(See fathercekada.com/2017/09/20/some-questions-on-una-cum-masses. The article also references his previous writings on Una Cum, most notably, "The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses"). Fortunately, none of the assertions above is true because the distinction between undeclared and declared heretics is not properly referenced.
Canon 2261, section 2
The Church's stance on receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics is spelled out in the 1917 Code of Canon Law Canon 2261, section 2. Canon 2261 states in full:
1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow.
2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
Why is this Canon dispositive? Most of those against the Una Cum believe that if a Traditionalist priest uses the name of Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass (perhaps thinking he's praying for him and his conversion, or mistakenly believes him pope and wants to be with the Church), it puts him in union with the heretic Francis, making the offering priest a heretic as well. I'm not claiming this to be true, but it is the worst thing that could result, and ad arguendo, I will consider it to be true and accurate for this post. It is the worst thing that could happen to the priest offering the Una Cum Mass. So, what is the problem with Una Cum now?
Framed as I just described it, the issue was not: Is this priest a heretic? Rather, may one participate in public divine worship with him although he is a heretic? The answer is yes.
This is the case of one who incurs laetae sententiae [i.e., automatic] excommunication for heresy or schism without adhering to any condemned sect.
According to theologian Hyland:
Canon 2261, section 2 has reference to petitioning the sacraments and sacramentals from excommunicates who are neither vitandi, nor tolerati against whom any sentence, either declaratory or condemnatory, has been issued. They will be spoken of as the simpliciter tolerati. For any just reason, the faithful may request a simpliciter toleratus to administer the sacraments and sacramentals, especially when there are no other ministers available. When so requested, the excommunicate may administer the sacraments and sacramentals and he is not obliged to inquire why the petitioner wishes to receive them.
The principle reason for which the faithful may ask the sacraments and sacramentals from a simpliciter toleratus is the absence of other ministers. However, it is not the only reason; any just cause will suffice; a grave cause is not required. As examples of just causes which will permit the faithful to request the sacraments and sacramentals from a simpliciter toleratus may be mentioned, the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of a doubt concerning the gravity of a sin, the the intention of approaching Holy Communion with greater purity of soul, the intention of receiving the Holy Eucharist more frequently, etc. "Any reason may be called just which promotes devotion or wards off temptations or is prompted by real convenience, for instance, if one does not like to call another minister." [Citing the eminent canonist Augustine]. (See Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development, And Effects, , pgs. 91-92).
The Vatican II sect, obviously, was never declared a condemned sect, for there was no pope to do such. The "Una Cum priest" is therefore a simpliciter toleratus as mentioned by theologian Hyland above. I now credit Mr. John Daly for his insightful analysis of Cardinal De Lugo, one of the greatest approved theologians of the twentieth century, who wrote on this topic This work and its analysis by Mr. Daly are as follows:
On Communication in Religious Rites with Heretics--Cardinal De Lugo
Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1.
The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs, or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in a Catholic rite, etc.
This is denied by Basil. Pont. […] where he says, “one may not celebrate in the presence of a heretic on any grounds, not even by virtue of very grave fear,” and he takes this for granted and offers no proof of his claim. I am astonished that such a learned man should have failed to notice that the authority of all the Doctors is against him, and that they are followed by Sanchez […], Suarez […], Azor […] and others, followed by Hurtado […], and this [sc. the opposing view] is certain from what has been said, because an undeclared excommunicate who is not notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, need not be avoided even in sacred rites, as is established by the said litterae extravagantes (2), and the fact that he is a heretic is not a special reason why it should be unlawful unless on some other grounds there be scandal or irreverence against the faith, or some other such factor, all of which are extrinsic and not always found.
Thirdly however an object of greater doubt is whether Catholics may receive the sacraments from heretics who have not been declared to be such. This is denied by Azor. […], though he is scarcely consistent as to his grounds, for in the first place he says that this is due not only to the excommunication, but also to the heresy; but in the second place he says that it is on account not of the heresy but of the excommunication, inasmuch as every excommunicate, even occult, lacks jurisdiction. Soto agrees with him […], though on different grounds, since he thinks that all heretics and schismatics are deemed to have been excommunicated by name and to be vitandi.
But the opposite view is generally held [communis] and is the true one, unless it should be illicit in a given case for some other reason such as scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez […], Suarez […], Hurtado […] and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance […] and of matrimony and the other sacraments […]. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes(3) in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.
So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds it may often be illicit to do so unless necessity should excuse as I have explained in the said places.
Cardinal de Lugo holds that the law forbidding Catholics to participate in worship together with heretics or schismatics does not apply unless those in question have been declared to be such by the Church (or belong to a condemned sect). And de Lugo also shows that the majority of theologians hold his view on this subject, against a minority who disagree.
This teaching is supported by Pope Martin V's Ad Evitanda Scandala which expressly allows communion with excommunicates until they have been condemned by the Church. Naturally this does not apply to what is certainly forbidden by divine law – as would be participation in a rite which itself contained heresy or which exposed oneself or others to grave scandal.
It should be noted that there has been no noteworthy change in ecclesiastical law on communication in sacris since de Lugo wrote. The law forbidding communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics remains in force (Canon 1258). And the law authorizing the reception of the sacraments from uncondemned excommunicates (Canon 2261) remains in force also.
The purpose of drawing attention to this text is not to encourage Catholics to frequent uncondemned heretics or schismatics for the sacraments.
It is to show those who have written on this topic without even discussing this distinction are insufficiently well informed about the matter and are unworthy of trust. The whole issue needs to be re-examined.
It seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that in our days de Lugo would have considered it not intrinsically illicit to assist at Mass offered una cum the Vatican II pseudo-popes, since he allows what is in fact a greater departure from the principle of assisting only at a fully Catholic Mass.(Emphasis mine).
A Twisted and Misleading Footnote
In Fr. Cekada's "Grain of Incense" article, he writes the following:
F. Participation in a Sin
More than that, de la Taille maintains that mentioning a heretic by name in any liturgical prayer is also a sin: “Moreover, since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” 
Nor would it be morally permissible to assist at a rite where this is done. In a 1729 the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed:
… There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith… especially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics— who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal.  (Emphasis in original).
Footnote #52 states:
SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505. “Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur:... vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriacha- rum, et Episcoporum, schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut fidei catholicae praedicatores commendatur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus celebratione conveniunt in his facti circumstansiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt.”
Further on in that article, Fr. Cekada makes the following assertion under "Objections and Responses:"
B. No Official Declaration
Objection: Anyone who has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. But Benedict XVI has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic. Therefore, Benedict XVI may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. Therefore, a sedevacantist is permitted to assist at a Mass where his name is so mentioned.
(1) The hidden assumption behind the major premise is false. As we have seen above, de la Taille says:
“This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” 
The various Vatican pronouncements quoted above, moreover, made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.” It did not then add that no sin occurred if “undeclared” heretics and schismatics were commemorated. Nor in 1756, when Pope Benedict XIV forbade commemorating schismatics and heretics in the sacred liturgy, did he limit the prohibition to “declared” heretics and schismatics.
(2) Nor by analogy does the major premise make any sense in light of the general rules of canon law and pastoral theology. These norms prohibit offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic, period. They do not limit the prohibition to one who has been “declared” a heretic — so you can put off planning that Requiem High Mass for your Methodist Uncle Wesley…
He claims that the Vatican pronouncements, as in footnote #52 made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.”. This is not true. One of my readers has the book referenced by Fr. Cekada of the Vatican pronouncements. It is very rare, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, not available online. This reader was able to get photos of the decree (the book is all in Latin), and it is nine paragraphs long. The pictures may be found at the following links:
(1) https://postlmg.cc/crGQJLZh; (2) https://postimg.cc/8FcvYFBp; (3) https://postlmg.cc/87tWwdvX
Fr. Cekada used a snippet of a quote with an ellipsis. I wish Fr. DePauw were here to give me the perfect Latin translation. However, even when put through Google translate, it is enough to show the quote was taken out of context and actually teaches the opposite of what Fr. Cekada claims. Whether or not Fr. Cekada is morally culpable of any wrongdoing, I do not know. What matters is that the quote does not support his argument, but actually serves as a defeater.
Here is the pertinent part in Latin:
Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos, qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur: nam in eorum ecclesiis, vel dedicatio est in memoriam schismatici alicuius, quem ut sanctum venerantur; vel extant imagines, vel coluntur reliquiae vel festa celebrantur eorum, qui in schismate mortui, veluti sancti habentur, vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriarcharum, et Episcoporum schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut catholicae praedicatores commendantur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus conveniunt in his facit circumstantiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt. Ne ceos excusat assisteniae mere materialis praetextus; facto enim ipso excluditur, qui functioninus hisce haerticorum, aut schismaticorum intersunt, satis cum ipsis convenire in unitate orationis, in unitate cultus, in unitate venerationis et obsequii perversos ministros haereseos schismatisque praeseferunt.
Here is the Google Translate in English:
This is further confirmed by the fact that there is scarcely any rite among the heterodox that is not tainted by some error in the matter of faith: for in their churches, it is either a dedication to the memory of some schismatic whom they venerate as a saint; either images exist, or relics are venerated, or festivals are celebrated of those who died in the schism, as if they were considered saints, or, finally, there is a commemoration of living patriarchs, and schismatic bishops, and heretics who are recommended as Catholic preachers. For this reason, those who in these rites and prayer and worship meet in these circumstances, Catholics, cannot be cleared of the guilt of perverted communication, or at least of pernicious scandal. He does not excuse the gods on the pretext of merely material assistance; for by the very act he is excluded, those who are involved in the function of these heretics or schismatics, are sufficient to agree with them in the unity of prayer, in the unity of worship, in the unity of veneration and submission, they preside over perverse heretical and schismatic ministers. (Emphasis mine).
When the entire paragraph is read in context, it becomes very clear that the Vatican Instruction from the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith was referring to schismatic sects declared as such. While true that the terms "declared" and "undeclared" heretics are not used, the Society of the Propagation of the Faith is specifically charged with the Church in non-Catholic lands. Hence, the very fact that this document came from that Congregation, it is obvious that this deals with sects, not undeclared heretics. The latter would have been dealt with by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (formerly known as the "Inquisition"). When the entire paragraph, and especially when the entire document is read, it's clear that this is only dealing with sects, who by the way claim to hold and preach the True Faith, pretending that they are the preachers of the One True Church. Catholics cannot go to schismatic rites, even though they are valid, and may seem Catholic.
The document has nothing to do with undeclared heretics--period.
As to Fr. Cekada's second point, it is irrelevant to the issue. He wrote:
(2) Nor by analogy does the major premise make any sense in light of the general rules of canon law and pastoral theology. These norms prohibit offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic, period. They do not limit the prohibition to one who has been “declared” a heretic — so you can put off planning that Requiem High Mass for your Methodist Uncle Wesley…
First, his analogy to "Uncle Wesley" is inapposite because Methodists are declared heretics from pre-Vatican II. Second, the prohibition of "offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic" declared or undeclared, results in a sin for the priest offering the Mass, and has no bearing on the faithful who assist. If we are talking about an undeclared heretic priest, he is already outside the Church anyway. This also assumes the scenario in the light most favorable to those against the Una Cum Mass. If the "general rules of Canon Law and pastoral theology" make non-attendance at the Una Cum mandatory why did real canonists and theologians teach the opposite? Here I include Fr. DePauw, JCD, Fr. Stepanich, STD, and Bp. des Lauries, the very cleric who came up with the "Thesis."
The Una Cum Mass doesn’t require the layman in the pew to stay home alone rather than be present when the priest errs. The Church has not judged the question, so that the priest’s inclusion of the name is a sign that he wishes only to belong to the Catholic Church, even though mistaken/wrong as to the status of Bergoglio.
The Home Alone Connection
The section will be brief, as everything necessary has already been written. Home Aloners must agree that the Vatican II sect is not a canonically and formally condemned sect as there was no one with Magisterial authority to do so. If Traditionalist clergy are "without jurisdiction" and "without a mission from the Church"--how could an undeclared heretic priest pre-Vatican II (i.e., outside the Church) have both jurisdiction and mission?
Canon 2261, section 2 makes it clear that the faithful can approach said priest for the sacraments and sacramentals setting a very low bar for going to him, and having no limitation on how many times you can approach him. The Canon does not restrict what sacraments can be received, and it therefore includes Penance; and that sacrament requires jurisdiction for validity. How does a priest outside the Church get jurisdiction? Not from common error, for this Canon presupposes knowledge by the faithful that the priest is a heretic. It must be supplied by the Church.
Moreover, as the Church permits you to receive the sacraments from an undeclared heretic priest, whatever "canonical mission" the Home Aloners think the priest must possess is also granted. Unless you wish to subscribe to the prolix writings of pseudo-scholarship cranked out by Theresa Benns, Home Aloners can be "Home Free"!
I hope and pray this post has made the Una Cum and Home Alone issues more clear. If you still feel the need to avoid the Una Cum or to stay Home Alone, then follow your conscience. However, please refrain from burdening the consciences of others with made up "sins" over issues the Church has not resolved.
There are a few things I would like to add to this post:
- What I have written is not an endorsement or an approval of the "Recognize and Resist" position. This blog has always been sedevacantist, and remains such. The R&R position is not Catholic and its theology is severely flawed, to say the least. I hold the so-called "Thesis" (sedeprivationism) to be a mere possibility--and a very low possibility at that.
- While the Una Cum is lawful to attend, it does not always follow that it is desirable to do so under all conditions. For example, someone who is weak in the Faith might buy into the R&R position. There was one independent R&R chapel that required an "abjuration of sedevacantism." The Masses of sedevacantist priests are always to be preferred and attended whenever possible.
- In this age of Great Apostasy, we should not blindly follow clerics. To a large extent, that's how we got here in the first place. I had some disagreements with Fr. DePauw, and since it wasn't settled Church teaching involved, he had no problem with respectful disagreements. The anti-Una Cum clerics do their position little good by behaving boorishly like Fr. Despositio, or falsifying citations to make them say the opposite of what was taught, like Fr. Cekada. It seems they are more interested in pursuing an agenda then seeking and defending truth.
- Why did I write a controversial post? It is because I don't shy away from any issue that affects Traditionalists. There's a lot we need to figure out. I believe in the old aphorism, "It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it."
A very good post on a matter that has resulted in unnecessary division amongst Catholics.ReplyDelete
One thing I find somewhat ironic is that the non-una cum position held by the likes of Thesis proponents (Sanborn et al.) is that it is considered a non-negotiable corollary for acceptance of a novel proposal (in the truest sense of the word, since the Church has not made a definitive declaration or teaching on certain matters the Thesis was formulated to address), whereas the matter of participating in Catholic worship with undeclared heretics is something the Church HAS ruled on.
As Fr. Desposito writes in his "Little Catechism on the Thesis" from MHT Seminary's website:
"Naming a false pope (and leader of a false religion) in the Canon of the Mass is schismatic, such a Mass is not a Catholic Mass but falls into the category of false worship...18 And there is the dilemma of the Mass offered by the priests of the Society Saint Pius X: if the
current occupant of the See of Peter is the pope, then their Masses are schismatic, since they are
being offered without the pope’s authorization. If the current occupant of the See of Peter is not the pope, then their Masses are schismatic, since they are being offered in union with a false pope."
The concept of "the head of a false religion" somehow possessing legal title to the Papacy (when all relevant magisterial teaching - notwithstanding proposals written on by one or two theologians - I've seen indicates the matter of papal jurisdiction is all or nothing, and not partial or by degree) has always been the hardest pill to swallow. Yet their lack of hesitancy to declare attendance of the una cum Mass a mortal sin WHEN THE CHURCH HAS OFFICIALLY ALLOWED THE FAITHFUL TO ATTEND MASSES CONDUCTED BY A CLERIC IN A WORSE STATE just seems a step too far.
My two cents, FWIW
Your comment is worth its weight in gold, my friend! What you point out between sedeprivationism (the Thesis) and Una Cum is VERY true. Your paragraph below is well worth repeating:
"One thing I find somewhat ironic is that the non-una cum position held by the likes of Thesis proponents (Sanborn et al.) is that it is considered a non-negotiable corollary for acceptance of a novel proposal (in the truest sense of the word, since the Church has not made a definitive declaration or teaching on certain matters the Thesis was formulated to address), whereas the matter of participating in Catholic worship with undeclared heretics is something the Church HAS ruled on."
Thank you so much for commenting! The comments of my readers improves the quality of this blog--and yours is an example of such.
Some say that an "Una Cum" Mass, although valid, is sacrilegious because Bergoglio's name is mentioned in the Canon. I have never attended an Una Cum Mass and I would not go either, although it is not a sin, as you demonstrate. The V2 sect has not been formally declared heretical but its leader and clergy utter heresies so it would be difficult to attend a Mass celebrated by a priest who claims to be in communion with heretics. But that's just my personal opinion, I don't judge those who go to Una Cum Masses.ReplyDelete
Yours is the Catholic approach and attitude! I respect your decision not to attend an Una Cum, and your understanding that those who go are not doing something "evil."
The una cum Mass is to be avoided, not because of the status of the minister, but because the First Commandment forbids the participation in false worship. If you consider the una cum Mass 'true worship', that is, valid AND lawful, i.e., according to God's will, then you must of necessity conclude that the non-una cum Mass is unlawful. It is absurd to think that God will consider both Masses acceptable. Particularly in the Old Testament you will find many references concerning what kind of sacrifice is acceptable to God. "If it have a blemish you shall not offer it, neither shall it be acceptable." Leviticus 22:20. Those of us who adhere to the Cassiciacum Thesis, never argue 'personal heresy' in the present crisis of the Church. Again: the reason to avoid the una cum Mass has nothing to do with personal heresy or schism in the minister. The question to be asked is: Does God accept a sacrifice offered in union with the leader of a false religion? Notice that the issue is not about being mistaken regarding the identity of the Roman Pontiff. Bergoglio is not 'merely' a false pope. He represent the one-world religion of the Antichrist. Bergoglio represents absolute opposition to the Catholic Mass and to the Catholic Faith. But the una cum Mass offers the Oblatio Munda together with and in the name of God's enemy. You claim to clarify things. You are doing the exact opposite.ReplyDelete
“ Bergoglio is not 'merely' a false pope. He represent the one-world religion of the Antichrist. Bergoglio represents absolute opposition to the Catholic Mass and to the Catholic Faith.”
You take for granted that the una cum prayer in the Canon is one that is an explicit profession of communion with the individual so named as the Roman Pontiff, and that naming Francis in the Canon is equivalent to professing the same faith as Francis professes.
Another argument (as documented and presented by Fr. Lamoureau years ago under the title "Una Quicum?") Is that the una cum prayer is strictly intercessory in nature, and as such a priest who mentions the name of an undeclared heretic as Pope is simply making an error of fact.
In other words, you are assuming the very facts which are under dispute.
Given that the terminology of a Mass being offered "una cum" with one of the V2 Popes is something which was debated going back to even the days of John Paul II, and given that the terminology utilized by Sanborn with regards to such Masses (i.e. a Catholic rite administered by a Catholic priest who intends to do what the Church does, who nonetheless names JP2 or B16 or Francis in the Canon) has not (AFAIK) become more concise since John Lane made his rebuttal in 2002, it's still uncertain as to whether the Sunday obligation (which is binding by Church law) must give way, especially since the "una cum" clause being a profession of communion vs. a merely intercessory prayer has still not been settled definitively.Delete
For reference: https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/744/sedevacantism-una-church-lane
Are you praying to Bergoglio to intercede for you? How is that helping your argument?Delete
I believe God would and has, as the Church allowed in 1808 to offer una cum with the leader of the Church of England, a DECLARED heretic. So God accepted both, the masses in England, in union with King George, and those masses outside of England. Didn't the leaders of the Church of England persecute many Catholics? Weren't some of these Kings a type of Anti Christ or a prefigure to the Anti Christ?Delete
Clearly, it is King George of England who would be inserted as they mention him by name a few pages later in the canon.
Beyond the fact that it is a prayer *for* those mentioned (not a request for those named to intercede *for* the priest praying the Canon), you miss the point: the priest is the one who is praying the intercessory prayer. By attending the Mass of a Catholic priest who (for whatever reason) names Francis in the Canon, do you therefore give your assent to the priest's error of fact as a layman? This is by no means the obvious conclusion.
As John Lane noted with regards to the case when JP2 held "legal title to the Papacy" (to borrow the Thesis's lingo), in the prior weblink mentioned above: "In any case, the una cum clause is an intercessory mention of those with chief responsibility for the welfare of the Church. It is a prayer for those who are mentioned in it...Numerous authorities could be quoted on this point – they appear to be unanimous in teaching that the una cum phrase is intercessory – that is, it is a prayer for those named in it. Obviously it is not possible to prove a negative, and we must be satisfied to leave it to those who claim that the faithful co-operate with the commemorations of the priest to prove their position."
In Latin, "una cum" always means "together with" or more literally "one with." This is the most basic, straightforward translation and understanding of the phrase.Delete
Mr. Lane always came off as fairly erudite, but often got blinders on. In this case, he was trying to both pull out of the Latin something that was not there, which, admittedly, you have to do when reading the language, while at the same time soften the plain and easy meaning.
That being said, he never did come up with a name of one of those "bishops in the woods" that +Fr. Cekada repeatedly asked him for.
I have said it before and I will continue to maintain the position that the "una cum" matter stands to be the traditionalists' "filioque." It is virtually the same argument.
The sources cited by Mr. Lane and Fr. Lamoureux in his "Una Quicum?" paper were fairly conclusive in that the una cum clause of the Canon is an intercessory prayer; not a profession of communion, much less a profession that the one praying the una cum therefore shares the same faith as the one named.
To My Readers,Delete
"epikeya" above is Fr. Desposito, a sedeprivationist priest who promotes the anti-Una Cum as extremely as Fr. Cekada did. As soon as he sent his first comment he reached out to me via DM on Twitter and asked if I was going to publish it.
I will publish any comment that is (a) charitable in tone, and (b) does not use vulgarity or blasphemy. Both his comments met the criteria and I published them. Nevertheless, he saw fit to block me on Twitter (as well as some others who don't agree with him) acting in a similar manner to Fred and Bobby Dimond.
During this week, I will add an Addendum to this post, explaining why Una Cum is NOT "false worship." When I see people acting badly (blocking people who disagree charitably, falsifying footnotes, etc.). it makes their position look both weak and disreputable.
If Fr. Desposito wants to continue to comment here, I will allow him to do so, as long as he abides by my two simple rules. I will not treat him as he did me, for that would make me no better a man.
I don't think he blocked you. His twitter says the same thing on mine. I think it is a setting on twitter he has. He has everyone blocked.Delete
Thanks for publishing this and exposing this fraud. You're welcome to join the club: https://www.facebook.com/groups/605446254768145/
I would like to direct some questions to Fr. Desposito:Delete
You are on the record as stating that Bergoglio is the leader of a "false religion."
However, in November 2021, after a brief dust-up occurred between the late Bp. Dolan and Bp. Sanborn regarding the Thesis, His Excellency made a number of comments to the following effect (https://youtu.be/NsXy268kBpc?t=830):
- "When did the Novus Ordo Church begin?" That was Bp. Sanborn's question to Bp. Dolan, and he highlighted numerous instances as to when such a break might have taken effect, asking Dolan to provide a definitive answer. Given your prior assertions, can you provide a precise time as to when the hierarchy occupying the visible Catholic structures defected from Catholicism for this false religion?
- Bp. Sanborn inquired as to when Bp. Dolan made his abjuration of error (knowing that such a practice had not been mandated by traditional priests; Sanborn himself admits that he made no abjuration from error, at the 16:16 mark) from the Novus Ordo, given Dolan's rhetoric about the Novus Ordo being a separate religion. Given that you are definitively identifying the church headed by Bergoglio as a false religion, when did an abjuration of error become a requirement? The reason I ask this is because Bp. Sanborn intimates that an abjuration of error is not something either he or Dolan require of those coming from the Novus Ordo, which seems odd given your Roman Catholic Institute's 2017 pastoral directory (http://romancatholicinstitute.org/pastoral-directory-of-the-roman-catholic-institute/) indicating that newcomers must "manifest their resolve to utterly repudiate Vatican II and its reforms". Or does this repudiation not rise to the level of an "abjuration of error", canonically speaking?
- Lastly, the Thesis maintains that the Novus Ordo hierarchy nevertheless maintains some form of legal or material connection with the Catholic hierarchy through designation and elections, if nothing else. However, given your characterization of said hierarchy as belonging to "the one-world religion of the Antichrist", in what tenuous sense can they even be said to maintain a legal connection? If they are truly of a false religion (as you maintain), then are they not thieves holding stolen goods, therefore lacking true legal title to anything? Can they even be said to be using their "legal title" if they use it to illegally elect non-Catholics? (For the whole substance of the Cardinalate lies in jurisdiction [see following citation from Rev. Baart's the Roman Court: https://i.imgur.com/qPfD7p9.png]; the very act of election is in and of itself an exercise of jurisdiction, which Bp. Sanborn maintains they do not have!)
In summary: my concern with this whole "una cum vs non una cum" debate is the lack of consistency with regards to the principles applied by Thesis proponents in particular. On the one hand, your Institute's position is that attending the una cum Mass is objectively a mortal sin, hand-in-hand with depictions of Francis and those in communion with him as being part of a false religion. On the other hand, you also try to claw back as many legal exceptions and technicalities regarding papal elections and the elections of cardinals for this hierarchy you likewise maintain only constitutes the Catholic hierarchy "materially", so that there is then some tangential connection to Catholicism in that edifice. For what other "false religion" would we bend backward so much for?
The mere act of attending a Catholic Mass wherein the priest names Francis in the Canon is not rendered impossible, given a sufficiently grave reason that the Church has allowed for more scandalous situations. Furthermore, given that the "una cum" has been described as a profession of communion or a merely intercessory prayer (with sources to back up both sides), and lacking a definitive ruling by the Magisterium, the Catholic principle is to not bind someone's conscience over what is still an inconclusive debate between theological propositions.
A Simple Man
Their position is weak and disreputable. It harms souls by depriving them of morally necessary sacraments. It is not from the Church and bears many bad fruits.
Thanks for writing this article,
Whether intercessory argument is correct or not: it is one thing to pray for/with secular authority one is subject to (no matter their evils), it is another to pray for/with a modernist heresiarch and false pope heading a false church fooling souls - someone who therefore has no ecclesiastical authority, and thus is no one that one should be subjected to (except perhaps for the inhabitants of Vatican City in a secular sense, as he is their de facto head of state); and thus, there would be no warranting inclusion of his name in public masses (unless priest is invincibly ignorant or something).Delete
Do find ironic that sedeprivationists don't want to pray with/for their materialiter pope. Non-una-cum makes sense if truly sedevacantist (who would ideally be conclavist too)
A Simple Man,Delete
Great to see you back and commenting my friend!
I'm glad you found my article helpful! May it bear good fruit for those with troubled consciences.
I'm sure you're perfectly aware that what is said in Leviticus in reference to the quality of the Old Testament sacrifice foreshadows the Spotless Lamb of the New Covenant - Jesus Christ Who is both the Victim and the High Priest: Hostia pura, Hostia Sancta, Hostia Immaculata.
Are you saying, Father, that when Mass is said una cum in the time of sedevacante, that would add a blemish to the Spotless Sacrifice ?
Introibo & Ozson,Delete
Regarding your comments on twitter blocking (by the way, I rarely go on twitter and am a twitter "dunce"), I just noticed the following, so I am posting here (it was just posted, and may add to this discussion overall):
"I am not returning to the chat and I have blocked a couple of una cum apologists. I think that deep down they know they are wrong, and that is why they become so aggressive against those of us who try to correct them. I mainly blame the Sede priests who have turned this issue into a question of legality (whether you can receive sacraments from unsentenced heretics), when in fact this question is ontological (what really happens to a Mass in which the "name" is named). Funny that the legal aspect is only brought up to defend going to the una cum Mass, but never to explain the situation of the Church. Only the Thesis gives to the legal what is of the legal, and to the ontological what is of the ontological."
4:39 PM · Mar 22, 2023
The source of Anon@2:53 PM's quote is from Fr Desposito's twitter: https://twitter.com/FrDesposito/status/1638641540229726213Delete
This comes across as a straw man of what's actually being argued, since it's not merely about legality, but:
1) About what the Church allows and has not allowed for the laity with regards to certain Sacraments, and
2) Whether his arguments about the "ontology" of the una cum is even a valid argument (which, given the disputations involved, is hardly settled).
The accusation of "aggressive" also comes across as a bit of a gaslight, seeing as how in my experience, those who hold to the Thesis tend to be more dogmatic and less accommodating to what the Church has actually allowed historically than the 'Totalists'. But again, this whole thing falls into the same trap the WMReview and Louie Verecchio's recent articles on the title of "sedevacantist" highlight: it's not about whether one holds to the "Thesis" or if one is a "Totalist". What matters is whether one seeks to hold the Catholic faith, whole and entire.
And given the unusual situation we find ourselves in, and given that both 'sides', as it were (Thesis vs Totalism) involve ambiguities and/or novel theological opinions, attempting to bind's one conscience over either one is a fool's game.
I can't help but shake my head at Fr. Despositio's tweet.
1. If you look at the exchange, there was no one "being aggressive"---no one was boorish. There was no need to block me.
2. "... deep down they know they are wrong.." Here, Fr. is basically saying that I'm fooling myself and others, i.e., being deceptive. Really? When anti-Una Cum apologist Fr. Cekada had to twist a hard to find source out of context to make it seemingly say the opposite of what it actually taught, what would Fr. Desposito call THAT? Twisting citations and blocking those who want to politely engage is behavior that, to me, signify clergy not looking for the truth, but pushing an agenda.
3. "...they become so aggressive against those of us who try to correct them." You correct someone when they are decidedly wrong. A priest can correct a Feeneyite, as BOD and BOB are settled Church teaching. As the Church has never settled this issue, who is he to "correct" anyone?? The "Thesis" is far from "dogma" and his equally dogmatic treatment of anti-Una Cum is deplorable. He once tweeted that an Una Cum Mass was worse than an abortion. If anyone needs correction, it's Fr. Desposito, who has ZERO Magisterial authority to decide what is sinful, (and to what degree), on an issue the Church has never settled.
Thank you Introibo. I did not know the level of Fr. Desposito's extremely bad behavior. I knew he blocked people without good excuse, but waived it off as pride, knowing God is more displeased with my pride than his. Very sad.Delete
Please see my Addendum. Thank you for asking me to clarify some things. It really needed to be done.
Anonymous March 22, 2023 at 2:53 PMDelete
It's disappointing and scandalizing to witness, who I presume is otherwise a holy traditional priest act like this in the public forum. The uncharitable attitude towards not just those who go to "una cum" Masses, but also to those who do not embrace the Thesis dogmatically is just needlessly divisive. Do we really need to give those in the Novus Ordo justification in calling us divided in faith?
It is disappointing. As so many have said, without a true shepherd, we’re going to have many of these problems. The appearance of division doesn’t do us any favors. I debated even posting that tweet that I came across, as it was not my intention to besmirch the name of one of God’s holy priests, but he has certainly been a part of this discussion, and I thought the post was germane given what was transpiring. As a relatively new convert, I have been noticing the division more and more, and again yes, it is disappointing. There are so many souls that still have not discovered the true Faith.
Introibo – I did notice the exchange, and completely agree on the lack of aggression or poor manners. I found your recent responses on twitter to be very educational – you have been very busy this week! You were in our rosary intentions last night. God Bless you.
Thanks for a great writing on an important subject.I support your views.ReplyDelete
Thank you my friend from New Zealand !
"[...]But the opposite view is generally held [communis] and is the true one, unless it should be illicit in a given case for some other reason such as scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge[...].ReplyDelete
All I will say is, that quote leaves some leeway...
Let us pray we can see a Pope again in our lifetimes (#conclavenow), so he can settle this mess and undeclared heretics cease having excuses to remain in their headless nebulous "tradworld church"; and so that the Barque of Peter has a visible Head during the End Times, as that is doing what the Church does.
I also hope for the day when we have a true pope once again!
Can you provide proof/a citation that shows that Canon 2261 is a mechanism by which jurisdiction is supplied for the sacrament of penance?
I understand that this canon permits/legitimises approaching said undeclared heretic priests for the sacrament of penance, but does not specifically provide jurisdiction to validate the act, rather this is presupposed i.e. the priest has a mission from the Church and retains their office prior to their public judgement by Church authorities.
Yours in Christ,
I reason thus:
If a Catholic Bishop consecrates another priest as a bishop without papal mandate both the consecrating and consecrated bishop are ipso facto excommunicated--but not declared such. They may not even profess ANY heresy.
The consecrated new Bishop does not (could not) hold any office, nor could he have jurisdiction based on same. Nevertheless, Canon 2261, section 2 applies and holds for all seven sacraments as the Canon does not place restrictions on which sacraments may be asked for by Catholics. Therefore, the jurisdiction and "mission" is supplied by the Church.
I can see you're trying your best here. Unfortunately Canon 2261 does not supply jurisdiction, but it only authorises the priest to use his holy orders in conferring the sacrament. I refer you to canons 209 and 882 for supply of jurisdiction.
I'm fully aware of those Canons. It CANNOT be the exclusive means to supplying jurisdiction, as my hypothetical above plainly shows. Fr. DePauw, an approved canonist, taught that all means of jurisdiction are not covered in the Code.
Hear me out. I believe the Mass "una cum" a man who is a false pope & heretic is NOT intrinsically evil when the priest believes he is placing a true pope there....still, it is generally sinful to attend R&R Masses for other moral reasons, namely, the danger of associating with beliefs contrary to the Faith. The best analogy I can give is when the Church in the past once legislated that a Catholic would be excommunicated for having a heretical book on his book shelf. Not intrinsically evil, and even allowable by permission at that time, but because of the near occasion of sin. Going to an R&R Mass regularly is like picking up the book off the shelf and reading it. It's a direct harm to divine Faith. This is besides the issue of doubtful sacraments because of doubtful priests, since the SSPX in particular doesn't consider Novus Ordo baptisms doubtful, and since the 90's the potential for them to be ordaining priests not validly baptized is a real problem.ReplyDelete
The issue indeed at present (I think) as to why so much ink has been spilled over una cim vs non una cum is because the Church has imposed the obligation of attending Sunday Mass on the faithful under pain of mortal sin.
Now, it almost goes without saying that for many Catholics, the una cum Mass (a true Catholic Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest, yet with Francis named in the Canon) is the only one available for them to attend within reasonable distance. However, being told that attending the una cum is objectively a mortal sin could influence them to not attend.
What takes precedence? A universal obligation imposed by the Church, or a private theological opinion that is disputed? The former, obviously.
In claiming that attending the una cum Mass is mortally sinful (when this is not at all obvious given prior Church praxis), priests like Fr. Desposito and others may be encouraging laity to not uphold their Sunday obligation, if a non una cum Mass isn't available for them to attend.
Well-intentioned or otherwise, that's a problem.
When reading the quote from Hyland, De Lugo it talks about receiving sacraments from the undeclared heretic. It does not say anything about hearing his sermons, placing yourself in obedience to him, or mingling with him after masses. It appears Canon 2261 s.2 only allows the faithful to receive sacraments, and that is it. Of course for the good of the souls.
Can someone please elaborate on why Bp. Sanborn and his clergy consider Novus Ordo baptisms as doubtful ONLY AFTER 1990? It seems no reasoning behind that decision is given on the part of the Roman Catholic Institute clergy.Delete
That's a very good question; their pastoral directory linked in the comments above says here:Delete
"28. Baptisms conferred by Novus Ordo clergy during or after 1990 must be verified as having been done correctly. If positive proof of the correctness of the rite should be lacking, then the baptism must be conferred again sub conditione."
Why 1990 specifically?
Joanna and anon5:33Delete
I have no idea why 1990 is specified. In 1990 the Eastern Rites had new Codes imposed upon them by Modernist Vatican to bring them in line with V2. However, they don't seem to specify the Eastern Rites, and I don't know why that year is chosen. If any of my readers know, please let me know in the comments.
Corky, it is also dangerous to associate with many sedevacantist groups because they also, knowingly or unknowingly espouse public heresy. Examples follow:Delete
It is partly because of where it has led so many that many in the FSSPX are reluctant to embrace the sedevacantist position. I am grateful to God that Catholics can petition the sacraments from undeclared heretics wherever they are, as so many have fallen in this war whether people are aware of it or not.
The cut-off date of 1990 doesn't matter anymore, because Bp. Sanborn in his January 2023 newsletter (on-line at MHTseminary) says that he is now extending it to the 1970's and 1980's. The RCI site hasn't been updated yet to reflect this change.Delete
What happens if a Catholic shows up at his chaoel and says, "I am morally certain of the fact of my baptism," and since you are not my canonical pastor, I don't answer to you, and will not agree to your investigation?" What authority will RCI rely on to force a Catholic to agree to an investigation and accept the determination?Delete
thank you for the information.
I am not in agreement with those who hold to the thesis or Bp. Sanborn's positions on other things such as the Pius XII reforms.ReplyDelete
The Una Cum position on the other hand has many problems. It's not just Francis' name as pope in the canon who is mentioned but also the local bishop's name. Una Cum means in UNION WITH, NOT praying for the "conversion" of a false pope or bishop as somebody in the comment above alluded to.
It's possible that a cleric could be mistaken on the names in the canon such as what could have happened in the Great Western Schism but the question would be what else is he "mistaken" on? I've asked many priests in the Novus Ordo about this and they all say it is the DUTY of a priest to insert those names because they MUST be in union with the hierarchy as ONE Church.
If you attend an indult Mass a laymen you must inquire if he is a valid priest not ordained in the new rite (most old priests are dead now), if his communion hosts are unadulterated as many are these days with added chemicals and not made of wheat (gluten free), and if the priest himself believes in either a conjoined Church in schism with itself like Vigano believes or if he accepts the new laws, saints, and norms set out by the Second Vatican Council.
Then you have SSPX priests, some of which are not valid by the simple fact that they receive ordinations from Novus Ordo bishops. They believe in a defective Church even though they won't admit it. Their ecclesiology is schismatic in so far as how they view popes and this includes true popes and they won't admit it. They recognize new laws from the new Church.
None of the clerics are declared heretics and schismatic but neither are the Novus Ordo priests who offer cheesehead, clown, or nude Novus Ordo invalid Masses.
To sum it up, it goes beyond Una Cum with undeclared heretics. You may not be receiving valid sacraments due to dubious Orders or hosts. You are not receiving Catholic doctrine. You are essentially doing yourself no favors unless it be in danger of death and all possible scandal is out of the way. Therefore, why go to the Una Cum if it's not for the right reasons?
Lee, the SSPX do not hold any heresy, as heresy must be a direct denial of a dogma. Their position is illogical, but not heretical. The issue you brought up about some Novus Ordo ordained priests being in their ranks is true, but there are not that many, and they are known about, so they can be easily avoided.Delete
The SSPX believe in a defective Church. How? Well first they believe the Novus Ordo Mass, Hierarchy, etc is part of the Catholic Church even though they resist it over and over. Why do they resist something they believe is Catholic? You see the Novus Ordo is either Catholic or it is not. If it is Catholic as the SSPX somewhat believe and there is something wrong with it means the Catholic Church has defected. This is essentially their position. You cannot hold this position.
Also they are schismatic by the mere fact that they refuse obedience to the one they call pope. Either Francis is pope and you obey his authority as pope or if he is not, have nothing to do with him. Resisting is not an option because this is anti-Catholic in nature.
As Pope Leo XIII taught,
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path." Epistla Tua 1885
Lee, can you kindly quote for me a statement from SSPX to which they say, "We believe in a defective Catholic Church." Thank you. To be clear, I am not asking you for your opinion, or where there illogical position leads, only a heretical statement such as this right from them.Delete
Lee, show me a definition of schism from an approved Catholic source which states that it's schismatic to refuse submission to an undeclared antipope. I haven't seen it.Delete
how can they be schismatic, if the one they supposedly adhere to has no authority? Subjectively, some may adhere to Francis, but objectively, they don't in anyway except by having a picture of him on the wall. They don't actually do anything the the counter church says.
To Anon. 9:10,Delete
1974 declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre,
"We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).
Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.
This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever."
Paul VI said this two years later:
"There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ... It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith." May 24, 1976 Paul VI
Show me how it is not schism to believe in the Conciliar popes as actual popes and refuse submission to them. I bet you can't.
You cannot recognize somebody as pope and ditch everything he says as if he is not pope. This is what the SSPX do.
Lee, you ask me to show that the SSPX are not in schism, but the onus is on you, to prove they are, as you are accuser. Can you kindly cite me the definition of schism from any approved Catholic source, and then we will see if it fits. I can assure you it doesn't but since you think it does, post it from any source you like, and I will show you that you see incorrect in your accusation.Delete
I take it you go to the SSPX. Nothing will ever convince you that they aren't in schism because you have already made up your mind that it's not possible.
I quoted to you Epistola Tua from Leo XIII above. If you can't figure out who the final authority is that is your problem. If the archbishop came to the final conclusion as a sedevacantist I would have no problem with him. But he didn't. The SSPX hob knob with the new religion (even now) and try to make sound like they are going save the Church when they are not even in the Church that they reject.
Lee, I said a Catholic source that defines schism, which is what we are discussing. Your source from Leo XIII wasn't defining schism. He didn't even use the term in the document you reference. Please don't assume anything about me either, this is about the truth, not where I go to mass. If you don't want to discuss, I'm fine with that, but as a Catholic, you must know that accusations must be substantiated, and I am telling you that you are wrong on this. They are not in schism. Since you don't want to provide a definition of schism, I will do it for you: "The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope or to hold communion with members of the Church subject to him," (A Catholic dictionary, 1958)Delete
Since Francis is not pope, the accusation of schism falls. You may accuse them of committing a subjective sin of schism, but that's not what you are saying, you accusing them of the delict of schism, and wrongly thinking they are outside the Church. If there is no pope, one cannot refuse to submit to the authority of a man who isn't pope. The only reason they are not submitting to him is because he isn't a pope, they just haven't figured that out yet.
Regardless, Francis is Pope or he is not, if he is, then accuse them of schism, but you know he isn't Pope, so you know that they are not refusing submission to a Pope! How can you accuse them of something that you know is false, especially when you profess that Francis isn't Pope and that makes it impossible to be in schism by refusing obedience to an a man who is not a pope, and is truly an undeclared antipope.
You said correctly except that you missed that the SSPX believes Francis is pope. They are in schism so long as they keep believing him to be pope and are trying (which they are) to be in union with him on their terms. That is the spirit of schism.
Pope Leo XIII was explaining how nobody can go against the Supreme Pontiff, which includes clergy which is an act of schism. They create their own Ordinaries, have their own churches, and operate how they want in opposition to the Church they recognize. That is the reality. Wake up!
Hello Introibo and/or Lee:ReplyDelete
1. Would it be correct to say that you both "prefer" non-una-cum, and that the two of you could possibly attend the same Mass if it was valid?
2. If a traditional Catholic is attending a traditional Catholic chapel and receiving Communion there, do you recommend supporting that chapel financially?
3. Lee, who I understand does not like to attend SSPX, would you receive Communion from, say, an SSPX priest if you were in danger of death?
4. Which hand missal do each of you prefer?
Thank you. Anonymous
1. I cannot speak for Introibo but it would not be correct to say that I "prefer" non- Una Cum. I detest Una Cum Masses and will never go back to them. 20 years ago I for about 3-4 years served and attended (frequently) validly ordained priest (one ordained in 1942 the other 1954 both now deceased) who said the indult Mass.
As much as I loved those priests the moment I became sedevacantist I never went back. The older priest was actually ignorant of ecumenism and the teachings of Vatican II when I confronted him but nevertheless rejected it as soon as I explained what it said. The problem was he agreed with saying the new Mass once or twice a year, had no problem with calling John Paul II pope and obeying him, and had to at least implicitly go along with the teachings of Vatican II. He also had to say the 62 missal and be okay with giving communion to women without head coverings and obey the 1983 code of canon law which permits giving non-Catholics the sacraments in danger of death.
2. If traditional Catholic is attending a truly Catholic priest or bishop who not only holds the sedevacantist position but also the entire Catholic Faith as best as he can, I'm all for supporting them financially.
3. It's not that I don't like them (SSPX), but that I don't recognize them as Catholics any more than I would not recognize a Feeneyite or Novus Ordo as Catholic. They belong to a different religion. Would I receive sacraments from them (SSPX) in danger of death? No, but I'm not against others receiving them in danger of death. I already have a list of sedevacantists priests to do that within a certain range so it's a little different for me.
4. I like them all. St. Andrew, St. Joseph, Fr. Lasance, Fr. Stedman etc. I have no preference.
Lee has spoken for himself, and I now speak for myself.
1. I'd rather attend non Una Cum. I just want everyone to reject Bergoglio and his sect once and for all.
2. If Una Cum, it depends if they propagate R&R nonsense. I knew an elderly priest from before V2 who used the name of the false pope "just in case" and to "pray for his conversion." He was independent and rejected all heresies of both V2 and the "popes" from Roncalli on. His sermons were on Catholic saints such as St. Francis DeSales and St. Alphonsus. No mention of Modernist Rome. I had no problem giving this good priest money. If an SSPXer who insists we recognize Bergoglio, I could not support him in good conscience.
3. Absolutely and without hesitation PROVIDED (a) he was validly ordained and (b) as a condition of receiving the Last Rites, he did not insist I profess Bergoglio "pope."
4. My personal preference is St. Joseph, followed by the New Marian Daily Missal, and Fr. Lasance.
Lee, Archbishop Lefebvre didn't say that he believes in a defective Catholic Church. You said he did, and the quote provided doesn't say that.ReplyDelete
You are missing the point. He's says that:
*Rome is Protestant and Modernist
*The Council lead to the destruction of the Church by ruining seminaries, religious life, sacraments etc.
*That the hierarchy has no authority
All of this while rejecting it as the Catholic Church. This means it is defected. He is right in what he saying but he must conclude that it's not the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church cannot do these things. He never did that. Sorry you cannot understand that.
Lee, I wasn't missing the point, and I'm not trying to knit-pick you, but I'm trying to get you to think more about what you are doing. Making an accusation is a very grave thing to do, especially when it is a serious charge, and the very thing you accused the Archbishop of saying is not something he actually said. It is something that you construed from what he said, not his words.Delete
Regarding what you said, the context is critical is it not? The context was that he is describing the Conciliar sect, not the Catholic Church in the statements. A long time has passed since he made statements such as these, so it would in charity be better to cut him some slack, as the 70's was the fog of war, so to speak, and it was a complete mess for Catholics who were trying to keep their Faith in the midst of Paul VI, and the loss of Faith going on everywhere. Many thought that he was being tricked or controlled by those around him. Communication in those days was inefficient. How would you like to have this discussion, in written letters to Imtroibo's magazine," published once a month and mailed? That's how these things were discussed back then, very very slowly. This exchange would take a year to get through, rather than a day. Try to imagine getting information in a climate like that.
Let me put his assertions that you mentioned in context now:
1. "Rome is Protestant and Modernist" = The men occupying Rome, the undeclared antipope and those in league with him are Protestant and Modernist.
2. "The Council led to the Destruction of the Church by ruining seminaries, religious life, the sacraments, etc." = The false council, not a Catholic ecumenical council did these things.
3. "The hierarchy has no authority" = the hierarchy that has fallen away into heresy has no authority.
Keep in mind that just because he didn't figure it all out in the 1970's, he was reacting to what he was seeing and resisting it. While his way of explaining it was not precise, as I said above, his intention was not to attack the Church, it's Councils, the hierarchy, it was to describe something that wasn't Catholic that he clearly had not yet made sense of, but as a bishop was trying to warn Catholics against.
Fair enough, but 50 years later nothing has changed except the fact that the SSPX have attempted to be in union with Rome which they believe is Catholic. They also have a picture a Francis in their vestibules. Novus ordo priests were for a time assisting at SSPX weddings and in the mercy were granted permission to hear confessions by Francis. This means they are recognizing the authority of Francis in a certain sense but rejecting him as the head.
The 3 points I agree with you on but they (at least their clergy) don't believe he is an undeclared anti-pope. It doesn't matter whether they believe the council was false so long as they believe the popes are true. The hierarchy cannot fall into heresy if it is as they recognize the hierarchy. Wolves are not shepherds.
Lee, they are not really in union with Francis, so really nothing has changed with them the last 50 years. They put up a picture in their chapels of him, but who cares. They don't treat him as a pope, so that's why they aren't in union with him, in any way that actually matters. They don't learn from him, they don't allow him to govern their fraternity, and they don't allow him to regulate the worship they use.Delete
They don't actually believe these V2 popes are true. Actions speak louder than words, and their actions show otherwise regardless of what they say.
So let's look at some good reasons why am SSPX priest may not adopt sedevacantism. In order to to this, you must break free of the mental construct made for you by men like Fr. Cekada who in his "recognize and resist," narrative, and move you are free of this narrative, begin to see things as they truly are. Did you ever think that maybe these SSPX priests only say Francis is pope because they are trying to remain in the Church, and they think if they, on their own, say he isn't pope, will fall into schism. Did you ever think that the SSPX priests who are watching the sedevacantist bishops and priests say there is no longer a Catholic hierarchy alive in the world, and therefore professing heresy, is where sedevacantism leads, then you can see why they don't want to go to a position which they believe leads to heresy. It's far more complicated than the label, "recognize and resist," makes it out to be.
Do you ever think that the average SSPX priest may just be to unsure in trusting his own judgement and just says to himself, "I don't know how to solve this mess, it's over my head, even the bishops have never solved it, so until this gets resolved by the Church through a Council or any other way God shows us, then I'll keep saying my mass, bringing the sacraments to people, and will do my best to save souls, and leave these bigger matters to God to sort out. I will keep naming Francis because the Church has not yet judged him and the Catholic hierarchy that is left at least, hasn't told me to do otherwise, and they themselves recognize his papal claim.
There are all kinds of good and Catholic motivations out there in responding to this crisis, and they are not "recognize and resist," which simplifies all of this down to the ridiculous, removing all good possibilities of why a Catholic may do what he is doing, and forcing him into a box, that he must be recognizing the antipope and just resisting the "lawful pope," and therefore he's a bad schismatic. Such thinking is simplistic and violates charity which teaches us to always try our best to excuse our neighbor prior to forming any opinion of guilt upon him.
I know they are not in union with Francis which proves my point that they are schismatic. I just called a local SSPX priest and he said the SSPX official position is that Francis is the pope but just a bad pope. I told him I was sedevacantist and he said you are welcome to come and receive the sacraments here but just don't talk about your position to anybody. When I asked why he said life is too short and the call ended.
I appreciate his kindness and understand why he doesn't want it to be discussed because it would cause dissension among his congregation, but the problem still remains. The sedevacantist postion is the only answer. It doesn't lead to heresy as you mentioned. It leads to Catholicism and all they have to do is change their positions on some things. I mean they already do everything like sedevacantists do anyways (set up there own churches, seminaries, etc.) so why not?
What do these priests and parents teach their children when the parts in the catechism teach about the authority of the pope and the Magisterium and how do they apply it to Francis?
Also I don't mentally construct my mind around what Fr. Cekada says. In fact, I think his problem along with Bp. Sanborn was that they originally came from the SSPX and its spirit of resistance didn't leave them with how they view the Pius XII reforms to the liturgy during Holy Week. However, they are correct when it comes to sedevacantism. So don't act like I'm somebody who can't think for myself or is just simplistic. I go for the heart of the issue.
If you want to go to an una cum Mass then go. I will not and will never go back and I will tell people they ought not to go and instead to go somewhere where they can find the Catholic Faith. I believe it is more damaging to be among clergy who can lead you astray then just simply receiving sacraments. If you want to think differently then go ahead.
Lee, I'm sorry if I am failing to get this across to you, but let me try a new approach to see if we can at a minimum understand each other.Delete
Let's put this into a proper syllogism:
To be in schism John must refuse to submit to the authority of the pope
John is not refusing to submit to the authority of the pope.
Ergo, there is no schism
Let's try another:
It is not schism to refuse to submit to the authority of an undeclared antipope.
John refuses to submit to the authority of an undeclared antipope.
John is not in schism.
Do you follow now?
What you are accusing them of is a moral transgression, not a canonical transgression. You can write all day about how if one believes that he is refusing to be subject to an antipope that he thinks is the pope, and prove that it is sinful, feel free. It still doesn't prove schism, as they are not refusing to submit to the authority of the pope, which is necessary to prove schism.
I don't think you can follow what I'm saying either. So let's try again:
SSPX priest said the SSPX position is that Francis is pope.
SSPX priest doesn't want to discuss sedevacantism or else you won't be welcome.
Therefore SSPX believes Francis is pope AS HE SAID and therefore refuses submission to him because he believes him to be bad.
It's true that popes can be bad but it's not true that a pope's authority can be ignored.
Yes we know Francis is not pope anyways but that does not change the fact that the SSPX outward expression is to acknowledge him as pope anyways. This is dishonesty and a form a schism.
John Paul II excommunicated them in 1988. Benedict XVI said they have no canonical status in the Church in 2009.
It matters not whether they are true popes if the organization itself believes them to be popes and tries to be in union with them by their negotiations. It's wrong and it's clear as day to see.
Do you follow?
Lee, you are still missing the entire point. If there is not a rejection of the authority of a pope, and only a rejection the authority of an undeclared antipope, they cannot by definition be schismatics. You seem to be a smart guy, I don't see why you are not getting this.Delete
Your argument is completely focused on what is subjective, not what actually is the reality. Either Francis is pope or he is not. You and I both say he isn't, and we can prove it in multiple ways. If a man refuses subjection to this non-pope, that is not a proof of schism from the Church, as the very definition is not met.
In law, if one is guilty of a crime, if a man is guilty, he must have done exactly what the crime is, that is exactly what the criminal code defines it as, otherwise law would be meaningless and subjective according to the whims of the police and prosecutors, as in a tyranny. Schism in our case is a defined crime against the Church, and it is committed in two possible ways, rejecting the authority of the POPE, or severing oneself from communion with other Catholics. Since we are only discussing the former, I will say again, that you are, changing the definition and substituting "undeclared antipope" for "pope," in your accusation of schism against the SSPX.
The fact that the SSPX say he's pope, and then refuse subjection to him, makes their position inconsistent with Catholic theology, but it is absolutely not schism from the Church itself, as their actions simply do to constitute schism, according to the definition of the crime of schism itself.
If you believe Francis is pope, like Siscoe and Salza do, then you can consistently, although incorrectly, argue that the SSPX is in schism, but for you as a professed and public sedevacantist who states for all to see that Francis isn't pope, and then accuse other Catholics of schism from the Church for refusing subjection to him, makes absolutely no sense at all, unless you do not believe the Church's definition of schism.
"The fact that the SSPX say he's pope, and then refuse subjection to him, makes their position inconsistent with Catholic theology, but it is absolutely not schism from the Church itself, as their actions simply do to constitute schism, according to the definition of the crime of schism itself."
If as you acknowledge that it's inconsistent with Catholic theology, then you are admitting they are guilty of some form of serious error. Why are you being subjective?
The SSPX have re-invented the idea that you can deny who you believe is pope.
If you don't believe Francis is pope, why would you want to pray with those who believe he is the pope? How are you of the same Faith?
@Anon11:25 & Lee,Delete
Perhaps I am missing something here, so forgive me if I am not grasping something obvious. I believe I understand this concept of “objective schism”. However, I am guilty of committing mortal sin, even if the sin is not *objectively* mortal, if either: I believe the sin to be mortal, or, I am unsure if the sin is mortal (and make no attempt to find out), and then commit the act anyway. Intent is a necessary component – is it not? Likewise, if the Church commands me to obey the Pope, and I believe/suspect him to be, and then disobey, does this not show my sinful intent in refusing submission to Church teaching?
Lee, as of yet, I'm only addressing the charge of schism, which your last post didn't mention, so I hope that one is resolved. On the matter of schism, I will leave you a good defense of SSPX from that charge, which may hopefully convince you, if I have failed to do so: https://romeward.com/articles/239751495/is-the-sspx-in-schismDelete
Yes, I said their position was inconsistent with Catholic theology, as it is misapplies the principles completely, but I stopped short of calling it a doctrinal error. To prove that they hold a doctrinal error, one must state the error, and then demonstrate that it's is against the teaching of the Church. Even if one proves that they hold a doctrinal error less than heresy, which might be possible, although I haven't seen a case made against them, I am certain that they hold no heresy, and are therefore Catholics. I am also confident that if they do hold a doctrinal error less than heresy, that it is not done with malice, and only as part of a long history of following a haphazard response to the crisis, and once this crisis is over, they will all fall into line with everything the Pope teaches.
To get to the root of the SSPX dilemma and to treat them with charity, as we must, which means that we must strive to excuse them as much and as far as is possible and seek out potential innocent explanations of their statements, prior to presuming guilt.
To grasp this, you must go back to the beginning of the crisis, and see how Catholics reacted to it, how those ideas formed, and the intentions of those forming these ideas. All Catholics from the start who reacted to the crisis, put keeping the Faith and the Mass first and foremost, and by that were resisting Paul VI, and almost all Catholics at that time messed up any consistent explanation of how that is done against a Pope in the first place. They were laser focused on keeping the Faith and preserving the mass, that's it.
As time went on, many started to question this, and began to put forward the hard questions, and try to put order into how a Catholic can correctly apply pre-Vatican II principles to this crisis.
Archbishop Lefebvre to his credit also had the same concerns and you can read his Address to Seminarians in in 1986, in which he was moving in the direction of fixing the haphazard Catholic response, to a correct and well thought out response.
History shows that despite his effort to correct the ship, it never happened, and the SSPX is trapped in time, so to speak, continuing to apply a haphazard response of keeping the mass and keeping the Faith, but not being consistent with other principles, such as how this can all happen under a true pope, and all of the considerations that go with that.
You have said correctly because in principle if you believe Francis is pope and you call yourself a Catholic you must obey and submit to his authority.
St. Vincent Ferrer mistakenly believed Benedict XIII was pope but as soon as he came to the conclusion that he wasn't refused submission to him but nevertheless obeyed him when he thought he was before he came to that conclusion. That is the attitude a Catholic should have.
Check out his article because it screams true about the true colors of pseudo trads: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/12/29/the-top-ten-blasphemous-heresies-and-errors-of-pseudo-traditional-catholics/
Lee, does that article convince you of anything, it did nothing for me. Let Speray actually do his homework, and name who is accusing and quote the person with citations and I will look at it. Vague and generalized accusations are worthless.Delete
ST, read the article I just posted for Lee, it's very good. Also, read the above exchange. Intention does matter, and if SSPX priests are in their minds refusing submission to who they call pope, even though he is truly an antipope, then it is grounds for sin, but it is not schism from the Church.Delete
Daly's article is ridiculous because in principle the SSPX practice hypocrisy. The reason it is a sin as you admit is because it's schism otherwise what would be the sin?
Speray did do his homework.
Example: The SSPX believe the New Mass is evil. How can this be if they believe Francis is pope? The Catholic Church cannot promulgate unholy liturgies, yet they believe Francis is pope and head of the Catholic Church just like they believe Paul VI was pope. They cannot say its evil because that implies the Church is evil which means the Church would not be holy. Therefore they deny the Church's holiness as Speray used in his example #7
Lee, you really do not understand what you are discussing and this is over your head. I am not trying to insult you, either. You are assuming a lot, not doing the research and making your own definitions for what schism is and what it is not. Daly's article is air tight, but since you think otherwise, I leave off with that that subject.Delete
To the other matter, Speray's article is just a rant, rather than seriously putting forth an accusation. One owes it in justice to the accused to state who is being accused, then state the specific accusation, by naming the crime and how the accused is guilty of the crime , then provide proof to support. His article accuses large amounts of unnamed people that he calls pseudo-trads, and vaguely identifies the crimes, that it.
Since the article is persuasive to you, we will just agree to differ.
I leave off here.
You are just a mockingbird of Daly. You cannot think for yourself or even demonstrate how his position works (because it doesn't). You just repeat his he says in his article because you believe as if its dogma (which it is not). His article is not "air tight" because it's not even that convincing.
Speray's doesn't have to be accusing any specific person if all persons within the framework of whom his speaking fit into that category.
I just demonstrated to you one of his examples and you ignored the fact. Psuedo trads all say the new Mass is evil but believe Paul is pope and yet reject his promulgation of it. Therefore the Church is not HOLY to them. That cannot be if as they believe it's the Catholic Church.
This would mean they would be condemned by Canon 7 which states "If any one shall say, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, of which the Catholic Church makes use in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema." The New Mass could not be an incentive to impiety
This is just ONE example.
Also a commenter below mentioned how the SSPX follows the new fast and abstinence rules put out by Paul VI in 1966. Yet these same hypocrites won't believe he is a saint of their church because they do not believe canonizations are infallible which would mean we can question ALL canonized saints in the history of the Church if we don't have to believe in the few they don't believe. This is heretical because to not recognize saints would be to not recognize them in the Mass when the Church assigns them a feast day to be honored from which the saint is UNIVERSALLY recognized by the whole Church.
I could go on but you said you will leave off. Enjoy your Una Cum, Kumbaya inconsistent religion of Anti-Catholicism.
You wrote: "I just demonstrated to you one of his examples and you ignored the fact. Psuedo trads all say the new Mass is evil but believe Paul is pope and yet reject his promulgation of it. Therefore the Church is not HOLY to them. That cannot be if as they believe it's the Catholic Church."
To be charitable, this is not technically the position of the SSPX: https://sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit
Quote: "A law is legitimate only when it is duly promulgated by the lawfully constituted authority. But to this condition must be added another of supreme importance and essential to make it a law: it must be for the common good. And precisely on this score, the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) is most defective as was attested at the time of its promulgation...The legal aspect here does not address so much the question of the suppression of the Old Mass...Rather, the legal question we wish to study deals with the juridical validity of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Here, we are largely indebted to Itineraires, the magazine of Jean Madiran, which was the French voice of Tradition years before the liturgical changes. We need to look at the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969) which allegedly promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae. Most of the document describes the novelties and the final part never declares clearly what the pope commands, forbids, or concedes. As to the final “Nonobstant”, it is too generic to pretend to abrogate the perfectly clear legislative act of St. Pius V who promulgated the Mass of All Time. It appears that Paul VI never wanted to render his missal mandatory, with a truly juridical obligation."
There are more details, but suffice to say, their position is not that the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated by the Catholic Church. Rather, their profession is that it was unlawfully promulgated, and that the erstwhile Pope, Paul VI, was to some degree hoodwinked by conciliar bishops.
One can certainly argue that they are in error with regards to the material facts of what constitutes lawful promulgation, and I can't claim for certain if their current stance regarding the allegedly unlawful promulgation of the Novus Ordo still reflects the article cited. However, there is a world of difference between "SSPX rejects the Novus Ordo because it is an incentive to impiety, even though it was promulgated by what they believe to be the Catholic Church" and "SSPX rejects the Novus Ordo because it is an incentive to impiety that was dubiously authorized and unlawfully imposed on the Catholic faithful".
You also wrote: "Yet these same hypocrites won't believe he is a saint of their church because they do not believe canonizations are infallible which would mean we can question ALL canonized saints in the history of the Church if we don't have to believe in the few they don't believe."
Again, to be charitable: their reservations are with regards to the procedure of canonization strictly since Vatican II, and the motives entailed by those changes, and that this change of procedure has rendered doubt on the infallibility **solely** for canonizations conducted post-V2: https://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-1
As before, one may argue that they are in error of fact with regards to whether process even plays a part in the procedure of canonization and its legitimacy (as Novus Ordo Watch and the late Fr. Cekada argued), but your characterization is not technically their position.
A Simple Man
Lee – thank you for sharing his post. He makes some good points. I enjoy his work, although I have not read many of his posts (I wish I could read and process everything faster, perhaps with time I can digest these posts quicker).Delete
Anon2:31 – Thank you for sharing a post. I know a little of John Daly from reading about the una cum position in the past. In truth, I may or may not read it anytime soon because of current time and energy constraints.
A Simple Man – Thanks for your comments. They were informative.
At the risk of sticking my foot in my mouth, just because one *can* do something, doesn’t mean one *should*. I am blessed with being able to travel to a chapel with a sedevacantist priest. However, I want to know what options are, not just for me, but for others. I believe that there are inherent dangers at these R&R masses, which may be severe indeed depending upon one’s circumstances and knowledge of the Faith. I am allowed a couple snacks today – but do I “need” them? To my knowledge, with exact details depending upon the source or priest, I may be permitted to do some light or moderate manual labor for a limited period of time on a Sunday, and not out of necessity – but should I?
Again, I am grateful to God that I have the means to attend Mass, even with inconvenience (which one could argue is a gift since it is somewhat of a hardship, and I certainly need the Graces). However, many others are not so fortunate, but they still should be honest with themselves (and of course God) and act within their hopefully well-formed conscience. If I were to suggest an una cum Mass to someone out of state (because of relative convenience for them), will I be putting them in harm’s way? This is something I think about. I understand it could potentially be worse in a hypothetical scenario to send someone to a sedevacantist priest (non-welcoming, unfriendly, etc. – not that that’s ever been my experience!) – but I simply wouldn’t know that beforehand, and I have to act with the information I have. Based on my current understanding and conscience, given the right scenario and necessity (which could be debated!) I view these Masses as a possible option for some. However, I think they come with constant added dangers and whoever attends needs to be constantly vigilant (via sermons and fellowship). As fallen creatures, we are prone to making excuses for ourselves and for our conveniences. It could be a slippery slope.
A Simple Man,Delete
What you explain doesn't refute what Lee stated. The SSPX believe the New Mass is evil. FACT. They believe Paul VI was a true pope. FACT. Paul VI did promulgate the new mass and they reject his promulgation of it. FACT.
They may say the New Mass wasn't promulgated by their church, so what church promulgated it and practices it? All the subsequent popes recognized it, too. What Lee stated wasn't technically incorrect, since the SSPX actually do what Trent condemns, whether or not their reasoning has a difference. They aren't being honest and are trying to weasel themselves out of the condemnation.
The fact is they don't get to decide over the popes what discipline is good for the Church. Of course, a true pope can't illegally promulgate something evil, but that's precisely what they believe Paul VI did and it was harmful and the new mass has been accepted by all the subsequent popes. The SSPX rejection places them at odds with all their popes with THEIR private opinion about what is and isn't good for the Church.
They also reject the plenary power of the pope in canonizations if they contend their needs to be a procedure that the pope must follow.
The fact remains that they contend that without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals. They are condemned by Pope Pius IX plain and simple.
The SSPX is just another cult within a cult. They are as bad as the Novus Bogus and perhaps worse because they believe in a formally divided Church. Therefore the Church is not HOLY to them because holiness also requires unity in faith. They refuse the ordinaries of their pope and do their own thing. That's schism in principle and even if they aren't rejecting the authority of a true pope, they most certainly believe they can. That makes them heretics!
1. A traditional Catholic chapel does not promote Feeneyism in general, but has a link on their website to a conference at which a well-known Feeneyite is scheduled to speak. Your opinion on attending this chapel?
2. A non-Feeneyite traditional Catholic website has a link to a statement from a Feeneyite person. The statement itself is not Feeneyite. Your opinion?
3. A traditional Catholic(non-Feeneyite), who attends a non-Feeneyite chapel, is in a private conversation with a fellow parishioner. This fellow parishioner expresses a Feeneyite opinion. What should the non-Feeneyite say or do?
4. Do you think that some traditional Catholics are misogynistic(hateful) towards women, and what do you suggest should be done to oppose this?
Thank you. Anonymous
1. I would ask the priest why the link is there. If he endorses Feeneyism, I personally would stay away unless I had nowhere else to attend Mass.
2. If there is a sufficient reason to publish it, I have no problem. In that case, it is not an endorsement of the error.
3. Explain to him the teaching of the Church. Give him some good literature that refutes Feeneyism. If he is obstinate, inform the priest to talk to him. He should not present himself for Communion if he is a pertinacious heretic.
4. Some (few in my experience) can be. It should be explained that women are to be treated with respect, for this is what Christ expects from a Traditionalist Catholic gentleman. Remind him that the greatest person, apart from Christ, to walk this Earth, was the Immaculate Virgin Mary--a woman who God loves above all others.
Thank you, Introibo, for this article.ReplyDelete
It’s amazing how many educated traditional Catholics continue to repeat the old falsehood that the una cum clause means the Mass is *offered with* the pope. All commentaries say it is a prayer *for* the pope, not an *offering with* the pope. The pope is being prayed for together with the Church, not offering the sacrifice together with those at the Mass. Here's Adrian Fortescue:
“The Intercession (from ‘in primis’), now spread throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful.”
In mentioning the pope's name in the prayer, the priest is expressing communion with him, yes. But the prayer doesn't mean the priest is *offering the sacrifice with* the pope. It's a prayer *for* the pope, not a prayer being offered *with* the pope. The translation "together with" means "as also for", showing that the prayer is *for* the Church, *as also for* the pope, etc. Nothing in the prayer indicates that the priest *offers the sacrifice with* the pope, etc., and no commentary supports that interpretation. Here is the Fr. Lasance missal, which uses "as also for", instead of "together with":
“Wherefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord to receive and to bless these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and wo profess the Catholic and apostolic faith.”
In summary, "together with" = "as also for". Two translations, same meaning. The prayer is *for* the Church *together with* the pope; meaning the prayer is *for* the Church *as also for* the pope, not an offering of the participants *together with* the pope.
Thanks In Principio. I'm tired of posters spouting this nonsense all over the internet.Delete
It is disappointing that Introibo continues to share a platform with Lee when he continues to spread this falsehood and harm souls in the process. This dogmatic no una cum position breaks the bonds between of charity between Catholics and harms the unity of the Church.
As sedevacantist Catholics we need to realise that the SSPX is not a monolithic organisation when it comes to issues of the crisis, but contains a diversity of opinions some of which are sedevacantist. The same is also true of Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position, there are many things they don't agree on. There are splits amongst all of the groups - this is only human nature. T
he only way the Church will get out of this mess is if everyone follows only what the Church actually teaches and not their own opinions.
When it comes to Novus Ordo it is not an authoritatively condemned sect and they are undeclared heretics. If you have a valid priest you can go and confess to him. If he offers a valid mass you can go to it. Your job is to save your soul.
When I look at the number of sedevacantist groups who have fallen into public heresy, we should be grateful that the faithful can still receive sacraments from them as laity because they are as yet undeclared heretics.
All of this might be distasteful to some, but this is a crisis and we must do what is necessary to save our souls. This is God's will for us.
"It is disappointing that Introibo continues to share a platform with Lee when he continues to spread this falsehood and harm souls in the process. This dogmatic no una cum position breaks the bonds between of charity between Catholics and harms the unity of the Church."
What should he do? Kick me off just like the SSPX kicks people out of their churches when people vehemently disagree with them or refuse them communion for some other reason like calling them out for their wayward priests that molest people sexually and let them get away with it?
If you really believe that I am harmful because I tell people to avoid "undeclared heretics" for sacraments then that is pretty sad. People should be more particular on where they go to Mass and receive sacraments instead of just settling for convenience and what's easy.
In Principio Erat Verbum,Delete
Well written, my friend--and very true!
Lee is my friend and guest poster--a fellow Traditionalist I both respect and admire. In this time of Great Apostasy, there is much that cannot be settled. Lee does not "spread" anything--he has never written a post on the issue. He can certainly express himself in the comments of a post I authored. This platform would not be available on a weekly basis if it were not for Lee doing wonderful guest posts me--someone who does not share his position. That speaks volumes for what a man of good character he is, and fair minded too.
I have had so many run-ins with Lee on disqus forums in which he has treated me with contempt over this very no Una Cum issue and when I have raised the same points you have in this article. I admire you for standing by your friend, I wouldn't expect anything less of you. But my experience of him is quite different to yours.
Keep up the good work.
Here’s a syllogism I presented to someone a while ago:ReplyDelete
1. If a participant is united to the priest that offers Mass, and through the priest is united to anyone the priest offers the Mass for, the participant would not be united to the latter more than the former.
2. Therefore, if it’s possible to participate in a Mass *offered by* an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic, then it’s possible to participate in a Mass *offered for* an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
3. Since it is possible to participate in a Mass *offered by* an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic (c.2261), then it is possible to participate in a Mass *offered for* an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
4. Therefore, it is possible for a sedevacantist to participate in a Mass offered for someone they know is an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
Additionally, since offering the sacrifice for anyone is only communication in a wide sense, and not strictly communication at all (see Fr. Livius below), whatever unity exists between the participant and a heretic priest would be greater than whatever unity exists with the heretic prayed for.
“To pray, or to offer sacrifice in anyone's behalf (as De Lugo says in effect) is in true ecclesiastical meaning, or technically speaking, to communicate with him in divinis: but such an act is communication only in a wide sort of sense, and, strictly speaking, is not so at all; and, as evidently from such acts no danger arises of participating in anything heretical, one can hardly think that it belongs to that kind of communication which, according to the teaching of the Church, is practically illicit.”
--- Livius, Thomas, C.SS.R. The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Vol. VI, 1885. “Can a Priest Say Mass Privately for a Deceased Protestant?”, p.155.
Another awesome comment and a great citation! Thank you for both.
If anyone watches the Catholic Family Podcast, they can see the latest victim of the anti una cum idea:ReplyDelete
The young man from Sri Lanka used to go to the SSPX for the sacraments. Upon being convinced of sedevacantism and especially the anti una cum type, he now became a home aloner and is totally cut off from the sacraments because there are zero sede priests in Sri Lanka.
When his godfather told him he is depriving himself of the Eucharist, he replied that he really isn't because he "still believes in it" but "does not want to receive it in that setting," meaning in an una cum Mass of course.
Well done, anti una cum clergy. Well done.
While I firmly believe that a traditional Catholic has no obligation to receive sacraments from an "una cum" priest if it would scandalize them, it's still sad to see someone deprive themselves of the sacraments completely since they have no "non-una cum" options. This is nearly as harmful as what the Dimond brothers have done in regards to telling people to avoid, effectively, all traditional priests for sacraments.Delete
Tragic beyond words.
God Bless you both,
Anon 2:34 and Introibo,Delete
"Well done anti una cum clergy. Well done."
So it's now the anti una cum clergy's fault for a Sri Lankan man embracing the truth of SV and following his conscious?
Not a good look fellas.
How about putting the blame where it actually belongs? Like on say clergy who embrace the heretical R&R position? And even more importantly, the clergy within the R&R camp who hold Sede Vacante but don't have the guts to say so publicly?
Being snarky and blaming actual Catholic clergy instead of calling out "undeclared heretic clergy" is a very low blow, imo.
Can you even imagine the untold mercies and graces the Japanese who remained faithful for 200 years without the Sacraments received?
the WM Review has written a very thought-provoking article regarding the persecuted Japanese Catholics:
There seems to exist an alarming tendency among some Traditionalists to romanticize persecution and adopt the "I'm-so-strong-in-the-Faith" attitude. We should be careful to think ourselves steadfast lest we fall or scandalize others by forcing our opinion on them, esp. when Catholic theology actually refutes that very opinion. Note, I'm not accusing either side of this una cum/non una cum debate of error, heresy, et al; they're both theological opinions as of now. Yet, the arguments of pre-Vatican II theologians clearly tip the scales in favor of the licitnesss of una cum.
Well of course it's their fault Debbie, because he would not have deprived himself of the sacraments unnecessarily otherwise.Delete
Something else: we should not insist on SV being "the absolute truth" because we don't know that for sure.
In a time of crisis, as we have been in for decades, the last thing you should do is make hard and fast rules you have no business making in the first place.
I've been a SV for years myself but I recently listened to what an SSPX priest said against it. He raises some very good points and has made me reconsider SV now.
The main objections he raises are in regards to jurisdiction. Very interesting.
Here's the video in case anyone want to listen to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRjweHoyf_s&pp=ygUSc2VkZXZhY2FudGlzbSBzc3B4
The only point he did not seem to address and frankly ridiculed, was that of the Ordinary Magisterium.
I think we should all be humble and be willing to reconsider our positions and recognize the fact that we don't need to provide an explanation for what's going on.
The last anonymous comment in this thread proves the una-cum to non-sv/opinionist slippery slope is real. How this is what the Church would do, allowing any undeclared heretics to remain thus as the election of the Pope who could judge them is delayed indefinitely, is beyond me.Delete
Thank you Joanna S. I'll give the WM Review a read. Meantime though, this is what Anon 1:12 right below your comment said, (s)he's making my point beautifully:Delete
I've been a SV for years myself but I recently listened to what an SSPX priest said against it. He raises some very good points and has made me reconsider SV now.
I am anon 1:12.Delete
The only way what I said would be considered "bad" in any way or a "slippery slope" is if you have fallen into the idea that you cannot be a Catholic unless you hold to SV. In other words, if you're a dogmatic SV. I believe this is wrong and not what most SV "claim" to be.
But see, if you make the suggestion that SV is perhaps not true, then you're erring and going off the path.
Like I said, I have been sede for years, since 2008 in fact, but I am always reading and investigating.
I have no problem in thinking SV may not be the answer after all because it will not alter my stance with regards to the novus ordo. It will not make me go to the new mass or new sacraments. It will not change my life one bit. Perhaps it will make me go to a valid una cum mass if my situation ever changes, but that's about it.
Because being a SV is not essential for me to be a Catholic, but holding the Catholic faith is. I do not have an answer to the crisis, nor do I need to. I'm just a layman who is not bound to have an answer to anything.
I you say not holding to SV leads you into heresy and error, that is your opinion. I do not agree with it, and most importantly, don't have to or need to.
God will sort this our in His good time.
Here’s an easier way to look at it:ReplyDelete
Sede clergy have ZERO authority. Zilch. Nada. As much as a garbage man.
Therefore, anyone can safely ignore anything they say and not worry about it in the slightest.
That’s the reality of the situation.
Neither do you or the "undeclared heretics" which you defend. So why do you care so much?Delete
Because of the damage they cause to the unsuspecting and unlearned, like the poor Sri Lankan soul.Delete
Make no mistake: they are causing untold damage with this.
Father D. wrote:Delete
Right away we see a fallacy: begging the question.
Father D. has failed to prove the 1962 Mass is "false worship."
Also, false dilemma: who says both can't be valid Masses?
Noticed my previous message did not appear, what I was quoting was this:Delete
"The una cum Mass is to be avoided, not because of the status of the minister, but because the First Commandment forbids the participation in false worship. If you consider the una cum Mass 'true worship', that is, valid AND lawful, i.e., according to God's will, then you must of necessity conclude that the non-una cum Mass is unlawful. It is absurd to think that God will consider both Masses acceptable."
How are they doing untold damage? Maybe that Sri Lanka man will get a priest one day if he is able. Is that damaging?Delete
What do you think people did in the past when they have no means of transportation as we do today and to even get to Mass meant that they had to travel great distance like Juan Diego who walked 15 miles one way to a priest for catechism? Assuming he walked 1 mile in 20 minutes that would take 5 hrs to get to where he was going.
People nowadays are weak. Bells, smells, and the closet thing possible so long as they are not inconvenienced is what matters more to them then going out of their way to do the right thing.
Yes, I think it is damaging since he is deprived of many graces unnecessarily. While it's true that most people today are "weak" as you say, there are places that are not merely a matter of weakness. In 1990s Hawaii, the SSPX was the only game in town. Not everyone can afford to fly to California every Sunday. Going SSPX is a necessity, not a weakness in such cases.
Anon 5:33PM wrote: "People nowadays are weak. Bells, smells, and the closet thing possible so long as they are not inconvenienced is what matters more to them then going out of their way to do the right thing."Delete
So what if people are weak, it doesn't matter whether they are strong and fierce in Faith and wish to get to mass, or they are barely holding on fighting repeated mortal sins, they both need the mass, and the non-una-cum position deprived them of it.
You say it's the "right thing" to avoid the Holy Mass, and so doesn't the Devil himself, so your position has something in common with him.
The guy in Sri Lanka is now cut off from the mass and the graces it gives, not because there is no mass in his country that he can go to, but he's been deceived by this perverse theology to stop going. He may very well lose his soul over this, but the purists will pat themselves on the back thinking he being tough and fearless by giving up mass attendance.
This position is evil, just like the home-aloners, it's two paths to the same end.
Anon 5:23 wrote: "The una cum Mass is to be avoided, not because of the status of the minister, but because the First Commandment forbids the participation in false worship. If you consider the una cum Mass 'true worship', that is, valid AND lawful, i.e., according to God's will, then you must of necessity conclude that the non-una cum Mass is unlawful. It is absurd to think that God will consider both Masses acceptable."Delete
Show me any Catholic source which states that during the time of an antipope, commonly believed to be the pope, then if one goes to a mass said by a Catholic priest who has kept the Faith, using the Catholic rite, but names the undeclared antipope, that act violates the First Commandment. Don't assert it, prove it, and when you can't prove it, retract it.
For the sake of fairness, I would say that is reasonable. The question then becomes why can't sedevacantist priests be sent to such places? If the SSPX can why won't a sedevacantist? Is it because they are not asked?Delete
To anon 2:58: I'm happy you brought this up. There are really 2 issues going on here, and maybe people are not grasping this.Delete
1. The truth or falsehood of the non una cum position.
2. The authority or lack thereof of the sede bishops and priests to bind Catholics to their opinions.
Anon 1:09 says ".....then if one goes to a mass said by a Catholic priest who has kept the Faith, using the Catholic rite..."Delete
...who has kept the faith...
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that the question that needs answering? Has an R&R kept the faith? Most especially in these days of Bergoglio, an obvious apostate/heretic. What their insistence in calling someone obviously not Peter, Peter does to the papacy is not of heaven.
Debbie you nailed it. We wouldn't go to Eastern Orthodox not just because they've been declared outside the Church but because they don't have the Faith. That is the crux of the issue.Delete
If it is okay to go to undeclared heretics via una cum, then why not go to a really old Novus Ordo priest who says the Novus Ordo Mass and says the right words at consecration?
The logic is so long as his Mass is valid its okay even though it's in a goofy Novus Ordo Church united to a religion that is everything but Catholic.
Debbie wrote, "Has an R&R kept the faith?"Delete
Answer: if you mean by R&R, Catholics that go to SSPX, then yes, they have kept the Faith.
Anon 8:54 AM,Delete
That's a straw man. I don't think anyone speaking about the una cum has argued that attending the Novus Ordo Mass is acceptable, even if celebrated by a validly ordained priest. The Novus Ordo is not a Catholic rite.
As with regards to Debbie's point: the main argument, I think, is that the mere fact that a valid priest ( celebrating a Catholic rite of Mass) mentions Francis in the Canon is not thereby indicating he professes or shares the same faith as Francis. The weight of evidence appears to be in favor of the una cum being an intercessory prayer, not a profession of communion. Much less supported is the idea that one attending the una cum therefore shares the same faith as the one named in the Canon.
Given a general hypothetical example (because not all SSPX/independent priests are equal), we do not know the reason as to why someone would name Francis in the Canon. Is it because they believe it is a profession of sharing the same faith as Francis? Is it because they believe they lack the authority to say he isn't the Pope when no declaration has been made to the contrary? Is it because they believe not mentioning him in the Canon would render them a schismatic? That is something which cannot be established in general, given the variances which exist.
When there is a matter of dispute over a private opinion, the greater obligation given by the Church (namely, that one is obliged to attend Mass if there is one available) takes precedence. That's just my two cents.
There's a difference between error and heresy, material and formal heresy, "bona fide" and "mala fide", declared and undeclared heretics, declared and undeclared schismatics, the list could go on.Delete
Bottom line is this, the Church is so zealous for the salvation of souls that She will not deprive Her children of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments but will do anything She can so that the faithful are safe on their path to salvation.
See theologian MacKenzie and his work "The Delict of Heresy" (to be found here: https://archive.org/details/MackenzieTheDelictOfHeresy1932) to see how low the bar is set for the good of the faithful when clergy fall into heresy. The Church punishes the guilty so that he may reform and makes sure the faithful are not deprived of the Sacraments on account of a guilty cleric.
Pertinent part in MacKenzies's "Delict of Heresy" is this:Delete
"When the priest or other cleric is excommunicated, but has not received either a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful are permitted to ask and receive from him any Sacrament or Sacramental, especially if other ministers are absent. In these circumstances the said minister is free to ad¬ minister to the faithful, and does not thereby violate the censure of which he is conscious. The faithful are required to have a just cause for their request, but canonists do not require that it be a serious (gravis) cause (...)."
I'm sincerely grateful to one of the Readers of this fine blog who shared with us the work by theologian MacKenzie some months ago. I probably wouldn't have come across it myself.
Anon 1:03 says "The guy in Sri Lanka is now cut off from the mass and the graces it gives, not because there is no mass in his country that he can go to, but he's been deceived by this perverse theology to stop going. He may very well lose his soul over this, but the purists will pat themselves on the back thinking he being tough and fearless by giving up mass attendance."Delete
To assume he will not receive any graces for following his conscious in not attending Masses where clergy are, at least in his mind (?), destroying the Divine nature of the papacy is presumptuous on your part.
I'm sorry, but I think it is really, really crappy to turn on anti una cum clergy, who don't hold R&R heresies, and in a backhanded way endorse R&R clergy who do hold heresy in regards to the papacy.
Thank you for your insight, as always!
Please look for my Addendum to this post, which I hope to have up by late tomorrow night!
Thank you for this informative post, Introibo. It saddens me that the "una cum" issue has driven a wedge through the traditional Catholic community. I personally attend an "una cum" Mass at an SSPX chapel every Sunday because it's the only option in my state (a little over an hour drive from my home). I do travel out of state 1-2 times a month to go to a CMRI mission, but it's over three hours away and only has Mass twice a month. I always prioritize attendance at the Sedevacantist Mass.ReplyDelete
I was initially hesitant to go to an SSPX chapel, but after carefully discussing it with my confessor (and reading your other posts about the una cum issue), I decided to visit. I'm glad that I did, because the graces of more frequent reception of the sacraments has been extremely helpful in my spiritual life. Thankfully, the chapel that I'm attending seems to lean crypto-Sedevacantist in many areas (they even sell copies of Work of Human Hands and brown scapulars from the SSPV's nuns in the chapel's book store), and none of the priests that visit ever mention about Bergoglio. They only preach about the traditional Catholic faith. And while they technically follow the 1962 missal on paper, they actually restore the cut elements like the 2nd Confiteor in their Masses (Fr Cekada mentioned in the footnotes of Work of Human Hands that American SSPX priests tend to do this, which I'm glad they do).
With that said, my attendance at this chapel is contingent on a few key points. If the priests there starts preaching the reconciliation attitude of +Fellay, I will quit attending. If the SSPX ever reaches a regularized status of actual full communion with the Vatican II sect like the FSSP, I will quit attending. If they send a priest that came from the Novus Ordo and did not get conditionally ordained (I always research the priests that they send), I will not attend whenever he's there. I'm sure one of these things is bound to happen in the future given that the SSPX is a sinking ship, but I'll take advantage of having access to the sacraments while I still can. One of the Sedevacantist missions that I was attending out of state closed at the beginning of this year due to dwindling membership, so I'm not going to take access to the sacraments for granted.
You're a very wise person! A very Traditionalist outlook on everything. Be assured of my prayers!
Thank you Introibo, your prayers are most appreciated!Delete
Sneed, why would you say the SSPX is a sinking ship?Delete
It is the contention of the Cancelum (dogmatic non-una cum sedes) that such a Mass produces no graces.ReplyDelete
Just writing that gives me chills.
Anyway, I could be wrong but I remember reading that even a schismatic -but valid- Liturgy produces graces, for those innocently in error of course.
Is that actually the case?
Yours is a technical question. A declared schismatic rite is Outside the Church. It may be valid but to be efficacious it must be offered not only in persona Christi but in Union with the Church. Christ, the Source of all Grace is there. Could some well-meaning material schismatic seeking the truth be given actual graces to enter the True Church? Yes. However, it is not, strictly speaking a MEANS of grace or MEANS of salvation. God may be moved to give grace in spite of the schism, not because of it.
What are your thoughts on Padre Pio?Did he accept the new Mass?Some believe such as RJMI in New Mexico that he died as an apostate.
Thank you and God bless
I believe Padre Pio was an ecumenist. The fact that the V2 sect "canonized" him speaks against him! Fr. DePauw's older brother, Fr. Adhemar, OFM, was sent to investigate him. Father told me, "He will never be one of my favorite so-called saints." Please see my post:
Whoa there, Roncalli canonized blessed Martin de Porres and Montini named St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Sienna, Doctors of the Church.Delete
Does this speak against them now?
As to Bl. Martin de Porres, his cause was from BEFORE the Great Apostasy. While I think Bl. Martin is a saint, he is not infallibly canonized as Roncalli was not pope. As to Sts. Teresa and Catherine, they are not Doctors of the Church as they were not clerics, and only clerics can be Doctors--or theologians of the highest intelligence, insight, and orthodoxy. Not to say we can't learn from those two great saints, but they are not Doctors of the Church.
Every once in a while, the V2 sect will throw a crumb to placate their "conservatives." Hence, Wotyla "canonizing" Fr. Kolbe and Fr. Damien. I think they are saints, but they are not canonized. My opinion is that of a mere layman and means nothing as to their actual status.
Thanks to you and posters making comments charitably and in good faith. I benefitted from the information contained in both the article and comment section.
On another topic, I enjoyed your two recent Catholic Family Podcast talks on the occult. Thanks for doing them! I just ran across some occult material the other day, and I was able to identify it very quickly based on a few key occultist “tells”. It was something I’d never heard of before. Scary that there is so much of it, everywhere.
If I have not written it before, I look forward to your posts every week, and your older ones keep me busy, too. I’ve learned a lot from your posts, and from your guest posters’ articles as well. I recently listened to a couple recorded sermons by Fr. DePauw. They were very good, and it is nice being able to put a voice with the priest.
As always, thank you for your comments! I'm glad my podcasts helped you see the occult--it is everywhere, and it is scary!
Fr. DePauw was one of a kind, the best of the best. I miss him terribly.
Does anyone know of Gerard de L'eau speaking of this matter? His opinion is worth a lot? Just like I give great opinion to the thesis.ReplyDelete
I don't even know who he is--if any of my readers know, please pass on the information.
I think he meant Bp. Guerard des Lauriers.
Guérard des Lauriers
In Bp Pivarunas's article about the "una cum" issue, he wrote that none of the early Sedevacantist clergy had condemned "una cum" attendence as mortally sinful. He explicitly listed Bp Guérard des Lauriers in that list.
Pre Vat II has settled this matter. The only thing that gives rise to it is those who are former SSPX. They have such an ax to grind they can not get over the bias. Just like SSPV can not get over the Thuc issue. I am now of the opinion that CMRI is correct in this matter now, even though I was previous anti una cum for a long time.ReplyDelete
I agree with all CMRI positions of which I am aware. I love the SSPV, but they are VERY wrong on "Thuc bishops." All we can do in matters unique to this time is follow the evidence where it leads. I used to be anti-Pian Holy Week; I'm now convinced it is correct to follow it. Good for you on following the evidence!
Thank you, Intro for putting up this post. There was a mind blowing amount of information here, along with so many of the always thoughtful comments.ReplyDelete
Your work is much appreciated since digging out the pertinent documents with quotes has to be time consuming.
Finding these things is not my strong suit, so reading well-researched information helps me solidify my position if anyone asks why I believe what I believe, so I can help them.
I also take the side of sticking with what the approved theologians have said, once it is explained properly to me.
It's true the rest is opinion that we have no pope to condemn or correct. So condemning others opinions is not the way to go, I think.
This may sound strange, but it takes a great deal of humility to submit to the Church's wisdom even when she gives us more slack than we would give ourselves on a matter of belief.
Being prideful myself, I often have a rougher time accepting God's love than fearing His punishments. I think it has to do with holding oneself at a distance.
Please pray for me. I need it.
P.S.: Can you direct me to a good Church History volume? Someone has asked me for such a book and I haven't been able to find one.
Thank you, again.
Thank you for what you do here, too.
I never miss an IAAD article and always look forward to Mondays.
A Simple Man:
I had thought of you earlier and how I missed your commentary.
Good to see you still checking in.
God Bless all here! You have my prayers.
Thank you always for your sweet comments.
I understand both sides and while I see certain anomalies that may permit a person to receive sacraments in a dire circumstance they may receive them but I would not. It's not because I have an axe to grind with a certain group as somebody in the comments mentioned (I grew up Novus Ordo).
For example, recently a person over at the Novus Ordo Watch combox made a snide remark comparing me to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao because I side with St. Pius V on the death penalty and then he blasphemously compared him to Nero. Then he implied he sided with Luther over Pope Leo X's condemnation of burning heretics.
So this man would classify as an undeclared heretic and now that I know what he believes just as I know what the SSPX and Indult priests and most lay people believe on certain things I want nothing to do with them. I wouldn't pray with them at the dinner table. I wouldn't pray with them anywhere especially Church. I'll pray for their conversion but not with them. They are of a different faith and I've already been there and don't want to go back.
The sedevacantist bishops and priests aren't perfect either but I would consider them as the life boat after a ship has sank because they are the only ones who care enough to preserve the Faith. Some of them are not good and I've described them on here before and recommended people stay away from them.
In essence the Great Apostasy has infected all including myself and I fear of doing the wrong thing as much as anybody else. I cannot and will not in good conscience recommend going to those who don't profess the Faith. The theologians may say you can, but I don't fully agree.
Thank you as always for commenting! Your sweet disposition reminds me of my favorite aunt, God rest her soul. A great, concise, and easy to read Church History book is "Church History: A History of the Catholic Church to 1940" by Fr. John Laux. It is available at Amazon for $29.95 and a mere $8.49 if you buy the Kindle format.
Thanks much for the information, Intro. I have passed it on.Delete
Lee, I hear you! I would be hard-pressed to attend Mass with the Una cum inserted if I didn't have the option, myself. Lucky for me, I do!
Surrounded by worry and anxiety about the liturgy taking place isn't a good place to be when hearing Mass. God wants our peace of mind.
As always great article. Nevertheless, my position would be the following:ReplyDelete
On the one hand, we have the Traditional Catholic Church, although with different positions, they all basically reject Vatican Council II, the Novus Ordo Liturgy, as well as the new sacraments, which, altogether, conform in reality a new church: the Novus Ordo Church. Though the Traditional Catholics lack a unified government, they agree that the Novus Ordo Church is different from the Catholic Church and that its government, sacraments, liturgy and discipline is harmful to souls. Despite lacking a unified government, they all condemn the Novus Ordo Liturgy. Thus, a condemnation exists.
On the other hand, we have the Novus Ordo Church that has, slowly but surely, occupied the churches and spaces that belonged to the Traditional Catholic Church, and has filled those spaces and poisoned Catholics with a new theology, a new liturgy, new sacraments and new “aints”. Unless you conclude that there is continuity in and after Vatican Council II, slowly but surely, we have to acknowledge the existence of two churches.
Therefore, if you are a Traditional Catholic, attending to a Novus Ordo service (yes, service), or requesting their sacraments, it’s not only a contradiction, but also, in good conscience, it has to be a sin, as such liturgy is not Catholic and, thus, harmful to your soul.
Whereas, if you are a Novus Ordo member, although you may not be sinning by going to its services since you consider that hierarchy valid, you are probably sinning, as in good conscience, you are not searching for the truth, which is not within the Novus Ordo Church.
Let’s consider for a second what would be our position and response if we were in Arrian times. Would we go to an Arrian service? Would an Arrian member not be judged for not searching for the truth? Would you not receive the necessary graces to know that Arrianism was harmful to your soul?...
A very interesting analysis!
WOW Introibo 106 comments so far.This is really a hot topic among sedes.ReplyDelete
I know very well. I opened this post stating it was controversial !
If una cum masses are permitted at any time there is no need for sedevacantist bishops or priests to exist.ReplyDelete
Why don't we just forget about the pope issue, forget about being one in faith with the church and not worry about receiving sacraments given to us by undeclared heretics. In the mean time we can grow spiritually and benefit from the sacraments given to us by those who want to be in union with the new religion of Francis and the gay bishops through the world and if anybody call us heretics we'll just say we are undeclared heretics or schismatics since we can do anything we want anyways without any repercussions. The theologians say its okay and it's not our job to worry and this way we can all be happy. There that settles it.
By the way this article comes out in good timing right before Francis will potentially do away with the latin mass as it is rumored. Now everybody can breathe a sigh of relief because now they can give themselves an excuse of not needing to attend a sedevacantist chapel . Una Cum, here we come.
This article is the greatest and solves all my problems
This is a decidedly uncharitable straw man of Introibo's post, especially when neither he, nor anyone arguing about the permissibility of the una cum in the comments, have argued for the validity of non-Catholic rites like the Novus Ordo Missae.
It has always been incumbent on those who claim the una cum TLM is a non-Catholic rite to prove that merely naming an undeclared heretic in the Canon (which is an intercessory prayer, not a profession of communion per se) is sufficient to render a Catholic rite into a non-Catholic act of worship. That's the whole point.
If this *is* your take, I highly suggest you reread what Introibo is actually arguing.
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,Delete
While I’m catching up on comments here, I want to take this opportunity to tell you that your comments are both charitable and edifying. I have noticed them on older posts. Please continue to comment as you are able.
A Simple Man was also one of my guest posters before his life became super-hectic. His posts were nothing short of excellent!!
Skip to 8:06 and listen to bishop Fellay fumble for the next few minutes afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0eTadAYK6o&t=2sReplyDelete
What's really pathetic is how his die hard supporters speak positively in the comments in his favor after he gets exposed and roasted with no good answer in so far as he is in schism with Rome. If you want to be una cum with these fools, then a fool with them you shall be. Such a cult.
Please be careful using the term "cult." Fr. DePauw was accused more than once of being a "cult leader" by the V2 sect. A cult is when those use coercion to get you in or keep you from leaving. Fr. DePauw used to say, "Anyone who doesn't like it here (Ave Maria Chapel) is free to leave. There are no locks on the door, and I wish you well." SSPV, CMRI, and others have been called "cults." That is wrong.
The Una Cum does not effectuate "unity" (See my addendum above).
If I can pray una cum with the SSPX or indult would it be safe to go along with them in following the current fast and abstinence laws during lent promulgated by Paul VI which even the SSPX have on there website and they themselves abide by: https://sspx.org/en/fast-abstinence-rulesReplyDelete
I find it hilarious that they state: "The local bishops also have authority to grant dispensations from these rules within their dioceses." Yet the SSPX bishops don't have any diocese so I guess that means they cannot dispense.
I thought if we believe Pius XII was the last pope that we would have to follow the lenten laws as it was in his day.
This is the kind of spiritual direction you get in the pew if praying una cum is acceptable.
As if most sedes follow Pius XII. They are due to reject his laws again soon, as they do every year during Holy Week. The Pope speaks, you decide.Delete
The ones that do get if from the SSPX if you are referring to Holy Week. CMRI doesn't do that as well as others.Delete
Anon 11:27: you are right, CMRI does obey Pius XII, but the other sede groups don't, at least RCI and SGG in the USA, and the European and African sedes as far as I know all reject Pius XII's laws.Delete
On this one, SSPX didn't teach them this, they obey Pius XII and use his laws, so, in this regard they are more consistent than RCI and SGG, along with the Europeans and African sedes who are inconsistent.
SSPX go by the 62 missal. So they go by John XXIII. Also there was a priest in the SSPX who went on about Bugnini destroying the Mass. Can't recall his name but he died some years ago.Delete
The idea of of resistance comes from the SSPX. That is what I mean. It's in their nature and in their practice.
Also add SSPV to those who reject Pope Pius XII's laws. I am not sure if any group other than CMRI obey. I guess Pope Pius XII is a cardboard pope too.Delete
Anon, there is nothing inconsistent in what you are observing. The SSPX have an incomplete view of the crisis and don't believe Pius XII to be the last Pope. They are consistent in their principles even if the outcome is wrong in your estimation. None of the traditional groups have ordinary jurisdiction, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It can only be found in the Eastern Rites where a cleric has retained the Catholic Faith and holds an office with ordinary jurisdiction.Delete
Anon 10:51, ONLY can Eastern Rites have Ordinary Jurisdiction if there is a pope in office. Therefore they don't have any jurisdiction because there is no pope even if they be valid. They have to receive appointment in order to give out appointments.Delete
Didn’t see any fumbling there. What I saw was the reporter asserting nonsense and foaming at the mouth, sounding very similar to a die hard sede.ReplyDelete
Whatever Anonymous. Like I said only people who can't live without the SSPX will support them no matter how stupid they make themselves look.Delete
The reporter may not be a good guy but he was asking legitimate questions which Fellay contradicted himself on. They are a spiritual disaster and everybody with an honest disposition knows it. Only blind people like yourself don't see.
Fellay actually handled himself pretty well. I would have exploded at that reporter and gone after his throat.Delete
I don't really understand why the SSPX gets so much hate from sedes. Why?
Because they are not Catholic and pretend they are and sedes get lumped in with them when the average Joe starts looking into Traditional Catholicism.Delete
Greetings. I have already intervened in this blog on other occasions and I have a question resulting from my enormous ignorance. In the Novus Ordo Church, many nonsense is said to defend that Bergoglio is a valid pope. I have come to listen to a person, whom I prefer not to mention because he is not known like other more popular ones, who defends these pseudotheses of those who recognize and resist Bergoglio as a pope who compares himself with the friar Savonarola who also opposed various popes for their sins and even tried to have Alexander VI deposed. I wrote to him saying that, for many sins that those popes like Alexander VI committed, they were valid popes, not like Bergoglio, and obviously I didn't get a response. I don't know if this comment will be published, I just wanted to share with the blog the ravings of some poor souls who defend the indefensible. Thank you very much for the work you do on the blog.ReplyDelete
Thank you for commenting!
If a single parent along with their children wanted to convert to traditional Catholicism, would SSPV or CMRI allow them to do that?
Thank you. Anonymous.
By "single mother" I assume you mean a woman who bore a child out of wedlock. As long as she is sincere, and will be chaste, she may certainly (and SHOULD) convert. I can't imagine any Traditionalist priest having a problem with that.
To Intro, or any other commenter:ReplyDelete
Have you ever listened to Fr. Chad Ripperger's sermons or read his books? I know he is FSSP. He does provide much food for thought, BUT...
on the one hand he is a brilliant psychologist with alot of knowledge, especially about the angels; on the other hand, his claims to be an approved exorcist even though he is N.O., along with all the books and talks he sells leaves me a bit cold.
What do you think?
I have listened to him quite a bit and he is certainly interesting and makes a lot of good points but one thing he mentions often is Sensus Fidelium or the idea of following your Catholic sense when it comes to following traditional Catholic topics as well as discerning spirits.
Every time he brings that up I wonder how is that he doesn't use his Catholic sense with regards to he doesn't doubt in his Novus Ordo ordination in 1997 or how he cannot recognize how the bishops or pope he criticizes doesn't profess the Catholic Faith yet recognizes them as Catholic anyways. He's very knowledgeable, prudent, and sound in mind as are most Novus Ordo exorcists (because they have to be) but even they don't realize how they are deceived by the devil by being part of the new religion. Like I've said the Great Apostasy has infected all.
I agree with Lee. Another troubling aspect is that he attempts exorcisms as a mere layman (invalid ordination).
There are a lot of good things said dispersed throughout all these comments. Unfortunately, the design of this here is not conducive to a clear and effective discussion. Results will be lost. We NEED to have these discussions on an open discussion forum somewhere, where the moderators aren't quick to ban people. Where two people can request a public discussion without letting others directly interfere. The years roll on without much progress. A major problem is that people have a hard time personally handling the idea that their own clergy might be mistaken on something.ReplyDelete
I hope you realize that I allow ALL comments as long as they are (a) charitable in tone, and (b) don't contain any vulgarity or blasphemy. In almost 13 years of maintaining this blog, I have only banned one person named Hans who frequently commented as a follower of the late "Pope" Michael. Even though some comments were "out there" shall I say, I published his comments until he expressly wished my eternal damnation.
Introibo and ReadersReplyDelete
Can you all pray for the repose of the soul of Father Christopher Darby.He was a valid SSPX priest who had leanings to sedevacantism.He in recent years had not been happy with liberal and confused ideas of Bishop Fellay. Thank you and God bless.
I will remember to pray for the repose of the soul of Fr. Darby, and I ask all my readers to do the same.
A very good topic.
In my view I think it is the height of absurdity that Bishop Sanborn can say it is a mortal sin to attend a Una Cum Mass when he and his priests hold that Francis is a valid elected "Pope"
The Vatican Two sect is a false Church.
I am sure that Bishop Guerard des Lauriers today would now reject his thesis with the situation with Francis.
I agree with you. On sedeprivationism, I hold it only as a mere possibility; and a low possibility at that. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers would either seriously revise his "Thesis" or abandon it, as you wrote.
I would like to see some Catholic subjects like these be discussed in a place more designed for discussion replies, and even debates. I have created such a free discussion forum for "Catholicism". Please sign up, and wait a little while for subject thread to present itself for mature discussion. It is at:ReplyDelete
This is a good idea. I would encourage you to try tradcath.proboards.com There's already a community there and many resources. The moderator Pacelli is a wealth of knowledge.
Eric H. used to go on that trad board for years and now he and others who think like him returned to the Novus Ordo. Proceed at your own risk.
As much as I waste my time making comments on here and Novus Ordo Watch, there would be no telling how much time I could waste on there. That place is the rabbit hole of rabbit holes.
Eric H made his own choices. The people on that forum including the owner, moderators, and members are all against the Novus Ordo. If someone reading this blog decides to go to the Novus Ordo, is it Introibo or the other poster's on this blogs fault if that happens. People make their own choices for their own reasons.Delete
tradcath is not immune to banning people they shouldn't be banning. I've been there. If you successfully oppose their opinion on an issue, you can get the axe.Delete
Corky, they aren't infallible or beyond mistakes.Delete
Fr. Desposito posted this on twitter right after this blog post went out and he blocked everyone.ReplyDelete
It is interesting to not how they claim their jurisdiction because of the mission to save souls.
Yet they don't extend this to other people in the church looking to save their souls.
Canon 2261 is there for that reason.
When Hyland start with his decertation on 2261 he says: "Canon 2261, § 2 should relieve the faithful of all anxiety with regard to petitioning the simpliciter tolerati to administer the sacraments and sacramentals...
...In order that a simpliciter toleratus may licitly celebrate Mass, administer the sacraments and prepare and administer the sacramentals, he must be requested to do so..
...All of this, of course, presupposes that such a course of action does not result in scandal, which, it may be added, would seldom be the case with regard to a simpliciter toleratus." On page 92
Hyland explains on page 90 the purpose of Canon 2261. "The same solicitude of the Church that the spiritual welfare of the faithful be not impeded by the malice of those to whom she has committed the dispensation of her spiritual benefits is manifested in § 2 and § 3 of Canon 2261."
If the church can extend its hand to the the faithful in such a way, why can't MHT?
This should be enough for the MHT priests to change their stance. This has changed my stance.
A great topic.Thank you for writing and giving your views.I also value the readers comments too.
I have a question to ask that has nothing to do with the above topic.In a recent comment you said you will write on the subject of courtship and dating.Can I please ask for your comment on my situation.
I have just started a new job late last year and have got to know a number of female staff.One in particluar I thought was decent who I thought might be nice to ask out for a meal.The trouble is I have caught her several times lying.She told me me before Christmas that her uncle had just died and just yesterday she told me the same thing.What do you do with someone like that.Another thing of concern is she uses vulgar words often.I am sure you are going to say keep well away.I have been having my lunch outside and not in the staffroom.I thought I could convert her to the Faith but I think this would be impossible.I am middle age and perhaps thinking that I will never met anybody.
What do you do if you hear someone else say they have no plans to get married.Do you think this could change or they are not interested?
I will value your comment.God bless
Introibo and all Dear Readers,ReplyDelete
I just found out that the Polish seminarian who was to be ordained this May at the Mater Dei Seminary by Bp. Pivarunas has health issues, and his ordination is most probably postponed indefinitely. This is a heavy blow to me and other Polish Catholics who have been hoping for a CMRI mission in Poland.
Could you please spare a prayer for him?
God Bless You,
I'm very sorry to hear that news. Can anybody else be sent to Poland as a substitute?
It saddens me to hear that. I will pray for his recovery, and I will ask the people at the CMRI mission that I attend at to also pray for him.
Introibo, I liked your addendum, but I must say that there are many considerations beyond the "una cum" as to where one chooses goes to mass. It's true that someone may get infected by wrong ideas by the SSPX, but the sede groups are not immune to many issues including doctrinal problems as well, and a Catholic may easily get infected with these as well. It's not truly safe anywhere these days, you need to just find out who the good priests are and which chapels are safer including toxic laypeople who spread errors, who don't have all these problems and stay with them.ReplyDelete
The problems also don't come just from the groups or the priests. A man I know used to go to a valid Ukrainian rite Divine Liturgy, where the priest was not an heretic, and the man went peacefully without any problems, and I stupidly convinced him to go to CMRI thinking he would be safe there. The CMRI priest is not the problem, but the laity who go there are almost all NUC's - Non-Una-Cumers - and they convinced him that he cannot go to any valid mass or any rite that uses the name of the undeclared antipope.
Anyway, this man's health isn't that good anymore and it's not easy for him to get to CMRI anymore which is a good distance away, while the valid Ukrainian mass is 5 minutes from his house, and now he is away from the sacraments a lot, unless he can get a ride for the long drive to CMRI.
This is one example of this evil teaching, there are many more. If this man had not gone to the CMRI chapel, he would have been getting the graces of mass every week and weekly Holy Communion. These same people that led him away from the sacraments are not driving him to CMRI, and as far as I see, they don't seem to care less about the damage done to this man's soul.
Anon. the problem isn't the people. The problem is there are not enough priests and bishops for the amount of people that need them. It's a supply and demand problem.Delete
Most Non Una Cum people I know don't say you can't receive the last sacraments in danger of death from a priest outside the Church. They just say you can't receive Communion from them or attend their Mass and they believe undeclared heretics are in principle outside the Church .
You cannot say that what they are saying is evil but you also don't have to agree with it either and the same goes for them towards your position.
Anti una cum logic is so full of fallacies that even an untrained layman can pull it apart.ReplyDelete
I do not mean any disrespect to the layman when I say "untrained" mind you. I mean it in the literal sense in that someone who has not had philosophical or theological training can clearly see it's built on fallacy after fallacy.
I am not one to agree with Bp. Sanborn on the una cum idea of sullying the Mass, but I also don't think you have fully read what he has written, otherwise you would understand that he DOES has some reason to think what he does. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.Delete
Corky, Bishop Sanborn speaks and writes in such a way that is forceful as though he knows what he's talking about and you just need to take his word for it, but the reality is if you read or listen to anything he produces it's all shallow, with assertion after assertion that is not proven by sources.Delete
He has been around for a long time, and in the old days I liked him, he made sense and kept himself in check, but now that he has his own group, and he is the leader who everyone listens to and obeys, he's off the rails, and no longer makes any sense.
Question: what are the exact words recited (te igitur) when there is a period of vacancy of the Holy See in "normal times." Anyone? GuidoReplyDelete
Why don't the first two links provide images?ReplyDelete
The una cum controversy hit the Novus Ordo Watch combox too. It's quite disappointing, though, that some people completely missed the point of Introibo's article which was to present the actual teachings of approved Catholic theologians on the matter of undeclared heretics/schismatics and their relation to Catholics in the administration of Sacraments.ReplyDelete
Yet, some people will say that "the entirety of the debate hinges on the availability of sacraments versus the quality of those sacraments" when theologians teach that it is lawful to receive these sacraments for a just cause, rather than a grave cause (MacKenzie). Does a validly ordained SSPX priest somehow administers low-quality Sacraments?
Someone went as far as to accuse Introibo of apparently not having a problem with the R&R fallacy! Really now.
Funny (or sad, really) how some trads will shovel theology right in your face but dismiss it when it contradicts the dogmatized opinions of their favorite clergy.