Contending For The Faith---Part 57

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

***N.B. Special Note To My Readers: I ask you all in charity to please pray for the mother of one of my long-time readers---Poni. Her mom is seriously ill and needs our prayers for a full return to health and resignation to the Will of God. Please say a special prayer for Poni's mother and for Poni herself, that God may give her strength during this most trying and sorrowful time.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Proofs of the Resurrection: Debunking the Conspiracy Hypothesis

There are numerous attempts by the enemies of Christ to deny His physical resurrection from the dead. There are four (4) basic arguments to explain away Christ's resurrection: (1) it was a hallucination of the Apostles; (2) the Apostles created a myth-- they did not mean what they taught to be literal; (3) the Apostles conspired to deceive the world; and (4) Christ didn't really die, he "swooned" and later fully recovered. 

In this post, I will refute the so-called "Conspiracy Hypothesis." (N.B. The information contained in this post comes from myriad sources, both in print and online. I take no credit other than condensing the material into a terse and readable post---Introibo). 

What is The Conspiracy Hypothesis?

The Conspiracy Hypothesis against the resurrection of Christ is also known as the stolen body hypothesis. It claims that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, and that His body was instead secretly removed from the tomb by His disciples, who then fabricated the story of a resurrection. According to the Gospel of Saint Matthew (St. Matthew 28:11–15), when the tomb was found empty, the chief priests and elders bribed the Roman guards on duty, telling them to say: "His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep."

This narrative is one of the earliest recorded alternative explanations to the resurrection, used by critics of Christianity (most notably the Jews) in antiquity to account for the missing Body. Why would Christ's followers steal the Body of Our Lord and conspire to lie about Him rising from the dead? Several reasons are advanced:

• Fulfill Christ's Predictions: They would fabricate a scenario that matched Jesus's earlier prophecies that He would rise after three days. They didn't want to be humiliated that the One they followed did not have His predictions come true. 

• Maintain the Movement: Keep their messianic hopes, authority, or movement alive after the demoralizing shock of His public crucifixion.

• Pious Deceit: Perpetuate a "noble lie" out of devotion or a desire to promote Christ's ethical teachings

The Conspiracy Hypothesis is demonstrably false.

What Constitutes Evidence for Historians?

Historians weigh various factors in assessing competing hypotheses. Some of the most important are as follows:

1.  The best explanation will have greater explanatory scope than other explanations. That is, it will explain more of the evidence.

2.  The best explanation will have greater explanatory power than other explanations. That is, it will make the evidence more probable.

3. The best explanation will be more plausible than other explanations. That is, it will fit better with true background beliefs.

4. The best explanation will be less contrived than other explanations. That is, it won’t require adopting as many new beliefs which have no independent evidence.

5. The best explanation will be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than other explanations. That is, it won’t conflict with as many accepted beliefs.

6. The best explanation will meet conditions (1)-(5) so much better than the others that there’s little chance that one of the other explanations, after further investigation, will do better in meeting these conditions.

(See C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions [1984], pg. 19; Emphasis in original). 

Since a hypothesis may do really well in meeting some conditions but not so well in meeting others, figuring out which hypothesis is the best explanation may often be difficult and requires skill. However, if the explanatory scope and power of a hypothesis are very great, so that it does a much better job in explaining a wide variety of facts, then it’s likely to be the true explanation.

So let’s apply these tests to the typical hypotheses which have been offered down through history to explain the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, and let’s see if they do better or as well in explaining these facts as the dogma of the Resurrection. 

According to this hypothesis, the disciples stole the body of Jesus and lied about his appearances, thus faking the resurrection. This was the very first counter-explanation for the empty tomb, as we’ve seen, and it was revived during the eighteenth century by European  Deists. Today, however, this explanation has been completely given up by modern scholarship.  We can see why when we assess it by the standard criteria for testing historical hypotheses.

1. Explanatory scope.  The Conspiracy Hypothesis does seem to cover the full scope of the evidence, for it offers explanations of the empty tomb (the disciples stole the body), the post-mortem appearances (the disciples lied about seeing Jesus), and the origin of the disciples’ (supposed) belief in Jesus’ resurrection (again, they lied).

2. Explanatory power.  How probable is the evidence, given the Conspiracy Hypothesis?  Here doubts begin to arise about the adequacy of the hypothesis. 

First, consider the story of the empty tomb.  If the disciples stole Jesus’ corpse, then it would be utterly pointless to fabricate a story about women finding the tomb to be empty.  Such a story would not be the sort of tale Jewish men would invent.  Moreover, the simplicity of the story is not what one would expect, given the Conspiracy Hypothesis—where are the Scriptural proof-texts, the evidence of fulfilled prophecy?  Why isn’t Jesus described as emerging from the tomb, as in later forgeries like the so-called "Gospel of Peter"?  Neither is the dispute with non-believing Jews well-explained.  Why isn’t St. Matthew’s guard already there in St. Mark’s story?  Even in St. Matthew’s story the guard is set too late: the body could have already been stolen before the guard arrived on Saturday morning, so that they were guarding, unbeknownst to them, an empty tomb!  For a failsafe alibi against theft of the body, see again the forged Gospel of Peter, where the guard is set immediately upon interment of the corpse. 

As for the appearance stories, similar problems arise.  A fabricator would probably describe Jesus’ resurrection appearances in terms of Old Testament visions of God and descriptions of the end-time resurrection (as in Daniel 12.2).  But then Jesus should appear to the disciples in dazzling glory.  And why not a description of the resurrection itself?  Why no appearances to Caiaphas the high priest or to the villains on the Sanhedrin, as Jesus predicted?  They could be then branded as the real liars for denying that Jesus did appear to them! 

However, the explanatory power of the Conspiracy Hypothesis is undoubtedly weakest when it comes to the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.  For the hypothesis is really a denial of that fact; it seeks to explain the mere semblance of belief on the disciples’ part.  But as critics have universally recognized, you can’t plausibly deny that the earliest disciples at least sincerely believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. They staked their very lives on that conviction.  The transformation in the lives of the disciples is not credibly explained by the hypothesis of a conspiracy.  This shortcoming alone has been enough in the minds of most scholars to sink the old Conspiracy Hypothesis forever.

3. Plausibility.  The real Achilles’ Heel of the Conspiracy Hypothesis is, however, its implausibility.  One might mention here objections to the unbelievable complexity of such a conspiracy or the supposed psychological state of the disciples; but the overriding problem that dwarfs all others is that it is wholly anachronistic to suppose that first century Jews intended to hoax Jesus’ resurrection.  The Conspiracy Hypothesis views the disciples’ situation through the rearview mirror of Christian history rather than through the eyes of a first century Jew. 

In the first place, there was no expectation in Judaism of a Messiah who, instead of establishing David’s throne and subduing Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by the Gentiles as a criminal.  Moreover, the Jewish idea of resurrection was just unconnected with the idea of Messiah and even incompatible with it, since Messiah was not supposed to be killed.  As N. T. Wright nicely puts it, if you’re a first century Jew, and your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you’ve basically got two choices: either you go home or else you get yourself a new Messiah.

Secondly, the Jewish conception of resurrection of the dead differed in at least two fundamental respects from the resurrection of Jesus.

 It is a fact that in Jewish thinking the resurrection to glory and immortality always occurred after the end of the world.  Jews had no idea of a resurrection within history. That’s why, I think, the disciples had so much trouble understanding Jesus’ predictions of his own resurrection. They thought he was talking about the resurrection at the end of the world. Look at St. Mark 9:9-11, for example:

And as they were coming down from the mountain, He gave them orders not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man should rise from the dead. And they seized upon that statement, discussing with one another what rising from the dead might mean. And they began questioning Him, saying, “Why is it that the scribes say that first Elijah must come?”

Here Jesus predicts His resurrection, and what do the disciples ask? “Why is it that the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” In first century Judaism it was believed the prophet Elijah would come again before the great and terrible Day of the Lord, the judgment day when the dead would be raised. The disciples could not understand the idea of a resurrection occurring within history prior to the end of the world. Hence, Jesus’ predictions only confused them.

Thus, given the Jewish conception of the resurrection, the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion would not have come up with the strange idea that he had been already raised. They would in all probability have looked forward to the resurrection at the last day and, in keeping with Jewish custom, perhaps preserved his tomb as a shrine where his bones could rest until the resurrection.

Secondly, in Jewish thinking the resurrection was always the resurrection of all the righteous dead.  Jews had no idea of the resurrection of an isolated individual apart from the general resurrection. Moreover, there was simply no connection between the individual believer’s resurrection and the prior resurrection of the Messiah.  That’s why we find no examples of other failed messianic movements claiming that their executed leader was risen from the dead. 

First century Jews had no idea of the resurrection of an isolated individual, especially of the Messiah, in advance of the general resurrection at the end of the world.  So the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of these Jewish disciples of Jesus nor seemed to them a plausible strategy for evangelizing their fellow Jews!

What about influences from outside Judaism?  A suggestion widespread on the Internet today is that early Christians came up with the idea of Jesus’ resurrection through the influence of pagan mythology.  This suggestion is an old one.  Back around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, scholars in comparative religion collected parallels to Christian beliefs in other religious movements, and some even thought to explain Christian beliefs, including the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, as the result of the influence of such myths. The movement soon collapsed, however, principally due to two factors:

(a) Scholars came to realize that the parallels are false.  The ancient world was a virtual fruit basket of myths of various gods and heroes.  Comparative studies in religion require sensitivity to their similarities and differences, or distortion and confusion inevitably result.  Unfortunately, those who were eager to find parallels to Jesus’ resurrection failed to exercise such sensitivity. 

Many of the alleged parallels are actually stories of the assumption of the hero into heaven (Hercules, Romulus).  Others are disappearance stories, which claim that the hero has vanished into a higher sphere (Apollonius of Tyana, Empedocles).  Still others are seasonal symbols for the crop cycle, as the vegetation dies in the dry season and comes back to life in the rainy season (Tammuz, Osiris, Adonis). Some are political expressions of Emperor worship (Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus).

None of these ideas is parallel to the Jewish idea of the resurrection of the dead.  Indeed, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any myths of dying and rising gods at all. For example, in the myth of Osiris, which was one of the best known symbolic seasonal myths, Osiris doesn’t really come back to life but simply continues to exist in the realm of the dead. 

Scholars have come to realize that pagan mythology is simply the wrong interpretive context for understanding Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus and his disciples were first century Israelite Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.  The collapse of the alleged parallels is just one indication that pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive context for understanding the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

(b) There is in any case no causal connection between the pagan myths and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.  Jews were familiar with the seasonal pagan deities (Ezekiel 8.14-15) and found them abhorrent.  That’s why there is no trace of cults of dying and rising gods at all in first century Israel.  It’s pretty unlikely that the original disciples would have come up with the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead because they had heard pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal deities. So scholars have universally abandoned this approach.  Internet sceptics are over 100 years out of date.

Notice that this criticism undermines not only conspiracy theories, which suppose that the disciples insincerely proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection, but also any theory which suggests that, on the basis of pagan or Jewish influences, they sincerely came to believe in and preached his resurrection.

4. Less contrived.  Like all conspiracy theories of history, the Conspiracy Hypothesis is contrived in supposing that what all the evidence seems to point to is, in fact, mere appearance only, to be explained away by hypotheses for which there is no evidence.  Specifically, it postulates motives and ideas in the minds of the earliest disciples and actions on their part for which there is not a shred of evidence.  It can become even more contrived, as hypotheses have to be multiplied to deal with objections to the theory, for example, how to account for the appearance to the 500 brethren or the women’s role in the empty tomb and appearance stories.

5. Disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.  The Conspiracy Hypothesis tends to be disconfirmed by our general knowledge of conspiracies, their instability and tendency to unravel.  Moreover, it is disconfirmed by accepted beliefs such as the sincerity of the disciples, the nature of first century Jewish messianic expectations, and so on.

6. Exceeds other hypotheses in fulfilling conditions (1)-(5).  This condition is obviously not met, since there are better hypotheses (such as the Hallucination Hypothesis), which don’t dismiss the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection as a blatant lie.

No scholar would defend the Conspiracy Hypothesis today. The only place you read about such things is in the popular, sensationalist press or on the Internet.

Conclusion

The Conspiracy Hypothesis has no plausibility. Consider the Apostles behavior after the resurrection. The change in their lives from fear to faith, despair to confidence, confusion to certitude, runaway cowardice to steadfast boldness under threat and persecution, not only proves their sincerity but testifies to some powerful cause of it. Can a lie cause such a transformation? Obviously not. The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a fact of history and not some conspiratorial fraud.

Mortal Sin Or Material Error: The Una Cum Verdict The Church Already Rendered

 

To My Readers: This week's post by guest poster Ozon goes into the "Una Cum" controversy. His post is very well-written and has excellent citations. As my regular readers know, I believe the so-called Una Cum is licit to attend. See my comprehensive post on the topic of Una Cum here: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/03/undeclared-heretics.html.

I am in basic agreement with Ozon's conclusion. He approaches the problem from a slightly different angle than I do, but I think it's definitely further confirmation that the "Una Cum Mass" is not off limits for Traditionalists. I also maintain that if you feel you cannot attend Una Cum in good conscience, you shouldn't. 

Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific question or comment for me, I will answer as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Mortal Sin Or Material Error: The Una Cum Verdict The Church Already Rendered

By Ozon

Part I: The Sunday Morning Dilemma

It is 7:45 AM on a cold, overcast Sunday morning.

An old station wagon sits idling in an empty parking lot three miles outside of town. The engine hums. The heater rattles. And inside that car, a father of five grips the steering wheel so hard his knuckles have gone white.

His wife sits beside him, quiet, her thumb holding page 625 of a well worn 1962 St. Andrew Daily Missal. She has not turned that page in four minutes.

In the back seat, five children. Dressed. Groomed. Silent. Not fidgeting. Not fighting. That alone tells you something is wrong.

This family has already driven past three local diocesan parishes to reach this gravel lot. That part was easy. Every traditional Catholic makes the same calculation on Sunday morning: bypass the guitar Masses, the felt banners, the liturgical experiments, and head for the chapel where the Faith is preserved intact.

But the agonizing decision is what waits five minutes down this two lane county road.

A traditional Latin Mass chapel. Silk vestments. Gregorian chant rising toward oak rafters. The Roman Canon whispered with exquisite precision by a validly ordained, deeply reverent Catholic priest.

Everything this father has fought to give his family.

Yet he cannot bring himself to put the car in drive.

Why?

Because forty minutes into that Mass, after the Confiteor, after the Introit, after the Gloria, the priest will bow low over the altar cloth, trace three signs of the cross above the bread and chalice, and murmur seven Latin words during the Te Igitur:

"...una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro Leone..."

("...together with Thy servant Leo, our Pope...")

Seven words. Spoken in a whisper. Heard by almost no one in the nave.

To ninety nine percent of the Christian world, that phrase is completely invisible, a liturgical technicality buried inside the most ancient prayer in Western Christendom.

But inside the passionate, fractured world of traditional Catholicism, those seven words are an ecclesiastical fault line. They have torn families apart. Ended lifelong friendships. Driven wedges between priest and penitent, husband and wife, father and son. And right now, in that gravel parking lot, they are determining where this man's conscience will spend its Sunday.

He is caught in the crosshairs of a ruthless theological war. And every side is aiming at his soul:

In Camp A, an influential online polemicist and an independent priest have warned him, in writing, in public, in terms that admit no ambiguity, that crossing that chapel door makes him an objective traitor to the Catholic Faith. Their argument is blunt:

"To assist at an 'Una Cum' Mass naming a notorious heretic is to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar. You are offering sacrifice in union with apostasy. It is a mortal sin of illicit communicatio in sacris. Stay home. Lock your door. Pray the Rosary on your knees."

To this camp, attendance is not a gray area. It is spiritual treason.

In Camp B, the Society of Saint Pius X and classic canonical apologists fire back with the opposite warning: sever yourself from the public name of the visible Roman Pontiff, and you sever yourself from the visible structure of the Catholic Church itself. To refuse the Una cum altogether, they contend, risks sliding into a schismatic mindset, sectarian isolation that ends in dogmatic suicide. 

To this camp, non attendance is the real danger.

And then there is Camp C, the largest camp of all, though it has no website and no spokesman. These are the exhausted lay Catholics who wander between chapels, week after week, haunted by a single question: Does the priest's personal theology or factual error at the altar somehow contaminate the Host?

Or can an ordinary layman kneel in the pews, beg God for mercy, and receive the Bread of Life without adopting the clerical politics of the sanctuary?

Camp C has no manifesto. It has five children in the back of a station wagon and a dashboard clock that now reads 7:50 AM.

The father stares through the windshield. The road ahead is straight and empty.

To stay home feels like spiritual starvation: his family cut off from the Mass, from the Eucharist, from the sacramental life that is the oxygen of the Catholic soul.

To enter, according to at least one priest he trusts, is spiritual treason, a mortal sin that places him outside the communion of the faithful.

Starvation on the left. Treason on the right. And five minutes of county road in between.

How did we arrive here?

How did the most sublime prayer in Christendom, the Roman Canon, older than every cathedral in Europe, become an intellectual minefield that paralyzes a father in a parking lot?

Is attendance at an "Una Cum Mass" an act of apostasy? Or is the anti-Una Cum position a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic sacramental theology, liturgical history, and canonical culpability, an error built on passion rather than principle, internet polemics rather than the Church's own jurisprudence?

To answer that question, we have to do something almost no one in this debate has been willing to do.

We have to set aside the blog posts. Lower the emotional temperature. And open the classic tomes of the Church herself: the scholastic dogmatics of St. Thomas Aquinas, the penal jurisprudence of the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, and the time tested moral casuistry of the Church's greatest doctors.

That is what this treatise does. From primary sources. Page by page. Canon by canon.

And the answer, when you see it laid bare, may change where you spend next Sunday morning.

Part II: The Status Quaestionis (From Polemics to Principles)

The fiery debates between sedevacantists who recognize that the laity may attend an una cum Mass out of spiritual necessity and strict "non una cum" sedevacantist factions do not turn on whether modernism is dangerous; every traditionalist agrees that Catholic doctrine is currently weathering a historic crisis.

The real clash turns entirely on three specific questions of dogmatic theology, clerical guilt, and moral cooperation:

Sacramental Mechanics and Liturgical History: What actually happens when a priest speaks the Una cum in the Roman Canon? Does naming an unorthodox prelate invalidate the Mass, or transform the Sacrifice of Calvary into a schismatic rite? The historical record is unambiguous: when emperors and kings fell into heresy, the Church struck their names from the liturgical diptychs immediately. The Te Igitur has never tolerated the commemoration of a notorious heretic. That means inserting such a name is an objective liturgical defect. But does that defect destroy the Sacrifice itself, or does the sacramental power of the priesthood, operating in persona Christi, remain untouched?

Clerical Guilt: What is the moral and legal standing of a traditional priest who recites the Una cum under good faith (bona fides) or factual error (error facti)? Is he automatically guilty of formal heresy, damned by the words on his lips, or is he laboring under an innocent material mistake that canon law has always distinguished from criminal intent?

Lay Assistance and Canon 2261, §2: Does an informed Catholic in the pew, who knows full well that the named prelate is objectively compromised, commit a mortal sin by attending? What constitutes a canonical "just cause" (iusta causa) permitting attendance, and how does classical casuistry allow the faithful to assist at the Holy Sacrifice without participating in the celebrant's error?

The treatise that follows systematically untangles each of these questions. It draws from primary canonical decrees, papal constitutions, and manualist theology, not blog posts, not polemical pamphlets, not YouTube influencers.

And it demonstrates three things the father in that parking lot desperately needs to know: why the Holy Sacrifice remains pure, how clerical error is judged under Catholic jurisprudence, and how an informed layman may lawfully conduct his conscience on Sunday morning.

Part III: The Dogmatic, Ecclesiological, and Liturgical Nature of the Una Cum

3.1 The Dual Character of the Te Igitur: Intercessory Petition and Profession of Communion

To understand the legal and dogmatic function of the Una cum, it is essential to first understand its liturgical nature. Grammatically and liturgically, the Una cum clause is fundamentally an intercessory prayer. It constitutes the opening petition of the Great Intercession within the Roman Canon of the Mass.

The Una cum occurs within the Te Igitur, the opening prayer of the Anaphora. The priest prays:

"In primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N., et Antistite nostro N., et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus."

("Which in the first place we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church: that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to pacify, guard, unite, and govern her throughout the whole world: together with Thy servant N. our Pope, and N. our Bishop, and all orthodox believers and maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.")

As Rev. Adrian Fortescue explains in his historical analysis of the Roman Mass in The Catholic Encyclopedia, this prayer is an explicit petition of supplication and intercession. The priest asks Almighty God to grant specific spiritual and temporal blessings to the Church: peace (pacificare), protection (custodire), visible unity (adunare), and divine governance (regere). The Una cum phrase specifies that this intercession for the welfare of the Universal Church is offered alongside and on behalf of the visible earthly heads of the Church, the Sovereign Pontiff and the local diocesan Ordinary.

In the Summa Theologiae (II II, q. 83, a. 17; III, q. 83, a. 4), St. Thomas Aquinas analyzes the different types of prayer contained within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, building upon St. Paul's instruction to Timothy ("that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men", 1 Tim. 2:1):

Supplications (Obsecrationes): The preparatory prayers calling upon God's mercy.

Prayers (Orationes): The consecration itself, wherein the mind is raised directly to God in the highest sense.

Intercessions (Postulationes or Intercessiones): The petitions that precede and follow the consecration, in which the priest implores divine graces for specific intentions and persons.

Thanksgivings (Gratiarum Actiones): The prayers of gratitude that conclude the sacred rite.

St. Thomas Aquinas places the petitions for the Universal Church, the Pope, the local Bishop, the civil rulers, and the living and deceased faithful squarely under the category of intercessions (intercessiones). In these prayers, the priest, acting in persona totius Ecclesiae (in the person of the whole Church), pleads the infinite merits of Christ's Eucharistic Sacrifice before God the Father on behalf of the Church's earthly hierarchy and faithful.

While the Una cum is grammatically and interiorly an intercessory petition, it simultaneously carries a canonically binding function as a public manifestation of visible communion (communio):

An Intercession for the Hierarchy: The Church intercedes for her chief pastors so that God may grant them the grace, wisdom, fortitude, and orthodoxy necessary to govern the flock of Christ effectively.

A Test of Orthodox Communion: Because public intercession at the altar is offered pro Ecclesia (for the Church) and una cum (together with) her legitimate shepherds, naming a prelate in the Te Igitur publicly testifies that the priest and congregation are in active, visible communion with that prelate.

As Rev. Eric MacKenzie observes in The Delict of Heresy, the Church's liturgical law forbids offering the official, public intercessions of the Canon for notorious heretics or excommunicates as if they were valid pastors of the Church, because public liturgical intercession implies active, mutual membership in the same Mystical Body.

To summarize, the Una cum is an intercessory petition asking God to preserve, govern, and unify His Church together with her earthly chief pastors. At the same time, because it names the Pope and Bishop as the living anchors of that Church, it doubles as the official professing of visible communion between the altar and the Catholic hierarchy.

3.2 Sacerdotal Agency: In Persona Christi versus In Persona Totius Ecclesiae

To analyze the mechanics of the Una cum, one must employ the classical scholastic distinction regarding the dual operational mode of the ordained priest at the altar.

St. Thomas Aquinas establishes in the Summa Theologiae (III, q. 82, a. 5; q. 82, a. 7, ad 3; q. 83, a. 1, corp. et ad 3) that in the actual consecration of the Eucharistic species, the priest operates exclusively in persona Christi. By virtue of the character imprinted upon his soul at ordination, the priest is an instrumental cause through whom Christ Himself acts as the principal minister. Consequently, the consecration of the bread and wine depends strictly upon valid matter, proper form, a validly ordained priest, and the sacramental intention to do what the Church does (intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia).

Conversely, in reciting the surrounding prayers, supplications, and intercessions of the liturgy—most notably the prayers of the Canon before and after the consecration—the celebrant acts in persona totius Ecclesiae ("in the person of the whole Church"). In these prayers, the priest acts as the Church's public legate, offering intercessory petitions in her name.

As St. Thomas demonstrates in Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 5, the personal holiness, orthodoxy, or ecclesiastical standing of the minister does not destroy the validity of the sacrifice:

"The priest, in reciting the prayers of the Mass, speaks in the person of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates Mass... because he consecrates in the person of Christ, he performs a true sacrament; but because he offers prayers in the person of the Church, from whose unity he is separated, his prayers have no efficacy."

(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 5, corp.; see also q. 82, a. 7, corp.).

Sacramental validity is wholly insulated from the celebrant's personal theology or liturgical intercessions. The bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ ex opere operato the moment the words of consecration are pronounced, regardless of the names whispered minutes earlier in the Te Igitur.

                 

3.3 The Meaning of Una Cum in Liturgical Hermeneutics

The opening intercession of the Roman Canon reads:

"In primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre, et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro N., et Antístite nostro N., et ómnibus orthodóxis, atquæ cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus."

(Missale Romanum, Canon Missae).

Grammatically and liturgically, the phrase una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. does not signify that the sacrifice is offered by the Pope or that its intrinsic efficacy depends upon the doctrinal purity of the named pontiff or bishop. Rather, as liturgical historians and canonists observe, the clause is an intercessory qualification: the sacrifice is offered on behalf of (pro) the whole Church, together with (una cum) its visible hierarchical head, the local ordinary, and all orthodox confessors of the Catholic faith (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, entry "Canon of the Mass," sub-entry "Te Igitur," pp. 256–257).

If an erring or illegitimate name is inserted, the Eucharistic consecration remains completely valid because sacramental power flows from Holy Orders and the sacramental form, not from the accuracy of the intercessory list (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 5, ad 1; q. 83, a. 1).

3.4 Liturgical Diptychs, Temporal Rulers, and the Exclusion of Heretics from the Roman Canon

To understand the legal and dogmatic function of the Una cum, it is essential to examine the origin of the clause in the ancient liturgical diptychs and the Church’s unbending discipline regarding who may be named at the altar.

Historically, the practice of naming the Pope, local ordinary, and Christian sovereigns (et Rege nostro) in the Te Igitur developed directly from the ancient diptychs—the two-leaved tablets read publicly during the Eucharistic liturgy containing the roll call of the faithful living and dead (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, entry "Diptych," pp. 22–24; Vol. 3, entry "Canon of the Mass," sub-entry "Te Igitur," p. 257).

A critical historical and dogmatic fact governs this practice: If an emperor, king, or prelate fell into notorious heresy, public schism, or was formally excommunicated, he was strictly and immediately excluded from the diptychs and barred from commemoration in the Canon of the Mass.

Catholic liturgical law and dogmatic jurisprudence have always maintained that public liturgical commemoration at the altar requires visible communion in the true Faith:

The Absolute Exclusion of Non-Catholics from the Diptychs:

The ancient diptychs admitted exclusively those who lived and died in full, visible communion with the Catholic Church. As liturgical historians document in The Catholic Encyclopedia, the names of heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates were rigorously erased. No earthly status could preserve a ruler from this penalty: "the highest dignity, episcopal or imperial, would not avail to save the offender from its infliction" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, entry "Diptych," p. 23).

Historical Precedents of Striking Heretical Emperors from the Canon:

When Byzantine rulers embraced heterodoxy, the Holy See and the Roman clergy responded by striking their names from the public prayers of the altar:

The Monothelite Crisis (712 AD): When the Byzantine Emperor Philippicus Bardanes embraced the Monothelite heresy and burned the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople (Sixth Ecumenical Council), Pope Constantine and the Church of Rome rejected his imperial authority in sacred affairs. The Romans refused to place his image on coins, refused to erect his statue in churches, and explicitly refused to recite his name in the Canon of the Mass (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, entry "Pope Constantine," p. 294; Vol. 12, entry "Philippicus," p. 12).

The Iconoclast Persecution: When Emperor Leo III the Isaurian decreed the destruction of sacred images and threatened the Roman Pontiff, Pope St. Gregory II and Pope St. Gregory III formally condemned the heresy and expunged the imperial name from liturgical honor.

The English Reformation: When King Henry VIII and later Queen Elizabeth I separated England from the Holy See and established state heresy, the Popes excommunicated them, ensuring that no Catholic priest could lawfully include et Rege nostro or et Regina nostra for a separated, non-Catholic sovereign.

The Syntactic and Doctrinal Intrinsic Contradiction:

The Te Igitur asks God to guard and govern His Church:

 ...una cum [...] et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus. 

Because the prayer characterizes those in communion as "orthodox believers and maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith," the deliberate liturgical commemoration of an acknowledged, notorious heretic involves an intrinsic objective falsehood.

Public Liturgical Oblation (In Persona Ecclesiae) vs. Private Intercession:

St. Thomas Aquinas clarifies in the Summa Theologiae (III, q. 82, a. 5; q. 83, a. 4) that prayers offered in persona Ecclesiae belong strictly to the Mystical Body. While a priest may offer private suffrages or pray privately for the conversion of an excommunicate, the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici codifies this classical doctrine in Canon 2262, §1: excommunicated persons are strictly excluded from the public liturgical prayers (publicae orationes) of the Church (cf. Eric F. MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, pp. 34–38).

Royal Indults Applied Strictly to Catholic Princes:

When temporal monarchs were commemorated in the Canon—such as before the 1570 reform of Pope St. Pius V, or under subsequent apostolic indults granted to the Spanish Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg monarchy—Rev. Adrian Fortescue observes that these concessions applied strictly to Catholic princes who governed in formal submission to the Holy See (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 257).

The Theological Bearing on the Present Inquiry:

Liturgical history definitively demonstrates that the Church’s objective law excludes notorious heretics from the Una cum. Therefore, inserting the name of an objective heretic is an objective liturgical defect.

However, this objective defect does not solve the subjective question: 

What is the canonical status of a priest who recites the name under invincible ignorance or factual error (error facti)? As established below in Part IV, an objective liturgical anomaly does not constitute a canonical delict without formal pertinacity, nor does it destroy the validity of the sacrifice consecrated in persona Christi.

Part IV: Canonical Jurisprudence and Delictual Imputability: Formal versus Material Heresy

4.1 The Delict of Heresy and Canonical Imputability

Canon law and Catholic moral theology make a strict distinction between the objective reality of an error (error materialis) and the subjective criminality of a delict (delictum formale).

Under the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, Canon 1325, §2 defines the canonical categories:

"Any person who, after receiving baptism, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he falls away entirely from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; if he rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic."

(CIC 1917, Canon 1325, §2; cf. Stanislaus Woywod, The New Canon Law, p. 270).

For any error to become a canonical delict (delictum) carrying ecclesiastical penalties and loss of office, moral jurisprudence demands the concurrence of two distinct elements:

The Material Element (factum externum): An external proposition or action contrary to a dogma of the Catholic faith.

The Formal Element (pertinacia or malicious intent): A deliberate, obstinate resistance to the known teaching authority of the Church.

Rev. Eric F. MacKenzie, in his definitive canonical study The Delict of Heresy in Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, No. 77 [1932], Chapter II, "The Material Element of the Delict," pp. 22–29; Chapter III, "The Formal Element: Pertinacity," pp. 32–41), demonstrates that pertinacity does not denote temporal duration, stubbornness of temperament, or vehement passion, but rather the conscious, willful rejection of a truth known to be proposed by the Church as divinely revealed:

"The absence of pertinacity excuses a person from the delict of heresy. Mere objective opposition to Catholic doctrine does not constitute a canonical crime without internal obstinacy against the Church's magisterium."

(MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, Chapter III, pp. 34–36).

This principle aligns directly with Canons 2199 and 2200 of the 1917 Code. While Canon 2200, §2 dictates that when an external violation of the law occurs, intentional malice (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved, this presumption is strictly iuris tantum (rebuttable by evidence). It yields completely to proven ignorance, inadvertence, or error:

"Ignorance of the law or of the penalty excuses from all penalty, provided the ignorance was not affected or crass... Likewise, an erroneous judgment or inadvertence excuses."

(CIC 1917, Canon 2202, §1; cf. MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, pp. 36–38).

4.2 The Celebrant Operating under Error Facti (Good Faith / Bona Fides)

When applied to the priest standing at the altar, the distinction between formal malice and material participation is definitive:

Theological Category

• Formal Malice (Dolus / Pertinacia)
• Material Error (Error Facti / Bona Fides)

Interior Motive

• Willful adhesion to heresy; deliberate intent to communicate with an acknowledged false teacher.
• Sincere intent to offer the Holy Mass in union with the legitimate Catholic hierarchy.

State of Mind

• Clear knowledge of heresy paired with obstinate rejection of the Magisterium.
• Invincible ignorance, erroneous factual judgment, or misapprehension of the prelate's true canonical standing.

Canonical Guilt

• Incurs ipso facto excommunication (Canon 2314, §1) and canonical infamy.
• Free from canonical censures; acts under a blameless material mistake (Canon 2202, §1).

Efficacy of Intention

• Directs the public prayer to an acknowledged separated sect.
• Substantially directs the offering to the true Papacy and the Mystical Body of Christ.

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P., in his Handbook of Moral Theology (Treatise I, "Vices Opposed to Faith," nn. 500–503), confirms that:

"Material heresy is an error in faith committed through inculpable ignorance or good faith... Material heretics commit no sin against faith, because their error is involuntary."

(Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, n. 501; see also Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. I, "Theological Virtues: Faith," Section 4, pp. 280–282).

If a priest pronounces the name of a superior who is an objective heretic—sincerely believing that superior to be a legitimate Catholic bishop or Pope—his act is an involuntary, material error (error facti). His primary, habitual intention is directed toward the legitimate Catholic hierarchy and the Catholic Church.

As Frs. Charles J. Callan, O.P., and John A. McHugh, O.P., explain in Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas (Vol. I, "Sins Against Faith," nn. 825–830; "The Nature of Imputability," nn. 1502–1508), an involuntary defect in execution does not alter the fundamental moral identity of a virtuous act when the error resides in accidental factual circumstances rather than the formal object of the will.

Part V: Sacramental Validity, Licit Administration, and the Norms of Communicatio in Sacris

5.1 The Principle of Ad Evitanda Scandala and Canon 2261

To resolve whether the faithful may lawfully approach an erring priest, Catholic theology looks to the historic Constitution Ad Evitanda Scandala, promulgated by Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance (1418).

Prior to this decree, the faithful were strictly bound under pain of sin to abstain from communion and liturgical contact with anyone known to be excommunicated. Pope Martin V established a radical relaxation of positive ecclesiastical discipline to protect consciences:

To avoid scandal and dispel anxieties, no one is bound to abstain from ecclesiastical communion or sacramental reception with any minister, nor to avoid them, unless that minister has been explicitly and personally condemned by judicial sentence, or is publicly denounced as an excommunicatus vitandus.

(Pope Martin V, Const. Ad Evitanda Scandala, 1418; see Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, n. 588).

This legislation was codified directly in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, Canon 2261, §§1–3:

Canon 2261, §1: An excommunicated person is prohibited from licitly celebrating the sacraments.

Canon 2261, §2: "The faithful, however, subject to the provisions of §3, may for any just cause request the sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated minister, especially if other ministers are lacking; and then the excommunicated person who is requested may administer them, and is under no obligation to inquire into the reason for the request."

(CIC 1917, Canon 2261, §2; cf. Stanislaus Woywod, The New Canon Law, pp. 450–451).

Canon 2261, §3: This concession applies solely to excommunicati tolerati; from an excommunicatus vitandus or a minister against whom a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been issued, the sacraments may only be requested in danger of death (in periculo mortis).

Under Canon 2258, §2, a person is an excommunicatus vitandus only if two conditions are met simultaneously:

• The person has been publicly excommunicated by the Holy See by name.
• The decree explicitly designates the person as vitandus ("to be shunned").

Because a traditional Catholic priest operating in good faith (bona fide) has neither been condemned by judicial decree nor publicly designated a vitandus, he remains fundamentally toleratus. Under Canon 2261, §2, the faithful are explicitly permitted by canon law to approach such a priest for sacramental reception and holy Mass for any just cause (ex qualibet iusta causa).

5.2 Exhaustive Canonical Exegesis: What Constitutes a "Just Cause" (Iusta Causa) under Canon 2261, §2?

A central point of contention among traditionalist critics of the una cum Mass is the assertion that the faithful may only approach an irregular or materially compromised minister in instances of grave necessity or imminent danger of death.

This objection is directly refuted by the precise legal phrasing of Canon 2261, §2 and its unanimous interpretation by Catholic canonists.

The text of the canon explicitly uses the expansive phrase:

{‘ex qualibet iusta causa”} (for any just cause whatsoever)

It does not say ex gravi causa (for a grave cause), nor does it require in periculo mortis (in danger of death)—which is reserved strictly for §3 regarding vitandi.

The standard commentators on the 1917 Code define iusta causa with consistent pastoral breadth:

Rev. Charles Augustine, O.S.B. (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. VIII, "Penal Law," commentary on Can. 2261, pp. 176–178):

Augustine points out that the legislator deliberately used the word qualibet ("any") to remove scruples and ensure the spiritual liberty of the faithful:"The faithful may, for any just reason, ask for the sacraments or sacramentals from a toleratus... What is a just cause? A just cause is any reasonable motive, such as devotion, spiritual advantage, a desire to hear Mass on Sundays or holy days, or the fact that no other priest is readily available without serious inconvenience. It does not require extreme or even grave necessity. The law says 'any just cause,' which must be interpreted broadly in favor of the salvation of souls."

(Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. VIII, pp. 176–177).

Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M. (The New Canon Law: A Commentary and Summary, commentary on Canon 2261, pp. 450–451; see also A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. II, n. 2115):

Woywod confirms that the faithful are not obliged to prove a critical emergency: "Any just cause suffices, for instance, genuine devotion, the desire to receive Holy Communion more frequently, the convenience of the time or place, or because it would be troublesome to find another priest. Furthermore, the faithful are under no obligation to explain their motive to the minister, nor is the minister permitted to question them regarding the legitimacy of their request."

(Woywod, The New Canon Law, p. 450).

Very Rev. Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. (Handbook of Moral Theology, "Tractatus de Censuris: De Excommunicatione," n. 915):

Prümmer notes that because the Church’s positive penal law was reformed by Martin V specifically ad consulendum conscientiis (to care for consciences) and ad evitanda scandala (to avoid scandal):"A just cause is present whenever the petitioner acts out of an honest motive of religion, such as the sanctification of Sunday, avoiding spiritual languor, obtaining peace of mind, or avoiding familial dissension."

(Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, n. 915).

Rev. Henry Davis, S.J. (Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. IV, "Treatise on Censures: Excommunication," pp. 111–114):

Davis explains that the condition praesertim si desint alii ministri ("especially if other ministers are lacking") is demonstrative, not taxative:"The clause 'especially if other ministers are lacking' shows what would normally be the most common just cause, but it is not an absolute condition. Any spiritual advantage—such as hearing Mass, receiving absolution, or participating in the liturgical life of the Church—constitutes a legally sufficient cause."

(Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. IV, p. 112).

Consequently, an informed Catholic layman who attends an una cum Mass celebrated by a toleratus in order to satisfy the Sunday obligation, receive the Eucharist, or foster personal piety possesses a fully verified, canonically recognized iusta causa.

5.3 Distinctions in Communicatio in Sacris (Canon 1258)

Canon law strictly regulates participation in sacred worship:

Canon 1258, §1: "It is unlawful for the faithful to assist actively in any way, or take part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics."

Canon 1258, §2: "Passive or merely material presence may be tolerated for a grave reason, on account of civil duty or honor... provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal."

(CIC 1917, Canon 1258; cf. Augustine, Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. VI, pp. 195–198).

The fundamental distinction lies in the nature of the rite itself:

Active participation in a non-Catholic rite (in sacris acatholicorum): Intrinsically illicit when the rite is inherently sectarian, false, or severed from Catholic worship.

Assisting at the Mass of a Catholic priest with material defects: This does not constitute an acatholic rite. The Mass remains the unadulterated Roman Rite offered by a validly ordained Catholic priest using an authentic missal. The priest is not offering a schismatic liturgy; he is executing the Church's liturgical rite while laboring under a subjective, material mistake regarding the person of the prelate.

Part VI: The Casuistry of Lay Assistance at the Mass of an Erring Celebrant

6.1 The Functional Severability of the Priest’s Prayer from the Layman’s Assistance

A foundational principle of Catholic liturgical theology is that the priest does not act as an agent of the congregation, but as an agent of Christ and the Church.

In the traditional Roman Rite, the Canon is recited in a low voice (vox secreta), reserved entirely to the celebrant. The layman sitting in the nave neither recites, pronounces, nor vocally ratifies the Una cum clause.

As Henry Davis, S.J., points out in Moral and Pastoral Theology (Vol. I, "Cooperation in Evil," pp. 338–344; Vol. II, "The Mass," pp. 30–35), an individual's presence at an action where a material error occurs does not impute that error to the observer, provided:

• The action itself is intrinsically good (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).
• The observer's assistance is directed toward the intrinsic good of the act (finis operis).
• The observer formally disassociates their internal will from the accidental defect of the minister (finis operantis).

Consequently, an informed Catholic sitting in the pews does not adopt the priest's material error. The layman assists in persona populi to render divine adoration, offer spiritual sacrifice, fulfill a grave precept, and receive sacramental grace.

6.2 The Four Moral Criteria for Lawful Attendance

According to the classical moral casuistry articulated by St. Alphonsus Liguori (Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. 3, Dub. V, nn. 53–55), Heribert Jone (Moral Theology, nn. 120–124), and Callan & McHugh (Moral Theology, Vol. I, nn. 850–865), a knowledgeable layman may lawfully attend the Mass of a priest who erroneously inserts a heterodox name into the Una cum, provided four specific conditions are met:

1. Legitimate Spiritual Reason (Causa Rationabilis / Iusta Causa)

Attendance cannot be born of frivolity, curiosity, or indifference to doctrine. The faithful must be motivated by a proportionate spiritual good:

• Fulfilling the divine and ecclesiastical precept of Sunday Mass attendance (Canon 1248).
• Procuring sacramental absolution or Holy Communion for the nourishment of the soul.
• Avoiding spiritual starvation, despair, or the grave burden of isolation when no entirely immune priest is accessible.

2. Complete Interior Non-Assent (Non-Cooperatio Formalis)

The layman must internally dissent from the error. When the priest pronounces the name of the compromised prelate during the Te Igitur, the congregant explicitly directs their interior intention away from that individual, uniting their prayer instead to Jesus Christ—the Supreme Pontiff—and to all true, orthodox bishops throughout the world. This preserves the layman from formal cooperation in error (Callan & McHugh, Moral Theology, Vol. I, nn. 1506–1510).

3. Exclusion of Active Scandal (Secluso Scandalo)

The presence of the layman must not cause spiritual ruin to others by leading them to believe that:

• The layman endorses the heresy or heterodox actions of the prelate named.
• Theological errors regarding the Papacy or the Magisterium are matters of indifference.

If the layman holds a public role or their presence would be misconstrued, they are morally obligated to discreetly make their theological position known to interested parties or choose non-attendance if active scandal cannot be avoided (St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. III, Cap. 2, "De Scandalo," nn. 45–50).

4. Immunity from Perversion (Secluso Periculo Perversionis)

The congregant must possess moral certainty that ongoing attendance will not gradually erode their own orthodoxy or weaken their resolve against error. If the priest delivers sermons promoting explicit heresy or attempts to impose compromised doctrines upon the faithful, the danger of spiritual perversion becomes proximate, rendering attendance gravely illicit (Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, n. 520; Jone, Moral Theology, n. 124).

Part VII: Synthetic Resolution and Casuistical Flowchart

7.1 Case Resolution: The Informed Layman and the Mistaken Celebrant

When the elements of the inquiry are synthesized according to the classical theological manuals, the resolution of the case proceeds as follows:

              

7.2 The Distinction between Liturgical Formula and Dogmatic Profession

A critical flaw in contemporary non-una cum polemics is treating the Una cum clause as an absolute dogmatic definition or a sacramental sign that confers its content automatically (ex opere operato).

As demonstrated by liturgical history, the Canon developed as an intercessory litany. It petitions God to govern the Church together with the visible servants who occupy ecclesiastical offices (and historically, alongside Christian monarchs). When a minister errs regarding the legitimate occupant of an office, God does not validate the error; rather, the Church's habitual intention (intentio Ecclesiae) supplies for the accidental flaw, accepting the priest's oblation on behalf of the real, unblemished Mystical Body of Christ.

Part VIII: Conclusion

To synthesize the dogmatic, canonical, and moral evidence:

The Nature of the Mass: The Eucharistic Sacrifice celebrated by a valid Catholic priest using an authentic Catholic rite remains a valid, holy oblation capable of conferring grace. The personal errors, administrative misjudgments, or material mistakes of the priest do not destroy its sacramental efficacy (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 5).

The Intercessory Nature of the Prayer: St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II II, q. 83, a. 17) explicitly categorizes the petitions of the Te Igitur as intercessions (postulationes). The historical inclusion of Catholic temporal rulers (et Rege nostro) further confirms that the clause is an intercessory prayer for the Church, not an operative sacramental formula. Simultaneously, the Church's strict historical exclusion of heretical or excommunicated rulers proves that naming an objective heretic is a genuine liturgical defect. However, because this prayer is intercessory (offered in persona Ecclesiae) rather than sacramental (in persona Christi), an accidental error in the names recited does not alter or destroy the valid sacrificial nature of the Mass.

The Status of the Celebrant: A priest who erroneously inserts the name of an objective heretic into the Una cum while acting in good faith (bona fide) and lacking pertinacity (pertinacia) is guilty of material error (error materialis), not formal heresy or schism (MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, pp. 32–36). He remains a minister toleratus under Canon 2261, §2.

The "Just Cause" of the Faithful: Canon 2261, §2 explicitly permits the faithful to seek the sacraments from a toleratus for any just cause (ex qualibet iusta causa). This does not require extreme emergency, but encompasses fulfilling the Sunday precept, receiving the Holy Eucharist, or nourishing spiritual life (Augustine, Vol. VIII, pp. 176–178; Woywod, p. 450).

The Position of the Faithful: An informed Catholic who assists at such a Mass does not adopt the celebrant's mistake. Because the Una cum is spoken by the priest alone in persona Ecclesiae, the layman's presence in persona populi remains entirely licit, provided the layman maintains interior dissent from the named prelate, possesses a proportionate spiritual reason, avoids active scandal, and guards against doctrinal compromise.

The Witch Next Door

 

When people hear the word witch the image of Margaret Hamilton as the ugly and evil "Wicked Witch of the West" in the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz comes to mind for many people. Witchcraft, in all its forms, is part of the occult and stands solemnly condemned by the Church. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) 

According to theologian Jone: Divination and sorcery are in themselves very grave sins since they contain an implicit or explicit invocation of the devil. (See Moral Theology, (1961), pg. 98: Emphasis in original). Witchcraft is a form of sorcery, which is any attempt to control events, nature, or other people (through spells, potions, charms, etc.), regardless of whether the intent is malicious or benevolent. 

Throughout the centuries of Christianity, witches/witchcraft were rightfully looked upon as evil and something to be avoided. Frank Baum sought to change that with The Wizard of Oz. Baum (1856-1919) was a practicing adherent of the occult Theosophy religion of Madame Blavatsky.

(See theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/sp-1469793668). 

Baum was the first to introduce the idea of "good witches" in modern culture. One only need to remember that his novel and the movie (The Wizard of Oz) contains Glinda "the good witch" that helps protagonist Dorothy get home to Kansas.

A brief survey shows the metaphorical connection between Theosophy and The Wizard of Oz: Dorothy represents the human soul on the path to enlightenment; the Yellow Brick Road of Oz begins as an outwardly expanding spiral. In occult symbolism, this spiral represents the evolving self, the soul ascending from matter into the spirit world; the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion, represent the need to adjust your mind, emotions, and will in order to become "enlightened by secret knowledge;" and the Wizard (omnipotent and omniscient) is shown to be a fake--just like the Christian God according to Theosophy. The "good witch" Glinda tells Dorothy that the power to go home "lies within you"--that she is all-powerful; a recurring theme in the occult, that "god lies within you." 

However, witchcraft remained on the outskirts of society and was looked upon badly, or at best, as something done by eccentric weirdos. All that has changed.

Coming Out of the Broom Closet

Some may wonder why there is any need to take a look at witchcraft. After all, there is seemingly no end to which people will go in their eccentric beliefs or practices. The reason a topic such as this merits examination is precisely because witchcraft is becoming less eccentric and more mainstream. For example, in the summer of 2004 the Parliament of the World’s Religions convened in Barcelona, Spain. Representatives from many of the world’s religions were present to “seek peace, justice and sustainability and commit to work for a better world” as well as to “deepen spirituality and experience personal transformation.” (See cpwr.org/ 2004Parliament/welcome/index.htm).

Present at the 2004 conference (as well as the 1993 and 1999 conferences) were representatives of the Covenant of the Goddess, “the world’s largest religious organization for Neo-Pagan Witches,” as described by an elder of the organization. A common theme that comes up in the context of such conferences is the increasing emphasis on “interfaith.” According to one source:

The numbers of Americans who identify with Wicca (witches) or paganism has risen from 134,000 in 2001 to nearly 2 million today, according to Helen Berger, a resident scholar at Brandeis University's Women's Studies Research Center, who has conducted extensive research and authored four books about witches and pagans. The witch community in America has been growing steadily since the 1960s, she said, and "much of the recent growth is coming from young women."  (See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/28/celtic-festival-samhain-2021-celebration-wicca-witches/6182226001/). 

Newsweek had this to say:

The number of witches and Americans practicing Wicca religious rituals increased dramatically since the 1990s, with several recent studies indicating there may be at least 1.5 million witches across the country. A Trinity College study conducted in 1990 estimated only about 8,000 Wiccans in the U.S., but the increase has been led by a rejection of mainstream Christianity among young Americans as well as a rise in occultism. (See newsweek.com/witchcraft-wiccans-mysticism-astrology-witches-millennials-pagans-religion-1221019; Emphasis mine). 

Even a "conservative" Vatican II sect source sees an alarming growth. EWTN reports last year that:

An estimated 1 to 1.5 million people say they practice Wicca or paganism, a rise from an estimated 8,000 Wiccans in 1990, and 340,000 in 2008.

In 2014, a Pew Research Center survey found about 0.4 percent of Americans identify themselves Pagan or Wiccan, a significant increase over prior years... the Pew data would suggest that there are more self-identified “witches” in the United States than members of some mainline Protestant denominations. For example, according to 2017 figures, there are 1.4 million practicing Presbyterians in the United States. (See ewtnnews.com/world/us/number-of-americans-who-say-they-are-witches-is-on-the-rise). 

A very scary development is that now there are at least 35 books for children meant to introduce them into modern witchcraft. Some titles include:

C is for Coven: A Witchcraft Alphabet Book by Andrea Stein

"C is for Coven is a reinterpretation of a classic alphabet book, matching each letter of the ABCs with a rhyming phrase that teaches kids about witchcraft."

Wee Witches by Beth Roth

"This ABC primer is a playful and richly symbolic introduction to the world of Wicca and the magic of Nature. Illustrated poems bring to light the Pagan Path, with each letter featuring a Wee Witch learning about the wheel of the year, tools of the Craft, rites of passage, faerie friends, and meaningful colors. This is a helpful and affirming tool for Pagan families, as well as an appealing collection of subtle, educational light verse for their budding Wee Witches, including A for Acorn, M for Maypole, and S for Spiderweb. Accurate symbols of Witches’ worldview are woven throughout the magical artwork, as well as hidden clues to a secret “Witch Name” revealed at the end of the book."

The Little Witch's Book of Spells by Ariel Kusby

The Little Witch's Book of Spells is an enchanting compendium of spells, potions, and activities for kids 8 to 12 years old. Young witches-in-training will discover spells to resolve problems, foster friendship, and engage with the natural world. This spellbinding book guides readers on how to craft a magic wand, befriend a fairy, and read tea leaves, as well as glossaries of magical terms and symbols."

What Witches Wear by Andrea Stein

"What Witches Wear is an engaging and colorful exploration of what it means to be a modern witch. Matching each color of the rainbow with a unique witch, What Witches Wear reminds us that witches are everywhere—as our teachers, healthcare workers, artists, librarians, and even next-door neighbors."

"Even next-door neighbors." 

(See flyingthehedge.com/2023/07/35-childrens-books-about-witchcraft.html; All titles can be examined on Amazon.com). 

Jesus’ command to have His One True Church preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations invariably includes witches. In order to do so, it is necessary that we understand who they are and what they believe. Knowing what we are up against is a primary element in being prepared to carry out His Great Commission. Hence, the purpose of this post.

Witch Basics

Witchcraft: (Also known as wicca, the craft, or the craft of the wise.) An antidogmatic, antiauthoritarian, diverse, decentralized, eclectic, experience-based, nature-oriented religious movement whose followers are polytheists and/or pantheists and/or panentheists, and in some sense believe in or experience and/or invoke and/or worship the "Mother Goddess" and generally her consort the "Horned God" as well. It is a generic term covering numerous perspectives on the subject.

Witch: Individuals who practice or concur with the views or experiences of witchcraft. Most view divinity as immanent in nature, seeing all life as sacred, thus, denying any sacred/secular distinction. They are nature-oriented and also see no ultimate distinction between matter and spirit—the material and the spiritual. They may believe in or invoke a pantheon of gods and goddesses, but they primarily experience, and/or invoke, and/or worship the "Mother" or "Triple Goddess" and her male consort, the "Horned God." Witches generally practice multiple forms of divination, participate in trance and other altered states of consciousness, and perform magical spells and incantations. Most observe seasonal holidays and festivals (e.g., the summer and winter solstices). Most believe in some form of reincarnation. The widely believed notion that a female is a witch whereas a male practitioner is a warlock or wizard is a misnomer. The terms witch or wiccan apply to both genders.

Witchcraft is a Worldview.

A worldview is the sum total of one’s view of the nature of reality. Everyone has a worldview even if only a few reflect on their own. One’s worldview encompasses one’s views of how reality is composed, how it works, and how we as humans fit in or relate to our universe. It can entail one’s views about the purpose of life and the origin and destiny of us all.

The chief tenets of witchcraft are:

Naturalism. Starting at the broadest level and working down, it is fair to say that the worldview of witchcraft is naturalism. Naturalism is the view that there is no transcendent reality such as God that can intervene in the natural world. Naturalism maintains that all of reality is interrelated and operates according to “laws.” Other expressions of naturalism would include materialism, which sees all of reality as being made up of matter that operates according to material laws.

Witchcraft, though an expression of naturalism, is not materialism. Witches recognize that reality extends beyond the realm of the material. This is sometimes confusing. A worldview can be naturalistic even if it accepts the reality of an immaterial realm; indeed, even acknowledging the existence of gods and goddesses does not preclude a worldview from being naturalistic. What stands in stark contrast to naturalism is a worldview that says that the natural realm (whether material, immaterial, or both) is the creation of a transcendent God. This is supernaturalism. This is the Truth taught by the Church. 

Occultism. Sharpening the focus, not only can we say that witchcraft is a worldview of naturalism, it is also a worldview of occultism. As I've written many times, the term occult is from the Latin occultus meaning “hidden,” or “secret.” The category covers a wide range of beliefs and practices that are characterized by two main points that are often thought to be “hidden” from the average person. First, the occult maintains that there is force or energy into which one can tap or with which one can negotiate to do one’s own bidding. This comes from a pantheistic/panentheistic grounding of the occult. "All is God" so you cab harness that "energy." 

The familiar term spell is applied to the technique of harnessing and focusing this power. The late witchcraft practitioner Scott Cunningham explains, “The spell is…simply a ritual in which various tools are purposefully used, the goal is fully stated (in words, pictures or within the mind), and energy is moved to bring about the needed result.” (See The Truth about Witchcraft Today pg. 7). 

Exactly what is the nature of this force or energy ("god"), according to the occultist, and what is the best way to work with it is what makes some of the main differences between the major occult groups such as shamanism, witchcraft, Satanism, New Age, and others.

Second, the occult maintains that human beings are divine. Obviously, if God and the world are one, or God is "within" the world, this idea logically follows. The practice of the occult arts is thus an endeavor to actualize one’s own divinity. As witchcraft practitioner Margot Adler claims, “A spiritual path that is not stagnant ultimately leads one to the understanding of one’s own divine nature. Thou art Goddess. Thou are God. Divinity is imminent in all Nature. It is as much within you as without.” (See Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today, pg. ix)

Humanism. Witchcraft sees itself as a celebration of all life. This celebration involves the denial that there is anything wrong with the human race. Original Sin and the need of a Redeemer is thus denied. 

The Dangers of Witchcraft

1. Witchcraft is forbidden by God. The Bible makes it clear that witchcraft, sorcery, and divination are abominations to the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). In Galatians 5:19-21, witchcraft is listed among the works of the flesh that are contrary to the Spirit. The Church has likewise always condemned it, and the approved theologians condemn any use of witchcraft as mortal sin. 

2. Witchcraft involves communication with evil spirits. Those who practice witchcraft often seek to communicate with evil spirits, which is expressly forbidden in the Bible (Leviticus 19:31, Deuteronomy 18:11) and by the clear and constant teaching of the Church. Even those who do not believe in Satan may think it's "nature's secret's" they are tapping into, but it comes from the Father of Lies. 

3. Witchcraft can lead to demonic possession. The Bible records several instances of demonic possession resulting from witchcraft or sorcery (Acts 16:16-18).

4. Witchcraft can lead to spiritual deception. Satan is the father of lies, and those who practice witchcraft often fall under his deceptive influence. They may believe they are tapping into a higher power, when in reality they are being deceived (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).

5. Witchcraft undermines Catholic morality. The practices associated with witchcraft most often involve immoral or unethical behavior, which can lead to more and more grievous sins. 

Witchcraft in Popular Culture

Movies

Hexed (2026): The movie, releasing in theaters November 25, tells the story of a young teenage girl named Billie, an outcast struggling to fit in. She soon discovers she has magical powers and enters a world called Hexe, where she learns more about witchcraft, spells, and how to channel her supernatural abilities. It shows "good witchcraft." 

The Craft: Legacy (2020): A reboot of the 1996 cult classic which increased curiosity about witchcraft, follows a new generation of four teenage witches. It explores contemporary themes of manifestation, sisterhood, and casting spells.

Social Media

WitchTok on TikTok: A massive subculture under the hashtag #WitchTok (with billions of views) where creators share tarot card readings, crystal healing guides, and small-scale spell tutorials. Prominent creators like Frankie Castanea (@ChaoticWitchAunt) document daily folk witchcraft practices and break down misconceptions.

Digital Sigils and Altars: Practitioners use design software like Canva to create personalized magical symbols (sigils). They embed these symbols into their Instagram or TikTok bios, email signatures, or use them as smartphone lock screens to "cast spells with every scroll."

Manifestation Trends: Content focused on the "law of attraction," positive thinking, and intention-setting frequently trends on platforms like TikTok and Instagram, functioning as a mainstream, accessible form of folk magic that leads to embracing witchcraft outright.

Witches of Instagram: Creators build aesthetic feeds featuring altars decorated with herbs, crystals, and tarot cards. Influencers blend makeup tutorials, cozy "cottagecore" lifestyle content, and modern pagan spirituality. 

How Did Witchcraft Get So Popular?

If you thought I would write "Vatican II," you're correct. More than any other factor the Occult Revival (as I have called it) has one major driving force: Vatican II and the man-made sect of Counterfeit Catholicism it created. Witchcraft is one major component of occult practices. 

Three major evils of Vatican II have caused the spike in witchcraft:

1. The Mass replaced with the Novus Bogus. The countless graces that come from the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross and Holy Communion have been taken away for a Neo-Protestant bread and wine service. As the number of Masses decreases, the power of Satan increases. The Novus Bogus service is so vapid as to destroy any sense of the sacred. Even pagan sociologists note that by stripping-down or "rationalizing" the liturgy, the Church left a spiritual vacuum. Modern witchcraft and ceremonial magic grew rapidly during this era precisely because they offered a sense of something mysterious and reverent unlike "clown mass." 

2. The Denigrating of Marian devotion. 

The Blessed Mother is the model for all women to follow. Follow her and you get to her Divine Son. Women now seek false ideas of womanhood from feminism as exemplified in witchcraft with "Mother Goddess." 

3. Ecumenism. 

The heretical document Nostra Aetate of Vatican II taught that there are elements of the truth in false religions. It adopted the false ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium, that the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are not one and the same. The Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church in its fullness, but it subsists in other religions too, more or less, according to how many "elements of truth" it has. To have all the elements is best, but just some elements are good too, and salvific. The new ecclesiology denies the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation. 

Nostra Aetate stated, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions." "These religions" included Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. While witchcraft is never mentioned, the heretical principle applies: if ancient Eastern religions held valid spiritual truth, then perhaps older, pre-Christian European traditions (like paganism and earth-based witchcraft) were also worth exploring, and even joining--salvation is not exclusive to the Catholic Church according to Vatican II. 

Witchcraft's appeal to the young.

Why is witchcraft on the rise and why does it appeal particularly to young people? First, young people are drawn to Wicca/Witchcraft because it has no orthodoxy and has no concept of absolute good or absolute evil. This is greatly appealing to impressionable young people. There are some common practices, rituals, and sayings, but for the most part practitioners can add and subtract to it at will. It is a perfectly postmodern religion. 

Second, witchcraft appeals to young people because it promotes glorification of self. "You are god/goddess." There is also a very strong feminist component so the attraction for girls is even greater.

Third, many young people embrace witchcraft because they, like adult witchcraft devotees, are bound by a passionate love of nature. Witches love the earth and care deeply for the environment; however, they take it too far.

Combating Witchcraft

Reclaim Halloween. 

I wince when I see children dress up as the evil supernatural characters of witches, vampires, and demons. What can be done? Have children dress up as a saint, and have your child learn all he can about this saint. These are the role models children should aspire to be. Does your son like things medieval? Dress up as King St. Louis IX! Want to be a lawyer? St. Thomas More will fit the role. For girls, there is the martyr of purity, St. Maria Goretti, and the equally brave St. Joan of Arc. Parents should take their kids trick-or-treating so they can explain the costume with their children to others who inquire.

Consider "All Saints Day" parties at home instead of trick-or-treating; have a parade of saints and fun in the house!

Talking to a Witch.

To convert a witch, it is important not to misstate their beliefs. You should always have on a St. Benedict medal. They will most likely attack alleged "witch burnings" and "Church persecutions." Don't let it go there. Ask what proof they have of "Mother Goddess" and their pantheistic worldview. Most are not well versed on it. Then, show the proofs of Christ's resurrection and also show the falsity of pantheism. Use my post on pantheism to help you: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/07/east-meets-and-defeats-west.html. 

It is also important to point out gently where Wicca/Witchcraft is inconsistent. Without a God who is perfectly good, there are no absolutes, no standards by which to measure what is just or unjust. Witches borrow from Christian values of right and wrong. Witches might get upset at how women have been treated, but on what do they base their anger—that treating women poorly goes against their personal taste? Traditionalist Catholics believe mistreating women is wrong because God said so. We also believe that all life has dignity because we are made in God’s image. Witches don’t believe this, but without this belief they have only shaky ground on which to condemn injustice.

Conclusion

Witchcraft was once a rare thing. Now, it is becoming commonplace. As the number of those in witchcraft rises, it is important to understand it and combat it. We need to convert them, and not just in faraway lands. Thanks to Vatican II, you may need to convert your neighbor; the witch next door.