By Ozon
Part I: The Sunday Morning Dilemma
It is 7:45 AM on a cold, overcast Sunday morning.
An old station wagon sits idling in an empty parking lot three miles outside of town. The engine hums. The heater rattles. And inside that car, a father of five grips the steering wheel so hard his knuckles have gone white.
His wife sits beside him, quiet, her thumb holding page 625 of a well worn 1962 St. Andrew Daily Missal. She has not turned that page in four minutes.
In the back seat, five children. Dressed. Groomed. Silent. Not fidgeting. Not fighting. That alone tells you something is wrong.
This family has already driven past three local diocesan parishes to reach this gravel lot. That part was easy. Every traditional Catholic makes the same calculation on Sunday morning: bypass the guitar Masses, the felt banners, the liturgical experiments, and head for the chapel where the Faith is preserved intact.
But the agonizing decision is what waits five minutes down this two lane county road.
A traditional Latin Mass chapel. Silk vestments. Gregorian chant rising toward oak rafters. The Roman Canon whispered with exquisite precision by a validly ordained, deeply reverent Catholic priest.
Everything this father has fought to give his family.
Yet he cannot bring himself to put the car in drive.
Why?
Because forty minutes into that Mass, after the Confiteor, after the Introit, after the Gloria, the priest will bow low over the altar cloth, trace three signs of the cross above the bread and chalice, and murmur seven Latin words during the Te Igitur:
"...una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro Leone..."
("...together with Thy servant Leo, our Pope...")
Seven words. Spoken in a whisper. Heard by almost no one in the nave.
To ninety nine percent of the Christian world, that phrase is completely invisible, a liturgical technicality buried inside the most ancient prayer in Western Christendom.
But inside the passionate, fractured world of traditional Catholicism, those seven words are an ecclesiastical fault line. They have torn families apart. Ended lifelong friendships. Driven wedges between priest and penitent, husband and wife, father and son. And right now, in that gravel parking lot, they are determining where this man's conscience will spend its Sunday.
He is caught in the crosshairs of a ruthless theological war. And every side is aiming at his soul:
In Camp A, an influential online polemicist and an independent priest have warned him, in writing, in public, in terms that admit no ambiguity, that crossing that chapel door makes him an objective traitor to the Catholic Faith. Their argument is blunt:
"To assist at an 'Una Cum' Mass naming a notorious heretic is to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar. You are offering sacrifice in union with apostasy. It is a mortal sin of illicit communicatio in sacris. Stay home. Lock your door. Pray the Rosary on your knees."
To this camp, attendance is not a gray area. It is spiritual treason.
In Camp B, the Society of Saint Pius X and classic canonical apologists fire back with the opposite warning: sever yourself from the public name of the visible Roman Pontiff, and you sever yourself from the visible structure of the Catholic Church itself. To refuse the Una cum altogether, they contend, risks sliding into a schismatic mindset, sectarian isolation that ends in dogmatic suicide.
To this camp, non attendance is the real danger.
And then there is Camp C, the largest camp of all, though it has no website and no spokesman. These are the exhausted lay Catholics who wander between chapels, week after week, haunted by a single question: Does the priest's personal theology or factual error at the altar somehow contaminate the Host?
Or can an ordinary layman kneel in the pews, beg God for mercy, and receive the Bread of Life without adopting the clerical politics of the sanctuary?
Camp C has no manifesto. It has five children in the back of a station wagon and a dashboard clock that now reads 7:50 AM.
The father stares through the windshield. The road ahead is straight and empty.
To stay home feels like spiritual starvation: his family cut off from the Mass, from the Eucharist, from the sacramental life that is the oxygen of the Catholic soul.
To enter, according to at least one priest he trusts, is spiritual treason, a mortal sin that places him outside the communion of the faithful.
Starvation on the left. Treason on the right. And five minutes of county road in between.
How did we arrive here?
How did the most sublime prayer in Christendom, the Roman Canon, older than every cathedral in Europe, become an intellectual minefield that paralyzes a father in a parking lot?
Is attendance at an "Una Cum Mass" an act of apostasy? Or is the anti-Una Cum position a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic sacramental theology, liturgical history, and canonical culpability, an error built on passion rather than principle, internet polemics rather than the Church's own jurisprudence?
To answer that question, we have to do something almost no one in this debate has been willing to do.
We have to set aside the blog posts. Lower the emotional temperature. And open the classic tomes of the Church herself: the scholastic dogmatics of St. Thomas Aquinas, the penal jurisprudence of the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, and the time tested moral casuistry of the Church's greatest doctors.
That is what this treatise does. From primary sources. Page by page. Canon by canon.
And the answer, when you see it laid bare, may change where you spend next Sunday morning.
Part II: The Status Quaestionis (From Polemics to Principles)
The fiery debates between sedevacantists who recognize that the laity may attend an una cum Mass out of spiritual necessity and strict "non una cum" sedevacantist factions do not turn on whether modernism is dangerous; every traditionalist agrees that Catholic doctrine is currently weathering a historic crisis.
The real clash turns entirely on three specific questions of dogmatic theology, clerical guilt, and moral cooperation:
Sacramental Mechanics and Liturgical History: What actually happens when a priest speaks the Una cum in the Roman Canon? Does naming an unorthodox prelate invalidate the Mass, or transform the Sacrifice of Calvary into a schismatic rite? The historical record is unambiguous: when emperors and kings fell into heresy, the Church struck their names from the liturgical diptychs immediately. The Te Igitur has never tolerated the commemoration of a notorious heretic. That means inserting such a name is an objective liturgical defect. But does that defect destroy the Sacrifice itself, or does the sacramental power of the priesthood, operating in persona Christi, remain untouched?
Clerical Guilt: What is the moral and legal standing of a traditional priest who recites the Una cum under good faith (bona fides) or factual error (error facti)? Is he automatically guilty of formal heresy, damned by the words on his lips, or is he laboring under an innocent material mistake that canon law has always distinguished from criminal intent?
Lay Assistance and Canon 2261, §2: Does an informed Catholic in the pew, who knows full well that the named prelate is objectively compromised, commit a mortal sin by attending? What constitutes a canonical "just cause" (iusta causa) permitting attendance, and how does classical casuistry allow the faithful to assist at the Holy Sacrifice without participating in the celebrant's error?
The treatise that follows systematically untangles each of these questions. It draws from primary canonical decrees, papal constitutions, and manualist theology, not blog posts, not polemical pamphlets, not YouTube influencers.
And it demonstrates three things the father in that parking lot desperately needs to know: why the Holy Sacrifice remains pure, how clerical error is judged under Catholic jurisprudence, and how an informed layman may lawfully conduct his conscience on Sunday morning.
Part III: The Dogmatic, Ecclesiological, and Liturgical Nature of the Una Cum
3.1 The Dual Character of the Te Igitur: Intercessory Petition and Profession of Communion
To understand the legal and dogmatic function of the Una cum, it is essential to first understand its liturgical nature. Grammatically and liturgically, the Una cum clause is fundamentally an intercessory prayer. It constitutes the opening petition of the Great Intercession within the Roman Canon of the Mass.
The Una cum occurs within the Te Igitur, the opening prayer of the Anaphora. The priest prays:
"In primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N., et Antistite nostro N., et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus."
("Which in the first place we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church: that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to pacify, guard, unite, and govern her throughout the whole world: together with Thy servant N. our Pope, and N. our Bishop, and all orthodox believers and maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.")
As Rev. Adrian Fortescue explains in his historical analysis of the Roman Mass in The Catholic Encyclopedia, this prayer is an explicit petition of supplication and intercession. The priest asks Almighty God to grant specific spiritual and temporal blessings to the Church: peace (pacificare), protection (custodire), visible unity (adunare), and divine governance (regere). The Una cum phrase specifies that this intercession for the welfare of the Universal Church is offered alongside and on behalf of the visible earthly heads of the Church, the Sovereign Pontiff and the local diocesan Ordinary.
In the Summa Theologiae (II II, q. 83, a. 17; III, q. 83, a. 4), St. Thomas Aquinas analyzes the different types of prayer contained within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, building upon St. Paul's instruction to Timothy ("that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men", 1 Tim. 2:1):
Supplications (Obsecrationes): The preparatory prayers calling upon God's mercy.
Prayers (Orationes): The consecration itself, wherein the mind is raised directly to God in the highest sense.
Intercessions (Postulationes or Intercessiones): The petitions that precede and follow the consecration, in which the priest implores divine graces for specific intentions and persons.
Thanksgivings (Gratiarum Actiones): The prayers of gratitude that conclude the sacred rite.
St. Thomas Aquinas places the petitions for the Universal Church, the Pope, the local Bishop, the civil rulers, and the living and deceased faithful squarely under the category of intercessions (intercessiones). In these prayers, the priest, acting in persona totius Ecclesiae (in the person of the whole Church), pleads the infinite merits of Christ's Eucharistic Sacrifice before God the Father on behalf of the Church's earthly hierarchy and faithful.
While the Una cum is grammatically and interiorly an intercessory petition, it simultaneously carries a canonically binding function as a public manifestation of visible communion (communio):
An Intercession for the Hierarchy: The Church intercedes for her chief pastors so that God may grant them the grace, wisdom, fortitude, and orthodoxy necessary to govern the flock of Christ effectively.
A Test of Orthodox Communion: Because public intercession at the altar is offered pro Ecclesia (for the Church) and una cum (together with) her legitimate shepherds, naming a prelate in the Te Igitur publicly testifies that the priest and congregation are in active, visible communion with that prelate.
As Rev. Eric MacKenzie observes in The Delict of Heresy, the Church's liturgical law forbids offering the official, public intercessions of the Canon for notorious heretics or excommunicates as if they were valid pastors of the Church, because public liturgical intercession implies active, mutual membership in the same Mystical Body.
To summarize, the Una cum is an intercessory petition asking God to preserve, govern, and unify His Church together with her earthly chief pastors. At the same time, because it names the Pope and Bishop as the living anchors of that Church, it doubles as the official professing of visible communion between the altar and the Catholic hierarchy.
3.2 Sacerdotal Agency: In Persona Christi versus In Persona Totius Ecclesiae
To analyze the mechanics of the Una cum, one must employ the classical scholastic distinction regarding the dual operational mode of the ordained priest at the altar.
St. Thomas Aquinas establishes in the Summa Theologiae (III, q. 82, a. 5; q. 82, a. 7, ad 3; q. 83, a. 1, corp. et ad 3) that in the actual consecration of the Eucharistic species, the priest operates exclusively in persona Christi. By virtue of the character imprinted upon his soul at ordination, the priest is an instrumental cause through whom Christ Himself acts as the principal minister. Consequently, the consecration of the bread and wine depends strictly upon valid matter, proper form, a validly ordained priest, and the sacramental intention to do what the Church does (intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia).
Conversely, in reciting the surrounding prayers, supplications, and intercessions of the liturgy—most notably the prayers of the Canon before and after the consecration—the celebrant acts in persona totius Ecclesiae ("in the person of the whole Church"). In these prayers, the priest acts as the Church's public legate, offering intercessory petitions in her name.
As St. Thomas demonstrates in Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 5, the personal holiness, orthodoxy, or ecclesiastical standing of the minister does not destroy the validity of the sacrifice:
"The priest, in reciting the prayers of the Mass, speaks in the person of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates Mass... because he consecrates in the person of Christ, he performs a true sacrament; but because he offers prayers in the person of the Church, from whose unity he is separated, his prayers have no efficacy."
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 5, corp.; see also q. 82, a. 7, corp.).
Sacramental validity is wholly insulated from the celebrant's personal theology or liturgical intercessions. The bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ ex opere operato the moment the words of consecration are pronounced, regardless of the names whispered minutes earlier in the Te Igitur.
3.3 The Meaning of Una Cum in Liturgical Hermeneutics
The opening intercession of the Roman Canon reads:
"In primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre, et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro N., et Antístite nostro N., et ómnibus orthodóxis, atquæ cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus."
(Missale Romanum, Canon Missae).
Grammatically and liturgically, the phrase una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. does not signify that the sacrifice is offered by the Pope or that its intrinsic efficacy depends upon the doctrinal purity of the named pontiff or bishop. Rather, as liturgical historians and canonists observe, the clause is an intercessory qualification: the sacrifice is offered on behalf of (pro) the whole Church, together with (una cum) its visible hierarchical head, the local ordinary, and all orthodox confessors of the Catholic faith (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, entry "Canon of the Mass," sub-entry "Te Igitur," pp. 256–257).
If an erring or illegitimate name is inserted, the Eucharistic consecration remains completely valid because sacramental power flows from Holy Orders and the sacramental form, not from the accuracy of the intercessory list (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 5, ad 1; q. 83, a. 1).
3.4 Liturgical Diptychs, Temporal Rulers, and the Exclusion of Heretics from the Roman Canon
To understand the legal and dogmatic function of the Una cum, it is essential to examine the origin of the clause in the ancient liturgical diptychs and the Church’s unbending discipline regarding who may be named at the altar.
Historically, the practice of naming the Pope, local ordinary, and Christian sovereigns (et Rege nostro) in the Te Igitur developed directly from the ancient diptychs—the two-leaved tablets read publicly during the Eucharistic liturgy containing the roll call of the faithful living and dead (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, entry "Diptych," pp. 22–24; Vol. 3, entry "Canon of the Mass," sub-entry "Te Igitur," p. 257).
A critical historical and dogmatic fact governs this practice: If an emperor, king, or prelate fell into notorious heresy, public schism, or was formally excommunicated, he was strictly and immediately excluded from the diptychs and barred from commemoration in the Canon of the Mass.
Catholic liturgical law and dogmatic jurisprudence have always maintained that public liturgical commemoration at the altar requires visible communion in the true Faith:
The Absolute Exclusion of Non-Catholics from the Diptychs:
The ancient diptychs admitted exclusively those who lived and died in full, visible communion with the Catholic Church. As liturgical historians document in The Catholic Encyclopedia, the names of heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates were rigorously erased. No earthly status could preserve a ruler from this penalty: "the highest dignity, episcopal or imperial, would not avail to save the offender from its infliction" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, entry "Diptych," p. 23).
Historical Precedents of Striking Heretical Emperors from the Canon:
When Byzantine rulers embraced heterodoxy, the Holy See and the Roman clergy responded by striking their names from the public prayers of the altar:
The Monothelite Crisis (712 AD): When the Byzantine Emperor Philippicus Bardanes embraced the Monothelite heresy and burned the acts of the Third Council of Constantinople (Sixth Ecumenical Council), Pope Constantine and the Church of Rome rejected his imperial authority in sacred affairs. The Romans refused to place his image on coins, refused to erect his statue in churches, and explicitly refused to recite his name in the Canon of the Mass (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, entry "Pope Constantine," p. 294; Vol. 12, entry "Philippicus," p. 12).
The Iconoclast Persecution: When Emperor Leo III the Isaurian decreed the destruction of sacred images and threatened the Roman Pontiff, Pope St. Gregory II and Pope St. Gregory III formally condemned the heresy and expunged the imperial name from liturgical honor.
The English Reformation: When King Henry VIII and later Queen Elizabeth I separated England from the Holy See and established state heresy, the Popes excommunicated them, ensuring that no Catholic priest could lawfully include et Rege nostro or et Regina nostra for a separated, non-Catholic sovereign.
The Syntactic and Doctrinal Intrinsic Contradiction:
The Te Igitur asks God to guard and govern His Church:
...una cum [...] et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.
Because the prayer characterizes those in communion as "orthodox believers and maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith," the deliberate liturgical commemoration of an acknowledged, notorious heretic involves an intrinsic objective falsehood.
Public Liturgical Oblation (In Persona Ecclesiae) vs. Private Intercession:
St. Thomas Aquinas clarifies in the Summa Theologiae (III, q. 82, a. 5; q. 83, a. 4) that prayers offered in persona Ecclesiae belong strictly to the Mystical Body. While a priest may offer private suffrages or pray privately for the conversion of an excommunicate, the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici codifies this classical doctrine in Canon 2262, §1: excommunicated persons are strictly excluded from the public liturgical prayers (publicae orationes) of the Church (cf. Eric F. MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, pp. 34–38).
Royal Indults Applied Strictly to Catholic Princes:
When temporal monarchs were commemorated in the Canon—such as before the 1570 reform of Pope St. Pius V, or under subsequent apostolic indults granted to the Spanish Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg monarchy—Rev. Adrian Fortescue observes that these concessions applied strictly to Catholic princes who governed in formal submission to the Holy See (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 257).
The Theological Bearing on the Present Inquiry:
Liturgical history definitively demonstrates that the Church’s objective law excludes notorious heretics from the Una cum. Therefore, inserting the name of an objective heretic is an objective liturgical defect.
However, this objective defect does not solve the subjective question:
What is the canonical status of a priest who recites the name under invincible ignorance or factual error (error facti)? As established below in Part IV, an objective liturgical anomaly does not constitute a canonical delict without formal pertinacity, nor does it destroy the validity of the sacrifice consecrated in persona Christi.
Part IV: Canonical Jurisprudence and Delictual Imputability: Formal versus Material Heresy
4.1 The Delict of Heresy and Canonical Imputability
Canon law and Catholic moral theology make a strict distinction between the objective reality of an error (error materialis) and the subjective criminality of a delict (delictum formale).
Under the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, Canon 1325, §2 defines the canonical categories:
"Any person who, after receiving baptism, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he falls away entirely from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; if he rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic."
(CIC 1917, Canon 1325, §2; cf. Stanislaus Woywod, The New Canon Law, p. 270).
For any error to become a canonical delict (delictum) carrying ecclesiastical penalties and loss of office, moral jurisprudence demands the concurrence of two distinct elements:
The Material Element (factum externum): An external proposition or action contrary to a dogma of the Catholic faith.
The Formal Element (pertinacia or malicious intent): A deliberate, obstinate resistance to the known teaching authority of the Church.
Rev. Eric F. MacKenzie, in his definitive canonical study The Delict of Heresy in Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, No. 77 [1932], Chapter II, "The Material Element of the Delict," pp. 22–29; Chapter III, "The Formal Element: Pertinacity," pp. 32–41), demonstrates that pertinacity does not denote temporal duration, stubbornness of temperament, or vehement passion, but rather the conscious, willful rejection of a truth known to be proposed by the Church as divinely revealed:
"The absence of pertinacity excuses a person from the delict of heresy. Mere objective opposition to Catholic doctrine does not constitute a canonical crime without internal obstinacy against the Church's magisterium."
(MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, Chapter III, pp. 34–36).
This principle aligns directly with Canons 2199 and 2200 of the 1917 Code. While Canon 2200, §2 dictates that when an external violation of the law occurs, intentional malice (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved, this presumption is strictly iuris tantum (rebuttable by evidence). It yields completely to proven ignorance, inadvertence, or error:
"Ignorance of the law or of the penalty excuses from all penalty, provided the ignorance was not affected or crass... Likewise, an erroneous judgment or inadvertence excuses."
(CIC 1917, Canon 2202, §1; cf. MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, pp. 36–38).
4.2 The Celebrant Operating under Error Facti (Good Faith / Bona Fides)
When applied to the priest standing at the altar, the distinction between formal malice and material participation is definitive:
Theological Category
- Formal Malice (Dolus / Pertinacia)
- Material Error (Error Facti / Bona Fides)
Interior Motive
- Willful adhesion to heresy; deliberate intent to communicate with an acknowledged false teacher.
- Sincere intent to offer the Holy Mass in union with the legitimate Catholic hierarchy.
State of Mind
- Clear knowledge of heresy paired with obstinate rejection of the Magisterium.
- Invincible ignorance, erroneous factual judgment, or misapprehension of the prelate's true canonical standing.
Canonical Guilt
- Incurs ipso facto excommunication (Canon 2314, §1) and canonical infamy.
- Free from canonical censures; acts under a blameless material mistake (Canon 2202, §1).
Efficacy of Intention
- Directs the public prayer to an acknowledged separated sect.
- Substantially directs the offering to the true Papacy and the Mystical Body of Christ.
Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P., in his Handbook of Moral Theology (Treatise I, "Vices Opposed to Faith," nn. 500–503), confirms that:
"Material heresy is an error in faith committed through inculpable ignorance or good faith... Material heretics commit no sin against faith, because their error is involuntary."
(Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, n. 501; see also Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. I, "Theological Virtues: Faith," Section 4, pp. 280–282).
If a priest pronounces the name of a superior who is an objective heretic—sincerely believing that superior to be a legitimate Catholic bishop or Pope—his act is an involuntary, material error (error facti). His primary, habitual intention is directed toward the legitimate Catholic hierarchy and the Catholic Church.
As Frs. Charles J. Callan, O.P., and John A. McHugh, O.P., explain in Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas (Vol. I, "Sins Against Faith," nn. 825–830; "The Nature of Imputability," nn. 1502–1508), an involuntary defect in execution does not alter the fundamental moral identity of a virtuous act when the error resides in accidental factual circumstances rather than the formal object of the will.
Part V: Sacramental Validity, Licit Administration, and the Norms of Communicatio in Sacris
5.1 The Principle of Ad Evitanda Scandala and Canon 2261
To resolve whether the faithful may lawfully approach an erring priest, Catholic theology looks to the historic Constitution Ad Evitanda Scandala, promulgated by Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance (1418).
Prior to this decree, the faithful were strictly bound under pain of sin to abstain from communion and liturgical contact with anyone known to be excommunicated. Pope Martin V established a radical relaxation of positive ecclesiastical discipline to protect consciences:
To avoid scandal and dispel anxieties, no one is bound to abstain from ecclesiastical communion or sacramental reception with any minister, nor to avoid them, unless that minister has been explicitly and personally condemned by judicial sentence, or is publicly denounced as an excommunicatus vitandus.
(Pope Martin V, Const. Ad Evitanda Scandala, 1418; see Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, n. 588).
This legislation was codified directly in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, Canon 2261, §§1–3:
Canon 2261, §1: An excommunicated person is prohibited from licitly celebrating the sacraments.
Canon 2261, §2: "The faithful, however, subject to the provisions of §3, may for any just cause request the sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated minister, especially if other ministers are lacking; and then the excommunicated person who is requested may administer them, and is under no obligation to inquire into the reason for the request."
(CIC 1917, Canon 2261, §2; cf. Stanislaus Woywod, The New Canon Law, pp. 450–451).
Canon 2261, §3: This concession applies solely to excommunicati tolerati; from an excommunicatus vitandus or a minister against whom a declaratory or condemnatory sentence has been issued, the sacraments may only be requested in danger of death (in periculo mortis).
Under Canon 2258, §2, a person is an excommunicatus vitandus only if two conditions are met simultaneously:
- The person has been publicly excommunicated by the Holy See by name.
- The decree explicitly designates the person as vitandus ("to be shunned").
Because a traditional Catholic priest operating in good faith (bona fide) has neither been condemned by judicial decree nor publicly designated a vitandus, he remains fundamentally toleratus. Under Canon 2261, §2, the faithful are explicitly permitted by canon law to approach such a priest for sacramental reception and holy Mass for any just cause (ex qualibet iusta causa).
5.2 Exhaustive Canonical Exegesis: What Constitutes a "Just Cause" (Iusta Causa) under Canon 2261, §2?
A central point of contention among traditionalist critics of the una cum Mass is the assertion that the faithful may only approach an irregular or materially compromised minister in instances of grave necessity or imminent danger of death.
This objection is directly refuted by the precise legal phrasing of Canon 2261, §2 and its unanimous interpretation by Catholic canonists.
The text of the canon explicitly uses the expansive phrase:
{‘ex qualibet iusta causa”} (for any just cause whatsoever)
It does not say ex gravi causa (for a grave cause), nor does it require in periculo mortis (in danger of death)—which is reserved strictly for §3 regarding vitandi.
The standard commentators on the 1917 Code define iusta causa with consistent pastoral breadth:
Rev. Charles Augustine, O.S.B. (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. VIII, "Penal Law," commentary on Can. 2261, pp. 176–178):
Augustine points out that the legislator deliberately used the word qualibet ("any") to remove scruples and ensure the spiritual liberty of the faithful:"The faithful may, for any just reason, ask for the sacraments or sacramentals from a toleratus... What is a just cause? A just cause is any reasonable motive, such as devotion, spiritual advantage, a desire to hear Mass on Sundays or holy days, or the fact that no other priest is readily available without serious inconvenience. It does not require extreme or even grave necessity. The law says 'any just cause,' which must be interpreted broadly in favor of the salvation of souls."
(Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. VIII, pp. 176–177).
Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M. (The New Canon Law: A Commentary and Summary, commentary on Canon 2261, pp. 450–451; see also A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol. II, n. 2115):
Woywod confirms that the faithful are not obliged to prove a critical emergency: "Any just cause suffices, for instance, genuine devotion, the desire to receive Holy Communion more frequently, the convenience of the time or place, or because it would be troublesome to find another priest. Furthermore, the faithful are under no obligation to explain their motive to the minister, nor is the minister permitted to question them regarding the legitimacy of their request."
(Woywod, The New Canon Law, p. 450).
Very Rev. Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. (Handbook of Moral Theology, "Tractatus de Censuris: De Excommunicatione," n. 915):
Prümmer notes that because the Church’s positive penal law was reformed by Martin V specifically ad consulendum conscientiis (to care for consciences) and ad evitanda scandala (to avoid scandal):"A just cause is present whenever the petitioner acts out of an honest motive of religion, such as the sanctification of Sunday, avoiding spiritual languor, obtaining peace of mind, or avoiding familial dissension."
(Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, n. 915).
Rev. Henry Davis, S.J. (Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. IV, "Treatise on Censures: Excommunication," pp. 111–114):
Davis explains that the condition praesertim si desint alii ministri ("especially if other ministers are lacking") is demonstrative, not taxative:"The clause 'especially if other ministers are lacking' shows what would normally be the most common just cause, but it is not an absolute condition. Any spiritual advantage—such as hearing Mass, receiving absolution, or participating in the liturgical life of the Church—constitutes a legally sufficient cause."
(Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. IV, p. 112).
Consequently, an informed Catholic layman who attends an una cum Mass celebrated by a toleratus in order to satisfy the Sunday obligation, receive the Eucharist, or foster personal piety possesses a fully verified, canonically recognized iusta causa.
5.3 Distinctions in Communicatio in Sacris (Canon 1258)
Canon law strictly regulates participation in sacred worship:
Canon 1258, §1: "It is unlawful for the faithful to assist actively in any way, or take part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics."
Canon 1258, §2: "Passive or merely material presence may be tolerated for a grave reason, on account of civil duty or honor... provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal."
(CIC 1917, Canon 1258; cf. Augustine, Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. VI, pp. 195–198).
The fundamental distinction lies in the nature of the rite itself:
Active participation in a non-Catholic rite (in sacris acatholicorum): Intrinsically illicit when the rite is inherently sectarian, false, or severed from Catholic worship.
Assisting at the Mass of a Catholic priest with material defects: This does not constitute an acatholic rite. The Mass remains the unadulterated Roman Rite offered by a validly ordained Catholic priest using an authentic missal. The priest is not offering a schismatic liturgy; he is executing the Church's liturgical rite while laboring under a subjective, material mistake regarding the person of the prelate.
Part VI: The Casuistry of Lay Assistance at the Mass of an Erring Celebrant
6.1 The Functional Severability of the Priest’s Prayer from the Layman’s Assistance
A foundational principle of Catholic liturgical theology is that the priest does not act as an agent of the congregation, but as an agent of Christ and the Church.
In the traditional Roman Rite, the Canon is recited in a low voice (vox secreta), reserved entirely to the celebrant. The layman sitting in the nave neither recites, pronounces, nor vocally ratifies the Una cum clause.
As Henry Davis, S.J., points out in Moral and Pastoral Theology (Vol. I, "Cooperation in Evil," pp. 338–344; Vol. II, "The Mass," pp. 30–35), an individual's presence at an action where a material error occurs does not impute that error to the observer, provided:
- The action itself is intrinsically good (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).
- The observer's assistance is directed toward the intrinsic good of the act (finis operis).
- The observer formally disassociates their internal will from the accidental defect of the minister (finis operantis).
Consequently, an informed Catholic sitting in the pews does not adopt the priest's material error. The layman assists in persona populi to render divine adoration, offer spiritual sacrifice, fulfill a grave precept, and receive sacramental grace.
6.2 The Four Moral Criteria for Lawful Attendance
According to the classical moral casuistry articulated by St. Alphonsus Liguori (Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. 3, Dub. V, nn. 53–55), Heribert Jone (Moral Theology, nn. 120–124), and Callan & McHugh (Moral Theology, Vol. I, nn. 850–865), a knowledgeable layman may lawfully attend the Mass of a priest who erroneously inserts a heterodox name into the Una cum, provided four specific conditions are met:
1. Legitimate Spiritual Reason (Causa Rationabilis / Iusta Causa)
Attendance cannot be born of frivolity, curiosity, or indifference to doctrine. The faithful must be motivated by a proportionate spiritual good:
- Fulfilling the divine and ecclesiastical precept of Sunday Mass attendance (Canon 1248).
- Procuring sacramental absolution or Holy Communion for the nourishment of the soul.
- Avoiding spiritual starvation, despair, or the grave burden of isolation when no entirely immune priest is accessible.
2. Complete Interior Non-Assent (Non-Cooperatio Formalis)
The layman must internally dissent from the error. When the priest pronounces the name of the compromised prelate during the Te Igitur, the congregant explicitly directs their interior intention away from that individual, uniting their prayer instead to Jesus Christ—the Supreme Pontiff—and to all true, orthodox bishops throughout the world. This preserves the layman from formal cooperation in error (Callan & McHugh, Moral Theology, Vol. I, nn. 1506–1510).
3. Exclusion of Active Scandal (Secluso Scandalo)
The presence of the layman must not cause spiritual ruin to others by leading them to believe that:
- The layman endorses the heresy or heterodox actions of the prelate named.
- Theological errors regarding the Papacy or the Magisterium are matters of indifference.
If the layman holds a public role or their presence would be misconstrued, they are morally obligated to discreetly make their theological position known to interested parties or choose non-attendance if active scandal cannot be avoided (St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. III, Cap. 2, "De Scandalo," nn. 45–50).
4. Immunity from Perversion (Secluso Periculo Perversionis)
The congregant must possess moral certainty that ongoing attendance will not gradually erode their own orthodoxy or weaken their resolve against error. If the priest delivers sermons promoting explicit heresy or attempts to impose compromised doctrines upon the faithful, the danger of spiritual perversion becomes proximate, rendering attendance gravely illicit (Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, n. 520; Jone, Moral Theology, n. 124).
Part VII: Synthetic Resolution and Casuistical Flowchart
7.1 Case Resolution: The Informed Layman and the Mistaken Celebrant
When the elements of the inquiry are synthesized according to the classical theological manuals, the resolution of the case proceeds as follows:
7.2 The Distinction between Liturgical Formula and Dogmatic Profession
A critical flaw in contemporary non-una cum polemics is treating the Una cum clause as an absolute dogmatic definition or a sacramental sign that confers its content automatically (ex opere operato).
As demonstrated by liturgical history, the Canon developed as an intercessory litany. It petitions God to govern the Church together with the visible servants who occupy ecclesiastical offices (and historically, alongside Christian monarchs). When a minister errs regarding the legitimate occupant of an office, God does not validate the error; rather, the Church's habitual intention (intentio Ecclesiae) supplies for the accidental flaw, accepting the priest's oblation on behalf of the real, unblemished Mystical Body of Christ.
Part VIII: Conclusion
To synthesize the dogmatic, canonical, and moral evidence:
The Nature of the Mass: The Eucharistic Sacrifice celebrated by a valid Catholic priest using an authentic Catholic rite remains a valid, holy oblation capable of conferring grace. The personal errors, administrative misjudgments, or material mistakes of the priest do not destroy its sacramental efficacy (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 82, a. 5).
The Intercessory Nature of the Prayer: St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II II, q. 83, a. 17) explicitly categorizes the petitions of the Te Igitur as intercessions (postulationes). The historical inclusion of Catholic temporal rulers (et Rege nostro) further confirms that the clause is an intercessory prayer for the Church, not an operative sacramental formula. Simultaneously, the Church's strict historical exclusion of heretical or excommunicated rulers proves that naming an objective heretic is a genuine liturgical defect. However, because this prayer is intercessory (offered in persona Ecclesiae) rather than sacramental (in persona Christi), an accidental error in the names recited does not alter or destroy the valid sacrificial nature of the Mass.
The Status of the Celebrant: A priest who erroneously inserts the name of an objective heretic into the Una cum while acting in good faith (bona fide) and lacking pertinacity (pertinacia) is guilty of material error (error materialis), not formal heresy or schism (MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, pp. 32–36). He remains a minister toleratus under Canon 2261, §2.
The "Just Cause" of the Faithful: Canon 2261, §2 explicitly permits the faithful to seek the sacraments from a toleratus for any just cause (ex qualibet iusta causa). This does not require extreme emergency, but encompasses fulfilling the Sunday precept, receiving the Holy Eucharist, or nourishing spiritual life (Augustine, Vol. VIII, pp. 176–178; Woywod, p. 450).
The Position of the Faithful: An informed Catholic who assists at such a Mass does not adopt the celebrant's mistake. Because the Una cum is spoken by the priest alone in persona Ecclesiae, the layman's presence in persona populi remains entirely licit, provided the layman maintains interior dissent from the named prelate, possesses a proportionate spiritual reason, avoids active scandal, and guards against doctrinal compromise.
I would say this is the complete answer to the question. I am inclined to quote Introibo from an earlier post to express the resulting conclusion:
ReplyDelete"My position is that if your conscience would not permit you to go, then don't. However, it is not wrong or sinful to attend. This problem is unique to the times in which we live and this issue (for obvious reasons) has never been explicitly decided by the pope. Therefore, Traditionalist priests and bishops have no business declaring attendance at an Una Cum Mass a "mortal sin." ("Undeclared Heretics", March 20, 2023).
The reasoning is without fault. It's not a settled question; how can it be ? Speaking not for anyone else but only for myself I find the mention of the antipope (current or otherwise) in the Mass to be a bridge I do not cross; it's not just intellectually cacophonous.
Sounds like it's a bridge over troubled water.
DeleteCairsahr, you quote from Introibo's March 20, 2023 post about Una Cum. Introibo published a previous post, this one titled "Una Cum" and dated July 10, 2017, in the last sentence of which he advocates in favor of conducting "an imperfect general council for the election of a true pope with whom we can ALL be UNA CUM." Could such an IGC be our "bridge over troubled water"? Your fellow Canadian P. Roy seems to think that it could possibly amount to such.
DeleteThe proposed IGC is the best chance for at least achieving some kind of unity through consensus; namely, that all agree that the cut-off point for the Magisterium was Oct. 9, 1958 (the death of Pius XII), and Oct. 28, 1958, with the appearance of the first antipope of the cycle of antipopes. However I am not sure about actually electing someone all can agree on. Perhaps there will be at least a minor schism from there; but it depends on how such an IGC proceeds. The first thing is to achieve a general consensus along the lines indicated at such an IGC; from there it can be decided whether to make an election, with or even without such a consensus. But if without one, then perhaps every group will hold their own little IGC and make competing elections (or at least it's a possibility). So the IGC should be first about achieving such a consensus, and secondly about an election.
DeleteI do not agree that the cut off was the death of Pius XII. I have moral certainty that it was with the death of John XXIII, and possibly with the promulgation of the V2 documents by Paul VI.
DeleteAnon 7:29, do you still have your same moral certainty after reading Introibo's post "The Case Against Roncalli" (May 20, 2019)? If so, how so?
DeleteQ.) "Would an "Imperfect General Council" conducted by sedevacantists, achieve a general consensus about anything?"
Google AI supplies us all, even without any jurisdiction to do so (!), a lengthy and sophisticated response to that question. To transcribe only about 20% of it here:
A.) "An "IGC" conducted by sedevacantists today is highly unlikely to achieve a general consensus on any significant theological or governing issue. While the concept of an imperfect council exists in traditional Catholic ecclesiology... applying it to the modern sedevacantist movement faces insurmountable practical and ideological hurdles.
Why Consensus is Virtually Impossible
* Fractured Factions
* The Problem of Jurisdiction
* Episcopal Lineage Disputes
* Lack of a Universal Convoking Authority
If such a council were to gather, the only absolute consensus they would achieve is the core premise of their movement: that the current See of Rome is vacant... Beyond that... any attempt to... elect a pope would trigger immediate schisms and walkouts..."
Q.) "Are you being unnecessarily pessimistic about this?"
Just type that question into the "Ask Anything" search box on the bottom, and then press your "Enter" key in order to get more results.
What if (?) "Cairsahr's bridge" relates to this:
DeleteQ.) "What are the theological undertones of the bridge as a redemptive archetype?"
A.) "In classical Roman theology, the high priest was given the title "Pontifex Maximus" -- literally translating to "the Greatest Bridge-Builder." This was not a civic engineering title, but a cosmic one. In Christian theology, the Incarnation is the ultimate expression of the bridge archetype... If you want to pull this thread further, I can map this onto Catherine of Siena's famous mystical treatise, where she explicitly details Christ as a multi-tiered bridge..."
Q.) "Is a pope a Pontifex Maximus?"
A.) "Yes... although his official title in the Church is Summus Pontifex (Supreme Pontiff) ... The official X (formerly Twitter) handle for the Pope is @Pontifex."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus
https://grokipedia.com/page/List_of_pontifices_maximi
There is no bridge. I favourite IGC for a doable consensus (1958 cut off) but I never seriously thought it would be a restoration. A preliminary yes but the main is I believe Heaven's intervention. But consensus even if only 33% or half but the biggest faction anyway. Or... what ? I actually cannot go further than that.
DeleteQ.) "What are the deepest, most ontological levels of meaning, of the metaphor(s) involved with a bridge over troubled water?"
DeleteA. ) "At its deepest, most ontological levels, the metaphor of a bridge over troubled water moves far beyond simple interpersonal kindness and emotional support. It speaks directly to the nature of being, the structures of consciousness, and the fundamental mechanics of how existence navigates chaos.
Ontologically, the metaphor sets up the dual nature of reality: the unformed chaos (troubled water) and the constructed logos (the bridge). In almost every cosmology, "the waters" represent the unmanifest, the turbulent, the chaotic matrix of potentiality and destruction. Troubled water is existence in flux... A bridge is an act of ontological defiance. It does not destroy the chaos, nor does it yield to it; instead, it introduces a new tier of reality above it..."
Q.) "What do people think about Catherine of Sienna's description of Christ as a multi-tiered bridge?"
A.) It "is one of the most brilliant, visually arresting and psychologically profound metaphors in Christian mysticism... Those who choose not to cross the bridge attempt to swim the turbulent river of worldly attachments (greed, pride, lust) and ultimately drown. God notes in the text how foolish it is for people who choose to struggle through the troubled water when a safe, solid stone [rock of Matthew 16:18?] has already been constructed for them."
Q.) "Who would ever have guessed that Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water" was inspired by Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue" bridge?"
A.) "When you lay Catherine of Sienna's text right next to Paul Simon's lyrics, the poetic overlap is stunning... Even if Simon didn't read her book, St. Catherine likely would have loved the song!"
https://www.prodigalparishioner.com/p/christ-is-the-bridge-over (Jenny duBay, Mar 31, 2026)
Novus Ordo Johnny "Hi I didn't know you were Catholic, what church do you go to."
ReplyDeleteTraditionalist Paul "I go to the Immaculata church in St. Mary's Kansas."
Novus Ordo Johnny "Isn't that the SSPX?"
Traditionalist Paul "Yes?"
Novus Ordo Johnny "Didn't they get excommunicated this year?"
Traditionalist Paul "Supposedly, but it wasn't just and its null and void anyways"
Novus Ordo Johnny "Do you believe Leo XIV is the pope?"
Traditionalist Paul "No"
Novus Ordo Johnny "You don't believe Leo is the pope and you go to a "supposed" excommunicated group from Leo. Explain to me how you think you are Catholic."
Traditionalist Paul "Well you see, Leo is a heretic and lost his office and I can give you examples here, here, and here and the reason I go the SSPX is because they have valid sacraments."
Novus Ordo Johnny "Valid sacraments outside the Church?"
Traditionalist Paul " No, inside the Church."
Novus Ordo Johnny " Which church, the SSPX or the Catholic Church?"
Traditionalist Paul "The SSPX is the Catholic Church in this time of darkness."
Novus Ordo Johnny "If you really believe the SSPX is the Catholic Church, why did they recognize Leo XIV, Francis, Benedict XVI, etc as popes?
Traditionalist Paul "I don't agree with their position on that because I don't personally believe these men were popes, but nevertheless I just know they have valid sacraments."
Novus Ordo Johnny "If you don't agree with the SSPX on their position on the popes, how can you say you can receive valid sacraments from them?
Traditionalist Paul "You see Johnny, it's complicated because I don't believe your priests are priests in the Novus Ordo and while the SSPX isn't always correct either they are the only ones I believe I'm getting real sacraments from."
Novus Ordo Johnny "Couldn't you just go the Eastern churches for valid sacraments in order to be united to Rome"
Traditionalist Paul "I could but there are none around me"
Novus Ordo Johnny "So why take the chance on going to the SSPX for valid sacraments?"
Traditionalist Paul "It is my opinion that they are undeclared heretics even though they are declared excommunicated from a false church and that makes me feel at ease going to them for valid sacraments"
Novus Ordo Johnny "But are you really getting the Catholic faith from clergy you don't agree with?"
Traditionalist Paul "Not completely but we are in dark times"
Novus Ordo Johnny "So you believe I'm not getting valid sacraments at my local church, nor am I getting true Catholicism, but you are getting valid sacraments from a group who not completely Catholic. That makes no sense. Why don't you just receive "valid sacraments" from the Russian Orthodox?
Traditionalist Paul "Because they are declared heretics!"
Novus Ordo Johnny "the SSPX are "declared excommunicated" by popes they recognized but who you don't recognize, so how is that consistent?"
Traditionalist Paul "Because the theologians say I can and a man from an anonymous website proves it.
Novus Ordo Johnny "LOL!" It would make more sense to exclusively go to the sedevacantists bishops and priests for Mass if you are a sedevacantist. At least you would be on the same page as them.
Traditionalist Paul "Crickets chirping"
The people pushing this non una cum nonsense, making Catholics believe attending a valid mass said by a Catholic priest is now a mortal sin are getting their ideas straight out of Hell. I wouldn't want to be them at judgment!
ReplyDeleteWhere do you go to church?
DeleteIt depends. Last Sunday was SSPX.
DeleteNo wonder you made the comment above. You're lost if you go to them for anything. They're excommunicated by their own church. They are schismatic in practice even if the church they recognize isn't the Catholic Church. Making people believe it's permissible to go to such a group is straight from hell!
DeleteHow do children learn their basic catechism from their priests when the subject of the papacy comes up? Or what about when they speak from the pulpits about the same subject matter? Severe errors with certainty and the consequences are devastating with the proper understanding and attitude towards rightful authority.
If they just simply declared themselves sedevacantists their positions would make more sense because obedience to true popes is what Catholics believe. Not obedience to Marcel Lefebvre.
Sspx clearly part of NO yet many do not see, just like novus ordites cannot see. Simon below is right on. I share his sentiment. I got no Mass and ain't traveling 2 hours to go to NO SSPX for my life and soul!
Delete@anon5:12
DeleteYou are not "lost" by going to SSPX if you can't go to a Traditionalist (sedevacantist) Church or Chapel. This post, and mine from 2023 cited at the top of this post, demonstrates that.
I agree that they have much wrong with them and I wouldn't take a child to be taught there, but adults strong in the faith is a different story. This is NOT "from Hell" but from Catholic principles.
God Bless
---Introibo
SSPX bishops & priests are Catholic priests. I've been a sede for a long time & in my opinion they are the best place for sedes to go. The sede groups have their own problems, some doctrinal too, yet are ignored by many of their supporters. The SSPX is a safe haven for all Catholics during this crisis.
DeleteMr. Introibo look at the comment from Oct 27 2026 at 4:04 AM. Is that person who is sede right in saying that SSPX bishops and priests are Catholic? Are you kidding? They are not merely in error like some sede groups but completely in heresy and schism.
DeleteWhen King Edward VI, ascended to the throne in 1547, he abolished latin and mandated Thomas Cranmer’s English Book of Common prayer. English Catholics had a choice. Either go to this "undeclared" heretical church or risk receiving penalties or death by holding secret Latin Masses. When Queen Elizabeth took over in 1559 she continued to enforce the English attend this new religion. It wasn't until 1570 that the Pope declared in Regnans in Excelsis on February 25 that Catholics were not allowed to attend these services (which probably had valid priests at the time).
So from the time of 1547-1570, you're logic is saying that because they were "undeclared heretics" it would have been completely fine under Catholic principles to attend such liturgical services in England even though many Catholics refused and had their heads chopped off, guts ripped out, etc. to avoid such a monstrous idea. The cowards went along. The Catholics stayed faithful.
Going to the SSPX isn't Catholic anymore than going to the newly formed Church of England before it was "declared" condemned. It is not "a safe haven for all Catholics during this crisis" as the anon put it. The SSPX will never be declared in the future and even if it was they would continue pretending to be the Catholic Church even though they are excommunicated by their own as you call it Novus Bogus religion.
Catholics today would do so much better if they stuck with those who believed like Catholics. I wouldn't have a CMRI priest in my area if I just for the sake of ease went to my local SSPX chapel an hour down the road, or Feeneyite chapel (with a former SSPX priest) of the same distance. I'm tired of hearing the excuses.
“SSPX priests are Catholic priests.” Are you sure about that? None of them have come over from the Novus Ordo without being conditionally ordained? There is strong evidence to the contrary, which means not all SSPX priests are real priests but laymen due to the dubious and/or fake rites of the Novus Ordo religion. The SSPX is the Novus Ordo with cassocks and externals. Their position of R&R is absurd and schismatic. They are not of The Truth since they firmly believe that Leo is “The Pope” while saying they can resist his Novus Ordo fake magisterium which they say is legitimate magisterium. It’s a total contradiction, therefore, they are not a safe place to go. Are their exceptions? Yes. I don’t believe attending Una Cum masses is a mortal sin or makes one a heretic. That would have made Padre Pio and every Catholic in the mid 1960s fallen away or in grave sin. That is not the case. However, it’s advised to not go to The SSPX since they have “priests” with doubtful rites and they hold a schismatic position. It’s not Catholic. The only reason to go would be if you are sure priest is valid and to go to Confession. Otherwise, I would stay away.
Delete@anon5:59
DeleteI'm glad you brought up the Reformation in England. Do you know who used my logic for the sacraments? SAINT Thomas More!
In Catholic sacramental theology, a distinction is drawn between a declared heretic (someone explicitly condemned and named by the Church) and an undeclared heretic. Pope Martin V's 1418 decree "Ad Evitanda Scandala" established that the faithful are not required to abstain from receiving the sacraments from a priest simply because they suspect him of private or undeclared heresy. Unless a priest has been explicitly, publicly, and individually named under an ecclesiastical censure by a judge, Catholics remain entirely free to receive valid sacraments from them.
Since St. Thomas More was a devout Catholic of heroic sanctity, he attended daily Mass. He regularized his sacramental life under the conditions in England based on established Catholic theology and canon law principles.
If it's good enough for a canonized saint, it should be good enough for us all.
The Feeneyite priest you mention is different. Feeney was excommunicated vitandus on 2/13/1953 for heresy.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Anon 6:55, the Holy Order matter is unsettled by the Church, so Catholics may agree to differ. For those with moral certainty of a doubt, it's very easy to avoid the very few in SSPX with these orders. Chapels are staffed by the same priests week after week, so it's not a big deal. If a new priest comes, Google will help you figure it out in a matter of minutes. Almost all priests in SSPX were ordained by their bishops, so the problem is overblown.
DeleteMr Introibo- You didn't answer the question. Is the sede SSPX attendee right in saying the SSPX bishops and priests are Catholic?
DeleteSt. Thomas More did not receive sacraments from an undeclared heretic. He received them from an anonymous priest loyal to the Catholic Church which is even more heroic considering how he could have easily received sacraments from an "undeclared heretic" of his time.
The SSPX have been "declared" by their own church to be excommunicated. Even if it's not the Church the SSPX believes it is. Also there are at least 27 priests in the SSPX which are doubtfully valid because they came from Novus Ordo ordinations which were never re-done. What if a lay person happens to go to one of them without knowing it all because they think it's okay to go to an undeclared heretic?
@Anon 10:32
DeleteThe dubious ordinations are a problem no matter how you try to marginalize the situation. And then we move onto the biggest problem with the SSPX and their schismatic position as it relates to the diabolical Vatican II sect which they think is The Catholic Church that can’t teach error, but then tell all of their supporters and clergy they shouldn’t follow the teachings of this “Church” that they all call “Catholic.” That stance is beyond ridiculous. It’s schismatic and it’s not Catholic. They were just excommunicated from the modernist Church of Freemasonic apostates and continue to try and reconcile with these devils. If the SSPX had any courage and was fighting for the Truth, they would become sedevacantists and do everything in their power to condemn this Counterfeit Church and tell everyone Leo is an effeminate humanist layman in robes who worships pagan idols and is not Catholic. That would be a start. Right now the SSPX is timid, going along to get along, and they look like fools who are betraying Christ’s Truth so they can have The TLM and externals. Very sad indeed.
@anon12:15
DeleteYou're wrong as to St. Thomas More:
"St Thomas More and St John Fisher resisted Henry VIII of England and refused to sign his clearly schismatic oath. But they declared that they did not blame those who lacked their courage. On the eve of martyrdom, they received the sacraments from priests who had taken the oath to Henry." (See wmreview.org/p/una-cum-masses-some-explanations; article by French philosopher and academic Maxence Hecquard)
As to SSPX, you write: "The SSPX have been "declared" by their own church to be excommunicated."
Reply: "Excommunication" from heretics means nothing.
You write: "Also there are at least 27 priests in the SSPX which are doubtfully valid because they came from Novus Ordo ordinations which were never re-done."
Reply: Yes, this is a tragedy. A "priest" like that must be shunned. He is a layman. I'm not saying to go to ANY SSPX Mass---you must make sure the priest is valid. Easy enough to do.
The SSPX is a unique case. They do not deny any dogma. Yes, they don't have the proper understanding of the papacy--but it comes from a desire TO REMAIN CATHOLIC. They reject the errors of Vatican II. I'm NOT saying they are correct, or that they are to be patronized over sede clergy. Only that they are OK for sacraments if no other option is available.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Mr. Introibo- Upon further reading, the only priests allowed to approach St. Thomas More during his 14 month imprisonment were those who swore an oath to the king. It appears that he wasn't allowed to receive sacraments from them, but if he did it was because he was in danger of death.
Delete"Excommunication" from heretics means nothing." But aren't those heretics who excommunicated them undeclared heretics who exercise authority over them?
You say "They do not deny any dogma." I disagree. They deny the Church's indefectibility.
Turns out that Ann Barnhardt somehow seems to have anticipated the contents of Ozon's post above, and perhaps also some of the commentary in this string. For, on Oct. 24, she published this:
Delete"And, for the record, I reiterate that the SSPX needs to live in the FULLNESS of the Truth and acknowledge that both Bergoglio and now PERVost are/were Antipopes, and stop commemorating "Wee-oh" at the Te Igitur."
But, isn't this a little like "the pot calling the kettle black", if Ann herself "needs to live in the FULLNESS of the Truth" by acknowledging something about Montini and V2?
I think, Introibo, with all due respect, that you are too weak with the SSPX. There's a difference between being allowed to receive their sacraments and them being a Catholic organization. Even if there are people willing to be Catholics inside of them, that doesn't excuse the SSPX as an organization from their disgraceful Papal theology. Furthermore, the SSPX is way weaker now than back then with Lefebvre. Thanks for the time.
DeletePoni,
DeleteYes, the SSPX is much weaker than in years past. That's why Bp. Williamson had his own organization of the SSPX-SO. No, it doesn't excuse their papal theology which is, indeed, disgraceful. I'm not a fan of the SSPX by any means. Perhaps I give them too much credit because of these confusing times!
God Bless you, my friend
---Introibo
@anon8:37
DeleteRead my citation to academic Maxence Hecquard. The saints Received communion from undeclared heretics.
The SSPX does not deny the Indefectibility of the Church, rather they are reject sedevacantism because (allegedly) THAT is a denial of Indefectibility.
The SSPX is plain wrong--and I wrote that to Poni above. They are good for sacraments however.
---Introibo
I read Maxence Hecquard's article and the fact that it came from the WM review makes me skeptical. Nevertheless, there is only ONE example of two saints receiving holy Communion from a supposed "undeclared heretic" and it is St. Thomas More and John Fisher. There is no record of the priest's name and there is only one author who makes such a claim. Be that as it may, my argument would be that they received the sacraments in danger of death which is allowed and which they were under threat of. It wasn't like they had a choice, like today.
DeleteAll the other examples are Saints like Alphonsus not considering others as non-Catholic like Erasmus or St. Robert Bellarmine not considering Michael de Bay outside the Church and it all had to to do with them waiting for the judgment of the Church.
I found it interesting that St. Hypatius Hypatius as John Daly's article mentioned (where Maxence Hecquard got his information) said he "replied that he could not insert the name of the patriarch in the eucharistic sacrifice because his Christological errors made him unworthy of the title of bishop in the Church. He insisted that nothing would induce him to change his practice. (See An Extract from the Life of Saint Hypatius translated by the present writer from the original fifth-century Greek of the monk Callinicus)"
Hmmmm. Nestorius was an undeclared heretic and yet a saint took his name out of the canon of the Mass.
You say "The SSPX does not deny the Indefectibility of the Church, rather they are reject sedevacantism because (allegedly) THAT is a denial of Indefectibility."
No, they believe the new religion is the Catholic Church, yet they believe it has major problems. That cannot be if it's the Catholic Church. Therefore implicitly they believe it has defects.
I would say they are good for confession at the very least considering the times we live or even last rites in danger of death, but I wouldn't receive Communion with them. It's scandalous to other Catholics because it creates the impression that you approve of their serious errors.
@Introibo Oct.28-6:56 AM
DeleteIt's a circular thing. As you said:
"The SSPX does not deny the Indefectibility of the Church, rather they reject sedevacantism because (allegedly) THAT is a denial of Indefectibility."
Without an obvious cause that can be traced, they might think that the Church elected a false pope with no apparent cause; and then they might think "what if this happened in the past, and we never knew about it" ? Then the whole history of the papacy is in question. It could be argued that it happened in the past, but not to this extent because it was not yet time for the apostasy. So then they begin to question past true popes too.
But if the hierarchy somehow remained intact, then that, in their minds, retains indefectibility. Without an apparent cause of 1958-1965, one can see why.
Somehow the "Siri Thesis" always comes back to mind as a solution to this circular problem. I point to 2 Thess. 2:7 for 'he that restrains' being "taken out of the way" together with Apoc. 12:5 about the 'man-child' (pope elect; or simply *the papacy as the office*, or both) being "taken up to God, and to His throne". The Apoc. 12 reference being one half of what 2 Thess 2:7 indicated. This is the 'Sede Remota' variant of the Siri Thesis.
Disclaimer: "Who has the authority to say that about these things, etc." - Yes yes yes, and blah blah blah.
The point is, possibly, for us to come to the proper conclusion on our own, without the pope to hold our hand to do so. That would confirm a certain integrity and zeal of the Faith.
Have you seen Michael Hudson's essays?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wmreview.org/p/cum-grano-salis-summary
https://www.wmreview.org/p/hudson-inanem-fallaciam
@anon9:39
DeleteExcellent! Thank you for the links!
God Bless
---Introibo
Yes, Introibo, they are excellent links. And, it appears that Grokipedia, in its version 0.3 iteration, has not yet gotten around to producing a page devoted to the Una Cum (= UC) issue. But UC is now given at least a brief mention in the following Grok pages: "Sedevacantism" ; "Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen" ; "Anthony Cekada" ; "Text and Rubrics of the Roman Canon" ; "Donald Sanborn" ; "Oswald Baker" ; "Most Holy Family Monastery" ; and "Istituto Mater Boni Consilii" . However, Grok has no understanding whatsoever about anything it purports to teach us about. Grok can be used to scavenge for various UC details, but it won't explain UC for you. Take the wise advice of 9:39AM, and read what M. Hudson has to say about the UC controversy. God Bless.
DeleteA good, well-researched article ! Since I left the Novus Ordo, I haven’t attended a true Catholic Mass because the nearest one is hundreds of km away, and in any case, I’m caring for my elderly parents at home, so I don’t have time to go—but I wouldn’t attend a Mass where the leader of the V2 sect is mentioned in the Canon.
ReplyDeleteSimon
DeleteYou must follow your conscience!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Q.) "What about being Una Cum pompous Leo?"
ReplyDeleteA.) "... The phrase "pompous Leo" is used pejoratively by strict "Non-Una Cum" factions to dismiss Leo XIV's authority..."
Q. ) "Where is evidence about "pompous Leo" ?"
AI's A. as a counter Q.) "Are you trying to track down a specific online forum, social media thread, or traditionalist blog where this phrase is used?"
Q.) "In what forum or thread or blog do we see "pompous Leo" ?"
A.) "... "Pompous Leo, what a joke" can be found on local news comment sections such as KYW Newsradio's Facebook post... fueling peer-to-peer comment sections where he is branded as arrogant or pompous for enforcing the suppression of the old Mass..."
Q.) "Can you please delve more deeply for me into these blog peer-to-peer comment sections, and further explain?"
A.) "... Mainstream traditionalist commentators frequently complain about a toxic "cottage industry" of internet-famous traditionalists. They argue that bloggers and keyboard warriors who do nothing but find fault with Pope Leo XIV end up "squandering the energies and reputation" of the traditional movement as a whole... Ultimately, these comment sections act as a ideological echo chamber, where complex sacramental theology is stripped down into peer-to-peer digital warfare, driven by competing definitions of what it means to be in "true communion" ... "
Q.) "Isn't "being in authentic communion with" what "Una Cum" is all about?"
Dear Anonymous at 5:56 PM,
DeleteThe present writer had the honorific "Pompous Leo" bestowed upon him by one Jonathon on this blog a few weeks ago. He now, proudly (pompously?), uses this moniker himself and takes umbrage at its being applied to others, especially Sideshow Bob aka Nope Leo 14. The only genuine Pompous Leo declares he is not "una cum" Mr. Prevost or any other claimant to the glorious PL designation, let alone phoney popes (nopes).
Yours in pomposity,
PL
PL = Pope Leo. Dear POmPEous {Nope} Leo,
DeleteQ.) "Is there only one genuine "pompous Leo" in this world?"
A.) "No, there is not just one pompous Leo. In astrology, "pompous Leo" refers to a common stereotype or playful exaggeration associated with the Leo zodiac sign (July 23 - Aug. 22), which is ruled by the Sun and often teased in internet culture and meme communities for having a grand ego, dramatic flair, or a "main character" attitude. Millions of people share this astrological sign worldwide."
So: Playful exaggeration. Teased. That's all.
Q.) "What does Catholicism say about zodiac signs?"
DeleteA.) "The Catholic Church STRICTLY REJECTS astrology, horoscopes, and the use of zodiac signs for prediction or character analysis. [Even] The [ JP2 / V2 ] Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2116) declares that all forms of divination - including horoscopes, astrology, palm reading and interpreting omens - are against the First Commandment."
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/02/one-peter-five-and-catholic-astrology.html
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/08/when-strangers-come-knocking-part-12.html
The question is a one with a seemingly simple answer.
ReplyDeleteOK then, has Introibo or anyone else here answered it? There is a lot of verbiage one can sift through to find the answer. In fact, Introibo has devoted 4 posts on his blog to the "Una Cum" controversy. They are:
DeleteJuly 10, 2017
July 30, 2018
March 20, 2023
October 26, 2026
Lots of readers added comments to them.
Thank you for this response. I appreciate them easy guide assistance instead of having to search for it all on my own. You are right. That's why I added seemingly.
DeleteGod bless you.
Meant to say the question is good one with a seemingly obvious answer.
ReplyDeletePrayers for my mom, who is very sick.
ReplyDeleteDear Poni,
DeleteQue Nuestra Señora y todos los santos intercedan por la buena salud y la salvación de la querida madre de Poni. 🙏
Please forgive me if my Spanish is incorrect.
Saludos cordiales,
Leo
Poni,
DeleteMy prayers for your mom. Ask all my readers to pray for her complete and speedy recovery.
God Bless
—-Introibo
Thank you very much
DeleteIntroibo - I think you answered this in a previous post but what special devotions do you practice each month .vs. daily?
ReplyDelete@anon9:13
DeleteIt varies, but currently I try one devotion in addition to the Rosary that is in keeping with the devotion of the Church for that month. So...
January: Some prayer about the Most Holy Name of Jesus
February: Devotion to the Holy Family (Infant of Prague for me)
March: Novena or Chaplet of St. Joseph
April: Chaplet of the Blessed Sacrament
May: Litany of the BVM
June: Chaplet of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus
July: Chaplet of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus
August: Novena or Prayers to the Most Immaculate Heart of Mary
September: Chaplet of the Seven Dolors of the BVM
October: An extra Rosary
November: Prayers for the Holy Souls in Purgatory
December: Chaplet of the Immaculate Conception and Infant of Prague
God Bless
---Introibo
What looks like it might be a condemned proposition, in a manner similar to what is seen in Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors", is this memorable gem of a quote:
ReplyDelete"But we must not consider the man to be a snake until he is authoritatively and officially declared to be a snake."
The author of these AD 2005 words, is John Gregory.
https://dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec21mas.htm
Our go-to oracle, Google AI, expounds upon it thusly:
A.) "This quote highlights a classic legal and philosophical dilemma, often discussed within the context of institutional authority, canon law, or formal justice: the tension between objective reality, and official recognition. The quote is an analogy for how organizations (especially highly structured ones, like a legal system or a church) handle the status of an individual who is suspected of being a fraud, a heretic, or an imposter (the "snake").
* The Institutional Rule: You must treat a person according to their official title or status until proper authority formally strips them of it. This is similar to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" or respecting a chain of command.
* The Reality Paradox: If a person is fundamentally corrupt (a "snake"), they are a snake right now, regardless of what a piece of paper or an official decree says.
As the broader text suggests, forcing some people to pretend someone is a "man" when they can clearly see he is a "snake" creates a massive crisis of logic. If an authority figure is exposed as a fraud decades later, it means they were ALWAYS a fraud--meaning people were forced to obey a "snake" under the threat of punishment while the institution caught up to reality. In short, the quote critiques blind legalism--the idea that institutional declarations matter more than obvious, objective facts."
Q.) "How does this apply to the "Una Cum" debate?"
A.) "The "snake analogy" captures the exact intellectual fault line of the "Una Cum" debate within Traditionalist Catholicism... The debate fractures precisely along the lines of the analogy you provided.
1) The Institutionalist View (Recognize & Resist): "...until that "authoritative declaration," he is legally a "man" (the Pope), even if he behaves like a "snake" (a heretic).
2) The Essentialist View (Sedevacantism) ... they argue that just as a snake cannot be a man, a public heretic cannot be a pope... To pray una cum him, is to tie Christ's spotless Church to a spiritual predator ("snake").
Ultimately, the quote perfectly maps onto the agonizing choice facing traditionalists: Is it a greater sin to disobey institutional legalities by declaring a pope deposed on your own authority, or to compromise objective truth by pretending a "snake" is still your spiritual father?"
How about some more Q&A to continue 5:53?
DeleteQ.) "Which choice is the greater sin?"
A.) "... Because the Catholic Church has no active universally recognized mechanism to adjudicate this specific crisis (since both sides agree that the post-Vatican II hierarchy cannot or will not rule on it), individual priests and laypeople are left to weigh these two spiritual risks:
1) The Risk of Lawlessness: Acting as one's own magisterium and severing ties with the visible church structure.
2) The Risk of Sacrilege: Compromising objective dogmatic truths for the sake of maintaining a legal fiction."
Q.) "How do individual traditionalist chapels manage to handle disputes about this "Una Cum" issue?"
A.) "... Some maintain "don't ask, don't tell" policies for the laity..."
Q.) "Is this an unprecedented situation?"
A.) "No, this is not a unprecedented situation..."
Q.) "Why do some people think, then, that what we see today is an unprecedented situation?"
A.) "... Many lay Catholics simply think that the modern ecclesiastical situation is historically unprecedented... deciding that God will not damn them for failing to correctly parse a 60-year-old canonical crisis..."
Q.) "When will this canonical crisis be resolved?"
A.) "... Until an authority emerges that both the Vatican structure and the traditionalist chapels mutually recognize, the Una Cum debate will continue to divide the traditionalist movement indefinitely..."
@anon5:53
DeleteYou write: "Is it a greater sin to disobey institutional legalities by declaring a pope deposed on your own authority, or to compromise objective truth by pretending a "snake" is still your spiritual father?""
1. No sede declares a pope deposed. To give an analogy, I cannot legally declare the local abortion "doctor" a MURDERER, but that is EXACTLY what he is---someone who murders innocent unborn children. Likewise, I cannot legally pronounce Bob Prevost as a non-pope, but no one can be Head of the Church who is not a member of the Church. The faith of Prevost is manifestly contradictory to the faith of Pope Pius XII and all popes prior going back to St. Peter. Therefore, Prevost is not Catholic and cannot have attained the papacy.
2. The Una Cum does not pretend that Prevost is pope. It is used by priests with an erroneous view of the papacy and those who think (again erroneously) that Prevost MIGHT be pope and hedge their bets. The layman does not consent to the Una Cum. As cited in the above post--theologian Davis teaches:
"an individual's presence at an action where a material error occurs does not impute that error to the observer, provided:
The action itself is intrinsically good (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).
The observer's assistance is directed toward the intrinsic good of the act (finis operis).
The observer formally disassociates their internal will from the accidental defect of the minister (finis operantis)."
Ozon writes:
Consequently, an informed Catholic sitting in the pews does not adopt the priest's material error. The layman assists in persona populi to render divine adoration, offer spiritual sacrifice, fulfill a grave precept, and receive sacramental grace.
God Bless
---Introibo
Q.) "Do modern-day sedevacantists actually declare post-Vatican II popes to be deposed? Or do they, passively as it were, simply take recognition of the fact that the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the pre-Vatican II Church, is opposed in some or many ways by what appears to be this same magisterium as we see it in the post-Vatican II Church?"
DeleteThis lengthy double question submitted to Google to be researched, elicited a very lengthy AI answer. To quote some snippets of it:
A.) "Modern-day sedevacantists generally do not view themselves as actively "deposing" post-Vatican II popes; rather, they believe they are merely recognizing an objective fact: that these popes, by propagating heresy, have automatically lost or never possessed papal authority. Your second characterization aligns very closely with the core of sedevacantist theology... Your observation regarding the ordinary and universal magisterium captures the intellectual engine of the movement. Traditional Catholic theology dictates that the Church cannot universally teach error, prescribe harmful liturgy (like the Novus Ordo Mass), or canonize false saints, as it is protected by the Holy Spirit...
1) If the post-Vatican II popes are true popes, then the Catholic Church has officially taught error to the faithful, meaning the Church's infallibility has failed.
2) The Church's infallibility cannot fail.
3) Therefore, the post-Vatican II popes cannot be true popes, and the hierarchy propagating these teachings lacks valid authority."
#####
The main point of the above, is to show how the AI output (the A.), is dependent on how precisely the input (the Q.) is phrased. AI is "trained" or "coached" by its cumulative inputs. By now, at this point, it has become a mind-bogglingly superb synthesizer of online content. A synthesizer is a musical keyboard instrument. The "A. output" of this (musical) instrument, is dependent on the skill of the human "Q. input" of the keyboard warrior/player, who plays the instrument. In section (1) of your 7:20PM comment, Introibo, you are arguing against AI, which is influenced by the anti-sede online rhetoric. But once AI is asked questions with requisite precision, it "changed its mind" and gave you the correct answer! AI actually "agrees" with you!
"Q"-Anon (Q&A)
Very thorough article! My thought has been the same as "if your conscience tell you to stay away, then stay away". I used to attend SSPX but now SSPV, and personally I can fully understand someone going to them and being confused or feeling like it's the only option or any other valid reason. I love listening to Bishop Sanborn and others who are anti-una cum but I do not agree on that issue, for all of the reason stated above in the article. Well written and researched. Shot in the dark here but I've been inspired by many guest posters here and would love a shot Introibo, if possible I'd love to be a contributor.
ReplyDeleteGod bless all .
David,
DeletePlease send me a comment with your personal email address. I will send you an email from an account that protects my anonymity with “Hello From Introibo” in the subject line. Then we can communicate via email about you doing guest posts. I’d love to have you aboard!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Ozon,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for writing on this very important topic. Like your previous article, you clearly spent a lot of time and effort on this. It is greatly appreciated.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
The SSPV and RCI say October 31st is a day of fast and abstinence for the vigil of All Saint’s Day. They use the Pre-55 liturgy. The CMRI calendars don’t go by this. I follow The CMRI calendar since it was changed under Pope Pius XII. Why do the other groups disregard these liturgical changes if done under Pope Pius XII?
ReplyDelete@anon11:21
DeleteThey claim the changes "ceased to bind" as they became "noxious" over time. While this is a legitimate Catholic principle, it is wrongly applied. One priest of the SSPV told me that May 1st (Feast of St. Joseph the Worker under Pope Pius XII) became "St Joseph the Communist" and they maintain the Feast of Sts. Phillip and James.
The purpose of changing the Feast was to COUNTER the Communist "May Day" with the True Example of the working class---St. Joseph.
On this point the CMRI is correct, and the SSPV/RCI are wrong. The Pian changes should be followed.
God Bless
---Introibo
Greetings, 11:21. Your entire comment can simply be google searched! After some time spent trying to "digest" all of your words (and using "Pre-1955" in place of "Pre-55") the following result was "handed down" as if it were "ex (G-AI) cathedra":
Delete"The divergence between groups like the CMRI and groups like SSPV or the RCI regarding the 1955 calendar changes highlights a deep internal debate within the sedevacantist community. While both sides agree that Pope Pius XII was a true pope and possessed valid papal authority, groups that disregard his later liturgical changes do so based on a theological argument called the "cessation of law."
The primary reasons why groups like the SSPV and RCI reject the 1955 reforms, despite recognizing Pius XII as pope, include:
1) The Role of Annibale Bugnini... A modernist.
2) The "Deceived Pope" Argument. A common view held by these groups is that Pope Pius XII... was systematically deceived by subversives within the Sacred Congregation of Rites... Therefore, they claim to remain faithful to the SPIRIT of the papacy by reverting to the pre-1955 books.
3) The Principal of "Cessation of Law." According to traditional canon law, a human ecclesiastical law ceases to bind if it becomes harmful (nociva) to the salvation of souls due to a shift in circumstances. Prominent sedevacantist theologians argue that because the 1955 Holy Week and calendar changes share identical principles with the subsequent Vatican II reforms, continuing to use them implicitly validates the idea that the Novus Ordo was a natural, organic step in Church history. To avoid validating what they see as a harmful trajectory, they declare that these specific laws of Pius XII have ceased to bind."
Perhaps most sedes don't believe he legit pope or they would use his liturgy? Bit RCI believes V2 popes could suddenly become true Popes, the one alive anyway with their Thesis nonsense. Sedes are just as confusing as the rest. Once you escape the nightmare NO, one only finds more confusion.
ReplyDelete@anon4:32
DeleteConfusion is exactly what you would expect in a time with no pope. What excuse does the V2 sect have with "Pope" Leo XIV??
God Bless
---Introibo
No idea. I make no excuses for V2 sect. I had a NO person contact me today asking for a NO priest contact into into can they use my name when they contact. I told them the truth about NO. They didn't seem to care. Just said we were not properly but still wanted to contact NO priest. Asked if they wanted info about false NO. They didn't reply so...per usual, many do not care. They just want whatever they want that makes them feel good. Just saying once one escapes NO, things do not become more clear. More confusion abounds.
Delete@anon2:22
DeleteI respectfully disagree. On defined fundamentals, it's clear.
God Bless
---Introibo
anon 2:22
DeleteHaving left the Novus Ordo and done some basic theological research, I found nothing but clarity when it comes to the teaching of the Church. That must've been the experience of every pre-Vatican 2 convert to Catholicism. As Introibo stated above, the defined fundamentals of the Faith are clear.
I think I can understand where you're coming from though. I'm also without a priest and a chapel and, yes, it's very discouraging.
God Bless You,
Joanna
I agree with defined fundamentals obviously but sadly the.mental incapacity of most people refuse all. So, I stand by my xomment on confusion. Yes I have no priest or chapel and went through years of dealing with compromised priests who still had one foot in NO. It has been a nightmare. I am now isolated since no one I know holds the true faith.. so how does one witness to the true faith if you are isolated because you are trying to hold to the true faith?
Delete