Our story begins not in protest but in mission. In 696 AD, Pope Sergius I consecrated the Anglo-Saxon monk Willibrord as bishop and sent him to evangelize the Netherlands. Willibrord established his See at Utrecht, which became one of the most ancient and venerable dioceses in Christendom.

For a thousand years, the Church in the Netherlands flourished. Utrecht produced:

• Saint Boniface, the “Apostle of Germany”
• Pope Adrian VI (1522)
• Geert Groote, founder of the Brothers of the Common Life
• Thomas à Kempis, author of The Imitation of Christ

In 1145, Pope Eugene III granted the Church of Utrecht significant autonomy, including the right for the cathedral chapter to elect its own bishops. This was not unusual; it reflected the collegial structure of the undivided Church, where patriarchs and metropolitans exercised genuine jurisdiction rather than serving as branch manager administrators of papal decrees.

This ancient privilege would later become the flashpoint for conflict.

Around 1590, the Society of Jesus began systematically attempting to place the Dutch Church under their control. Despite being repeatedly rebuked by various popes and ordered to submit to the Archbishop of Utrecht, the Jesuits persisted.

Why? Not primarily for theological reasons, but for political control and a fundamentally different vision of Church governance. While the Dutch maintained the ancient spirit of poverty and humility that characterized the early Church, much of the Jesuit order had insinuated itself into the courts of Europe’s monarchs, living in the opulent style of the Renaissance papacy.

More troubling were the emerging theological and moral conflicts:

On Moral Theology: The Jesuits promoted a system called “probabilism”—the idea that in moral doubt, one could follow any opinion supported by a reputable theologian, even if many other authorities disagreed. In a thoroughly Catholic society, this might work, but as Blaise Pascal brilliantly satirized in his Provincial Letters, it devolved into Jesuit confessors effectively selling absolution to wealthy patrons based on the size of their donations.

On Sacramental Practice: The Jesuits encouraged frequent communion with minimal preparation, while the Dutch maintained the earlier tradition requiring serious preparation and conversion of life. (Saint Alphonsus Liguori would later vindicate a middle path, but the Dutch were not wrong to resist laxity.)

On Ecclesiastical Authority: This is where theology became most problematic. Saint Ignatius Loyola had written in his Spiritual Exercises that Jesuits should be prepared to say “that the white which I see is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it.” This is not Catholic obedience; it is blind obedience that confuses papal authority with the ability to alter reality through verbal decree. This is precisely the Modernist error: that through “dialogue” we can make white become black, that truth is malleable to ecclesiastical will.

In 1691, the Jesuits accused Archbishop Peter Codde of Utrecht of favoring “Jansenism.” This accusation requires careful explanation because it is often misunderstood and was certainly misused.

What Was Actually Condemned: In 1653, Pope Innocent X condemned five propositions about grace and free will as heretical. These propositions, if actually taught, would indeed be contrary to Catholic faith. No one disputes this.

The Real Controversy: The Jesuits claimed these condemned propositions appeared in the Augustinus, a work by Cornelius Jansen defending Augustinian theology. Archbishop Codde and many other bishops, theologians, and university faculties disputed this claim. They did not defend the condemned propositions; they denied that these propositions were in Jansen’s work.

Pope Alexander VII then demanded that everyone sign a formulary not just condemning the propositions (which Catholics could legitimately do) but attributing them to Jansen (which would be perjury if one knew they weren’t there). Archbishop Codde refused, not because he favored heresy, but because he would not bear false witness against a dead bishop.

A Modern Parallel: Imagine if a pope demanded you sign a statement saying “Archbishop Lefebvre denied papal infallibility” when you knew he affirmed it. The issue isn’t whether papal infallibility is true (it is), but whether you’ll lie about what someone actually taught.

When Archbishop Codde refused to sign, he was suspended in 1699 and deposed in 1704, without trial, without being allowed to defend himself, solely on Jesuit accusations proven groundless by the first commission of cardinals that investigated him. Even a papal canonist, Hyacinth de Archangelis, declared the deposition irregular and likely invalid.

The Fundamental Issue: This was never really about Jansenism. It was about whether local churches retained their ancient rights to elect bishops and manage their own affairs under the universal canons of the Church, or whether the papacy had evolved into an absolute monarchy that could override all previous law and custom by decree.

The Councils of Constance (1414-1418) and others had explicitly affirmed that councils derive their authority directly from Christ, that even popes are bound by them in matters of faith, and that the rights of particular churches under their bishop, to govern themselves according to canon law, must be preserved. The Jesuits, by contrast, promoted ultramontanism in a form that could be described as hyperpapalist, the belief in nearly unlimited papal power.

By 1739, the See of Utrecht had been functionally vacant for decades. The faithful were without bishops to confirm them or ordain priests. Rome had appointed administrators the Dutch clergy and laity refused to recognize as legitimate, given the irregular deposition of Archbishop Codde.

Dominique Marie Varlet, a Roman Catholic bishop (Bishop of Ascalon in partibus) who had served as auxiliary to the Bishop of Quebec and Vicar General for Louisiana, found himself in the Netherlands. Recognizing the genuine spiritual emergency, faithful Catholics without sacraments, he consecrated Peter John Meindaerts as Archbishop of Utrecht on October 15, 1739, without having obtained a papal bull authorizing the consecration.

Was This Schismatic? Not according to the theology and canon law of the time:

1. Apostolic Succession Was Preserved: Varlet was an unquestionably valid Roman Catholic bishop. The consecration followed the traditional Pontificale Romanum exactly. No one, not even Rome, has ever questioned the validity of the orders conferred.
2. State of Necessity Applied: Canon law has always recognized that in extreme necessity, bishops may act to preserve the sacramental life of the faithful even without all usual permissions. This principle would later be invoked by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 for similar reasons.
3. The Original Injustice Remained Unaddressed: Rome never repaired the wrong done to Archbishop Codde or restored the ancient rights of Utrecht. The “schism” was imposed on the Dutch, not chosen by them.

From 1739 forward, the Church of Utrecht retained:

• The complete Catholic Faith
• The seven sacraments are celebrated according to traditional rites
• The Roman Rite Mass of Pope Gregory the Great, later codified by Pope Pius V
• The Divine Office in Latin
• Clerical celibacy as the norm
• All Catholic devotions (rosary, stations, litanies, etc.)
• Recognition of papal primacy (while disputing its abuse)

The Second Council of Utrecht (1763) under Archbishop Meindaerts stands as a monument of orthodoxy. The decrees from that council could be read in any Roman Catholic seminary of the era without raising an eyebrow.

In 1823, Archbishop Willibrord van Os and his two suffragan bishops made a formal declaration to the Papal Nuncio:

“We accept, without any exception whatever, all the Articles of the holy Catholic faith… We will never hold nor teach, now or afterwards, any other opinions than those that have been decreed, determined, and published by our Mother, Holy Church… We reject and condemn everything opposed to them, especially all heresies, without any exception, which the Church has rejected and condemned… We have never made common cause with those who have broken the bond of unity.”

This was not the language of rebels, but of faithful Catholics pleading for justice.

The Roman Catholic Church repeatedly acknowledged the validity of Old Roman Catholic orders and sacraments:

• Addis and Arnold’s Roman Catholic Dictionary: “They have retained valid orders… We have been unable to discover any trace of heresy in these books.”
• Donald Attwater’s A Catholic Dictionary (with imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes of New York): “Their orders and sacraments are valid.”
• Father Conrad Algermissen’s Christian Denominations (1948, imprimatur of Cardinal Glennon of St. Louis): The North American Old Roman Catholic Church has “received valid episcopal consecration.”
• The Columban Fathers’ magazine The Far East (January 1928): Answering an inquiry about orders in the Old Roman Catholic Church, they state simply: “These orders are valid.”

Most recently and authoritatively, Pope John Paul II’s Dominus Iesus §17 (2000) explicitly states that churches with valid apostolic succession and Eucharist are “true particular Churches” despite a lack of full communion with Rome. We possess “the closest bonds” with Rome “by means of apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist.”