Who Was the First Traditionalist Bishop?
The first Traditionalist Bishop is not one of the two Archbishops, who are key players in the formation of the Traditionalist group of sects.While Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngo-Dihn Thuc were still celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae, another man came on the scene and became a priest and bishop in order to preserve tradition. Bishop Francis K. Maria Schuckardt is a traditional Catholic bishop who founded the first traditional Catholic Church in the United States after the promulgation of the decrees of Vatican Council II. Bishop Schuckardt was also the first Catholic Bishop in the United States to proclaim Paul VI as a false pope, to proclaim Vatican Council II as a false council, and to proclaim the new Mass (novus ordo missae) to be invalid. (Note much of this information is obtained from Schuckardt's website.) Now the website from which this information is taken does not date when Schuckardt declared the Novus Ordo invalid nor when he proclaimed Montini as an antipope. However, in the former case, it is likely he believed the Novus Ordo invalid prior to a visit to Oklahoma City in November, 1970. So in 1967, on the feast of Our Lady of the Snows, Francis Schuckardt, with the approbation of Bishop Treinen of Boise, founded the Congregation of Mary, Immaculate Queen of the Universe (in Latin: Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae; hence, CMRI for short). At this time there were no priests in the Religious Congregation, but there were some traditional-minded priests who would provide the Fatima Crusade with the traditional Catholic Sacraments and offer for them the Tridentine Latin Rite Mass. The new Mass was not allowed. We have heard that some of the early day Traditionalist priests were favorable to Schuckardt, but have no further details. With the approbation of Bishop Treinen of Boise, founded the Congregation of Mary, Immaculate Queen of the Universe. Like Lefebvre, Schuckardt started out in full communion with the Pog Church of Vatican II, from whom he received his approval. Orders
In 1969, a certain Daniel Quilter Brown received Episcopal consecration as an “Old Roman Catholic” bishop. [4 ] Bishop Brown had been born and raised a Catholic, but became disenchanted with the reforms of Vatican II and had chosen to become an Old Roman Catholic bishop in order to perpetuate valid Episcopal orders; realizing that the Old Roman Catholics, unlike the modern post-Conciliar Catholic Church, had not yet fallen into heresy and thus still retained valid Orders.This must be considered in light of Canon 2372: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic or schismatic automatically incur suspensions a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such men, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains dispensation from the prohibition. Therefore Daniel Brown was suspended from the Orders he received. This suspension is reserved exclusively to the Roman Pontiff. Further A bishop who consecrates another bishop, the assistant bishops, or the priests who in place of the assistant bishops assist the consecrator, and the newly consecrated bishop who receives consecration without an Apostolic mandate in violation of the precept of Canon 953, are all automatically suspended until the Apostolic See shall have relieved them from the penalty. Pope Pius XII added an excommunication most specially reserved to the Apostolic See to this penalty, effective immediately (a departure from the norm), on April 9, 1951. (Canon 2370) Brother Francis sought the advise of some traditional Catholic priests, most notably Fr. Burton Fraser, S.J., about Bishop Brown's proposal. He was told that under the grave circumstances that currently existed, that it was well within Catholic law and principles to accept consecration. Although the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of Old Catholics orders, Brother Francis was unwilling to receive orders from Bishop Brown because of the schismatic origins of his consecration. Here we have the origin and declaration of the grave circumstances that currently exist. Note well there is no proof offered even now: that it was well within Catholic law and principles to accept consecration. The Thucites have offered proof after the fact, and the Lefebvrites relied on the 1983 Code of Canon Law for their justification. In the meantime, Bishop Brown openly repented of having received consecration from the Old Roman Catholics, broke all ties with them, made a public “Abjuration of Error and Profession of Faith,” confessed his sins and received absolution from a traditional priest. This is an important event. There are several results of schism, one of which is excommunication. Canon 2314 provides that the excommunication is reserved to the Roman Pontiff, but that the Local Ordinary can absolve if it is brought to his forum. Faculties in some countries, such as the United States, have been granted to pastors to receive baptized non-Catholics into the Church according to the form in the Rituale Romanum. However, Brown was a Catholic, who defected into at least schism, then sought to return. The Local Ordinary could absolve from the excommunication, but the irregularity of Canons 984, 985 and 2314 are reserved exclusively to the Roman Pontiff. Irregularities forbid all exercise of Orders without any exception, unlike the cases of excommunication and suspension where a very limited exception exists in Canon Law. Notice again that the name of the priest has been withheld.On October 28, 1971, in the presence of some loyal Fatima Crusaders, Bishop Brown tonsured and bestowed the four Minor Orders on Francis Schuckardt. On October 29, 1971, Bishop Brown conferred the Major Orders of Subdeacon and Deacon upon him. On October 31, 1971, Bishop Brown ordained Francis Schuckardt to the priesthood, and on November 1, 1971, the Feast of All Saints, Bishop Brown consecrated Fr. Francis Schuckardt a bishop according to the traditional Roman Catholic Rite. There are several violations of law in these events, but We imagine they wil be explained away with necessity. It is not permitted to bestow tonsure and a minor order on the same day, nor all four minor orders at once, nor two major orders on the same day. However, even Lefebvre has conferred all four minor orders at once to a man at Econe. The interstices between orders was not observed, which requires a year between acolyte and subdeacon, three months between subdeacon and deacon and between deacon and priest; five years between priest And bishop. Alleged Catholicity
The Catholic Church teaches that being a Catholic requires three things: 1) Baptism; 2) profession of the truths of the Faith; and 3) lawful communion of the Church. At no time has the Catholic Church ever placed the condition of membership in the Church upon anything else. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16) Membership in the Catholic Church is not contingent upon the possession of church buildings, large numbers of adherents, or any of the externals normally associated with the Catholic Church; it boils down to a set of core beliefs and baptism. We have no evidence that either Brown or Schuckardt lacked qualifications numbers 1 and 2 at the time, but We object that they were not in lawful communion with the Church. For not every sin, however great it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi) Brown by his own actions demonstrated that he was a schismatic, for he would not have sought reconciliation from a Traditionalist priest otherwise. Since Brown and Schucakrdt were working together we can conclude that Schuckardt joined Brown’s church. Since one of the hallmarks of the Fatima Crusade was the retention of the Tridentine Latin Rite Mass as promulgated and set in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V, the name Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church (TLRCC) was chosen. The enemies of the TLRCC found opportunity, in the adoption of this name, to falsely accuse the TLRCC of being a new church. In this case we must side with the enemies of Schuckardt. By adopting another name, they declare their departure from the Catholic Church. It is better to retain the name Catholic and make explanation. Diocesan Bishop
This represents a partial list and demonstrates that Bishop Schuckardt was properly exercising his office in this regard. In considering this newly discovered evidence and the obligation the Church imposes upon her Bishops to "govern the diocese both in temporal and spiritual matters, with legislative, judicial, and coercive power... (Canon Law: 335, 362, 1572), Bishop Schuckardt was well within his rights to make the moral judgment that smoking was a serious sin against the 5th Commandment. Members moved into several homes in the area and picked up where they had left off, but not before Bishop Schuckardt formally excommunicated Chicoine and a handful of others working in consort with him. Please click through the website: http://www.bishopschuckardt.com. On the various first part of the page you will find a picture of Francis Schuckardt. Schuckardt is wearing the mozetta, which is worn by the Pope and Cardinals everywhere, and by Archbishops and Bishops in their dioceses with a few exceptions. Of all of the pictures of Traditionalist bishops We have seen on the internet in only two is the bishop in questions properly dressed. There is a picture of Bishop Thuc in the proper dress of a bishop, who is not in his diocese, as well as one of Donald Sanborn. At the 1989 ordinations in Econe there is a picture of Lefebvre, Williamson and Fellay all wearing mozettas, which will never happen when there is more than one bishop at a place. We have highlighted the words above, which indicates an act or statement of a diocesan Bishop. By claiming to be a diocesan bishop in practice, Schuckardt is usurping papal authority, as did Frs. Musey and Vezelis, when they set up two diocese in the Untied States in 1982. Persons who usurp or retain, personally or through others, goods and rights pertaining to the Roman Church, automatically incur excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. (Canon 2345) Musey is now dead, leaving his diocese vacant. Vezelis still claims ordinary jurisdiction as a bishop, but like Schuckardt is vague about the territory he claims to govern. Pope Hadrian VII
Finally, that Schuckardt was preparing to declare himself Pope Hadrian VII and had began certain practices of popes, such as wearing a white cassock on occasion and demanding that his close associates accord him papal honors. In answer Schuckardt’s website states: As to the claim that Bishop Schuckardt's occasional wearing of a white cassock constituted a papal claim, the Schuckardt faction charges those making such an analogy of manifest ignorance regarding Church regulations about clerical dress. Whenever a Religious is elevated to the episcopate, according to Church law they may wear a cassock the color of their religious habit. Thus when the Dominicans, Cistercians, Carthusians and the Camadulese are elevated to the episcopate, they often wear white cassocks. The religious habit of the members of the Congregation of Mary, Immaculate Queen of the Universe is solid white with a brown scapular hanging over it, thus Bishop Schuckardt's white cassock was within the prescribed guidelines regarding clerical dress for Bishops. This statement is wrong on several counts. Only those from a list of religious Orders retain a unique dress in the Episcopate and Cardinalate. Dominicans retain white, which Pope Saint Pius V did as a Cardinal, which he carried on as Pope, thus starting the tradition of the Pope wearing white. Schuckardt’s organization, even if were legitimately established, is not an religious Order. As such, if he had been lawfully promoted to the Episcopate, he would wear the normal dress of a Bishop. Please click through the website: http://www.bishopschuckardt.com. We previously described that Schuckardt is appearing as if he were a diocesan bishop. However, there is another significant item in the picture. Only the Pope may wear a stole over the mozetta. If a Bishop or Cardinal wears the stole, he places a surplice over the rochet after removing the mozetta, or vests in amice, alb, cincture and pectoral cross before assuming the stole. This is also a common sight today. After Vatican II as a sign of collegiality, all bishops wear the mozetta wherever they may be and at ordinations and consecations wear the stole over the mozetta. In the picture referred to above at the 1989 ordinations Lefebvre, Williamson and Fellaw all are wearing the stole over the mozetta. One would think Traditionalists would look up how to dress properly to distinguish themselves from their Vatican II counterparts. However, despite usurping papal authority, it appears that the accusation that Schuckardt has proclaimed himself Pope. Woywod-Smith, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, volume 1, pages 558-9, 1948, commenting on Canon 951: A validly consecrated bishop can validly confer all orders from the minor orders to the episcopate inclusively, though he be a heretic, schismatic, or deposed or degraded from the Episcopal dignity, for he nevertheless retains the episcopal character in virtue of which he can validly ordain, provided he observes the essential of the form of ordination and has the intention to do what the Church does in performing the sacred ordination rites. For this reason the ordinations performed by the schismatic (Orthodox) bishops of the Greek Church, by the Jansenist bishops in Holland, and by the Old Catholics in Germany are considered valid.The doctrine maintaining the validity of ordinations performed by the heretical and schismatic bishops is generally held by the Church. There have been instances in history where individual authorities did not adhere to this principle, but ordained men again who had received orders from heretical or schismatic bishops. The first instance of re-ordination of this kind is said to have taken place when John Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople (564-578), ordered that a number of clerics who returned from heresy be deposed from the sacred orders received in heresy and be re-ordained in the same orders. There are also some Canons of the Council of Nicea (325) and the Synod of Constantinople (381) which seem to declare null and void the orders conferred by heretics, but they are explained by most canonists to the effect that the canonical and juridical consequences of such orders were not admitted by the Church, and that a certain rite of reconciliation had to take place before the men ordained by heretics were permitted to exercise the functions of their orders.The validity of Old Roman Catholics’ Orders was widely acknowledged by the Catholic Church: “Separated Brethren,” William Whalen (1958); “A Catholic Dictionary,” Donald Attwater (1997). We have reference to these and many more sources and the general teaching is that Old Catholic Orders are valid, if it can be demonstrated that the proper mater and form were used through all of the ordinations. Since Vatican II, not only has the Pog Church it created changed the Rite substantially, but there is evidence that some Eastern Rites, Orthodox and Old Catholics have also followed suit. Therefore investigation must be especially zealous. However, only the Pope can declare in a specific case. In a footnote to an article on the validity of Liberal Catholic Orders Fr. Rumble states: It may be worth noting that a Catholic who lapses from the Church and receives orders from a schismatical bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordination, even if valid, will be complete disregarded. He then cites a decree of the Holy Office from November 18, 1931: Ecclesiam non habere neque unquam habituram esse oratroem tamquam ordinatum, eumque propterea nullis obligationis statui clericali annexis teneri. Now it must be stated that the Church has sometimes admitted these men back into the Church and then readmitted them to the priesthood and even to the Episcopate, which is within the binding power of the Pope. It should also be stated that Schuckardt is not the only Traditionalist to reconcile a schismatic bishop. In 1978 Marcel Lefebvre reconciled an Old Catholic Bishop, Georg Schmitz and declared him to be his successor bishop. More recently Einsicht chastised Bishop Mark Pivaranus of CMRI, which Schuckardt had started and which dismissed him. Pivarunas reconciled an Orthodox Bishop, who appears to have departed from him and his church. Other Interesting Information
In 1985, Rev. Chicoine and two of the other three priests of Mount Saint Michael were “conditionally ordained” as priests by a Bishop George Musey. Bishop Musey himself stated his belief that these three priests (Rev. Chicoine, Rev. McGilloway, Rev. Hughes) had been validly ordained by Bishop Schuckardt, but was conditionally ordaining them to appease the doubts of some. Rev. Musey’s episcopal lineage descended from Bishop Thuc. Much has been said of this conditional reordination. We personally met with Fr. Musey in 1981 on several occasions again in 1982. If Musey truly believed the ordinations were validly, then he committed the sin of sacrilege by repeating ordination. Because of Musey’s statement, one must doubt his intention in the conditional reordination. Now the question arises whether or not Schuckardt was validly ordained. Since the Church has not made an official declaration, this can be set aside for the moment. It can be stated that another ordained by Schuckardt ceased functioning as a priest, because he doubted the validity of his own ordination. Bishop Musey had been associated with the autocephalous Traditional Byzantine Rite Church, and had several ties to the Old Catholics. We were not aware of the former, but were aware of Musey’s use of an Old-Catholic Bishop, Joseph Maria, to obtain priestly ordination for a divorced man, James Dekazel in 1981. Also Musey attempted to receive consecration from Fr. Grant who claimed to have been secretly consecrated bishop by a Catholic bishop. Bishop Schuckardt’s group challenges the validity of Bishop Musey’s consecration; condemns him for impeding upon Bishop Schuckardt’s jurisdiction; condemns him for conditionally ordaining against Church law people who have been sentenced with a declaratory and condemnatory sentence of excommunication; and for other reasons. Again Schuckardt asserts his jurisdiction, again usurping Papal authority. Bishop Schuckardt and the TLRCC have consistently questioned the validity of the orders conferred by other "traditionalists," namely Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Thuc. The very fact that neither of these two ever publicly renounced Vatican Council II is one of the chief reasons why the validity of their orders are doubtful. It has been demonstrated that Lefebvre never repudiated the usurpers, and that Ngo-Dihn Thuc was regularly celebrating and participating in the Novus Ordo Missae until shortly before his 1982 declaration. Also neither ever renounced Vatican II publicly to Our knowledge, although Thuc’s declaration might be inferred as a repudiation of Vatican II. However, this in no way proves invalidity. It might prove invalidity if one of the Vatican II Decrees can be shown to teach an invalidating doctrine on the priesthood, which might be possible. It has been demonstrated though that the bishop Lefebvre chose to consecrate him was a high-level freemason prior to his own consecration. Also it is strongly probable Ngo-Dihn Thuc used the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, and the testimony of the two witnesses is not sufficient to establish validity, since they have testified to not know if the essentials were completed. Why Hasn’t Schuckardt Called for a Papal Election?
Bishop Schuckardt denies that he ever declared himself to be the pope. Some of his followers, however, believe him to be so based upon their belief that he is the "last true Catholic bishop" in the world and upon the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Church must have a pope, except during periods of interregnum. And in a footnote from this section: "[I]f anyone says it is not by the institution of Christ... that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church;... let him be anathema." - Vatican Council 1, Session 4, Ch. 2 (1870). This paragraph is a bit unclear. Are they trying to indicate that as the last true Catholic bishop he became de facto Pope? Everyone should know that Popes are elected, which is why we reject the various Gregorys XVII, Clement XV and Peters II, who are all self-appointed by an alleged apparition. As was demonstrated above Schuckardt acts as if he is Pope by performing functions reserved exclusively to the Apostolic See. Bishop Schuckardt was also the first Catholic Bishop in the United States to proclaim Paul VI as a false pope. Actually no Catholic Bishop has made this declaration, save Ourself as Pope. However, the meaning is that Schuckardt was the first Traditionalist Bishop to declare the vacancy, and this accords with facts. It is most likely such declaration was made in the early 1970’s. If this is the case, then why did he not proceed logically to the next step, ending the vacancy, rather than acting as if the vacancy will never end. The quote above indicates the necessity of having another Pope! Schuckardt obviously believes that all of the Cardinals defected long ago. He has separated from the other Traditionalist priests, and therefore must believe them to be non-Catholics since he believes himself to be Catholic. Bishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dihn Thuc made the same mistake. Instead of consecrating Bishops then declaring the vacancy, he should have declared the vacancy, assembled an election, had the Pope reconcile him with the Catholic Church, then ordained and consecrated him as needed. It is this backwards approach that has led to the dissensions. At first Bishops Brown and Schuckardt worked peaceably together. Shortly afterwards, Bishop Brown saw “splinter groups” forming and desired that Bishop Schuckardt lead the Church. In writing to Bishop Schuckardt, Bishop Brown deemed it “urgent that these people be united into one body with one leader who would be, logically, yourself.” Eventually, however, differences broke out between them and they separated and went their own ways. Bishop Brown eventually returned to the Old Catholic Church. If one traces the history of Traditionalism, one sees the amoeba effect, that is splintering further and further. Schuckardt’s group separated into two factions, one that is still with him and the CMRI, which obtained a new bishop from the Thucites. Lefebvre’s Society split into two parts in the United States, the latter becoming the Society of Saint Pius V. This has split into three parts and each now boasts its own bishop, two from the Thucites and one from Mendez. The Thucites have splintered into many groups, even if one restricts oneself to the Traditionalist bishops, Carmona, Zamora and des Lauriers. Musey consecrated Vezelis and then split with him and excommunicated him. A book could be written on this subject and the scandals it has caused. Other sites of interest
Michael Fighting
Links in regard to Francis Schuckardt
