When first coming into contact with the Old Roman Catholic Church many devout Catholics immediately inquire, "Are you schismatic Catholics?
Old
Roman Catholicism is neither a sect nor schism as some of its self-constituted
enemies may claim. Old Roman Catholics acknowledge the Bishop of Rome
historically and spiritually as the Patriarch of the West and our priests pray
for the Pope in the Canon of their Masses to express the desire for unity which
should exist amongst all Western Catholics. A thorough reading of history
clearly indicates that the Old Roman Catholics did nothing of a schismatic
nature to warrant Pope Pius IX's uncanonical institution of a new hierarchy in
the See of Utrecht in 1853, in opposition to the historic hierarchy of the existing
Old Roman Catholic Church, which was an act in flagrant violation of the
ancient historic canons of the undivided Church, nor had the Old Roman
Catholics taught anything that had not always been considered to be totally
Catholic in either Faith or practice.
In
1145 Blessed Pope Eugene III granted to the Cathedral Chapter of Utrecht the
right to elect successors to the See in times of vacancy. This meant that,
unlike most other Sees in the Roman Catholic Church, the Cathedral Chapter of
Utrecht could elect their own bishops without permission or approval from the
Pope. This had been the universal practice in the early Church. In 1215, the
Fourth Lateran Council (Canons 23 and 24) confirmed this privilege.
Another
significant right granted to the Church of The Netherlands was the privilege of
hearing and adjudicating all of its canonical issues and matters within its own
ecclesiastical courts without the necessity of referring them to Rome or any
other court of canon law constituted outside of the Metropolitan See of
Utrecht, either for an initial adjudication nor for any subsequent appeals. In
1520, Pope Leo X decreed in the papal bull Debitum Pastoralis that the
Bishop of Utrecht, his successors, his clergy, and his laity should never be
tried by an external tribunal of canon law. If any such proceedings did take
place they were null and void. This extraordinary right had been granted by
Pope Leo X at the request of Philip of Burgundy, who was the reigning
prince-bishop of Utrecht at the time.
In
1691, the Jesuits falsely accused Archbishop Peter Codde, the occupant of of
the See of Utrecht, of favoring the so-called Jansenist heresy. We say
so-called Jansenist heresy because no one has ever yet succeeded in finding the
repudiated heretical statements, either in substance or in form, in The
Augustinus of Bishop Cornelius Jansenius, where the Jesuits pretended to have
discovered them. Archbishop Codde was ordered to stand trial in Rome despite
the special privilege and Papal dispensation from such a trial (see above re: Debitum
Pastoralis). Despite the Archbishop's proved innocence of heresy, the
influence of the Jesuits was so great that they persuaded the Pope to issue a
secret brief suspending and deposing Archbishop Codde. Neither the names of his
accusers, nor the charges made against him, were ever made known to him, nor
was he permitted to offer any defense, all of these actions being contrary to
the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. This created a breach which was
never healed, though Pope Clement XIV was favorably disposed towards the
grievously wronged Church of Utrecht.
We
believe and maintain, as we have always done since 1691, that these irregular
proceedings against the Church of Utrecht, based, as they were, upon charges
which were proved at the time to have been groundless, were null and void and
in direct contravention of the privileged rights of the See of Utrecht for
immunity from prosecution outside her territory. Add to all of this the
uncanonical actions of Pope Pius IX in 1853, again contravening the ancient
historic canons, as well as the privilege granted the See of Utrecht in 1145
regarding the election and appointment of her own Bishops and despite the
majority opinion of the vast number of Catholic canon lawyers and academics
being in favor of the Church of Utrecht, the actions of the See of Rome can be
viewed in no other light than to declare them unjust, uncanonical and utterly
null and void. Thus it is that we have remained, and are still in actual
technical canonical fact, and not according to any fanciful or far-fetched
theory, part and parcel of the Roman Catholic Church, despite her refusal to
acknowledge or honor our historic and proven position as true Roman Catholics.