The Canonical Old Roman Catholic Clerical Directory

Many are the detractors who would feign knowledge and certainty of their opinion concerning the validity of the apostolic succession derived from ✠Arnold H Mathew. Yet few offer anything except polemic and conjecture without appealing to the moral certitude of sacramental theology, and objective historical fact.

Preamble

It is important to remember that although the justification for the existence of Old Romans is historically distinct from other more recent Traditional Catholics i.e., orthodox Roman Catholics estranged from Rome by perception of necessity or polity e.g. the Society of St Pius X or Sedevacantists; nonetheless the regard of contemporary Catholics that generally applies to them also applies to Old Romans.

Old Romans are first and foremost “Catholics” and what’s more we are distinctly “Roman” Catholics even though distinguishable from the contemporary Roman Catholic hierarchy by virtue of history and doctrinal polity. Old Romans exist because of an unresolved historical canonical dispute over privileges and exemptions given to the primitive See of Utrecht by previous Popes. Due to the passing of time and the vicissitudes of men, Old Romans find themselves currently in the unique position of being both “of the Church” yet not recognised as being “in it”. They are “of it” by virtue of their history, the Catholic Faith, their confession, praxis, and apostolic succession; yet estranged from the current temporal institution of the Church by polity and situation.

However, the distinction between “Old” Catholic and “Old Roman” Catholic has always been the adherence by the latter to perpetuate continuity with their historic Roman Catholic origins, as opposed to the former’s disavowal of the same. Though Old Romans are the materially disinherited continuation of the Ultrajectines rather than the temporal inheritors i.e. the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht Churches, Old Romans are the authentic progeny of the historic orthodox See of Utrecht¹. Irrespective of the various mistakes and sins of men in the intervening years between Archbishop Mathew’s declared independence from apostate Utrecht² until now, the mission and subsequent apostolate of the Old Romans has persisted to today.

Thus, in continuity with their Ultrajectine forbears Old Romans are not “schismatic” as some would claim or regard them as being, but neither are they regular in the commonly perceived way people interpret canon law with regard to the contemporary institution of the Church. Old Romans are irregular in as much as they are presently estranged from Rome, but are “Catholic” by virtue of their faith and praxis. It is in this latter respect that for the purposes of appreciating the contemporary canonical context, Old Romans identify themselves with other orthodox Catholics similarly estranged from and said to be not in “full communion”³ with the present Holy See.

As referenced before, like other Traditional Catholic clergy, e.g., the SSPX, Old Romans labour without an obvious declaration of schism from the Holy See. Neither the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism nor the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christianity Unity reference them, for they are not “separated brethren”⁴ like the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant “ecclesial communities”⁵. This lack of clear ecclesiological placement is why Old Romans are often derided and treated with suspicion by the average Catholic since 1870, “if you’re not with the Pope you’re not Catholic” and it is this erroneous hyper-papalism that is at the root of the crisis in the Church today.

Their Ultrajectine forbears, Archbishop Mathew and other Old Romans in the 20C approached Rome several times in a spirit of rapprochement. Unity with Rome has always been their corporate desire and in truth, if circumstances were favourable i.e., if the temporal institutional Church returned to the veritable fullness of the Catholic faith and religion, perennial magisterium, traditions, customs and liturgy, every Old Roman individually and severally would reconcile with contemporary Rome.

Old Romans are not “schismatics” but as Cardinal Cajetan teaches, “If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers.”⁶ Such is the nature of the state of necessity as Old Romans have perceived it since 1853, they remain “estranged” until the Papacy is “restored.”

Introduction

This comprehensive treatise offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the apostolic succession derived from ✠Arnold H Mathew, focusing on sacramental theology and the validity of Old Roman episcopal consecrations. It addresses historical, theological, and canonical aspects, providing multiple references to support its assertions. The article meticulously explains the conditions of matter, form, and intention necessary for valid sacraments, and refutes objections related to the validity of the consecrations.

The section “Sacramental Theology 101” explains the necessary conditions for the validity of a sacrament. It offers a substantial explanation of the necessity of matter, form, and intention, substantiated by quotes from authoritative sources.

The subsequent sections “Evaluating Mathew’s Validity,” “Attestations,” and “The validity of Old Roman episcopal consecrations” seek to present a comprehensive argument in defense of the validity of Old Roman apostolic successions, with credible references to canonists, theologians, and declarations from the Holy See.

The content also seeks to address common objections related to alleged flaws in the validity of the consecrations, such as mal fide, unworthiness, illicitness, excommunication, and schismatic heresy. The explanations are detailed and aim to refute these objections effectively based on historical evidence, theological rationale, and references to canon law.

Overall, the treatise aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the topic, offering a compelling defense of the validity of Old Roman episcopal consecrations and sacraments.

Sacramental Theology 101

For a Sacrament to be validly conferred (i.e., for the recipient to receive the inward grace it signifies), it is necessary for the Sacrament to be conferred using valid matter and form, together with the intention to do what the Church does. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains:

“Every Sacrament consists of two things: matter, which is called the element, and form, which is commonly called the word… In order to make the meaning of the rite that is being performed easier and clearer, words had to be added to the matter. Water, for example, has the quality of cooling as well as of making clean, and may be symbolic of either. In Baptism, therefore, unless the words were added, it would not be certain which meaning of the sign was intended. When the words are added, we immediately understand that the Sacrament possesses and signifies the power of cleansing…

“But although God is the author and dispenser of the Sacraments, He nevertheless willed that they should be administered by men in His Church, not by Angels… Since the ministers of the Sacraments represent in the discharge of their sacred functions, not their own, but the person of Christ, be they good or bad, they validly perform and confer the Sacraments, provided they make use of the matter and form always observed in the Catholic Church according to the institution of Christ, and provided they intend to do what the Church does in their administration.”

Fr. John Hardon SJ’s Catholic Pocket Dictionary provides some essential definitions to help us understand Sacramental validity:

VALID MATTER. That which is required, along with the prescribed words, for the valid conferral or production of a sacrament. The valid matter is, therefore, some sense-perceptible material or perceivable action that must be joined with the form, i.e., words or signs, to produce a sacrament. Thus the valid matter in baptism is natural water that “washes” the person being baptized, by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion.

VALID FORM. That formula of words or prescribed signs that are required for the valid conferral or production of a sacrament. Thus the valid form of baptism is, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” For actually conferring a sacrament, the matter (material or action) must be united with the form.

VALIDITY. Having not only legal force but actually producing the effect intended. Applied to the sacraments, it refers to the conditions of matter, form, and circumstances required for valid administration. In ecclesiastical law it means that certain prescriptions must be fulfilled for the law or contractual agreement to bind or take effect.

In order to question the validity of a sacramental act, it is necessary to demonstrate and substantiate any potential flaws in any of the three essential elements: matter, form, and intention. There are no additional or specific requirements for proving the validity of an episcopal consecration. Experts in canon law and theology approach episcopal consecration in the same manner as any other sacrament. Once the episcopal consecration has taken place, it is considered valid, and the responsibility of providing evidence (if any) lies with those who challenge its validity.⁷

In the process of evaluating the validity of a sacrament, it is imperative to employ two essential approaches. The initial step entails verifying the occurrence of the sacramental action, thereby establishing its factual nature. Subsequently, the focus shifts towards assessing the validity of the aforementioned sacramental act.

Notorious fact

Did Archbishop Gul perform the rite of episcopal consecration upon Arnold H Mathew? Certainly, there exists indisputable evidence within the public historical records that Archbishop Gul did, in fact, conduct the episcopal consecration of ✠Arnold H Mathew in St Gertrude’s Cathedral, Utrecht, on April 28th, 1908. Archbishop Gul was assisted by ✠Jacobus Johannes van Thiel of Haarlem, ✠Nicolaus Bartholomeus Petrus Spit of Deventer, and ✠Josef Demmel of Bonn.

In a similar vein, the consecrations performed by ✠Mathew on the individuals identified in the verified Old Roman apostolic successions, as well as those who subsequently performed consecrations, are easily researchable. So important is the necessity to guarantee validity and of the actors to be certain of their validity, it may be taken as certain that every effort to preserve and convey validity is meticulously observed.

Moral certitude

Based on the analysis of Catholic moral theologians, moral certitude is attained when we attain a state of complete certainty concerning a specific fact, acknowledging the highly improbable nature of its contrary. To establish this certitude, it is imperative to meticulously assess the likelihood of the opposing perspective.

Concerning the episcopal consecration of ✠Arnold H Mathew by ✠Gerardus Gul of Utrecht, all of the points formulated above were present; valid matter, form and intention. The valid matter for holy Orders is a male candidate; the valid form is an approved liturgical rite, in this case the Pontificale Romanum; and the minimum valid intention is, “to do what the Church intends” by using the valid form upon valid matter to effect the sacrament of holy Order. These three simple conditions being met, a valid sacrament has been confected.

As is self-evident from the available sources, photographs, eye-witnesses and testifying documents and even sometimes film footage, and from the notoriety of various persons involved, it would be foolish to suggest that any of the episcopal consecrations from ✠A H Mathew to the Old Roman bishops in the present day, did not take place.

The evidence at hand grants us a firm moral certitude regarding the authenticity of the Old Roman consecrations. This conviction “which excludes all fear of error and every serious or prudent doubt”⁸, satisfies the criteria set by theologians for the validity of any sacrament. Given the absence of substantial or cautious grounds to question the occurrence of the consecrations and the utilization of the Pontificale Romanum, the good faith inquirer must concede all stated occurrences as indisputable fact.

Requirements for validity

The prescribed guidelines set forth by the Church for a valid episcopal consecration are straightforward. In addition to a duly consecrated bishop to officiate the ceremony and a duly ordained priest with the intention to receive consecration, there are only three fundamental elements necessary for validity:

• The imposition of hands by the consecrating bishop (technically called the matter of the sacrament).
• The essential sixteen word formula recited by the consecrating bishop (technically called the form of the sacrament, defined by Pius XII)⁹.
• A minimal intention of the consecrating bishop “to do what the Church does” (called ministerial intention).

Though all the ceremonies prescribed in the rite should be observed, the three foregoing elements are all that is required for an episcopal consecration to be valid.

Intention

A priest or bishop who confers a sacrament doesn’t have to “prove” that he intends to do what the Church does. He is automatically presumed to intend what the rite means. This is certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church. And to deny it is “theologically rash.”¹⁰ Leo XIII specifically confirmed the principle with regard to Holy Orders when he said that someone who seriously and correctly uses the matter and form “is for that very reason deemed to have intended to do what the Church does.”¹¹

Valid until proven otherwise

Canonists refer to the “queen of presumptions,”¹² a principle that deems an act or contract as valid until proven otherwise. This principle is specifically applied to the sacraments, wherein the burden of proof lies with the individual who seeks to challenge the validity of a Catholic baptism¹³, marriage¹⁴, or ordination¹⁵. They must demonstrate that a crucial element was absent during the conferral of the sacrament.

Once it has been confirmed that a valid bishop performed a consecration using a Catholic ritual, it inherently signifies its validity, thus eliminating the necessity for further validation. Validity becomes an accepted premise that can only be refuted. This can only be accomplished by demonstrating the absence (or likely absence) of one of the indispensable ingredients for validity at the time of the ceremony. The canonist Gasparri (later a cardinal and compiler of the 1917 Code of Canon Law) offers a general principle: “…an act, especially one as solemn as an ordination, must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated.”¹⁶

The Church places great emphasis on the legitimacy of a sacrament performed in accordance with Catholic rituals, to the extent that this principle applies not only to Catholic clergy but also to schismatics. Consequently, the Church acknowledges the validity of ordinations and episcopal consecrations received from Eastern Orthodox bishops, as well as those received from Old Catholic bishops in Holland, Germany, and Switzerland, “are to be regarded as valid, unless in a particular case an essential defect were to be admitted.”¹⁷

The foregoing, of course, reflects the Church’s reasonableness. She doesn’t ask us to disprove convoluted negative accusations. Otherwise, it would be imperative to provide comprehensive training to multiple proficient witnesses in order to autonomously authenticate the legitimacy of every sacrament administered by a priest. It is easy to understand why a sacrament administered with a Catholic rite should be considered valid until proven otherwise.

Negative doubts

In order to classify a sacrament as doubtful, it is necessary to establish a positive or prudent doubt regarding its validity. A doubt can be considered positive if it is based on objective grounds firmly grounded in reality. When it comes to sacraments, this doubt must be supported by solid evidence that suggests the probable omission of something essential to its validity.

Evaluating ✠Mathew’s Validity

Throughout the years, numerous commentators have expressed their opinions regarding the legitimacy of ✠Mathew’s consecration, and consequently, the validity of the holy Orders that stem from his subsequent apostolic lineage. It is entirely understandable, particularly for Catholics, to seek clarification on the status of these ordinations and consecrations.

However, similar to the situations involving Archbishops ✠Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục and ✠Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre, there exists a great deal of polemic and confusion that obscures the objective facts, thereby hindering a proper understanding and acknowledgment of the validity of Old Roman sacraments. We are grateful to the efforts of the late Fr Anthony Cekada and others, who have thoroughly exhausted the sacramental and moral theological arguments to defend the validity of Traditional Catholic sacraments which are applicable to the defence of Old Roman sacraments.

The most common objections pertaining to the context, circumstances, and validity of ✠Mathew’s consecration, raised by both genuine and disingenuous inquirers, are listed and addressed below. While there are indeed elements of his ecclesiastical career that may appear disconcerting, what is important are the material facts concerning his reception and ability to dispense sacraments.

Objection 1: mal fide

One of the frequently encountered criticisms directed at the ✠Mathew consecration is the subsequent assertion put forth by the International Bishops Conference (IBC) of the Union of Utrecht Old Catholic Churches, which declared in 1920 that ✠Mathew’s “consecration was obtained mala fide and that consequently it is null and void.”¹⁸ It was alleged that the petition submitted by Fr Richard O’Halloran, which consisted of 150 signatures petitioning for ✠Mathew’s consecration, was based on a false premise, thereby rendering the consecration itself invalid.

In May 1908, a few days after ✠Mathew’s consecration on April 28, 1908, there was a discussion about this consecration in the British daily newspaper “The Manchester Guardian”. In a statement by the Dutch Old Catholic bishops on June 3, 1908, they officially stated that ✠Mathew had been deceived about his support by O’Halloran. They acquitted him of any complicity in the events and defended the validity of his consecration. They also stated that their confidence in ✠Mathew remained unshakable after carefully reviewing a large number of documents on the issue. They also commended the mission of ✠Mathew to the blessing of Almighty God and asked the English Old Catholic Church and people to support him¹⁹.

Indeed, at the time, ✠Mathew informed ✠Gul that he was himself a deceived victim and “the information given him by O’Halloran was entirely false” and offered to resign, but his resignation was not accepted²⁰. A year and a half later he was invited to be a co-consecrator in the consecration of the “Mariavite Bishop” ✠Kowalski, demonstrating the Old Catholic episcopate – who now knew the situation in England – clearly regarded him a validly consecrated bishop.

Whether indeed ✠Mathew was cognisant or party to O’Halloran’s deception or not, would not necessarily invalidate the sacramental act of episcopal consecration ex opere operato. Such behavior would certainly be “disreputable,” but not the consecration itself. As explained above, the only intention that matters is the ministerial intention of the consecrating bishop to “do what the Church does” by the form and matter of the sacrament.

It is true that Aquinas taught, “The effect of the Sacrament is likewise impeded through the fault of the recipient, for example, if one feigns to receive it and with a heart unprepared to receive worthily. Such a one, although he actually receives the Sacrament, does not receive the effect of the Sacrament, that is, the grace of the Holy Spirit. “For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful.”²¹, ²² However, a recognised principle in moral theology is, “de internis neque Ecclesia iudicat” the Church cannot judge the interior conscience or intention, and in sacramental theology that intention is presumed “manifest” by the external forum, i.e. the seeable form, and thus the correct intention is presumed to be self-evident in the use of a Catholic rite.

While the impact on the recipient ex opere operantis depends on their worthiness, only God can truly know its effectiveness. As we quoted above, the canonist Gasparri states that an ordination must be regarded as valid till invalidity is demonstrated. The IBC’s 1920 determination is based upon a subjective supposition about ✠Mathew’s interior disposition at the time of his consecration; it is not based upon proven objective fact. In actuality, it contradicts the positive actions and testimony of the consecrators at the time, without new evidence or justification.

At the time of the later IBC’s decision on the validity of the consecration, the IBC was considering intercommunion with the Church of England. The Church of England, which was already dealing with Pope Leo XIII’s published decision to declare their holy Orders “absolutely null and utterly void”²³ in 1896, was unhappy with the consecration of ✠Mathew in 1908²⁴. The Dutch bishops then doubted the validity of Anglican orders and with ✠Mathew sought to establish an Old Catholic church in England. But declaring ✠Mathew’s consecration invalid in 1920, and recognising Anglican holy Orders as valid in 1925, improved relations between the Dutch Old Catholics and Anglican bishops such, that an intercommunion agreement between the two churches was able to be signed at Bonn in 1931.²⁵

It should also be noted that both the Anglicans and the Old Catholics desired to create a sizeable “alternative” to the Roman Catholic communion, and had independently of each other been in discussions with the Eastern Orthodox for some years. They were both similarly displeased, after his Declaration of Autonomy from Utrecht,²⁶ with ✠Mathew’s achieving communio in sacris²⁷ with the Patriarchates of Antioch (in 1911) and Alexandria (in 1912) respectively.²⁸ A feat as yet unrepeated even by the withdrawal of the exchange of excommunications in 1965 between Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch, Athenagoras I of Constantinople,²⁹ to heal the Great Schism of 1054. The Anglicans at the time went to some extreme efforts to wreck ✠Mathew’s achievement.³⁰

Objection 2: unworthiness

Another objection is that ✠Mathew had variously consecrated theosophists or adherents to liberal theology or esotericism, spiritualists, etc, and that this may point to a possible defect to “intend what the Church does”. Or that those unworthily consecrated might subsequently be unable to perform valid consecrations or ordinations. However, as we’ve already discussed above, the minimal ministerial intention is enough to confect the sacrament validly, as long as the valid matter and form were present, the sacrament must be presumed valid, ex opere operato. The effect on the recipient ex opere operantis unless confessed, being known only to God.

Innocent III (d. 1216) distinguished between sacrilegious action and sacramental celebration: “Although the action of the one who acts (opus operans) is sometimes unclean, yet always the act done (opus operatum) is clean” (De Sacro Altaris Mysterio 3.6). The Council of Trent³¹ likewise decreed, “Canon 12. If anyone says that a minister who is in mortal sin, though he observes all the essentials that pertain to the effecting or conferring of a sacrament,³² neither effects nor confers a sacrament, let him be anathema.” The personal holiness of the minister does not stand in the way of the efficacy of the sacrament: “Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting” (CCC, n. 1584).

Although it is accurate to acknowledge that he was a bad judge of character and some of the individuals ✠Mathew consecrated were lacking in honesty, with certain individuals deliberately deceiving him to obtain consecration. It is important to highlight that upon discovering their misconduct, ✠Mathew promptly took appropriate actions to address the issues. He upheld a resolute position against individuals who were suspected of engaging in active homosexuality, heresy, or apostasy and distanced himself from such individuals by deposing or dismissing them.³³

For example, in May 1915, “John Bull” magazine printed an article repeating allegations it had printed the previous June regarding Frederick Samuel Willoughby and the scandal which had led to his departure from Church of England ministry. In 1914, accusations were brought by parishioners to Handley Moule, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, that Willoughby had been involved in homosexual activity; he was asked to resign or face a full enquiry. He opted to resign. When this was brought to ✠Mathew’s attention, he expelled Willoughby.³⁴ If only contemporary prelates in the Catholic hierarchy were as prudent and efficient!

Again, in 1915³⁵ when ✠Mathew became aware that some of the bishops were members of the Theosophical Society and the Order of the Star in the East (OSE), he declared them heretical. They separated from him, and eventually formed the “Liberal Catholic Church” the bishops from which, James Ingall Wedgwood, Charles Webster Leadbeater, and Frederick Samuel Willoughby, most of the Independent Sacramental Movement and various “Old Catholic” clergy now claim to derive their Ultrajectine lineage.

✠Mathew, just like Archbishop Thuc and Archbishop Lefebvre, was fallible. They made mistakes. Whether it was the Palmar de Troya deception and sect (✠Thuc) or the infidelity of the infamous Nine sedevacantists (✠Lefebvre) or the Theosophists and Liberal Catholic schism (✠Mathew), none of the three men could forsee nor did they desire these schisms to occur. It’s very easy for casual observers with the benefit of hindsight, or even those more perceptive than they were at the time, to criticise. But ✠Mathew, ✠Thuc and ✠Lefebvre were only trying to do what they thought was right with the information and knowledge of the candidates they had before them at the time. None of them was blessed with preternatural knowledge nor the supernatural gift to read into men’s hearts.

Even the Church in her formularies³⁶ appreciates the fallibility of her sacred ministers, as is evident in her formulary for the presentation of candidates for ordination…
Bishop: “Knowest thou them to be worthy?”
Archdeacon: “As far as human frailty allows me to judge…”

Objection 3: Illicit & irregular

Before and after the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the latæ sententiæ penalty for episcopal consecration without a papal mandate was a suspension a divinis (Canon 2370) “… suspended by the Law itself, until the Apostolic See dispenses them.” This does not invalidate the sacrament i.e. an episcopal consecration of a priest by a bishop without an apostolic mandate, the delict is of protocol, not sacramental efficacy.

The act of consecrating a bishop [without a papal mandate] is not in itself a schismatic act.”

Cardinal Castillo Lara, J.C.D.
President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia
In the Italian newspaper La Republica on July 8, 1988

All Traditional Catholic bishops are consecrated without a papal mandate. A bishop who experiences a state of grave general necessity of souls and consecrates another bishop “given that he has the power of Order”³⁷ is not questioning the primacy of jurisdiction of the pope, but acting out of a concern for the common good of the Church and of souls. The salvation of souls is in fact the supreme law³⁸ of the Church and it is certain that the Church “supplies” the jurisdiction lacking whenever it is a question of providing for the “public and general necessity of the faithful.”³⁹ The reason, says St. Alphonsus, is that otherwise many souls would be lost and therefore it is reasonably presumed that the Church supplies jurisdiction.⁴⁰

In 1951 Pius XII decreed an ipso facto “automatic excommunication most especially reserved to the Apostolic See” for a man appointed to a canonical office without appointment by the Holy See, i.e. as an ordinary over an existing canonically erected jurisdiction.⁴¹ This was reaffirmed by the encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis (29 June, 1958) concerning the problem of the Chinese Patriotic Association’s illicit installation of schismatic bishops to head vacant dioceses in China.

Old Roman bishops do not attempt to claim ordinary jurisdiction over existing canonically erected jurisdictions, i.e. established Catholic dioceses. The custom has been to tentatively adopt vacant titular sees (at the time of consecration) of long extinguished dioceses in the spirit of Canon VI of the Council of Chalcedon⁴² affirmed at the Council of Trent⁴³, or create new structures for governance or oversight. It has never been the intention to supplant pre-existing jurisdictions or create parallel jurisdictions. Most normally, religious congregations or priestly apostolic societies are the preferred model structures, which would ordinarily operate extraneously from but collaboratively with pre-existing jurisdictional frameworks within the Church.

It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission [i.e., jurisdiction].”

Fr. Patrick Valdrini, J.C.D.
Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris
During an interview with Valeurs Actuelles in Paris on July 4, 1988, and again in L’Homme Nouveau, also in Paris on July 17, 1988

Though some might assume the automatic sentences described above apply to Old Roman bishops, under both codes of Canon Law, i.e. 1917 Canon 2205 §2⁴⁴ and 1983 Canon 1323 §4⁴⁵ respectively, persons acting contrary to the law believing there to be a grave necessity to do so, are dispensed from canonical penalty: “No penalty is incurred by a person forced by a necessity to act against the law.”⁴⁶ Both the original dispute between Utrecht and Rome over the election of bishops, the usurpation of the primitive Ultrajectine See’s hierarchy, and particularly the prevailing Modernist crisis in the Church are considered sufficiently grave by Old Roman bishops enough to necessitate their actions.⁴⁷

Objection 4: excommunicated

The objection is that because ✠Mathew was declared excommunicated by Pope Pius X⁴⁸, therefore anyone he subsequently consecrated/ordained would be invalid.

Receiving holy Orders from an excommunicate incurs only suspension (prohibition from licitly exercising orders), it doesn’t affect the validity of the orders received. “They incur upon the fact a suspension from divine things, reserved to the Apostolic See, who presume to receive orders from one excommunicated or suspended or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic; but whoever in good faith was ordained by such a one as these lacks the exercise of the orders thus received until he is dispensed.” Canon 2372. The Canon Lawyer Woywood in his Commentary on the 1917 Code notes that these suspensions do not need any decree lifting them. If the priest or Bishop receive a canonical assignment or a benefice (salary from the Church) the assignment itself nullifies the suspension.

An excommunication is not “contagious”, and wouldn’t pass along to clergy deriving their orders from ✠Mathew. “It is not permitted to extend penalties from person to person or from case to case, even though the reason is the same or even stronger.” Canon 2219 §3. Even if it did, Canon 2261 permits Catholics to receive sacraments from an excommunicated clergyman.⁴⁹ As discussed previously for sacramental validity only the right matter, form and ministerial intention are required, irrespective of any censure, hence why even schismatic clergy may be sought for sacraments.⁵⁰

“The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of par. 3 [excepting those excommunicated by a declaration], can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2261 §2

In situations akin to the State of Necessity, it is permissible for a Catholic Layman to receive Extreme Unction and Viaticum from a heretical, schismatic priest, or even from a priest who has voluntarily renounced his priesthood, without being labelled as a heretic, schismatic, or Catholic who has abandoned the Church. Similarly, any Cleric who undergoes ordination from such an individual in a State of Necessity should not be deemed as a heretic, schismatic, or compromiser. To do so would be illogical and unfounded.

Objection 5: Schismatic heretic

The objection is that, because ✠Mathew had wandered from the Catholic Church and received episcopal consecration from schismatic bishops, his consecration must be suspect and likely invalid or his ability to validly intend a sacrament problematic.

While it is true that ✠Mathew’s personal faith journey was uniquely interesting, having begun a baptised Catholic, raised an Anglican, ordained a Catholic, served as an Anglican minister, declared himself agnostic, then returned to Christian praxis and finally consecrated by arguably schismatic bishops, he never formally left the Catholic Church. Though he did marry and have a son, he never applied nor received a dispensation nor rescript from the Holy See. When he notified the Holy See of his episcopal consecration, he was censured as a Catholic priest for the delict of receiving a schismatic episcopal consecration without a papal mandate, and later excommunicated vitandus for the presumption of subsequently consecrating two other Catholic priests as bishops.

It is true that there is little that is commendable from a Traditional Catholic perspective about ✠Mathew’s religious odyssey, and much indeed that is puzzling. Though excommunicated by pope Pius X, he did however try to reconcile with the Holy See twice, once in 1915⁵¹ with several of his clergy and toward the end of his life⁵² (died 1919), but his reconciliation with the Holy See was not to be.⁵³ But although arguably a schismatic he was never a heretic.

Among other sections of Old Catholicism not only have all public prayers for the Western Patriarch been abandoned, but the historical position and legitimate and generally recognised prerogatives of his Holiness have been ignored, whilst, by some, a tone of bitterness and vulgar insolence has been introduced in referring to the Roman Pontiff, which is only comparable to that adopted by the most vituperative, ignorant and inveterate of the Protestant sects. This attitude we deeply regret, and entirely dissociate ourselves from it. Caritas benigna est.

A H Mathew, An Episcopal Odyssey

In September 1909, he attended the Old Catholic Congress in Vienna, where he sympathized with the Dutch Old Catholics’ conservative position which opposed the innovations being introduced among the German and Swiss Old Catholics to renounce the Sacrament of Penance (auricular confession), the intercession of saints and alterations to the liturgy, including the omission of the Pope’s name from the Canon of the Mass. ✠Mathew expressed fears that the trend of Continental Old Catholicism was towards Modernism, perhaps because of the growing association with Anglicans and Lutherans, and hoped for a return to the traditional principles of the Church of Utrecht.⁵⁴

Though in many ways appearing unorthodox, ✠Mathew was indeed orthodox in his understanding of the Catholic Faith and though intrigued by it, resistant to Modernism. Certainly there is no doubt that he could formulate the correct minimal intention to celebrate a Catholic sacrament and “intend to do what the Church does” by it. Thus the ordinations and consecrations he performed, though schismatic, if even he was suspected of heresy, would like the Eastern Orthodox, be reliably valid.⁵⁵

Objection 6: too numerous

A common concern that is often raised relates to the perception of an excessive number of consecrations conducted by ✠Mathew, resulting in a lineage that becomes challenging to trace. The worry is that without proper records, it becomes impossible to determine the lineage and ancestry of those who have been consecrated.

While this objection is arguably valid when considering the numerous vagante “Old Catholic” lines of succession, which are known for multiple lineages often shared through mutual conditional ordinations, it does not apply to authentic Old Roman consecrations. The authentic Old Roman apostolates have been careful to employ exclusively Old Roman bishops with documented succession as primary and co-consecrators, exactly to preserve the purity of their apostolic lineage. This can be seen in the few remaining Old Roman successions extant today, with only eight generations in direct lineal descent from Archbishop Gul of Utrecht.

The Old Roman apostolates place great emphasis on upholding traditional Catholic rites, doctrine, and sacraments. Through diligent record-keeping of consecrations and strict adherence to canonical forms and disciplines, the genuine Old Roman apostolates demonstrate their unwavering dedication to preserving the authenticity and validity of their clergy and sacraments. Their meticulous documentation of authentic Old Roman consecrations serves as a guarantee that the lineage and ancestry of those consecrated are preserved, effectively addressing any concerns in this regard. (See Old Roman exclusivity below)

Attestations

Having established the unquestionable validity of ✠Mathew’s consecration by the Old Catholic bishops of Utrecht, needless to say, all commentaries attesting to the validity of Old Catholic holy Orders are equally applicable to Old Roman ordinations, and not only those but also of the Eastern and Oriental schismatics. Quoted below are attestations by various notable and acknowledged canonists and theologians, some of whom refer particularly to Old Roman orders as well as Old Catholic.

Canonists & Theologians

• “When a Catholic sacred minister is unavailable and there is urgent spiritual necessity, Catholics may receive the Eucharist, penance, or anointing from sacred ministers of non-Catholic denomination whose holy orders are considered valid by the Catholic Church. This includes all Eastern Orthodox priests, as well as priests of the Old Catholic or Polish National Church.”
  Rights and Responsibilities, A Catholics’ Guide to the New Code of Canon Law, Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., page 44.
• “A validly consecrated bishop can validly confer all orders from the minor orders to the episcopate inclusively … For this reason the ordinations performed by the bishops of the Old Catholics are considered valid.”
  A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, revised and enlarged edition, by Rev. Stanislaw Woywood, OFM, LLB. Vol. 1, Sec. 881, P. 558.
• “They [Old Catholics] have received valid orders.”
  Roman Catholic Dictionary, by Addison Arnold.
• “The Old Catholic Church has received valid episcopal consecration”,
  Christian Denominations, B. Herder Book, London 1946, by Rev. Konrad Algermissen.
• The validity of episcopal consecration in the Church of Utrecht cannot be doubted, nor in this regard can that of the Old Catholic Church, which depend upon the former. The Utrecht Union came into existence in 1889, through a consolidation of the Church of Utrecht and the Old Catholic Church. P. 349
  Since the episcopal consecration in the Church of Utrecht is valid, the validity of the prescribed consecration performed in the Old Catholic Church cannot be doubted. P. 357
  In America, for instance, The American Catholic Church, The Old Catholic Church in America, the North American [Old Roman] Catholic Church, have all received valid episcopal consecration from the Old Catholic Church. P. 363
  “Their [Old Catholic] Orders and Sacraments are valid.”
  A Catholic Dictionary, by Donald Attwater.
• “These [Old Catholics] Orders are valid.”
  The Far East Magazine of June, 1928, published by the Saint Columban Fathers of St. Columbans, Nebraska
• “The Roman Church recognizes the validity of Old Catholic Orders and other Sacraments.” 1974 Catholic Almanac, by Felician A. Roy, OFM, page 368. “Our Sunday Visitor.”
• “We have no reason to doubt that the Old Catholic Orders are valid. The Apostolic Succession does not depend on obedience to the See of Peter but rather on the objective line of succession from Apostolic sources, the proper matter and form, and the proper intention … likewise Old Catholic bishops are bishops in Apostolic Succession … The Old Catholics, like the Orthodox, posses a valid priesthood.”
  Separated Brethren, William J. Whalen, pp. 204, 248.
• “Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite” (set. Certa). Cf. D 855, 860; CIC 2372. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1952 by Dr. Ludwig Ott, pp. 456.
• “In our days, certain Anglicans have gone to Holland to be ordained by the Jansenist [Old Catholic] bishop, which ordination is almost certainly valid…”
  Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, Tanquerey, Vol. II, 1905, p. 618.

Holy See

• “Ordinations conferred by dissident Oriental bishops, Jansenists and Old Catholics are generally valid, because of a validly consecrated hierarchy. (cf. Pius IX, Ency. Etsi multa, 21 November 1873)” – Halligan, Rev. Nicholas, O.P., The Administration of the Sacraments, 1963, p. 393, footnote 19.
• “Whenever there is no appearance of simulation on the part of the minister, the validity of the sacrament is sufficiently certain”
  Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae
• “Among the churches which are in the same situation as the oriental churches named in can. 844 § 3 we include the Old Catholic churches in Europe and the Polish National Church in the United States of America.”
  January 3, 1987, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Prot. no. 795/68)
• “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 (Roman) 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 (Roman) Catholic Church.”
  Congregation For The Doctrine Of Faith Declaration: Dominus Iesus, August 6, 2000
• CIC 1983 Canon 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.
  §2. 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.
• Archbishop Frederick Gilbert Linale of the ORCCGB, third in succession from ✠Carfora (via ✠Marchenna and ✠Shelley) obtained a declaration from Rome confirming the validity of his orders in 1962. Then in January 1982, Archbishop Romolo Carboni, Apostolic Nuncio to Italy, wrote to the Cardinal Prefect of the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, asking him to look into the apostolic succession of ✠Linale. This task was given to Monsignor Annibale Ilari, who had access to the Vatican Archives. In his 1983 report to the Cardinal Prefect, Ilari ended with the conclusion: “I have attached a brief scheme of succession which ties Mgr Linale to the Supreme Pontiffs Benedict XIII, Benedict XIV and Pius IX, with the aim of assuring him that his lineage truly links him to the See of Peter.”
• In 2002, Cardinal Édouard Gagnon investigated the documentation of Bishop André Letellier’s episcopal orders and consecration. ✠Letellier was consecrated on 23 May 1968 by Archbishop André Leon Zotique Barbeau of the Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada. ✠Gagnon commented that, “nothing allows me to doubt the validity of episcopal ordination of Mgr André Letellier by Archbishop André Barbeau and that of Archbishop Barbeau by Archbishop Ignatius Charles Brearley⁵⁸, Primate of the Church of the ‘Old Catholics’ having its seat in England. The ordinations of the ‘Old Catholics’ are generally considered to be the same as those of Orthodox bishops.” 6 May 2002 À qui de droit (To whom it may concern)

Old Roman exclusivity

Throughout their history, the few genuine Old Roman Catholic apostolates have diligently protected and maintained the exclusivity of their apostolic successions. Among the few remaining Old Roman lineages that have been thoroughly authenticated and historically documented, all possess an unusually compact and concise lineage.

Year	Tit. SEE OF CAERGLOW	Gen.	Year	Tit. SEE OF NOVA TERRA	Gen.	Year	Tit. SEE OF SELEISI	Gen.
	→		1892	✠Gerardus Gul✟	0		←
	→		1908	✠Arnold Harris Mathew✟	I		←
	→		1912	✠Rudolphe de Landes Berges✟	II		←
	→		1916	✠Carmel Henry Carfora✟	III		←
1935	✠Richard Arthur Marchenna✟	IV	1942	✠Hubert Augustus Rogers✟	IV		←
1950	✠Gerard George Shelley✟	V	1967	✠James Edward Burns✟	V	1969	✠Edward Carlton Payne✟	V
1975	✠John Joseph Humphreys	VI	1978	✠Edward James Ford	VI	1974	✠Boniface Grosvold✟	VI
1984	✠John Joseph Greed	VII	1984	✠Edmund Floyd Leeman✟	VII	2012	✠Jerome L H Lloyd	VII
2007	✠Richard John Euler	VII	1985	✠Beldon Edward Gannon✟	VII	2012	✠Martin Charlesworth⒠	VIII
2021	✠David E Miekle	VII	1986	✠Herve Lionel Quessy✟	VII	2012	✠Jonas Maria Roggla⒠	VIII
			2011	✠Nicholas Irvin Plant✟	VII	2018	✠Nioclas Kelly	VIII
			2021	✠Waldemar Kamil Maj	VII	2020	✠Rommel Banag⒠	VIII
			2021	✠John Odell Finney	VII	2020	✠Joash Jaime	VIII

As evidenced in the table above, of the three remaining authenticated and orthodox Old Roman apostolates, the apostolic lineage is extremely short, only eight generations in lineal descent from Archbishop Gul, uncomplicated and easily verifiable from historical sources and public record. Of the three apostolates, they all;

• historically and verifiably derive from the original jurisdictions and ecclesial communities founded by the Old Roman Catholic Church under the aegis of ✠Arnold Harris Mathew following his “Declaration of Independence” from the See of Utrecht in 1910; and
• have a principal line of Apostolic Succession which is “pure”⁶⁶ and demonstrably derived solely and by direct descent from the first generation of Old Roman Catholic bishops consecrated by ✠Mathew employing exclusively the Pontificale Romanum in harmony with that transcribed in the “Old Catholic Missal & Ritual” of 1909; and
• retain and continue to maintain canonical structures, discipline, orthodox doctrine and praxis recognisably inherited from that “single deposit of the Faith once delivered to the Saints” [Jude i:3] and recognisable as being that of the “One, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

This concern as to proper form and order in all their actions and activities, and the consistency of orthodox doctrine and praxis, is exactly what distinguishes genuine Old Roman apostolates from the plethora of Old Catholic groups and vagante sects that make up the so-called “Independent Sacramental Movement”. In this, genuine Old Romans are directly akin to other Traditional Catholic bishops who likewise strive, despite the idiotic and chaotic times in which we live, to yet maintain decency and order in all things.

Old Roman apostolates uphold rigorous requirements for their clergy, encompassing physical and psychological health assessments, State and Police screening, background checks, theological and academic formation, and verifiable character references reflecting personal, spiritual, and professional qualifications. Admission, incardination, or ordination within the Old Roman apostolates is contingent upon the completion of these stringent prerequisites. The protection of children and adults is held as sacrosanct, and all allegations of serious impropriety are promptly reported to civil policing authorities before the commencement of an internal or canonical investigation.

Likewise, the reception into Old Roman apostolates of former Novus Ordo clerics follows canonical norms. If a priest presents himself without letters of excardination or rescript, he is expected to apply for and then supply these to an incardinating Old Roman apostolate. Though married priests are permitted in some Old Roman apostolates, priests who married post-ordination without proper release from their priestly vows, are encouraged to seek a rescript from the Holy See.

It is of course true that there exist other bishops with Old Roman apostolic succession who have schismed or apostatised from the orthodox Old Roman apostolates. Some have continued to call themselves Old Roman Catholic, others have joined vagante sects and imparted their apostolic succession. There are even some who disingenuously claim to be Old Roman with no evidence to substantiate any claim to, derivation from, nor continuity with, the apostolic succession above. It is not the purpose of this presentation to opine on the validity or not of such bishops and their ministrations, except to note that, irrespective of whether their sacraments are valid, their praxis and teachings are not, and they should be avoided by Catholics seeking to be faithful to the perennial Catholic Church and Faith.

Old Roman sacraments

After confirming the validity and efficacy, and acknowledging the illegality and irregularity of Old Roman episcopal consecrations and their resulting sacraments, it is essential to recognize the orthodoxy of doctrine and the meticulous adherence to canonical forms and disciplines by contemporary Old Romans, despite the unique circumstances of the Church and the prevailing State of Necessity. Therefore, it should be evident to all, that Catholics seeking the assurance and comfort of traditional Catholic rites, doctrine, and sacraments may confidently approach verifiably genuine Old Roman clerics, missions, and chapels.

The Code recognizes necessity as a circumstance which exempts from all penalties in case of violation of the law (CIC 1983 Cn 1324, §4), provided that the action is not intrinsically bad or harmful to souls; in this latter case necessity would only mitigate the penalty. But no latae sententiae penalty can be incurred by anyone who has acted in this circumstance.” (Cn 1324, §3).

Dr. Georg May, President of the Seminary of Canon Law at the University of Mainz⁶⁷

Catholic faithful who attend and support Old Roman apostolates, missions and chapels, do so on a voluntary basis i.e. by implicit request for sacraments and pastoral services. They are not required to make a contrary profession of Faith to that which is the orthodox Catholic Faith, and only if converting from other Christian traditions is an abjuration of heresy and profession of Faith required. Yet they will rediscover the wealth, depth and breadth of Catholic devotional tradition, customs and praxis, and if they think it necessary, receive the consolation of conditional sacramental and catechetical affirmation of their understanding, profession and adherence to the authentic Catholic Faith.

If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latæ sententiæ censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

Can. 1335 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law

For “any just cause” Catholic faithful are allowed to request sacraments, sacramentals, teaching, and preaching from Old Roman priests whom a latæ sententiæ censure has not been declared. Any of the following reasons would most certainly qualify as “just cause”: the desire for reverent traditional Masses, avoidance of rampant liturgical abuses among regular priests, avoidance of heretical teaching of regular priests, sound Catholic guidance in the confessional, sound Catholic teaching, especially to the children, sound doctrinal teaching on marriage, confirmation, etc.

The spirit of Church law was neatly summarized by Pope Pius XII on June 14, 1939: “Canon law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God.”⁶⁸

“…that the Church, by reason of her very purpose, must always take into account the salvation of souls, and therefore is bound to provide everything which depends on her power.”

F. Cappello, Tract. de Sacramentis (Rome: Marietti 1944), 2:349

The Old Romans are the forgotten collaborators of the Traditional Catholic movement. Few remember today, that in the 1960’s and 70’s during the Conciliar reforms, it was the Old Romans who maintained Tradition and the traditional Latin Mass. It was Old Roman missions and chapels that supported the first semblance of an organised movement to preserve the Latin Mass and the first directory of Traditional Latin Masses in the States. The first apostolate of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), the Fatima Crusade owed its foundation to the Old Romans. It was Old Roman missions and chapels for want of priests, that gave themselves to the Society of St Pius X apostolate when Archbishop Lefebvre was able to send newly ordained priests from Econe, a fact remembered by Bishop Tissier de Malarais FSSPX⁶⁹. Old Romans still exist to serve faithful Catholics today, and preserve authentic Catholic Tradition.

Conclusion

The alarming condition of the contemporary Catholic Church, which poses a threat to the adherence of the Faith, has severely hindered, and in some cases rendered unattainable, the acquisition of authentic apostolic teaching and properly conducted sacraments. This unprecedented and genuine State of Necessity, has seriously affected if not practically suspended the ordinary functioning of the Church.

In the Church, as in civil society, it is conceivable that there arrive a state of necessity or urgency which cannot be surmounted by the observance of positive law. Such a situation exists in the Church when the endurance, order or activity of the Church are threatened or harmed in a considerable manner. This threat can bear principally on ecclesiastical teaching, the liturgy and discipline.

Dr. Georg May
President of the Seminary of Canon Law at the University of Mainz⁷⁰

While some, including the Holy See, fail to acknowledge and address this issue, the evidence is clear even to the most casual observer. Prophetic visions derived from private revelations are becoming realised in our time. “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres… churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”⁷¹

Yet, God in His Providence has seemingly provided various means by which, in addition to that “single deposit of the Faith once delivered to the Saints” [Jude i:3] the Faithful may yet receive the comfort and consolation they require to effect their salvation. In keeping with His modus operandi in the Scriptures, God has called and brought forth from among sinners, would-be saints, striving for holiness and convicted by His gift of faith, to yet realise Christian hope through acts and sufferings of sacrificial love. The most unlikeliest of heroes have become the means by which His Providence may be known.

Three excommunicates, whether vindicated or not, but certainly vilified, and probably unwittingly, have become the unlikely progenitors for the continuance of sacramental validity and the maintenance of Catholic truth. Archbishops Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục and Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre may be better known and more readily identified with the Traditional Catholic movement. But preceding them, and seemingly entirely unintentionally, ✠Arnold Harris Mathew has also facilitated the continuance and perpetuation of the traditional Catholic Faith and sacraments.

Despite sometimes questionable decisions, and certainly often the machinations and manipulations of men, each of these bishops has left a legacy whereby, devout and faithful souls, genuinely seeking the authentic Catholic Faith, have been able to find orthodox teachers and priests. Though unworthy sometimes to succeed them, other men feeling called to offer themselves in sacerdotal service have been able to receive valid ordination in order to perpetuate undoubtedly the sacramental life of the Church.

While many and variable subjective appreciations abound of these three men, ✠Thuc, ✠Lefebvre and certainly ✠Mathew, they have enabled others after them, who would perpetuate and preserve the perennial magisterium and traditional devotional praxis of the Catholic Church, to do so. Yes, there have and will be “black sheep”, sometimes scandalous in their notoriety, who may mar the wider appreciation of their legacy and efforts. God calls sinners, not saints to His service.⁷² But even despite or in spite of their faults, God’s grace ex opere operato will yet be imparted to His people suitably disposed ex opere operantis to receive it. It was ever thus.

Throughout history, a faithful remnant has upheld the true principles of the faith, regardless of the prevailing trends or challenges. The Traditional Catholic movement is unquestionably that remnant today. The Old Roman apostolates, despite their fair share of setbacks and disappointments, and the ignominy of their beginning, while unquestionably the least of the brethren⁷³ have, despite all the odds, persisted to today. Though certainly the more impoverished, least respected and appreciated of the Traditionalist Catholic apostolates, nonetheless, genuine and orthodox Old Romans remain and are eager to serve Christ’s faithful.

Whatever one’s appreciation of ✠Mathew’s episcopal odyssey, the validity of the apostolic succession inherited from him is – despite the histrionics – valid and efficacious, and those who receive from this legacy, who are appropriately disposed to do so, undoubtedly benefit from God’s saving grace. Hundreds of thousands of souls for over a hundred years have been able to receive the sacraments and mostly from men who, despite their unworthiness, yet matched God’s trust in them by their dedication and perseverance in often challenging circumstances. For that, those of us who inherit that same legacy, owe a debt of gratitude and receive a source of hope.

Throughout the course of the past 2000 years, numerous priests and bishops have received holy Orders by individuals considered heretics or schismatics. This was particularly prevalent during crises such as the Donatist, Arian, and Nestorian conflicts in the Western Church, as well as various schismatic crises within the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Church did not deem it necessary to re-ordain these individuals. As long as they maintained their adherence to the True Faith and abstained from following any sects, they were accepted as legitimate members of the Church. Esteemed figures such as St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom faced the challenge of dealing with clerics who had been unlawfully ordained by heretical or schismatic bishops during their absence from their respective dioceses. However, upon their return, these bishops refrained from condemning these priests solely on the basis of their irregular ordination.⁷⁴

“From the ancient institutions of the Fathers we have learned that those who are baptized in the name of the Trinity, although amid heresy, whenever they return to the Holy Church, may be recalled to the bosom of their Mother the Church either with the anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or with a profession of faith alone… Therefore, without any hesitation your holiness may receive in your assembly all whoever return from the perverse error of Nestorius… make no opposition or difficulty in regard to their own orders.”⁷⁵ St Gregory the Great

Every Traditional Catholic cleric whether SSPX, SSPX-MC, SSPV, CMRI, SSF,⁷⁶ etc. or Old Roman, irrespective of their perspective on the Papacy and way to conduct things during this State of Necessity, truly desires and prays for the restoration of the visible unity of the Catholic Church under an orthodox and legitimate Pope. The whole raison d’être of the Traditionalist Catholic movement, why we do what we do and as deliberately and consideredly, as we all do, is to ensure when that day comes, a faithful remnant will submit to him, be regularised and help restore the Church.

Oremus pro invicem. Kyrie eleison. ¡Viva, Cristo Rey!

✠Hieronymus Seleisi
Dei gratia unum episcopus

---

1. When Pius IX instituted a new hierarchy in Holland annexing the original See of Utrecht in 1853, the Catholics who remained with the original Dutch hierarchy became known as “Old Roman” Catholics to distinguish them [cf Neale, John M (1858). History of the so-called Jansenist church of Holland; with a sketch of its earlier annals, and some account of the Brothers of the common life. Oxford; London: John Henry and James Parker.]
   Later, conservatives in the Ultrajectine See remained known as “Old Romans” despite the creation of the “Old Catholic Union of Churches” in 1889. When ✠Mathew declared independence from Utrecht in 1910, he continued the name “Old Roman” to distinguish his orthodox faction from the apostatizing union of “Old Catholics”. ↩︎
2. 29 December 1910 ↩︎
3. On the lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX bishops by Benedict XVI “It is hoped that this step be
   followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church”
   https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8730 ↩︎
4. The phrase is a translation of the Latin phrase fratres seiuncti used as a polite euphemism in contexts where
   the terms “formal heretics” or “material heretics” might cause offense. Pope Leo XIII “was the first to speak of
   ‘separated brothers’” Kelly, John N. D.; Walsh, Michael J, eds. (2010). “Leo XIII”. A Dictionary of Popes. Oxford
   paperback reference (2nd ed.). Oxford [u.a]: Oxford University Press. p. 317. ISBN 9780199295814. ↩︎
5. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to Some Questions regarding Certain Aspects of the
   Doctrine of the Church, Fifth Question Archived August 13, 2013 ↩︎
6. Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, Commentary on the Summa (Commentarium in II-II, 39, 1) ↩︎
7. The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations Rev. Anthony Cekada ↩︎
8. J. McHugh & C. Callan, Moral Theology, New York: Wagner 1929, 1:645 ↩︎
9. For validity, it is not even necessary that the bishop get all the words exactly right, as long as he does not change the meaning substantially. See E. Regatillo, Jus Sacramentarium (Santander: Sal Terrae 1949), 873. ↩︎
10. B. Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology (Westminster md: Newman 1956), 482. “This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be theologically rash… the minister is presumed to intend what the rite means..” His emphasis. ↩︎
11. Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896. “Iamvero quum quis ad sacramentum conficiendum et conferendum materiam formamque debitam serio ac rite adhibuit, eo ipso censetur id nimirum facere intendisse quod facit Ecclesia.” ↩︎
12. F. Wanenmacher, Canonical Evidence in Marriage Cases, (Philadelphia: Dolphin 1935), 408. ↩︎
13. Wanenmacher, 500. “Similarly when the fact of baptism has been established, but the validity remains doubtful, there is a general presumption in favor of validity. This is especially true of Catholic baptism, and the presumption is elided only by a strict proof to the contrary.” ↩︎
14. Wanenmacher, 411. “Under the Code marriage has the favor of law: hence when there is a doubt, we must hold to the validity of the marriage until the contrary is proved (c. 1014).” ↩︎
15. S. Woywood, Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York: Wagner 1952), 1905. “A sacred order is presumed valid until its invalidity is established by proof to the effect that it was received with want of intention on the part of the petitioner.” ↩︎
16. P. Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione (Paris: Delhomme 1893), 1:970. “…tum quia actus, praesertim adeo solemnis qualis est ordinatio, habendus est ut validus, donec invaliditas non evincatur.” ↩︎
17. U. Beste, Introductio In Codicem (Collegeville MN: St. John’s 1946), 951. “Hinc ordines collati ab episcopis schismaticis ecclesiae orientalis, iansenistis in Batavia (Hollandia), veterum catholicorum in Germania et Helvetia, validi habendi sunt, nisi in casu particulari vitium essentiale admissum fuerit.” ↩︎
18. Brandreth, Henry R. T. (1987) [First published in 1947]. Episcopi vagantes and the Anglican Church. San Bernardino, CA: Borgo Press ↩︎
19. Thiel, Jacobus J. van (3 June 1908). “An Old Catholic bishop for England”. The Guardian. London. ✠van Thiel (one of the co-consecrators) wrote that the International Bishops Conference “…had no reason to suppose that we were mistaken in complying with” O’Halloran’s request and stated that their “…confidence in Bishop Mathew remains unshaken, after carefully perusing a large number of the documents bearing upon this matter,” and they “earnestly hope that his ministrations will be abundantly blessed by Almighty God, and that he will receive the cordial support of the British people and Church in the trying circumstances in which he has been placed.” ↩︎
20. Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift (in German). neue folge 5, ganzen folge 23 (3). Bern: Stämpfli & Cie: 342–349. July–September 1915. ↩︎
21. Wisdom 1:5 ↩︎
22. De Articulis Fidei Part 2: Explanation of the Sacraments, translated by J.B. Collins, in Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas (New York: Wagner 1939; repr. 1953) ↩︎
23. Apostolicae curae apostolic letter by Pope Leo XIII, issued in 1896. ↩︎
24. G.K.A. Bell, Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury (1935), Vol. II, p. 1018 ↩︎
25. Niche, Matthias. “Über die sogenannten ‘Vagantenbischöfe’”. stmichael-online.de (in German).  ↩︎
26. Published 6 January 1911 ↩︎
27. David F. Abramtsov, Western Rite Orthodoxy (1961), p. 19: “Messarah apparently received him into communion in
    1911 on a provisional basis”; A. van Bunnen, “L’Orthodoxie de rite occidental en Europe et aux Etats Unis. Bilan et
    perspectives”, in Irénikon, LIV (1981), p. 332: “Celui-ci le reçut dans la communion du Patriarcat d’Antioce sans
    conditions en 1911. Six mois plus tard, le Patriarche d’Alexandrie adresssait à son tour une letter d’union à ce qui allait être,
    pour quelquetemps, l’ÉgliseOrthodoxe occidentale”. ↩︎
28. Correspondence, Wordsworth to Davidson, 6 December & 8 December 1919, Mathew Box 1, DOP. ↩︎
29. Joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration, approved by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, read simultaneously (Dec. 7) at a public meeting of the ecumenical council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. The declaration concerns the Catholic-Orthodox exchange of excommunications in 1054. ↩︎
30. Correspondence, Fynes-Clinton to Davidson, 31 January 1912. DOP ↩︎
31. Decree Concerning the Sacraments & Decree Concerning Reform, The Council of Trent, Session VII Canons On The Sacraments In General ↩︎
32. Cf. c.98, C.I, q.1; cc. 39, 149, D.IV de cons. ↩︎
33. Kersey, John (2017). Arnold Harris Mathew and the Old Catholic Movement in England 1908-52 European-American University Press. ↩︎
34. Tillett, Gregory (1 January 2012). “Modern Western Magic and Theosophy”. Aries. 12 (1). Brill: 17–51. ↩︎
35. Anson, Peter F (2006) [1964]. Bishops at large. Independent Catholic Heritage series (1st Apocryphile ed.). Berkeley: Apocryphile Press ↩︎
36. Pontificale Romanum de Ordinatione Diaconi & Presbyteri ↩︎
37. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q.20, A.1 ↩︎
38. “… the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.” CIC 1983 Canon 1752 ↩︎
39. F.M. Cappello, SJ ., Summa Juris Canonici, vol. I, p.258, n.258, §2 ↩︎
40. St. Alphonsus, De poenitentiae sacramento, tract XCI, c.V,n.90. ↩︎
41. “From the purpose intended by the Holy Office, the decree appears to cover only those who are consecrated as residential bishops, for this is the actual case which the Holy See intends to condemn. “This new type (of offense) differs from the one mentioned in canon 2370, where the canon refers to consecrations performed without apostolic mandate (described in CIC 1917 Canon 953). Revd Eduardo Regatillo, Institutiones Juris Canonici (Santander: Sal Terrae 1956), 2:600 ↩︎
42. 451AD Council of Chalcedon, Session XV, Canon VI which established every cleric shall be ordained for a community:
    “Absolutely no one is to be ordained – neither priest, nor deacon, nor any others in ecclesiastical orders – unless they be especially appointed to the church of a city or neighborhood, or a martyry or monastery. Those absolutely ordained (i.e. ordained without connection to a community), the Holy Synod has decreed such ordination to be invalid to the injury of him who conferred the ordination, and such ordained may nowhere be permitted to officiate.” ↩︎
43. This injunction is repeated in the XXIII Session of the Council of Trent:
    “Whereas no one ought to be ordained, who, in the judgment of his own bishop, is not useful or necessary for his churches, the holy Synod, adhering to the traces of the sixth canon of the council of Chalcedon, ordains, that no one shall for the future be ordained without being attached to that church, or pious place, for the need, or utility of which he is promoted; there to discharge his duties, and not wander about without any certain abode.”
    Decree on Reformation, Chapter XVI Those who are ordained shall be assigned to a particular church. ↩︎
44. CIC 1917, Canon 2205 § 2. Additionally, grave fear, even if it is only relative, necessity, and even grave inconvenience for the most part thoroughly toll a delict, if it concerned a merely ecclesiastical law ↩︎
45. CIC 1983 Canon 1323 § 4 acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls; ↩︎
46. 1983 Code, Canon 1323 §4; 1917 Code, Canon 2205 §2 ↩︎
47. See Old Roman FAQ ↩︎
48. Pope Pius X (4 March 1911). “Motu Proprio”. The Tablet. London. p. 25. ↩︎
49. “But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them.” (Canon 2261.3) This refers to those who have been condemned by name by the pope or by an ecclesiastical judge. ↩︎
50. Cf Canon 1335 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law & Canon 2261, par. 2, 1917 Code of Canon Law. ↩︎
51. Mathew, Arnold H (8 January 1916). “Notes”. The Tablet. London. p. 7 ↩︎
52. “Old Catholics in Britain”. The Times. No. 41051. London. 31 December 1915. p. 5. ↩︎
53. “Death Of ‘Archbishop’ Mathew”. The Times. No. 42290. London. 23 December 1919. p. 13 ↩︎
54. Moss, Claude B (2005) [1977]. The Old Catholic Movement: its origins and history. Independent Catholic heritage series (reissue, with additions and corrections, of 2nd ed.). Berkeley: Apocryphile Press. ↩︎
55. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1952, p. 456. “Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (set. Certa). Cf. D 855, 860; CIC 2372.” ↩︎
56. in St Andrew’s Cathedral, Glasgow, Scotland, by Archbishop Charles Eyre, apostolic administrator of the Vicariate Apostolic of the Western District ↩︎
57. The Donatists claimed to be the true church and rejected any baptisms other than their own. Augustine aimed to reconcile them with the Catholic Church by emphasizing that Baptism is one and belongs to Christ. He acknowledged that there will always be unworthy members among the faithful, comparing them to chaff mixed with wheat on the Lord’s threshing-floor. On the other hand he regarded rebaptism as an imannissimum scelus, a monstrous crime. Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) I:4, 374 ↩︎
58. André Barbeau had been consecrated by Charles Brearley, who had been consecrated by Matthew Cooper, who had been consecrated by James Bartholomew Banks, who had been consecrated by Frederick Samuel Willoughby,  who had been consecrated by Mathew. Cf Brandreth, Henry R. T. (1987) [First published in 1947]. Episcopi vagantes and the Anglican Church. San Bernardino, CA: Borgo Press ↩︎
59. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins”. In Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (eds.). A select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church. 2. Vol. 11. Translated by Heurtley, Charles A. (American ed.). Buffalo: Christian Literature ↩︎
60. Neale, John M (1858). History of the so-called Jansenist church of Holland; with a sketch of its earlier annals, and some account of the Brothers of the common life. Oxford; London: John Henry and James Parker. ↩︎
61. Since 1996, the Old Catholic Churches in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands opened the priesthood and all levels of the church hierarchy to women ↩︎
62. Constitution of the Old Roman Catholic Church promulgated 8 September, 1976 and amended on 17 May, 1986. ↩︎
63. CIC 1983 Can. 1314 — A penalty is ordinarily ferendae sententiae, that is, not binding upon the offender until it has been imposed. It is, however, latae sententiae if the law or precept expressly lays this down, so that it is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence. 1917 CIC 2217. § 1. A penalty is called: … 2° Automatic if a determinate penalty is added to the law or precept such that it is incurred upon the fact of the delict being committed; formal if it must be inflicted by a judge or Superior; … § 2. A penalty is always considered formal, unless it is expressly said to be automatically contracted or upon the fact or by the law, or unless other similar words are used. ↩︎
64. Even though a subsequent ordination may theoretically incur an automatic disciplinary penalty. ↩︎
65. Mystici Corporis Mystici Corporis Christi, Encyclical Of Pope Pius XII, On The Mystical Body Of Christ, 29th June 1943 ↩︎
66. Unlike vagante lineages there are no mixed lineages involved, only verified Old Roman bishops co-consecrate ↩︎
67. Notwehr, Widerstand, Notsand (Legitimate Defense, Resistance, Necessity) 1984 (and republished in Is Tradition Excommunicated?) ↩︎
68. Pope Pius XII in an address to the clerical students of Rome, June 24, 1939 ↩︎
69. When introduced to the Old Roman bishop in Chicago at the dinner party of a mutual friend, Bishop Tissier exclaimed, “Thank you, thank you, thank you! The Old Romans kept the (Traditional Latin) Mass going until we came!” ↩︎
70. ibid 51 above ↩︎
71. The Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Akita, Japan, to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, October 13, 1973 ↩︎
72. St Luke v.32 ↩︎
73. St Matthew xxv.40-45 ↩︎
74. A Defense of the Consecration of Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer by Rev. Mr. Stephen Kaldawi October 2, 2020 ↩︎
75. Pope St. Gregory the Great, Qui Caritati, Baptism and the Orders of Heretics From the epistle to the bishops of Spain, about June 22, 601 Denzinger 249 ↩︎
76. Society of St Pius X (Latin; Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X; SSPX); SSPX-MC “Marian Corps” resistance group; Society of Saint Pius V (Latin: Societas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii Quinti; SSPV); The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (Latin: Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae; CMRI); Servants of the Holy Family (Latin: Servi Sanctae Familiae; SSF) ↩︎