"ECCLESIA DEI" - BEFORE AND AFTER THE "INDULT" TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site E-mail: traditio@traditio.com, Web: www.traditio.com Copyright 1994-2004 CSM. Reproduction prohibited without authorization. Updated: 11/02/05 QUATTUOR ABHINC ANNOS October 3, 1984 LETTER Sent to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops On the Use of the Roman Missal According to the Typical Edition of the Year 1962 Most Rev. Excellency: Four years ago, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the Bishops of the whole Church were invited to present a report: -- concerning the way in which the priests and faithful of their dioceses had received the Missal promulgated in 1970 by the authority of Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council; -- concerning the difficulties arising in the implementation of the liturgical reform; -- concerning possible resistance that may have arisen. The results of the consultation were sent to all the bishops (Notitiae, n. 185, December 1981). On the basis of their replies, it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so- called "Tridentine" rite was almost completely solved. Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions: a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call into question the legitimacy and doctrine exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970. b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in church and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually, or in individual cases. c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin. d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals. e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted to him, and at the end of the year from the granting of this indult, he must report the result of its application. This concession, indicative of the Holy Father's solicitude for his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities. I am pleased to avail myself of this occasion to express to Your Excellency my sentiments of deep esteem. From the Office of the Congregation for Divine Worship, October 3, 1984 + A. Mayer, O.S.B., Archbishop of Satriano, Pro-Prefect + Virgilio Noe, Titular Archbishop of Voncaria, Secretary [Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale (LXXVI, 12) 12/01/84] ======================================================================== STATEMENT OF THE PAPAL COMMISSION TO EXAMINE THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE TRADITIONAL RITE OF MASS In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a Commissio Cardinalatia (cardinalatial commission) of nine cardinals to examine the legal status of the traditional rite of Mass, sometimes inaccurately known as the "Tridentine Mass." The Commission of cardinals of the Roman Curia (Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, Bernard Cardinal Gantin, Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Antonio Cardinal Innocenti, Silvio Cardinal Oddi, Petro Cardinal Palazzini, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Anfons Cardinal Stickler, and Jozef Cardinal Tomko) was instructed to examine two questions: 1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass? 2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of the bishop? The Commission unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass. Regarding the second question: the Commission stated that priests cannot be obliged to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass, whether in public or in private. The Holy See does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the traditional Mass, and this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Tridentine Mass against the will of their bishops, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed. It is the present jurisprudence of the Church that, upon appeal, any suspension that an Ordinary attempts to inflict on a priest for celebrating the Tridentine Mass against the will of the bishop is automatically nullified. This is just one more proof that it is not the priests who are disobedient when they celebrate the Tridentine Mass, but it is the bishops who are entirely outside the law when they unlawfully attempt to forbid the Traditional Mass. This fact is also clearly demonstrates that penalties inflicted on priests for celebrating the Tridentine Mass are null and void, as is clearly stated in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. Derived from an article in the London Spectator (July 15, 1989), the Latin Mass Magazine (Summer 1995, p. 14), and The Fatima Crusader (June/July 1989, p. 45) ============================================================================ THE PROPOSED NORMS OF 1986 In the summer of 1986, a commission of eight curial Cardinals was established ad hoc to consider whether the Indult of 1984 was capable of functioning. It found that in practice the Indult had been shown to be "not very helpful" and it presented some detailed recommendations for a new regulation for the whole Church. The substance of these recommendations can be summarized as follows: 1. In the offices of the Roman Rite, the honor due [debita honor] to the Latin language should be accorded it. Bishops should ensure that on Sundays and ferial days at least one Latin Mass should be celebrated in each important locality of their diocese. However the readings could also be said in the vernacular. 2. For their private Masses all priests can, at all times, use the Latin language. 3. For every Mass celebrated in the Latin language - with or without the faithful present - the celebrant has the right freely to choose between the missal of Paul VI (1970) and that of John XXIII (1962). 4. If the celebrant chooses the missal of Paul VI, he should observe the rubrics of that missal. 5. If the celebrant chooses the missal of John XXIII, he must observe the rubrics of that missal, but he may also: * use either the Latin language or the vernacular for the readings * make use of the additional prefaces and prayers of the Proper of the Mass contained in the missal of Paul VI, and introduce "preces universales" (bidding prayers). 6. The liturgical calendar for feasts will be that of the missal chosen by the celebrant. ======================================================================== DOMINUS MARCELLUS LEFEBVRE DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION [Roman canonists have subsequently judged the following decree as invalid under canon law because it contradicts canon 1323, sec 4, as implicitly confirmed by the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.] Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of last June 17th and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without Pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penality envisaged by Can. 1364 par. 1 and Can. 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galaretta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See. Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop Emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by Can. 1364 par. 1. The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre; otherwise, they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication. From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, July 1, 1988. Bernard Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops ======================================================================== ACTION OF THE CARDINAL SECRETARY SECRETARIATE OF HIS HOLINESS Archbishop Anibale Bugnini, whom Paul VI put in charge of the post-conciliar liturgical reform, wanted to obtain an explicit ruling to the effect that the Novus Ordo Missae of 1970 abrogates the Traditional Latin Mass, so that the Traditional Latin Mass would be suppressed de jure, as well as de facto. To apply for such a ruling to the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Conciliar Documents, he needed permission from the Cardinal Secretary. The latter in 1974 refused to give the requested permission on the grounds that such an attempt would be seen as "an odious act in the face of liturgical tradition" (cf. Bugnini's memoirs, La Riforma Liturgica [Rome: Ed. Liturgiche], p. 298). In 1975 Archbishop Bugnini was dismissed in disgrace to Iran in the face of charges that he was a Mason, which, if true, would automatically excommunicate him. ======================================================================== ECCLESIA DEI APOSTOLIC LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II Given at His Own Initiative By which a particular Commission is instituted to facilitate full ecclesial communion of the members of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X or those joined with it. 1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail (1). 2. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor of Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church (2), even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all. The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to His Church. 3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience -- which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy -- constitutes a schismatic act (3). In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tisser de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law (4). 4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth" (5). But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magesterium of the Church possessed by the Bishops of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church (6). 5. Faced with the situation that has arisen, I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted. a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening till more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized application of doctrine, liturgy, and discipline. To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clearsighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded (7). However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirtuality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety; of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law (8). To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church. 6. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following: a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities, or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre; b) this Commission is composed of a Cardinal President and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances; c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962 (9). 7. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in the unceasing prayer which the Vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the Mother of the Church, addresses to the Father in the very words of the Son: "That they all may be one!" Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, July 2, 1988, in the tenth years of Our Pontificate. NOTES 1) Cf. "Informatory Note" of 16 June, 1988: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 27 June 1988, pp. 1-2. 2) Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Aeternus, cap. 3: DS 3060. 3) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751. 4) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382. 5) Cf. Vatican Council II, Const. Dei Verbum, n. 8. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020. 6) Cf. Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16; Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Aeternus, cap. 3: DS 3060. 7) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 386; Paul VI, Apostl. Exhort. Quinque iam anni, 8 Dec. 1970: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 97-106. 8) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364. 9) Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos, 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984), pp. 1088-1089. [Acta Apostolicae Sedis - Commentarium Officiale (LXXX, 12) 15 November 1988. English translation from L'Osservatore Romano, English Edition, N. 28 (1047), 11 July 1988.] ============================================================================ LETTER FROM CARDINAL MAYER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES 1991 [The following text is the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" undated letter No. 500/90, signed by Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Prefect, which was delivered to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and which was further disseminated by a memorandum dated 19 April 1991, from the Office of the General Secretary, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, to all the bishops in the United States.] Your Excellency: I write to you as a brother in the episcopal college charged by the Holy Father to carry out the provisions of his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988. My objective in addressing myself to you now is precisely to encourage you in the exercise of your pastoral mission to those who legitimately request the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal. Perhaps a review of developments which led to the issuance of Ecclesia Dei would be helpful in this regard. 1. On 3 October 1984, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued Quattour abhinc annos in which the Holy Father granted to diocesan bishops "the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful . . . may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition." The following conditions were stipulated: a) that those requesting permission do not "call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Pius VI in 1970"; b) that such celebrations take place only for groups requesting them, not in parish churches (except with the bishop's permission in extraordinary cases) and under conditions laid down by the bishop; c) that "these celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin"; d) that there "be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals"; and e) that each bishop had to inform the Congregation "of the concessions granted by him, and, at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of the application." 2. A special "Commissio Cardinalitia ad hoc ipsum instituta" charged with reviewing the use made of the indult met in December of 1986. At that time the Cardinals unanimously agreed that the conditions laid down in Quattour abhinc annos were too restrictive and should be relaxed. 3. As you well know, in response to the illicit ordination of bishops at Econe on 30 June 1988 and wishing to uphold the principles which had been established in the previous and unfortunately unfruitful dialogue with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Holy Father issued Ecclesia Dei, motu proprio, on 2 July 1988. While insisting that the root of the schismatic act of Archbishop Lefebvre lies in an "incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition" which fails to "take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition" (no. 4), he also maintained with equal firmness that "it is necessary that all the pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality, and apostolate" (no. 5, a). Consequently, addressing himself "to all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition," and not just to the former adherents of Archbishop Lefebvre, he expressed his will "to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations (no. 5, c). In order to provide for these legitimate desires of the faithful he established this Pontifical Commission and indicated his mind with regard to its primary task, stating: ". . . respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 typical edition (no. 6, c)." Consequently, Your Excellency, we wish to encourage you to facilitate the proper and reverent celebration of the liturgical rites according to the Roman Miss of 1962 wherever there is a genuine desire for this on the part of the priests and faithful. This should not be construed as a promotion of that Missal in prejudice to the one promulgated eight years later, but simply a pastoral provision to meet the "rightful aspirations" of those who wish to worship according to the Latin liturgical tradition as celebrated for centuries. In the light of the Holy Father's motu proprio, then, we offer the following guidelines and suggestions: 1. There is no reason now why the so-called "Tridentine" Mass cannot be celebrated in a parish church where this would be a genuine pastoral service to the faithful asking for it. Care should be taken, of course, for a harmonious integration into the already existing parish liturgical schedule. 2. The regularity and frequency of the celebration of this liturgy, whether to be celebrated on Sundays, Holydays, and/or weekdays, will depend on the needs of the faithful. Our recommendation is that, in places where the faithful have made a request for the regular celebration for the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal, a weekly Sunday and Holyday Mass be scheduled in a central location and at a convenient time on a trial basis for a period of several months. Afterwards further evaluation and adjustment should be made. 3. Of course the celebrants of the "Tridentine" Mass should not fail in their preaching and contacts with the faithful attending such Masses to emphasize their own adherence to the legislation of the universal Church and their acknowledgment of the doctrinal and juridical value of the liturgy as revised after the Second Vatican Council. Under such conditions, it would seem unnecessary, even unduly painful, to impose further restrictions upon those who wish to attend such celebrations. 4. Although the Holy Father has given this Pontifical Commission the faculty to grant the use of the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal to all those who request it, while the Commission informs the appropriate Ordinary thereof, we would much prefer that such faculties be granted by the Ordinary himself for the sake of strengthening the bond of ecclesial communion between those priests and faithful and their local Pastors. 5. Following upon the "wide and generous application" of the principles laid down in Quattour abhinc annos and the directives of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 51 & 54), the new Lectionary in the vernacular could be used as a way of "providing a richer fare for the faithful at the table of God's Word" in Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. However, we believe that this usage should not be imposed on congregations who decidedly wish to maintain the former liturgical tradition in its integrity according to the provision of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. Such an imposition might also be less likely to invite back to full communion with the Church at this time those who have lapsed into schismatic worship. 6. Since a number of older and retired priests who have a deep appreciation of the previous Latin liturgical tradition have approached their individual Ordinaries as well as this Pontifical Commission to obtain the celebret for the use of the 1962 Missal, it would seem particularly suitable to utilize the services of such priests where possible for the celebration of this Mass. It may well be discovered that even retired priests who have not requested this faculty would nonetheless be willing to provide this special form of pastoral care for those who request it. Finally, Your Excellency, it is my sincere desire that this fraternal letter will be for us who are members of the episcopal college an incentive to exercise that manus episcopale described so beautifully in Lumen Gentium 23: "Individual bishops, insofar as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches, nor the Church universal. But insofar as they are members of the episcopal college and legitimate successors of the apostles, by Christ's arrangement and decree, each is bound to have such care and solicitude for the whole Church which, though it not be exercised by an act of jurisdiction, does for all that redound in an eminent degree to the advantage of the universal Church. For all the bishops have the obligation of fostering and safeguarding the unity of faith and of upholding the discipline which is common to the whole Church." "I am pleased to avail myself of this opportunity to extend my best wishes to you in your shepherding of the flock entrusted to your care and to assure you of my willing collaboration that, in all circumstances, God may be glorified in the worship of His Holy Church." Augustin Card. Mayer, Prefect ======================================================================== DECREE OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (THE "HONOLULU" DECISION) [Mrs. Morley and five other Traditional Catholics in the Diocese of Honolulu, known as "The Honolulu Six," were "excommunicated" by the Bishop of Honolulu on the grounds that they: * established a traditional chapel in the diocese * impugned the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the New Mass for four years on a religious radio program * invited independent and SSPX priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at the chapel * invited an SSPX bishop to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel * disobeyed the bishop [Even in the face of all these acts on the part of The Honolulu Six, the Vatican decreed that the six did not commit the crime of "schism" and declared that the bishop's action in "excommunicating" them was null and void. Subsequently, the bishop was removed from office by the Vatican on a morals charge. [In clear violation of the Vatican's decree, the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, later threatened with "excommunication" any Catholics in his diocese attending the Traditional Latin Mass at independent and SSPX chapels. Although the threat was given much publicity, the bishop in the end backed down when his bluff was called and declined to take any such illegal action.] LETTER On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued on May 1, 1991. His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree declared Mrs. Morely excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in canon 1364.1 of the Code of Canon Law [1983]. This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu. Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect Alberto Bovone, Secretary Vatican City, June 4, 1993