As demonstrated above, the requirement of jurisdiction is of divine law. I will

presume that traditionalists have full knowledge in this discussion. The possibility that
they are in good faith, does not render this matter any less serious (c.f. Canon 2200).
Violation of a divine law in direct connection with the sacraments, as this one is, must
most certainly be a mortal sin. The fact that the Church attaches a censure to this activity
indicates, that She believes this action is mortally sinful. It is objectively mortally sinful
for both priest and "penitent" and the Confession is invalid and totally worthless. Next,
comes the question of heresy. "The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly.
...Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or
doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith, is a
heretic...." (Canon 1325.) Doubt or denial does not have to be by words. Any action,
which is obviously heretical, suffices. One trip to participate in a Novus Ordo Mass is
sufficient for heresy. "It is NOT sufficient to avoid heretical error, but one must also
diligently shun any errors which, more or less, approach heresy. Wherefore, ALL
constitutions and decrees by which the Holy See has condemned and prohibited such
opinions, must be observed." (Canon 1324.) I ask you to review Point 4 above, which is
just such a decree, according to Canon 1324. Basically, to ignore the requirement of
jurisdiction is clearly a violation of canon law and the crime of heresy itself. Let me ask
one simple question: Is it heresy to deny a teaching of Trent? I believe it is, and;

9
therefore, consider the Traditionalist Movement, as described above, a heretical sect. I
believe that some day, the Church will formally condemn the traditionalist heresy; the
heresy which taught that the juridical authority of the Church is not really necessary in an
"emergency."

10