'Una Cum Masses' – Some explanations for my friends (Maxence Hecquard)
The French philosopher and academic Maxence Hecquard considers one of the most important questions of our time.
The French philosopher and academic Maxence Hecquard considers one of the most important questions of our time.
Editor’s Notes
The following essay on the “una cum Mass” question is by Maxence Hecquard, translated by The WM Review.
Hecquard is a philosopher, holding degrees from the Sorbonne, ESSEC (École Supérieure de Sciences Économiques et Commerciales), and the Faculty of Law of the University of Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). Hecquard started his business career in Total and has spent years working in banking.
He is the author of Les Fondements philosophiques de la démocratie moderne (The Philosophical Foundations of Modern Democracy), which examines the metaphysical and theological roots of modern democratic ideology, tracing its origins to the Enlightenment’s rejection of divine and papal authority.
More recently, in 2023, he published La crise de l’autorité dans l’Église (The Crisis of Authority in the Church). This work applies his philosophical critique of modern authority to the crisis in the Church. He examines the contradictions of the post-Vatican II hierarchy and argues that the current dislocation of the Church fulfils the scriptural prophecies concerning the “mystery of iniquity.”
The present essay, on the matter of the “una cum Mass,” stands within a coherent critique of the theological and political disorder of the modern world.
It was first published in February 2025, and then updated and expanded in May of the same year. It is published in translation here with the permission of M. Hecquard and La Contrerévolution en marche (the original publisher).
Before turning to his text, it is helpful to situate it within the wider controversy surrounding the “una cum” question.
State of the controversy in general
M. Hecquard himself recounts the history of the debate in his article. Let us bring it a little more up to date by recalling Michael Hudson’s recent contribution to the discussion.
In August 2025, we re-published Hudson’s essay Inanem fallaciam: An Analysis of the ‘Una Cum’ Question. This lengthy study critiqued the Directories and Constitutions of the Roman Catholic Institute, and as such was made available to Bishop Sanborn and the RCI by Hudson in advance of his own publication (which preceded ours).
As we stated at the time:
“Although we have previously written somewhat sharply against Bishop Donald Sanborn’s comments on Cardinal Newman, we do not wish to enter further internecine controversy at this time. Nonetheless, the matters which Hudson addresses – that of attending Masses in which a false pope is named, and how those who attend such Masses should be treated – are very important for lay Catholics throughout the world.”
Before proceeding with M. Hecquard's study, let us note how Hudson’s was received.
In a Roman Catholic Media livestream on 26 August, Bishop Sanborn received the following question:
“Are you going to respond to Mr. Hudson’s recently published article critiquing the RCI stance on una cum and on refusing sacraments to those who attend it?”
The bishop gave the following reply:
“No. Well, actually, I didn’t read it, so I don’t even know what he says. But the problem of una cum has been already solved and answered many times.”
His Excellency proceeded to give an explanation of his position on the question.
However, one risk of simply claiming that the case is closed – especially without reviewing the objections raised – is that one may simply restate the points challenged, or answer different objections to those raised.
(We may note that this was what happened with the Bishop's recent reassertions of his criticisms of Cardinal John Henry Newman, which were refuted in late 2022.)
These risks have been realised in His Excellency’s response to Mr Hudson.
For instance, the Bishop’s reply offers a range of reasons intended to show that a priest should not name a false Pope in the canon; but this is not relevant to the present discussion. Further, his answer does not appear to engage directly with the substantive objections raised in Hudson’s critique of the RCI’s Theological Directory, particularly concerning the nature of such a priest’s act, and the layman’s co-operation at such a Mass. Nor does it address Hudson’s critique of the Pastoral Directory’s statement that priests of the RCI “shall not administer any sacraments” to those who attend a Mass of a priest who names Leo XIV or the putative ordinary of the diocese (n. 4)
A further risk with this approach is that unanswered objections remain unrefuted, creating the impression that they cannot be refuted. Those who follow such an approach are, of course, entitled to do so; but they cannot be surprised if this causes a loss of confidence amongst others.
The purpose of this discussion
We have already set out our reasons for engaging in this “una cum” discussion in the Notes to Hudson’s piece, explaining why we consider it to be such an important issue for our time, and the restrictive position to be both dangerous in itself, and obstructive of true knowledge about the status of the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy.
We do not wish to engage in pointless trouble-making on this matter – but neither do we wish to accept any theological opinion (let alone one that carries great practical dangers) without adequate grounds. Without such grounds, various positions related to the “una cum” question have more in common with tribal myths or taboos, even if they are clothed in theological language.
Some have given the impression that we are seeking to justify the attendance of “una cum” Masses. Let us bypass the insinuation of motivated reasoning (which can cut in many directions), and instead note the following. Trying to frame the question as one of attendance is a rhetorical manoeuvre, which conflates and obscures the wider points being challenged (such as the imposition of a theological conclusion without ecclesiastical authority, through the unjust restriction of the sacraments). A restrictive “sacramental policy” is not justified by proving that a priest should not name Leo XIV, nor even by establishing that a layman should not attend such Masses. Each of these three points must be individually argued.
Further, as M. Hecquard points out, it is axiomatic that “odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari” – restrictive judgments must be narrowly applied, and liberty favoured where doubt remains. The burden of proof lies firmly on those who would impose such restrictions. We have never considered this burden to have been adequately discharged; not least because it cannot be discharged without answering objections and refuting contrary arguments. Should such answers and refutations be forthcoming, we would naturally be glad to draw our readers’ attention to them.
For now, we reaffirm the words with which Hudson ends his study:
“No ill-will or malicious intent is meant towards those so mentioned in this analysis […] If any errors are present in this article, we wish to have them pointed out to us so that they may be corrected.”
With that established, and while we wait for such errors to be pointed out, let us proceed further in considering this topic with M. Hecquard's treatment of the topic. We hope that readers will enjoy reading his study and benefit from it.
S.D.Wr.
‘Una Cum’ Masses: Some explanations for my friends
M. Maxence Hecquard – Published in La Contrerevolution en marche
Published February 2025; updated May 2025; translated September 2025.
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review for ease of reading.
Notice from Brice Michel (La Contrerevolution en marche)
We publish here a text by Mr Maxence Hecquard which seems to us to make a contribution to the question of the Una Cum. Let it be clearly understood that the site contre-revolution.fr does not wish to promote attendance at Una Cum Masses, but perhaps to reassure the consciences of those for whom attendance at Non Una Cum Masses is impossible or very difficult due to the particular circumstances in which they find themselves. The position of contre-revolution.fr is that attendance at Non Una Cum Masses is obligatory when one can attend them without grave inconvenience.
NB: This text is a deepened and developed version of the one first published on 25 February 2025.
Introduction
Each day our mother the Church is further wounded by abominable desolation. If the popes of Vatican II destroy the Church, where is their legitimacy?
Later than others, I realised the deleterious role played by attachment to a faithless hierarchy in disarming the resisters. To convince myself entirely of the imposture of these popes, I gathered my reflections into a book. It is addressed in particular to my friends of the Society of Saint Pius X, in order to help them tread the stony path towards the light.
Labels are detestable, and only that of “Catholic” honours us, but if my adversaries insist on it, I accept that they may brand me with that of “sedevacantist”, since that is how those are designated who deny all authority to the current occupants of the See of Peter.
But here is the fact: the sedevacantist that I claim to be still frequents the Mass at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, and my children are enrolled in the schools of the Society of Saint Pius X. Betrayal? Guilty liberalism? A refusal of the demands of the “non una cum” fight for the sake of comfort? I owe some explanations.
The interview of Mgr Guérard des Lauriers
In May 1987, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers gave an interview to Sodalitium no. 13, where he raised the question of assistance at una cum Masses.
“The una cum Mass is ex se [in itself] objectively tainted with sacrilege,” he explains. Moreover, because it is celebrated in communion with a person “in a state of capital schism”, the una cum Mass is “objectively and ineluctably (sic) tainted with an offence of the kind: schism.” Asking the question of the responsibility of the faithful who attend una cum Masses, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers specifies that by participating these faithful render themselves “in law” (sic) guilty of sacrilege and schism.
Yet Mgr Guérard somewhat mitigates his terrible sentence: “An offence is only a sin if it is known as such,” he admits. He also recognises that one may have no other possibility than to go to an una cum Mass. Finally, he declares that he himself consecrated bishops so that “the CLEAN OBLATION, the OBLATIO MUNDA [Mal. I, 11] may endure on earth” (sic), that is to say, according to him, the non una cum Mass.
Fr Anthony Cekada’s paper
In November 2007, the late Fr Anthony Cekada published a long study entitled “The Grain of Incense: the Sedevacantists and the Una Cum Masses”, which therefore compares assistance at una cum Masses to the incense which the first Christians had to offer to idols to save their lives. Up until 2017, he supplemented this study with several texts in the Quidlibet section of his website.
Fr Cekada explains that the una cum liturgical prayer signifies recognition and communion with the sovereign pontiff. The faithful who assists at the public worship adheres to the prayers of the celebrant. For a sedevacantist, adhering to this prayer, – uniting himself to the popes of Vatican II, who are illegitimate because they are heretics – constitutes a lie, an adhesion to their heresy and their schism, and finally a grave sin of scandal.
He cites the numerous condemnations of popes and theologians who forbid the naming of heretics in sacred ceremonies and all communion with them.
This doctrine, called that of the “Grain of Incense”, is today taken up by priests, even by bishops, who consider that, forty years after the beginning of these controversies, ignorance is without excuse, and therefore refuse the sacraments to the faithful who would frequent the Society of Saint Pius X.
I would not plead ignorance
For my part, I would not plead ignorance, since I am well informed of these controversies. If Jorge Bergoglio is the heretic that I denounce, how can I not see with Mgr Guérard des Lauriers and Abbé Cekada the sacrilege of the holy mysteries celebrated in communion with him? I am apparently without excuse. Am I therefore a heretic, schismatic, and sacrilegious?
Since the initial drafting of these reflections, Brice Michel has made me discover that this controversy is an old one, and that, twenty years ago, the learned pens of John Daly, Mgr Pivarunas, and John Lane had brilliantly developed the arguments that I am using. Their texts shed light on the question. It seems indeed that our dear Fr Cekada knew of them, since he treats them in the form of objections, but he does not cite them, and his response, very partial, appears unconvincing.
Analysis of Grain of Incense
Let us summarise the argument of the “Grain of Incense”.
Since the popes of Vatican II are notoriously heretical, to declare oneself in communion with them would be to adhere to their heresy, to enter into a schism (since the “Conciliar Church” is a false church), and to commit a sacrilege – since to celebrate in communion with a heretic and a schismatic is a grave offence against God.
We are going to see that this argument disregards the specific character of the present crisis of the Church, this “masterstroke” by which Satan has managed to make heresy spread through the apparently legitimate authority of the Church herself.
Let us pass over the minor question of the translation of the expression una cum in the Roman Canon. Some consider that the prayer in question is a pure prayer of intercession and not a recognition of legitimacy and a profession of communion. Their arguments are not without value (the prayer has evolved according to the ages: the name of the bishop was sometimes omitted, that of the king or of the celebrant himself was added…), but let us admit, with Benedict XIV, that this prayer indeed formally indicates communion with the sovereign pontiff.
Let us also specify beforehand that the debate bears evidently on assistance at the Catholic Mass, that is to say:
Celebrated in the traditional rite
By a validly ordained priest
Who refuses the Second Vatican Council.
This excludes the ceremonies of the Ecclesia Dei communities whose orders are doubtful (since conferred by bishops consecrated in the new rite) and which are reputed to have accepted Vatican II. In question here, then, are the Masses of the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (provided that they did not join this congregation after having been ordained in the conciliar church, without having been conditionally ordained) and those of the Resistance movement, arising from the secession of Mgr Williamson.
The nature of heresy and schism
The arguments against the “Grain of Incense” belong to theology, to the magisterium of the Church, and to the example of popes and saints.
In moral theology, does the una cum celebrant perform a heretical and schismatic act?1
Everyone knows that for sin to be constituted it requires full advertence and full consent.
The sin of heresy is not the fact of confessing an error in matters of faith or morals but, as St Thomas explains,2 the fact of knowingly choosing this error rather than humbly receiving the teaching of the Church. To prefer one’s own will to the infallible authority of the Church: that is heresy (αίρεσις: act of taking, choice), that is the fault which separates from the society of believers. Cardinal Billot explains that heresy is formal when this authority of the Church is sufficiently known.3
The priests of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X denounce the heresy of Vatican II. Those who refuse to do so have left it and joined the Ecclesia Dei communities. The SSPX struggles to find the practical agreement with heretical Rome promoted by Mgr Fellay because it rejects the substance of the conciliar reform. It would be paradoxical to accuse it of adhering to the conciliar heresy and schism because it has not yet understood the question of authority and pronounces the name of the conciliar pope at holy Mass. That would also be an injustice.
Of course, to say that Francis is pope, when he notoriously professes heresies, is also an error which contradicts sound doctrine: this would amount, some think, to denying the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and would suggest that the Church could fail. However, for such an error to render the una cum celebrant heretical, one would have to prove his pertinacity, yet most una cum priests are ignorant of these questions, in which they follow their superiors. Further, none call into question the indefectibility of the Church, which they think, on the contrary, to be defending by recognising the popes of Vatican II. The heretical intention is therefore non-existent.
It is the same with the sin of schism. St Thomas explains that schismatics are “those who separate themselves from the unity of the Church by a personal and voluntary intention.”4 But in naming the pope whom they think legitimate in the Canon, the priests of the SSPX think, on the contrary, that they remain in the Church despite their disagreements with the popes of Vatican II and thereby avoid a schism. The schismatic intention is therefore likewise non-existent.
The nature of sacrilege
The reasoning is again identical for the sin of sacrilege. With his customary clarity, St Thomas Aquinas gives its definition:
“The sin of sacrilege consists in someone behaving irreverently towards a sacred thing.”5
St Thomas is in fact particularly severe:
“Every sin committed by a sacred person is materially, and as it were accidentally, a sacrilege. Hence St Jerome says that frivolous words in the mouth of a priest are sacrileges or blasphemies. However, formally and properly, the only sin of a sacred person which is sacrilege is that which is committed directly against his holiness: for example, if a virgin consecrated to God were to fornicate.”6
For St Thomas, therefore, there is no formal sacrilege except when the irreverence is direct, conscious and voluntary.
The priests of the Society of Saint Pius X do not say Mass in communion with Bergoglio because he is heretical and “in a state of capital schism”. They do not celebrate una cum in order voluntarily to attack the majesty of the Holy Sacrifice. When, through ignorance or obedience towards their superiors, they celebrate “una cum Francis”, they are not adhering to his heresy. They think that they are doing their duty. They believe they are faithful to tradition and to Catholic unity. “Whatever happens, one must be faithful to the pope,” they think.
They are mistaken. That is all. The error of the una cum is a direct consequence of the “masterstroke of Satan”: it is the “pope” himself, once the source of unity and orthodoxy, who now teaches heresy. But where is the malicious intention of these priests? Where is the rejection of the authority or unity of the Church? Where is the formal irreverence? There is therefore neither heresy, nor schism, nor sacrilege, even materially.
Restatement of the situation
Let the argument be well understood, and forgive me the repetition. Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic. That is my inmost conviction. I have written a book to explain that he is deposed from his office (if ever he had it…).
But I have no authority to impose this conviction on others. And the faithful bishops, until they are assembled in an incontestable ecumenical council, seem to me to have hardly more.
The problem is that the popes of Vatican II have not been condemned by a legitimate authority: this is the masterstroke of Satan. One may harp on all tones that “Bergoglio is a heretic and therefore a Mass una cum Bergoglio is sacrilege”: but if a priest does not understand that:
Bergoglio is a heretic
A heretic cannot be pope;
His name must not be mentioned in the Canon
… if he instead thinks that:
All that is very complicated
He must trust his superior
… then I do not see on what basis one can transform his error into adhesion to heresy and schism, and into sacrilege. There is on his part no irreverence towards God. There is an error. The comparison with a sacrilegious confession or communion is not pertinent. The penitent who conceals a grave sin knows that he is infringing an absolute rule of the Church. The communicant who has not confessed a grave fault knows that he must not approach the holy table. The una cum priest thinks he is doing right.
Of course, what applies to the priest applies also to the faithful, even if he be an “expert” on sedevacantism. On the one hand, one cannot impute to the assistant the errors of the celebrant. On the other, where is the will to adhere to heresy or schism, and to fail in the reverence due to God, when the non una cum faithful assists at an una cum Mass because it saves his tired family x kilometres, or when he places his children in an “una cum school” for lack of any other possibility?
‘Objective’ sacrilege and schism?
Is there at least an “objective sacrilege” or an “objective schism”, as Mgr Guérard des Lauriers and Mgr Sanborn claim?
In reality these expressions have no meaning, as John Lane brilliantly shows. In fact neither of these two authors defines the word “objective”. One may suppose that they mean that the good-faith una cum priest does not commit a personal sin, but that his act is objectively sinful, that it has the matter of sin – that is to say, that it is a material sin. Indeed, a sin is material when all the elements of sin are present except advertence and consent. But the una cum Mass includes neither the elements of the sin of heresy (the fact that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope is not a dogma of faith, since he has not yet been condemned as such), nor the elements of the sin of schism (separating oneself from Catholic unity), nor those of the sin of sacrilege (irreverence towards God).
We have seen that naming the conciliar pope in the Canon is above all an error. An error is indeed an evil, but this evil is not moral; it is ontological. An error is not a sin, even a material one. When someone falls from a cliff, we speak of an accident, not of a material suicide.
Of course every error in the Mass, every imperfection, undermines the majesty of God. It is in this sense that St Jerome declares that frivolous words are a sacrilege in the mouth of a priest. But we have seen that St Thomas does not describe such imperfections as sacrilege properly speaking. There is no more sacrilege in the una cum than when the priest has dirty hands or torn vestments, when he has not observed the fast or does not follow the rubrics. But without the form of sin, that is to say the will of irreverence, sacrilege does not exist properly speaking.
Arguments from authority
The second arguments against the “Grain of Incense” are arguments of authority.
Indeed, even if we were to consider that the priests of the SSPX or of the Resistance are heretics or schismatics by citing the names of the popes of Vatican II in the Canon of the Mass – which is not the case (we have just demonstrated the contrary) – the Church would authorise us to assist at their Mass, because they have not been excommunicated by name.
In fact, a situation comparable to the one we are experiencing already existed in the Church at the time of the Great Western Schism. During that troubled time, the Church had two, even three, “popes”. The clergy of each obedience disputed the legitimacy of the sacraments given in the other obediences, which they judged schismatic (that is to say the validity of marriages, of confessions, and so on).
One of the first tasks of Pope Martin V, elected by the Council of Constance to end the schism, was to reassure consciences.
Pope Martin V and Ad evitanda scandala
At the forty-third session of this council (Monday of Holy Week, 21 March 1418), Martin V therefore decreed:
“To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous consciences, by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ’s faithful that no one henceforth shall be bound to abstain from communion with anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual unless the sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university, church, community or place.”7
According to a letter of 23 March 1418 addressed to the rector and masters of the University of Vienna by the theologian Peter of Pulkau, who attended the council, this decree is neither a general regulation enacted by the pope sacro approbante concilio [with the holy council approving], nor a general conciliar decision, but a special indult – and Martin V wished that it should remain perpetually in force and that it should benefit the whole of Christendom. In fact the University of Paris adopted this decree, of which numerous copies were distributed.8
Martin V therefore lays down, universally and in perpetuity, that no one may be prevented from receiving the sacraments from a priest or a community that has not been condemned specifically and by name.
At all times the discipline of the Church has distinguished several types of excommunication.9 Only the most serious forbid the faithful all contact with the guilty.
The theologians have given the reason for this indulgence towards “undeclared heretics”: it is, of course, to facilitate as far as possible the reception of the grace of God through the sacraments. John Daly cites, for example, the celebrated Cardinal Juan de Lugo S.J. (1583–1660), who declares:
“[A]n 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 [Ad evitanda scandala], 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.”10
Lugo himself refers to the decree of Martin V and cites other well-known theologians and canonists (Navarro, Sánchez, Suárez, and so on). He considers this to be the common opinion. For Lugo the “undeclared heretic” is not an occult heretic, but a manifest heretic who has not yet been condemned by name.
The decree of Martin V is at the origin of the distinction between excommunicati tolerati and vitandi [excommunicated tolerated and to-be-avoided],11 which was taken up by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Its provisions are set forth in canon 2261 §2:
“The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of §3 [on excommunicati vitandi], 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.”
And the Codex refers in a note to the decree of Martin V.
Such is the law of the Church. Even when the celebrant is at fault (and it takes a grave fault to merit a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication12), so long as the sentence is not expressed, the faithful may request the sacraments from him, for they are necessary to his soul. The person of the priest – even his sin – is effaced before the duty of his ministry.
Fr Cekada’s response to these arguments
In the “Grain of Incense”, Fr Cekada grounds his prohibition of una cum Masses on canon 1258, which forbids all assistance at or participation in non-Catholic sacred ceremonies. He also cites an instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of 1729 (pro Missionariis Orientis [for the missionaries of the East]13) which specifies that schismatic rites are almost always tainted with errors concerning the faith, that in them schismatic and heretical patriarchs and bishops still living are commemorated, who are styled Preachers of the Catholic faith. Consequently, the instruction explains, those who participate in these rites cannot exempt themselves from the crime of a perverse communion or at least of pernicious scandal.
Yet the reading of this instruction shows that it concerns only the participation of Catholics in religious ceremonies of schismatic and heretical sects duly condemned. The Code mentions it, among a multitude of pontifical texts, as the source of the aforesaid canon 1258. No one disputes this prohibition of canon 1258 of assisting at non-Catholic rites.
What appears questionable, however, is that Fr Cekada applies this canon 1258 (and the instruction pro Missionariis Orientis) to una cum Masses. The reasoning involves a petitio principii: Fr Cekada postulates that una cum Masses are non-Catholic, but he does not prove it. It must be recognised that the popes of Vatican II have not been the object of condemnation by any legitimate authority, and that the loss of authority consequent on their notorious heresy does not constitute a dogma of faith.
Fr Cekada further observes that Ad evitanda is not a source of canon 1258 and is simply cited as a source of canon 2261 §3, which authorises the reception of sacramental absolution from a vitandus excommunicate only in danger of death, and of the other sacraments and sacramentals only if there are no other ministers.
Astonishingly, in his discussion of the decree of Martin V, Fr Cekada ignores canon 2261 §2 cited above, whereas the sole source of this canon given by the Codex is Ad evitanda. He says further on that c. 2261 §2 concerns only the reception of the sacraments – which would exclude, according to him, assistance at Mass, which he defines as active participation in a public act of worship.
To distinguish the reception of holy communion from assistance at Mass does not seem to be entirely in good faith. Fr Cekada clearly distorts here the spirit of Ad evitanda, which, in what it permits to be asked of tolerated excommunicates, explicitly includes assistance at offices (“… in the administration or reception of the sacraments and in all other divine things (in aliis quibuscumque divinis)…”)14. The expression in divinis designates Masses and the liturgy in canonical vocabulary.
The 1753 Holy Office reply
Finally, Fr Cekada invokes a reply of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Benedict XIV, which would be the “last nail in the coffin” of those who invoke Ad evitanda or Cardinal de Lugo to justify assistance at una cum Masses.
The reply of the Holy Office would reduce the provisions of Ad evitanda to purely civil and secular relations with undeclared heretics. The decree would cite a list of theologians, including de Lugo, of an opposite opinion, and conclude that it is impossible to assist at the ceremonies of heretics without sin, and that the Holy Office and the Propagation of the Faith have always regarded communions at such offices as illicit.
Here again his argumentation appears singularly biased. Let us return to the text.
In Mission. Tenos in Peleponneso (10 May 1753)15, the Holy Office responds to three questions of Catholic priests exercising their ministry in the Peloponnese:
Whether Catholic Latin priests may admit schismatic and heretical priests to say Mass in their churches and whether these priests may be present at the funerals of deceased Catholics?
Whether Greek-rite Catholics who have no church of their rite may assist at schismatic and heretical Greek Masses?
Whether Latin confessors may absolve Greek Catholics who go to the Masses of schismatic Greeks?
The reply to the first question is negative, for it would be to consent to and communicate in rites tinged with schism and heresy. Only the purely material presence of heretics at Catholic funerals is permitted.
The reply to the second question is likewise negative, since Greek Catholics may then attend the Latin rite.
The reply to the third question is also negative, except in cases of extreme necessity.
Then the Holy Office cites an entire page extracted from the Tractatus de Synodo Dioecesana published by Benedict XIV. As John Daly finely analyses16, the text of the treatise of Benedict XIV is that of a private doctor and does not properly constitute a pontifical teaching, but it is recommended by the Holy Office. Whereas the initial edition of the treatise of Benedict XIV did in fact seem to restrict Ad evitanda to profane relations, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, who supervised the edition of the Fontes, explains in a note that the incriminated passage was subsequently revised by Benedict XIV himself in order to recognise that Ad evitanda is still in force and does allow communicatio in divinis [communication in sacred things] with undeclared heretics.17
Benedict XIV recalls that many theologians (he cites, among many others, Cardinal de Lugo) consider that one may communicate in sacris [in sacred rites] with tolerated heretics not expressly denounced as to be avoided, but that this opinion is controversial. He notes that these theologians require four conditions:
A grave and urgent cause
That the heretics or schismatics be validly ordained and use an entirely Catholic rite
That this communio in divinis not be the manifestation of a false dogma
That there be no scandal.
Benedict XIV considers that these four conditions are rarely met, and that consequently such communiones in divinis are rarely licit.
The attentive reading of the text of Tenos therefore leads us to draw the conclusion contrary to that stated by Fr Cekada: for Benedict XIV, Ad evitanda is still in force and does indeed allow the reception of the sacraments from undeclared heretics or schismatics, but only in rare cases.
We are indeed obliged to recognise that the dear Fr Cekada makes the texts say what they do not say.
Let us also underline that the decree Tenos was promulgated in the context of relations with schismatic sects formally condemned. This is not the case, let us repeat, with the conciliar sect which has not been the object of any condemnation by a legitimate authority.
Finally, let us note that the four conditions mentioned by Benedict XIV are fulfilled in the present case:
It is a question of receiving the sacraments which are often otherwise unavailable
The priests formed by Mgr Lefebvre validly celebrate a Catholic Mass
The Masses of the SSPX or the Resistance involve adherence to no false dogma
No specific scandal is to be deplored.
Consequently, even if we were to consider that the priests of the SSPX are heretics or schismatics—which is not the case, as we have said above—Ad evitanda would permit assistance at their offices. Let us recall that c. 2261 §2 permits the faithful to request the sacraments from the undeclared excommunicate for “any just cause” (ex qualibet justa causa). “Just cause” is much broader than “grave and urgent cause”. The Code is therefore much less severe than Benedict XIV. It thereby better respects the spirit of Ad evitanda, which imposes no condition.
Does heresy change the situation?
It might still be objected that the decree Ad evitanda does not concern the censures corresponding to heresy. Indeed, the decree speaks of “any ecclesiastical sentence or censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual”18. Now heresy does indeed entail an ecclesiastical censure (the heretic incurs an excommunication ipso facto, c. 2314 §1 1°), but this rests upon an exclusion of divine law. This is the argument of St Robert Bellarmine in his refutation of Cajetan on the deposition of the heretical pope: the Council of Constance (Ad evitanda) concerns only ecclesiastical penalties, whereas heresy excludes from the Church by divine law.19
I have discussed elsewhere the retention of jurisdiction by heretics before their deposition.20 Let us simply recall here the principles of this delicate question.
The Church is the society of believers. When adherence to heresy is “manifest”, in Bellarmine’s expression – that is, “notorious and openly divulged” in the words of the canonists Wernz and Vidal – the loss of jurisdiction is “by the fact itself” (ipso facto), that is, immediate. This principle is absolute and sanctioned by the Code, which provides that the heretic has tacitly resigned his office ipso facto (c. 188, 4°). The faithful are therefore released from obedience to a manifest heretic, for he has lost his authority.
But the constitution Ad evitanda of Martin V brings, in reality, an important mitigation to this principle: the acts of an excommunicate who has not yet been condemned are illicit but valid (c. 2264). This canon even declares that the acts performed by the excommunicate within the scope of c. 2261 are licit! Cardinal Billot, referring to Ad evitanda, even goes so far as to declare that the excommunicati tolerati [tolerated excommunicates] are not entirely separated from the visible body of the Church.21
The constitution Ad evitanda was issued in a time of schism. Do its provisions extend to heretics?
St Robert Bellarmine replies in the negative, but in the course of a refutation of Cajetan on the deposition of the heretical pope.
Let us remark that c. 2261 §2 speaks of “excommunicates” without further qualification. If heretics were not included in the scope of this canon, the Code would have explicitly excluded them. Moreover, according to the canonical adage, “[Odia restringi, et]” favores convenit ampliari (Burdens are to be interpreted strictly, but favours broadly).22 Therefore this canon indeed covers undeclared heretics.
Indeed, we have seen above that both Cardinal de Lugo and Benedict XIV himself expressly apply Ad evitanda to undeclared heretics.
This is also the opinion of a great eighteenth-century theologian: Charles René Billuart O.P. (1685–1757). While recognising with St Thomas that manifest heretics lose all jurisdiction, Billuart likewise explicitly applies Ad evitanda to undeclared heretics who are certainly not mentioned in the decree, but whom Billuart considers to be implicitly contained therein.23 The reason is that:
“Perils for souls and anxieties of conscience arise, so long as it is not clear that [certain persons] are manifest [heretics] – some affirming they are, others denying they are not (as happens in fact in the case of Jansenism); and because it is very difficult for laymen to discern with certainty whether such a one is manifestly a heretic or not – since the matter of heresy, for the greater part, goes beyond what they can understand.”24
Let us underline that the Code does not say that excommunicati tolerati retain their jurisdiction. It simply declares that their acts are illicit but valid. Ad evitanda, taken up by the Codex, thus permits the continued distribution of divine grace by the sacraments even when certain priests or bishops manifestly profess heresy, until their fall is condemned by name. The Church supplies their failing jurisdiction. Such is the Power of the Keys.
This, as we have said, is to preserve the good order of the Church and the tranquillity of consciences: the good order first, because the Church wishes to put in place the specific procedure of monitions (c. 2314 §1 2°) before separating from heretics; the tranquillity of consciences next, because experience shows that ambiguous cases are numerous in times of heresy, while the faithful must continue to receive the sacraments.
It must therefore be concluded that Ad evitanda and canon 2261 indeed cover the case of the manifest heretic who has not yet been condemned by his superior: the faithful may receive the sacraments from him for any just cause. This clear rule, instituted by Martin V and taken up by the Code for the good of souls, is incontestably a mitigation of the great principle that the heretic loses all office in the Church.
When the sacraments may be requested of such persons
Let us underline once more that (1) the initiative is taken by the faithful, who requests the sacrament for “a just cause” from the excommunicate who is requisitus [requested]25, and that (2) there must not be scandal.
Canon 2261 §2 specifies that the possibility of requesting the sacraments from an excommunicate exists “particularly if other ministers are lacking”26: this means that it is always preferable to turn to orthodox clergy when possible. But let us note that the absence of an orthodox minister is not an absolute condition (“maxime si…” [especially if…]). The Church wishes to favour as much as it can the freedom of the faithful to choose the priest who will give him the sacrament. Here again the Code perfectly respects the spirit of Ad evitanda.
Let us underline finally that this rule can apply only to clergy who have a superior capable of supplying their lack of jurisdiction. Therefore neither Ad evitanda nor canon 2261 can be applied to the heretical pope, since “the First See is judged by no one”,27 and the Church cannot supply the absence of jurisdiction of the one who confers her very jurisdiction. This is the reason for the intransigence of Bellarmine in his controversy with Cajetan on the deposition of the heretical pope.
We have developed this argument, founded on Ad evitanda, to answer the scruple of those who might hesitate to receive the sacraments from priests of the SSPX or the Resistance, but let us repeat that, in our humble opinion, they are neither heretics, nor schismatics, nor sacrilegious.
The example of the saints and holy men
The last arguments against the “Grain of Incense” are the examples of the saints and the practice of the Church.
John Daly, in a fine article28, notes nineteen historical cases in which the saints or the Church did not condemn the faithful who leaned towards heresy. These examples are to be pondered by traditionalist Catholics, so quick to condemn as heretics those who do not share their point of view. Pertinacity, which is necessary for any condemnation, must be measured with prudence. The Church is slow to strike.
Let us summarise the facts reported by John Daly.
St Alphonsus de Liguori refused to consider Erasmus of Rotterdam as a heretic.
Cardinal John Henry Newman, a convert from Anglicanism, was accused of several heresies by prestigious theologians (including four cardinals), but neither Pius IX nor Leo XIII condemned him.§
Cardinal Louis-Antoine de Noailles (+1729), Archbishop of Paris, who fought for fourteen years against the bull Unigenitus condemning Jansenism, was maintained in his functions and no one broke communion with him. He submitted a few months before his death.
In the decree of excommunication Vitandus of 7 March 1908 of the modernist priest Alfred Loisy, the Holy Office revealed that it had refrained for several years from condemning him in the hope that he would amend.
L’Ami du clergé, commenting on 19 March 1908 on the major excommunication of Loisy, indicated that one communicating in divinis [in sacred things] voluntarily and with full knowledge of cause with Loisy would incur only a minor excommunication.
On 1 July 1949, the Holy Office replied that Catholics who had adhered to the Communist Party were indeed deprived of the sacraments because ill-disposed, but they were not excluded from the Church for heresy so long as they had not formally adhered to communist materialist and anti-Christian doctrines.
Also in 1949, the Holy Office declared schismatic a group called “Catholic Action” set up by the communists in Czechoslovakia. But it specified that only “conscious and voluntary” adherence entailed schism, which meant that ill-informed adherents did not leave the Church.
St Robert Bellarmine and the Venerable Leonard Lessius never called Michel de Bay (known as Baius) an “heretic” after his propositions—but not he personally—had been condemned as heretical by St Pius V in 1567.
In 1907 a parish priest asked L’Ami du clergé about a Catholic family who, though baptised, frequented the school and services of Protestants, while proclaiming that they remained Catholics. Could the priest celebrate their funerals? Should he require them to abjure? The moralist of L’Ami du clergé replied that this family still belonged to the Church.
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.
Mgr Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, was Gallican and publicly rejected the primacy of the pope. In a private letter of 1865, Pius IX warned him that he adhered to condemned doctrines. At the Council of the Vatican in 1870, Mgr Darboy did not vote for the constitution Pastor Aeternus, which he did not officially accept until 1871. Pius IX did not declare Mgr Darboy a heretic between 1865 and 1871, though he manifestly was. Mgr Darboy died a martyr during the Commune. Maximin, the seer of La Salette, had foretold it to him.
Around 1047 Berengar of Tours taught heresies on the Eucharist. His doctrines having been condemned by a council, he retracted publicly to avoid personal condemnation, but continued to spread his errors. The manoeuvre was repeated three times. St Gregory VII accepted a new retraction and recommended him to the bishops of Tours and Angers, forbidding that he be punished or treated as a heretic.
The doctrine of Jean Gerson, Chancellor of the Sorbonne, fostered the oft-condemned heresy of conciliarism (which declares the council superior to the pope). Gerson is styled Blessed in several martyrologies. His statue still stands on the façade of the chapel of the Sorbonne.
Martin Luther began spreading his heresies from 1517. They were immediately condemned. But he himself was not personally condemned until 1521. In the interval, it was possible for a Catholic not to realise this and to remain in communion with him without sin.
In the fifth century, St Hypatius, a monk of Bithynia, removed from the sacred diptychs (which were read at Mass as a sign of communion) the name of Nestorius, who denied the unity of the person of Christ. Hypatius was reproved by his ordinary, Eulalius, for having made this removal before the condemnation of Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus. Pope St Celestine I upheld St Hypatius, declaring null all the acts of Nestorius from the moment he began to preach heresy. Nonetheless St Hypatius did not break communion with his ordinary Eulalius, who maintained the name of Nestorius in the diptychs.29
In the seventeenth century, during the controversies on grace, accusations of heresy flew from all sides. After long study, the Holy See condemned no one, contenting itself with forbidding each side from attaching the least theological censure to the opposing views. Yet St Alphonsus de Liguori judged some of the propositions in question incompatible with dogma.
From the outset the Blessed Noël Pinot refused the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (12 July 1790). Before its condemnation by Pius VI in 1791, Noël Pinot vainly sought to convince his vicar, M. Garanger, that this civil constitution was schismatic. Noël Pinot did not break communion with his vicar and allowed him to continue his parochial duties despite his “error of judgement”. Garanger took the revolutionary oath. After the condemnation of Pius VI, Garanger returned to reason and was exiled. The Blessed Noël Pinot was arrested and executed in 1794. Upon his return from exile, Garanger exercised his priesthood for some years before becoming insane and dying.
On 17 June 1793, Pius VI declared that Louis XVI could be eligible for canonisation despite signing the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, because he had expiated by his death for the faith. He compared him to John de Britto, Jesuit missionary in India, who had adhered to local rites which the Holy See had vehemently condemned under pain of excommunication. During this period of apparent rebellion, which lasted seventeen years, John de Britto continued his miracles. In fact the saint did not practise intrinsically evil rites, and a current of specious arguments then presented the decrees of the Holy See as not universal in scope. John de Britto was martyred in 1693 and canonised by Pius XII in 1947.
Since the third century, St Cyprian of Carthage has been a universally known Father, notably for his De Catholicae Ecclesiae unitate [On the unity of the Catholic Church]. Yet he long opposed Pope St Stephen by rebaptising those who had been baptised by heretics. St Stephen considered excommunicating him, but was restrained by the counsel of St Dionysius of Alexandria.
What do we learn from these examples?
These examples show how prudent the Church is before fulminating excommunications for heresy or schism. How much more ought we ourselves, poor faithful amid the gravest crisis the Church has ever known, to be prudent before breaking communion with our brethren who strive to preserve the Catholic faith battered on all sides.
Whether one likes it or not, the question of the pope is a technical theological question, the application of which to the present situation – however clear it may appear to those who have studied it – remains entangled, controversial, and not settled by any legitimate authority. Our conclusions therefore cannot be imposed on others, still less under pain of excommunication.
There is no doubt that if Vatican II had been the object of a proper condemnation by a legitimate pope, if its pontiffs had been declared heretics, as they deserve, by an orthodox and legitimate pope, the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X or of the Resistance would not celebrate una cum these heretics. Several of these priests have understood the situation, and already celebrate non una cum, without actually leaving their congregation. They must be encouraged so that their number may increase.
Possible motivations behind the NUC position
The masterstroke of Satan is precisely to delay the official condemnation of the present heresy, since the impostors have occupied the See of Peter.
How can one not take account of the specificity of this mystery of iniquity?
But why, then, are some sedevacantist bishops and priests so severe?
It is because they absolutely wish to cut the faithful off from the disciples of Archbishop Lefebvre. The una cum clergy would be unapproachable and would lead to perdition. Judging rightly that the sacraments of the Ecclesia Dei clergy are doubtful, and ignoring the conciliar “clergy” entirely imbued with the heresy of Vatican II, they likewise reject the una cum priests coming from the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, although they are the closest to their own positions. They judge them non-Catholic and compare them to the jureurs priests of the Revolution. But in the time of the jureurs priests, there was a pope, Pius VI, who had clearly condemned the Civil Constitution of the Clergy: the schism of the jureurs was therefore clear.
Certainly error is an evil. Evil calls forth evil. The consequences of error are disastrous. The errors of the Society of Saint Pius X are grave. They are at the origin of the deep divisions which have shaken it for the past 25 years. It is urgent that it return from its mad ambitions of a practical agreement with Rome, that it condemn more clearly the conciliar heresy, proclaim the illegitimacy of the “popes” of Vatican II and ensure that its bishops finally assume their role fully.
But in reality the bishops, the non-una cum priests and their faithful think that the Church and the oblatio munda [the pure offering] are henceforth limited to their chapels. They think it, even if they only whisper it, so enormous and shocking is the assertion.
One certainly understands their bitterness. They were expelled by Archbishop Lefebvre in painful circumstances. They are themselves victims of an absolute ostracism on the part of some priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, who in turn consider them outside the Church. This ostracism amounts to a death sentence, since to prevent the faithful from approaching them amounts to depriving them of the means of subsistence.
These non-una cum priests also fear that the faithful will escape them, drawn by the well-established network and resources of the una cum priests. This last reason is very poor and often betrays a lack of confidence in God.
The situation of the sedevacantist priests is in fact often precarious, notably because of the ostracism of the “una cum”. The faithful have all the more the duty to support them morally and materially.
But whatever the injustice of the expulsions of the sedevacantist priests from the Society of Saint Pius X, whatever the ostracism of which they are victims, one does not overcome evil with evil. The leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X will have accounts to render. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Rom 12:19 & Heb 10:30) Let us leave vengeance to God.
To say that assisting at the una cum Mass constitutes a mortal sin is to create from nothing a new moral rule which the faithful cannot bear. Is this not the fault which our Lord so severely reproaches the Pharisees?
“They bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on the shoulders of men.” (Mt 23:4)
“Woe to you, lawyers, who load men with burdens grievous to be borne.” (Lk 11:46)
The “Grain of Incense” amounts to fulminating a vitandi excommunication of the una cum priests. Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, Fr Cekada and their successors have no authority to pronounce this condemnation. We have seen that it is ill-founded.
The degradation of the Vatican troubles even the conciliarists. The sedevacantists are right. That should suffice them. But they do not truly profit by it, because their bitter discourse drives away many faithful gained to their cause, who cannot bear to hear every Sunday at the sermon that Archbishop Lefebvre is a traitor and a heretic, and that his priests are enemies to be destroyed.
The NUC position and membership of the Church
Underlying all this is the question of belonging to the Church.
The Church is the society of believers. Is it composed exclusively of those who are right? Are those who err thereby excluded?
The answer of the theologians is otherwise. We have seen that St Thomas explains that it is not error which excludes the heretic from the Church, but the fact that he has knowingly chosen it, rather than receiving the teaching of the Church. The Catholic who embraces an error thinking that it is the doctrine of the Church is therefore not a heretic; he is simply in error. He is mistaken. Is this not the case of many conciliar Catholics who accept Vatican II in good faith, thinking that it is a Catholic ecumenical council? There are therefore still many Catholics in the conciliar Church whom one cannot exclude from our communion without imprudence. To be Catholic, it suffices to be baptised and to wish to belong to the Church.
Of course, it is difficult to invoke the benefit of ignorance for the leaders of the conciliar revolution – that is, the popes of Vatican II – who have often explained that they knowingly placed themselves in rupture with the Church of yesterday. Their heresy therefore appears formally constituted, and it is legitimate to judge them heretics and fallen from all authority. The una cum priests are therefore clearly in error. God will judge the possibly sinful character of their error. Let us recognise that, in our time of confusion, very few Christians, even among the clergy, have access to sound doctrine.
But to say that the Society of Saint Pius X is heretical, schismatic and that it rejects Pastor Aeternus by recognising Francis is clearly imprudent. One must avoid generalising excommunications when one notes doctrinal disagreements. Odiosa sunt restringenda [odious things – such as anathemas – are to be restricted], says the canonical adage.30
Reciprocal anathemas do not in any way advance the Kingdom of God. They end up dividing into factions the last remnants of the little flock, when it is vital that it come together.
The NUC position and the importance of the sacraments
The other disastrous consequence of these anathemas is to drive the faithful away from the sacraments.
That the Church imposes a weekly rhythm on assistance at Mass, and that she encourages confession and frequent communion, are not minor provisions from which one may lightly exempt oneself. The sacraments are not mere formalities, some kind of gadgets of our religion. They are nourishment for our souls, more necessary than ever in our troubled times. When one is certain of their validity, one must receive the sacraments as often as possible, even if they are administered in una cum celebrations.
Of course we must always, when possible, go to what is most perfect. The una cum Mass is tainted with error. It is therefore preferable, as we have said, to go to a non-una cum Mass. Neither must one underestimate the long-term risk of frequenting clergy who are at best ignorant and at times of unsound doctrine. What will become of the Society of Saint Pius X? One may be legitimately concerned. The faithful can only navigate by sight between the reefs. But “for a just cause”, it is possible to receive the sacraments from una cum priests.
Conclusion: For the good of the Church
Even if it mistreats them, the Society of Saint Pius X is not in itself the enemy of the sedevacantists. Many of the figures of sedevacantism have received from it teaching and graces, notably ordination; and ingratitude is despicable.
Let us overcome evil with good. Let us turn the other cheek. They exclude us from their priories? Let us open our chapels to them. “In your patience you shall possess your souls.” (Lk 21:19) God gives his grace to whom he wills, when he wills. If we delay in receiving it, it is that we resist. The Society of Saint Pius X prospers in numbers, but does not know where it is going. It is at a standstill for want of direction. Let us pray to God that he enlighten it. The sedevacantists must not be the enemies of the Society of Saint Pius X. They must show it the way by the purity of their doctrine.
“I will strike the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.” (Mt 26:31) When the bond of institution frays, charity becomes more imperative. Charity is not a dirty word. To seek the union of those who have kept the true faith is not to fall into liberalism: it is a necessity. Despite their diverse positions, the bishops attached to tradition, whether una or non-una cum, must meet and speak together to attempt to resolve their differences. We will not grow against our brethren, but with them. Catholic – universal – is not an empty word.
Let us not mistake the enemy. There is but one: the Devil, whose Mystery of iniquity has reached the summit of the Church at Vatican II.
Maxence Hecquard
1 May 2025
M. Hecquard is the author of La Crise de l’autorité dans l’Église, available from Nouvelle Librairie.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
§ – Editor’s Note on the ‘four cardinals’
The amount of research which we have conducted into Newman requires us to point out that we have addressed this claim elsewhere.
See John Lane’s detailed study, The Question of Attending Mass Celebrated by a Priest Who Professes Communion with John Paul II as Pope (10 August 2002).
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (ST) 2a 2ae, 5, 3.
Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, T. I, quaest. VII, thes. XI.
ST 2a 2ae, 39, 1 c.
ST 2a 2ae, 99, 3 c.
Ibidem ad 3um
The complete text of the decree is as follows:
« Ad vitanda scandala et multa pericula, subveniendumque conscientiis timoratis, omnibus Christi fidelibus, tenore praesentium, misericorditer indulgemus, quod nemo deinceps a communione alicujus in sacramentorum administratione, vel receptione, aut aliis quibuscumque divinis, vel extra ; praetextu cuiuscumque sententiae aut censurae ecclesiasticae, a iure vel ab homine generaliter promulgatae, teneatur abstinere, vel aliquem vitare, ac interdictum ecclesiasticum observare. Nisi sententia vel censura huiusmodi fuerit in vel contra personam, collegium, universitatem, ecclesiam, communitatem, aut locum certum, vel certa, a iudice publicata vel denunciata specialiter et expresse : Constitutionibus apostolicis et aliis in contrarium facientibus non obstantibus quibuscumque : salvo, si quem pro sacrilegio et manuum iniectione in clerum sententiam latam a canone adeo notorie constiterit incidisse, quod factum non possit aliqua tergiversationi celari, nec aliquo iuris suffragio excusari. Nam a communione illius, licet denunciatus non fuerit, volumus abstineri, iuxta canonicas sanctiones. »
Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, T. 27, col. 1192-1193 ; Codicis juris canonici fontes, vol. I, n° 45. Le décret est connu sous le nom Ad vitanda (Mansi, Naz) ou Ad evitanda (Codex, Fontes).
Héfélé, Histoire des conciles, Paris 1916, T. 7, p. 540, note 2.
Dictionnaire de droit canonique sous la direction de Raoul Naz, art. de É. Jombart, Excommunication, V, 615.
Tractatus de virtute fidei divinae, disputatio XXII, sectio 1.
Dictionnaire de droit canonique, art. de E. Mangin, Ad vitanda scandala, I, 250.
‘By a broad sentence,’ that is, an excommunication provided for by law (c. 2217). Excommunications latae sententiae or ipso facto (c. 2217 §2) are the most serious. Heresy is punished by excommunication latae sententiae (c. 2314 §1).
Codicis juris canonici fontes, vol. VII, n° 4507.
« …nemo deinceps a communione alicujus in sacramentorum administratione, vel receptione, aut aliis quibuscumque divinis, vel extra ; praetextu cuiuscumque sententiae aut censurae ecclesiasticae, a iure vel ab homine generaliter promulgatae, teneatur abstinere. »
Codicis juris canonici fontes, vol. IV, n° 804.
John S. Daly, The true scope of the constitution Ad Evitanda Scandala, © 2005-2017
« …per Canonem Concilii Constantiensis a Martino V approbatum, qui incipit Ad evitanda, quique in suo semper vigore permansit, (…) nonnihil relaxata fuerit disciplina in eo quod pertinet ad conversandum, atque etiam in divinis communicandum cum haereticis, qui tolerantur et expresse denuntiati non sunt tamquam vitandi… »
(cf. Fontes, IV, n° 804, note 2, p. 84)
…cuiuscumque sententiae aut censurae ecclesiasticae, a iure vel ab homine generaliter promulgatae…
De Romano Pontifice, l. II, c. XXX, p. 270 D.
Cf. Maxence Hecquard, La crise de l’autorité dans l’Église (La Nouvelle Librairie 2023), § 6.2.6 & 6.3.3.
Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (5e éd., Rome 1927), I, quaest. VII, thes. XII, §2, p. 316.
Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari (Boniface VIII, Liber Sextus Decretalium 5, 12 reg. 15)
Cursus theologiae juxta mentem divi Thomae (9e éd., Paris 1861), t. V, dissert. V, art. III, § 3, p. 59.
Ibidem.
“Fideles, salvo praescripto §3, possunt ex qualibet iusta causa ab excommunicato Sacramenta et Sacramentalia petere, maxime si alii ministri desint, et tunc excommunicatus requisitus…” (c. 2261 §2)
…maxime si alii ministri desint…
Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur (c. 1556)
John S. Daly, Heresy in History, © 1st May 2000
They were indeed together when they learned of Nestorius’ deposition by the Council of Ephesus (cf. John Daly, An Incident on the Margins of the Council of Ephesus, p. 19, in Mélanges offerts à Monsieur l’abbé Hervé Belmont à l’occasion du 40e anniversaire de son ordination sacerdotale (not for sale, 2018)). .
John Daly quotes « Odia convenit restringi, favores vero ampliari » (cf. supra) and refers to canon 19, which states that ‘penal laws, or those that limit the free exercise of rights, or those that contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly.’ (See The true scope of the constitution Ad Evitanda Scandala, note 5)
Thanks for this. The very nature of practicing traditional Catholicism in the contemporary world can tend us toward what the Neoreactionaries called a 'purity spiral'. I know this vice in myself, and do my best to check it without sacrificing fidelity to truth.
It is a very unhappy place to be as a Catholic, desiring obedience, but having no obvious authority to submit to, at least not in the details. And if we draw a stark line, and are honest, we are all damned, for the very 'practice' under the admission of sede vacante is without guidance by legitimate authority--only a pope could make all the definitions we need to act with moral certitude.
I think of Abdias, who was submitted to the authority of the apostate Achab, yet could honestly boast that he had not bowed the knee to Baal, and had hidden the prophets of the Lord, and supplied their needs. Baal worship would have been going on all around him, there would have been shrines at every turn, and no doubt incidental acknowledgements of the false god even expected of Abdias, as a member of court in Jerusalem. Yet, God kept him there, and kept him holy. We could say that Elias followed the best path, that isolation in the wilderness was his vocation. But we cannot say that Abdias was damned for remaining in the corrupt court. In fact it seems obvious that this was his vocation.
I do not mean to advise anyone here on what they should or should not do, I am not worthy of giving such particular guidance. Only to say, these are uncertain times and not one of us will be able to face our Lord at the end of it without some error, some breach of the strict rule of canon law on our souls. As one converting into the middle of this confusion, I have to trust that Christ does in the end judge the heart. And He is winnowing us now to purify our hearts.
Thanks again for this very measured essay by M Hecquard.
A well written article full of sound doctrine and common sense; our goal always is to think in accord with the teachings of the Church.
Thank you for posting this timely and necessary clarification of a disputed question.