Jorge Card. Medina-Estévez in his official response to letters received from Catholics all over the world in regard to Prot. no., 1411/99 of July 3, 1999, writes at its very beginning,

"The Roman Missal approved and promulgated by the authority of Pope Paul VI, by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, is the only form of the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Roman Rite in force under the terms of general liturgical law."

In stating this, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship is implicitly reiterating the position of the Vatican regarding the derogation of the privilege granted by Pope St. Pius V in His Bull, Quo Primum of July 13, 1570. This position of the (then) Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship made explicit in its Notice Conferentiarum Episcopalium of October 28, 1974:

"...the celebration of the Mass whether in Latin or in the vernacular is lawful only according to the rites of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on April 3, 1969."

The general principle of interpretation implicit in this position is enshrined in the new Code of Canon Law, canon §20 :

"A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law."

And reiterated in such protocols of the Congregation for Divine Worship as Protocol n° 947/99/L.

As has been amply explained by such writers as Count Capponi ["Some Juridical Considerations on the Reform of the Roman Liturgy", Angelus Press], Michael Davies [Pope Paul's New Mass, The Liturgical Revolution,Vol. III: "The Right to resist an Abuse of Power", Appendix IV, pp. 589-602] and the Rev. Raymond Dulac ["The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo Primum of Saint Pius V, Itineraires No. 162, supplement], this interpretation of the juridical status of the Traditional Roman Rite is faulty, on the grounds that as regards the immemorial custom of using the Traditional Roman Ordo there must be an expressed mention for the right, arising from this, to be abrogated or derogated by the Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI.

It must be remembered that the Traditional Roman Rite pre-existed Trent and Quo Primum. Therefore in considering whether there still is a right to celebrate the Mass in this form, one must not only consider whether Pope Paul VI abrogated or derogated the privilege granted by Pope St. Pius V, but also whether the right from immemorial custom was also abrogated.

The foundation of this argument is based on the correct understanding of the origin of "right". The theory of jurical positivism, which was recently criticized by Cardinal Ratzinger, holds that no rights exist except those granted by the legislator. This error is was denounced by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Libertas, of June 8, 1888 A.D.. Speaking of the theory that what is just is defined by human legislators, the Pope wrote:

"Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature; and they command men to follow after what is right and to shun what is wrong, adding at the same time a suitable sanction. But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society, because, just as civil society did not create human nature, so neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal, law."

Those who would exclude from the discussion of the right to celebrate according to the Traditional Roman Ordo, a discussion of the right derived from immemorial custom, can only do so by adhering to a theory of juridical interpretation which is based on that of positivism. Such a theory underlies the bald assertion that there is no right or liberty in the Church except that granted by ecclesiastical law. But as can be seen from the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, rights and liberty are derived from natural and eternal law, that is from the moral and divine law. Those who neglect this consideration of custom argue from solely from Can. 838 §1

"The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop."

Accordingly they argue that the privileges granted by Pope St. Pius V in his Bull, Quo Primum, were abrogated by the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanam by Pope Paul VI. However, this neglects the historic circumstances and consequences of Pope St. Pius V's act.

Those who argue in this manner, exclusively, fail to sufficiently consider that the juridical constitution of the Christ's Church originates with Christ and not with positive ecclesiatical law. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, composed of the adopted sons of God, reborn and admitted to Her communion by the Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, by the grace of their adoption, they not only become lawful heirs of the Eternal Kingdom, and moreover retain the natural basis of their human rights, but more so obtain new rights and privileges in the supernatural order here on earth. Among these is the right to share in the spiritual patrimony of the Church. This patrimony includes not only that which the Church Herself was endowed with by God (e.g. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Tradition, the Sacraments, the Mass) but also those forms by which this Divine largess was canonized in diverse inculturated forms. It follows then that it is beyond the competance of any ecclesiastical authority to diminish, proscribe, harm, or otherwise restrict the access of the faithful to, this Patrimony, for it pertains to the supernatural rights the Catholic Faithful dispersed throughout the world to have access to and to employ this patrimony, for thier own spiritual welfare and that of the entire Church.

Consequently, when in the course of 2000 years the Roman Pontiffs have overseen the development and growth of that liturgical patrimony begun by St. Peter the Apostle, and have virtually canonized--- and accepted as canonized---- the form of that liturgy in the Bull of Pope St. Pius V, it follows that this form of worship passes to the spiritual patrimony of the entire universal Church; therefore it does not pertain to positive ecclesiatical ordinance to proscribe this liturgical form, nor to restrict the rights of the faithful to worship God according to it. Indeed, those who hold such an interpretation of Pope Paul VI's Missale Romanum, that is, that it abolished all right to worship God according to the Traditional Roman Rite, give the appearance of a notion of Pontifical authority which is absolutist, rather than merely supreme. The assertion that the authority of the Roman Pontiff is such that he can validly and/or licitly abrogate the rights of the faithful, even those arising from their right to partake of the spiritual patrimony of the Church, is indeed injurious to the Catholicity of the Church; for it would imply, among other things, that the Roman Pontiff can arbitrarily do away with, say, even the traditional liturgies of the Eastern Churches and their own customs. But such has never been the policy of the Apostolic See.

In this regard, I think it is important to consider the import of what Pope John Paul II says in Apostolic Letter of May 2, 1995 A.D., Orientale Lumen:

"Tradition is the heritage of Christ's Church. ... This is articulated in the historical and cultural patrimony of each Church, shaped by the witness of the martyrs, fathers and saints, as well as by the living faith of all Christians down the centuries to our own day."

Thus, if the access of the faithful to the historical and cultural patrimony of the Church Herself would be substantially restricted, the Church Herself would be endangered by an estrangement from Sacred Tradition.

Further on in his Apostolic Letter, Pope John Paul II says,

"When the uses and customs belonging to each Church are considered as absolutely unchangeable there is a sure risk of Tradition losing that feature of a living reality which grows and develops, and which the Spirit guarantees precisely because it has something to say to the people of every age. As Scripture is increasingly understood by those who read it, [23] every other element of the Church's living heritage is increasingly understood by believers and is enriched by new contributions, in fidelity and in continuity. [24] Only a religious assimilation, in the obedience of faith, of what the Church calls "Tradition" will enable Tradition to be embodied in different cultural and historical situations and conditions. [25] Tradition is never pure nostalgia for things or forms past, nor regret for lost privileges, but the living memory of the Bride, kept eternally youthful by the Love that dwells within her."

In this the Pope recognizes that authentic development in the spiritual patrimony of the Church progresses by additions, not subtractions; clarification, not obscurement; additions but not contradictions, for all this has come about through the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, who is not a spirit of deception but of truth. Sacred Tradition is an internally consistent handing-down of the oral and written testimony of the faithful to the Advent of Christ in time. As such it can never be said to grow or develop in the sense of mutation or alteration; but rather only in the sense of a increase and progress that accepts implicitly and entirely the achievements of the past, and builds upon these to refine and magnify the proclamation of truths contained therein. Thus the notion of "life" in Tradition, must be seen in its authentic mode, that of continuity and consistency, not a rupture with the past. The need to respect the ecclesiastical customs and liturgy of each particular Church was also recently emphasized by Pope John Paul II during his visit to Egypt in Feb. of 2000 A.D..

Indeed, I believe that there has not yet been recognized the fundamental genius of this spiritual patrimony, which is the vessel of Sacred Tradition in all the Churches. If retention of this patrimony is simply understood as proceeding from "pure nostalgia for things or forms past," it is clearly not being appreciated in an objective manner. Rather, it must be recognized, that the mission of the Holy Spirit in the Church characterizes fundamentally the role and nature of this spiritual patrimony.

First, since this patrimony has been brought forth from the immaculate womb of Holy Mother Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, it must be recognized for what it is, an authentic christological and pneumatological component of the catholicity of the Church, and hence, must be protected, fostered and retained by all the faithful, especially the Sacred Hierarchy. Indeed, this spiritual patrimony must be recognized also as the quasi-property of the Holy Spirit Himself, and, as such, deserves not only the respect but the reverence and preservation of each particular Church and the Universal Church, each in its own proper manner.

Moreover, since, as the Apostle St. Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit bestows upon each a different ministry, each for the upbuilding of the Mystical Body, and, since it is this same Spirit who admonishes all men "to honor thy father and thy mother," it seems more in conformity with what has been divinely revealed concerning the action of the Holy Spirit that He should have entrusted to the first generations of Christians some peculiar tasks that are for the common good of the whole Church until the end of time. These tasks include the witness of the Fathers and martyrs, but even more. If the Sacred Hierarchy neglects to recognize the monuments of history as the sacred signposts and waymarks that they are, then they will not appreciate that the Holy Spirit entrusted to Apostolic community the incarnation of the Mass in liturgical forms for the whole Church; thus there seems no basis to hold that the Spirit's continuous vivification of the Church through the ages necessitates novel liturgical forms, dissonant or disparate or contradictory to His former work. Rather, it should be recognized that the Church in Her pilgrimage through history has not been without His assistance, and that therefore the entire spiritual patrimony of each local Church, including the Church of Rome, merits the presumption of reverential honor, protection, and preservation, not merely as historical monuments, but within a ecclesiastical-juridical framework that permits the continuation of the access of the faithful to the use of these forms canonized by this very patrimony.

From these considerations it is clear that the notion that the Holy Spirit is at work in every age of the Church must be tempered by the assertion that He does not do so in an inconsistent, dissonant, or iconoclastic manner, but always in that manner of authentic "development" described by Cardinal Newman, which builds upon the implicitly accepted and received achievements of the past. Hence those who would assert otherwise, are actually proposing a novel and heretical notion of the mission of the Holy Spirit.

Hence it is by no means illicit, heretical, erroneous, nor should it be even suspect if some of the faithful of any particular Church wish to retain their access to their part of the sacred patrimony which belongs to the whole Church. Rather, such deserves the highest praise and encouragement of the Church and of the Vicar of Christ, since it cannot but assist the universal Church in the maintenance of an actual living comprehension of the endowments of the Holy Spirit to our forefathers in the faith; endowments that were not given aimlessly, but as the basis of the Church's ramparts against doctrinal and moral error in the present and for the time to come.

Furthermore, since access and retention of this spiritual patrimony is a good, it is capable of a special attachment on the part of the faithful, such that one may even bind one's self in special bonds to these particular rites. And this is most particularly true when the welfare of the entire Church, is threatend by dissent, heresy, schism, and novelties disharmonious with the Constitution of the Church. Indeed in such times, it is the supernatural duty of the Catholic faithful, and thus of the Sacred Hierarchy, to do so. I dare say, that, considering the very grave scandal resulting from the liturgical crisis which came directly forth from imprudent and hasty liturgical reform begun at the Second Vatican Council (cf. The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, by Msgr. Gambler) and continued under Pope Paul VI (cf. Letter of Cardinals Ottaviani & Baccis to Paul VI--"Ottaviani Intervention"), that unless Sacred Hierarchy formally recognizes that it is bound by such rights, an authentic and lasting Catholic unity through an apostolate aimed at the reconciliation of the Apostolic Churches and such traditionalist groups as the Society of St. Pius X, will not be achievable.