The 'una cum Mass': A crucial question for our time
Mr Michael Hudson addresses a very controversial issue – the legitimacy (or otherwise) of attending a Mass which names a false pope.
Mr Michael Hudson addresses a very controversial issue – the legitimacy (or otherwise) of attending a Mass which names a false pope.
Editor’s Notes
The following article is a guest essay by Mr Michael Hudson.
Hudson is an adherent of the Cassiciacum thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers. He is recently married, having formerly attended Most Holy Trinity Seminary.
His article critiques the Directories and Constitutions of the Roman Catholic Institute.
It is our understanding that this essay was made available to the RCI some time prior to it being published. 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.
Withdrawing from the sacraments
We all agree that some Masses must be avoided. In a crisis like ours, each Catholic needs to form his own conclusions on these matters, and to act on them. However, it is necessary that we be realistic about the consequences of such a decision, wherever one draws the line.
We must acknowledge that the deprivation of the sacraments comes with serious risks and dangers – even when this occurs for proper, unavoidable reasons.
As a result, we should be on our guard in such discussions, and scrutinize the arguments presented to us very carefully. As we have written elsewhere:
Whenever anyone tries to convince us to withdraw from the sacraments, we should listen carefully to what he is saying, and consider whether he appears to grasp the gravity of what he is advocating, or whether he is minimising it.
This is especially so when he is also persuading us to associate ourselves sacramentally or financially with particular groups, or if he or such groups stand to benefit from convincing us. We should be cautious about the arguments of interested parties at the best of times; even more so when such interested parties are evasive about the implications or gravity of what they are advocating; and even more so when they are advocating a course of action from which they stand to benefit.
This is not to say that the arguments of someone who benefits from a particular position should be discounted – simply that we should not be blind to that reality.
The more severely one thinks that we are restricted, the more important it is to be realistic about these consequences. We added in the same place:
Treating all this as trivial is [a] mistake. This mistake will have serious consequences for those who make it, and necessarily undermines their other, related arguments.
It will also have serious consequences for those whom they frighten into making the same error of judgment, and thus deprive themselves of the benefits of the sacraments. As Our Lord said:
“[T]hey bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men's shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them.” (Matt. 23.4)
However, the “una cum” question also has wider implications beyond the sacramental needs of the faithful.
The importance of clarity in addressing the Pope Question
Insofar as the word “sedevacantism” has any meaning or utility, it refers to the answer to “the Pope Question”: it is the conclusion of an extended vacancy of the Holy See. This conclusion is drawn from true premises, and is certain.
However, it is most unhelpful to think of it as referring to a movement, religion or sect with positions or tenets. Such misconceptions pose a significant obstacle for Catholics in considering the Pope Question – and there can be no doubt that misconceptions around the “NUC (non-una cum) position” are among the most formidable of such obstacles.
Human nature being what it is, few are able to separate the Pope Question from related and secondary questions. Many assume that an extended interregnum necessarily entails the disappearance of the hierarchy, the invalidity of Novus Ordo sacraments, and the need to separate themselves from their existing places of worship and withdraw from the sacraments.
If, for example, certain Novus Ordo sacraments are subject to doubt, does this mean that one cannot attend the Masses of men whose orders depend on their validity? This is often assumed, and while we agree with the assumption, further argumentation is needed in order to establish it.
Further, if attending a so-called “una cum Mass” is to be presented as morally impossible for a person who has concluded that the Holy See is currently vacant, does this also justify a priest withholding the sacraments from such a person? The possible illegitimacy of assisting at an “una cum Mass” does not necessarily entail the legitimacy of withholding the sacraments from one who does so – as Hudson explains in his article.
In fact, many other points associated with “sedevacantism” rely on further argumentation, and do not necessarily enjoy the same certainty as the vacancy itself. Some such points may be true and rest on sound argumentation; others may not. Anecdotally, we have found that separating such issues, and allowing them to be dealt with individually, seems to “take the sting” out of the Pope Question itself, and makes it easier and more likely for sedeplenists to progress towards the conclusion of the extended vacancy of the Holy See.
By contrast, the agitation and fear which comes under the pressure of making high-stakes decisions are not conducive to discerning the truth of the matter. We should not create further stumbling blocks to those considering an already difficult issue. The advance of the correct understanding of the vacancy is too important.
This is not to say that those drawing the conclusion will not eventually have to address these other points and make other difficult decisions. But rarely does all this need to happen at first – especially before the most fundamental issue which provides the motivation for persevering in such difficulty (i.e. the certainty of the vacancy itself).
“I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.” (Acts 9.16)
It is for these reasons, rather than any wish to attack specific groups, that we have agreed to publish this new treatment of the topic at this time.
Should we be discussing this at all?
Some will be aggrieved that we have published a text like this, believing that this matter is one for the clergy to discuss, and behind closed doors at that.
But it is difficult to understand why texts arguing for a restrictive position may be published freely, but not texts critiquing those arguments. The only way this would avoid being a double-standard is if the restrictive position were the “safe” position, and could thus be treated as a default. But this is simply to beg the question.
Similarly, “the clergy” – which presumably refers only to those who agree that the See is vacant, and perhaps are qualified by already believing that the restrictive position is correct – cannot claim an exclusive right to discuss this question, or to impose their answers on the faithful, without arrogating to themselves an authority which they do not have – and which the many of them explicitly disclaim. This was precisely the line taken in the 1983 letter of “The Nine,” which Hudson mentions below.
But if anyone deems such questions to be above the laity, then let him stop trying to convince us of his own answers to them: let Fr Anthony Cekada’s ‘Grain of Incense’ paper be withdrawn, along with all papers on issues which are supposedly above us – such as the Cassiciacum Thesis, the Holy Week reforms, the validity of Novus Ordo sacramental rites, and so on.
On the contrary, although he certainly held to at least aspects of the position critiqued by Hudson, we could recall the words of the late and greatly missed Bishop Daniel Dolan in 2021. When it was suggested that debates about the Cassiciacum thesis were beyond the laity and should be conducted behind closed doors, he said:
“I have more respect for the laity than that. I find them today to be rather intelligent and well informed rather than reduced to helpless parrots repeating the party line.”1
There need be no losers in this debate
Passions run high when this topic is raised. This issue is treated as a kind of sacred totem or taboo, and is the foundation of a circular, question-begging approach, in which anyone who disagrees with the restrictive NUC position is deemed to be unreliable, untrustworthy, and even a traitor.
But depending on our level of good will, there need not be any losers in any such debate. St John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, said the following:
“Let us not then everywhere seek victory, nor everywhere shun defeat. There is an occasion when victory brings hurt, but defeat profit. [...] For often to be defeated is better, and this is the best mode of victory. For whether one overreaches, or smites, or envies, he that is defeated, and enters not into the conflict, this is he who has the victory.”2
When we are debating for the sake of truth, rather than for the sake of conflict (as Chrysostom says), or ego or as members of a party, sect, or “team”, we cannot lose any debate. If we are overcome by the truth and by true arguments, we are not the defeated, but joint victors – and we gain a truth which we did not previously possess.
The truth cannot hurt us, and so we cannot be afraid of the truth. We should pray that we are not deceived by false arguments – but we should also pray that if we are wrong, the good Lord might grant us the victory of being defeated by his truth.
As Hudson himself ends his essay:
“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.”
S.D. Wright
Inanem fallaciam
An Analysis of the “Una Cum” Question
By Michael Hudson
“Beware that thou be not deceived into folly, and be humbled.”
Ecclus. xiii. 10.
The so-called “una cum Mass” is any Mass “in which the name of any Novus Ordo ‘pope’ or ‘prelate’ is placed in the Canon of the Mass.” The Theological Directory of the Institutum Catholicum Romanum (referred to hereafter as “the Institute”) defines such a Mass as “the traditional Latin Mass which is offered together with (una cum) the Novus Ordo hierarchy”. The members of the Institute affirm that these Masses are “objectively sacrilegious” and that active participation in them, as well as in any other services “in which the name of a Novus Ordo hierarch is mentioned,” is “objectively a mortal sin.”
The Pastoral Directory affirms that the clergy of the Institute shall not administer “any sacraments” to those who frequent an una cum Mass. Adherence to all of this is necessary for membership in the Institute, and a member is subject to expulsion “if he should actively assist at any liturgical function” which fits the above.
This article will therefore address all of the following:
Does “una cum” mean that the Mass is “offered together with” those so named?
Is naming Prevost (or any other member of the Conciliar hierarchy) in the Canon of the Mass, or any other services or liturgical functions, even the Divine Office, “objectively sacrilegious?”
Is it “objectively a mortal sin” to actively participate in such Masses etc.?
Is it reasonable to refuse “any sacraments” to those who frequent such Masses etc.?
The meaning of ‘una cum’ in the Liturgy
In the Te igitur, or the first prayer of the Canon of the Mass, we find the phrase “una cum” before the mention of the Pope and local Bishop in whose diocese the Mass is being offered. What does this phrase signify grammatically? It has four possible functions:
As an adjective modifying Ecclésia
As an adverb modifying rogámus, pétimus and offérimus
As an appositional link with Ecclésia
As a coordinating conjunction with Ecclésia, Antístite and ómnibus orthodóxis.
Evidently, the Institute holds to (2) as the correct meaning, despite the fact that the Superior General said in a published article titled “Le Problème de l’Una Cum, un Problème Ecclésiologique Majeur,” that (3) is the true function of the phrase:
“What is the correct sense of the words una cum? I think that the analysis of Mr. Lamoureux is correct, that is to say that the third interpretation is the true one.”3
What this means is that the celebrant, by naming Prevost and the Conciliar bishop of the place in which the Mass is being said, is stating that the Church includes those so named, for whom the celebrant intercedes.
We refer the reader to the analysis of Mr. Lamoureux rather than repeat his points here. It is of note however that, whatever grammatical sense we give to the words “una cum,” it is true, as Pope Benedict XIV said in his Encyclical Ex quo primum that…
“… the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff in the Mass, and the prayers poured out for the same in the Sacrifice, is considered, and is a certain declarative sign by which the same Pontiff is acknowledged as the Head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Successor of Blessed Peter, and also a profession is made of a mind and will firmly adhering to Catholic unity.”4
Christianus Lupus, mentioned in the same Encyclical, says that this commemoration “is the supreme and most honorable species of Communion.”5
Is naming the Conciliar hierarchy ‘objectively sacrilegious?’
Sacrilege comes from the Latin word “sacrilegium,” which comes from two Latin words, “sacrum” and “legere,” meaning “to steal sacred things.” In some contexts, the word may refer to improper or impious behavior, a violation or profanation of anything held sacred, etc. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, sacrilege may be divided into three kinds: personal, local and real, based upon the teaching of St. Thomas here.
Materially and accidentally, insofar as the celebrant commits some sin by naming the Conciliar hierarchy in the Canon, the celebrant would commit an act of personal sacrilege, since he is a sacred person.
It may be argued that this commemoration of Prevost in the Canon of the Mass as “Thy servant Leo our Pope” is to commit the sin of real sacrilege. Rev. Thomas Slater, S.J. says:
“...sins against religion are called sacrileges in a wide sense.”
Now, superstition is one of the sins contrary to the virtue of religion, and it “may be committed by worshipping the true God in the wrong way.” Worship is false “when its meaning is not in accordance with fact.” Revs. John McHugh and Charles Callan, O.P. say:
“False worship is opposed to the truth of religion (e.g., Old Testament rites which signify that Christ is still to come), or of rites (e.g., Mass by a layman, Mass according to a form disapproved by the Church), or of facts (e.g., fictitious revelations, ecstasies, mysticism, miracles, relics), or of morals (e.g., human sacrifice, praises of God to the accompaniment of lascivious words or music, etc.).”6
It may also be argued that this act of commemoration is the sin of superstition by being a kind of idolatry, according to the words of St. Vincent Ferrer, O.P.:
“...by adhering to one who is not pope, as though he were pope, by showing papal reverence to him, they transgress the first precept of the first table, in which is commanded to man: ‘thou shalt not worship a strange god, nor idols, nor a statue, nor any likeness from heaven.’ For who indeed is a false pope, if not some strange god in this world, or an idol, or a statue, or the fictitious likeness of Jesus Christ?”7
May the reader judge for himself if these arguments are tenable.
Yet, this does not appear to be the argument of the Institute, since its members repeatedly deny malice on the part of resistance clergy: rather its officials argue that the una cum Mass itself is sacrilegious (“objectively,” considered in relation to its object), apart from the subjective dispositions of the celebrant. The reason is that the Mass is “not Catholic” and is “offered outside of the Church,” claims which abstract from both the membership of the celebrant and the authorization of the rite.
This is an unacceptable novelty, both because it is foreign to the pre-Conciliar authors, who only ever considered the Catholicity of the celebrant or rite, but also because it runs contrary to the Council of Trent:
“This is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it).”8
To say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is so defiled as to be worse than all the abortions in the world (see also here), or to be worse than idolatry or extremely grotesque forms of sacrilege, or to be void of grace, to seriously displease God, etc. etc. by a mistake on the priest’s part is simple nonsense, even blasphemous.
This is to say nothing of the obvious absurdity arising from the fact that every priest named the Conciliar hierarchy until the late 60s at least, meaning (per the logic of this argument) that the Church ceased to offer acceptable worship to God, or even offered displeasing worship (!), which is liturgical defection.
Perhaps the argument can be modified: the una cum Mass is objectively sacrilegious, because by naming the Conciliar hierarchy in the Mass, one implicitly accepts the reforms of the Council, which are heretical. Certainly it is sacrilegious to do such a thing? But such reasoning is obviously fallacious: “I accept heresy” is not implicit in the statement “our Pope Leo and our Bishop (so and so).” It is perhaps a logical consequence, but logical committal to heresy is far from implicit adherence to a false religion.
A short digression on the efficacy and fruits of the Mass
The celebrant may be considered as acting in three modes:
In the person of Christ
In the person of the whole Church
In his capacity as a private person.
Insofar as the celebrant acts in the person of Christ, his Mass is always effective, since the substantial fruit, which proceeds from the opus operato of the offering of the sacrifice, is always infallibly produced. Rev. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. says:
“At each Mass, adoration, reparation, and thanksgiving of limitless value are infallibly offered up to God. This is true, because of the nature of the victim offered and the principal priest, independently even of the prayers of the Universal Church and the fervor of the celebrant.”9
He continues and says:
“Adoration, reparation, and thanksgiving are effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass that relate to God Himself and are infallible. Through each Mass, through the oblation and sacramental immolation of the Savior on the altar, God infallibly obtains adoration, reparation, and thanksgiving of infinite value.”10
Insofar as the minister acts in the person of the whole Church, his Mass is always effective, since the accidental fruit, which proceeds from the opus operantis of the Spotless Bride of Christ, is always infallibly produced. The Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle says that “her daily sacrifice cannot but be agreeable to God, even though the celebrant should happen to be an unworthy priest”. He continues and says that…
“… to this special sacrificial activity of the Church, offering up the Holy Sacrifice together with Christ, there corresponds as a special fruit an ecclesiastico-human merit, which, as De Lugo points out, is lost when Mass is said by an excommunicated or suspended priest, because such a priest no longer acts in the name and with the commission of the Church.”11
Insofar as the minister acts in his capacity as a private person, his Mass is not always effective, since the accidental fruit, which proceeds from the opus operantis of the minister, is not always infallibly produced. Rev. Felix M. Cappello, S.J. says:
“As to whether the fruit comes from the opus operantis of the priest, it must be distinguished: if the celebrant is in good faith and in a state of grace, this fruit is obtained, according to the greater or lesser devotion and attention of the same; otherwise, it is lacking due to guilt, because the priest who knowingly celebrates in a state of sin, with this personal action being supremely sacrilegious, obtains nothing, but rather arouses and increases divine wrath against himself.”12
Active participation: a mortal sin?
The term “active participation” in this context refers to religious communication or communicatio in sacris. The definition is as follows:
Very Rev. Francis Connell, C.Ss.R.:
“Communication in sacris signifies participation in public (official) non-Catholic religious rites. This is active when it involves a real participation in the functions, such as the reception of the sacraments, singing or organ-playing, joining in the prayers, etc.”13
“The communication is formal or active, when a Catholic takes a positive part in the exercise of non-Catholic worship. For example, to receive the eucharist of an heretical sect, or to sing with heretics in their religious functions is a formal communication.”14
“Active participation occurs when one positively places an act of worship simultaneously with a schismatic and in the rite of schismatics. It would consist in making gestures, movements, or ceremonial signs which from custom are acknowledged as implying the profession of a false sect or as signifying the practice of a false cult. One would assist or communicate actively by performing such external acts as paying attention with religious decorum, or participating in those things which the other assembled persons do for the purpose of placing an act of worship.”15
“Active participation consists in taking an active part in divine services. It implies external participation in an act of worship. Singing and praying with others are the more common forms of active participation. In Catholic worship, the most active or intimate form of participation is the reception of the Sacraments.
“Active participation may also involve either fulfilling some religious office, as a sponsor at baptism, a server at Mass, or receiving a sacred rite, as a sacramental blessing. In the latter instance, the recipient does nothing in the performance of the rite as such. Nevertheless, he is a part of it, and his relationship to it is far more than mere presence. As a recipient of an external act performed over him, he is an active participant in Catholic worship.
“Hence, not only must the distinction be kept in mind between non-performance and performance, but it is equally important to remember that a non-Catholic, who by free choice receives a Catholic rite, becomes an active participant of Catholic worship.”16
The issue at hand here, however, is not so much that the minister is a non-Catholic or that the rite he employs is non-Catholic, but rather that he prays for someone as “Thy servant our Pope” who, as a matter of fact, is not “our Pope.” This being established, the question is not so much one of active participation but rather one of cooperation. Do those who hear the Mass of such a priest formally cooperate in his recognition of Prevost as the Pope of Rome?
1. What is the nature of the act itself?
The celebrant prays for Prevost and the local Conciliar bishop as “Thy servant Leo our Pope” and “so and so our Bishop.” In and of itself, to pray for someone is an intrinsically good act. It is for this reason that St. Robert Bellarmine said
“… that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even for infidels since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men.”17
It is also abundantly clear that this is indeed what the celebrant is doing: he is offering the Sacrifice for the Church, and specifying the distribution of its fruits. However, due to the circumstances and consequences, it seems that this act is rendered extrinsically evil due to the fact that Prevost is being commemorated as “our Pope,” when in fact he is not. It is a material falsehood, a mistake on the part of the celebrant. This is equivalent to a recognition of him as the Authority, not simply as the current occupant of the Apostolic See, for it is precisely because the Roman Pontiff bears rule and has care of the common good of the Church that he is to be specially commemorated as a prominent member of the mystical Body.
It is furthermore “the supreme and most honorable species of Communion,” i.e. it is done “in order to demonstrate a sincere union of the Members with the Head.” This seems to imply something more than simply acknowledging someone as a member of the Church or even as the legitimate possessor of an ecclesiastical office, especially in the case of the Roman Pontiff. So far the material act of the celebrant.
2. What is the intention of those taking part?
Evidently the intention of those who hear Mass is to participate in the public worship of the true God by co-offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice with the celebrant, which is in itself an intrinsically good act and one which is commanded by the Law of God: “Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.” (Ex. xx. 8.)
The priest whose Mass they are hearing is a member of the Church and presumably in good standing (abstracting from the problems inherent in taking upon oneself Holy Orders without being called or sent by the Authority). It seems reasonable to presume that he is sincere and acting in good faith when he says Mass, and that he commits no formal sin by doing so. The rite he is employing is one which is approved by the Church, whether it be celebrated in accordance with the rubrics promulgated by St. Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII or Paul VI (before 1965). He has not been forbidden to exercise his Orders (at least not by an explicit prohibition from the Authority) nor have the faithful been forbidden to petition him for the Sacraments and sacramentals of the Church, or to hear his Mass. So far, so well.
However, what are we to make of the fact that, as we have already discussed, he seems to commit the material sin of superstition by inserting a declaration of falsehood into the prayers of the Mass? Even if, strictly speaking, one is only an accomplice to wrongdoing if the principal agent has an evil intention, it still appears that such a one cooperates in some fashion with the words spoken and the gesture performed at this point in the Mass, both of which they, presumably, believe to express something false. To answer this, we must analyze the notions of material and formal cooperation in the acts of others.
3. What are the principles regarding cooperation?
“Cooperation is formal when the cooperator shares in some way in the intention and purpose of the sinner whom he assists. He can do this either by wanting the evil act performed and doing something to help bring it about or by making an unambiguous contribution to the performance of the act, that is, by contributing help that of its nature has no other purpose than to make the sin possible or to facilitate its commission. [...]
“Cooperation is material when it avoids participation in the evil intention of the sinner. The material cooperator does not want the sinful action to take place, and there is an ambiguity about what he actually does. His assistance may in fact contribute to the sin, but it is not of its nature or in the circumstances exclusively ordained to the commission of the sin.”
“1. Co-operation is formal when A helps B in an external sinful act, and intends the sinfulness of it, as in deliberate adultery.
“2. Co-operation is material when A helps B to accomplish an external act by an act that is not sinful, and without approving of what B does.”18
Very Rev. Francis Connell, C.Ss.R.:
“Formal cooperation is committed when one actually takes part in the sin of another person. This may be either through the end of the act and of the agent or through the end of the agent only. The former takes place when one objectively shares in another’s sin, even though he does so with a certain measure of reluctance. [...] A person co-operates formally through the end of the agent only when he performs an indifferent act, which the principal agent utilizes toward his sinful objective, and the co-operator positively wills that his act shall aid toward the sin. [...]
“Material cooperation takes place when a person performs an act which is lawful in itself, though in this particular instance it will be used or directed by the principal agent to the accomplishment of his sinful end.”19
“Co-operation, then, may be formal or material. Formal co-operation is concurrence in the bad action of another and in the bad intention with which it is performed. Material co-operation is the concurrence in the external action of another but not in the evil intention with which it is done.”
In order to properly analyze what exactly the congregants are cooperating with, we must distinguish between what is substantial and what is accidental in the Mass.
The substance of the Mass, which is a Sacrifice, is the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
The accidents of the Mass are all those ceremonies which accompany or surround this act. Revs. John McHugh and Charles Callan, O.P. make the distinction between the chief and secondary acts of Divine worship, corresponding to the above.20
Is it possible to actively participate, i.e. formally cooperate, in the act of the Sacrifice without necessarily doing the same for all the other prayers and gestures which may occur circumstantially? The answer appears to be “yes,” as will be shown by the following quotations:
“There are times when the Church does permit the faithful to receive the sacraments from a schismatical minister, but when such a permission is granted a necessary condition is set, namely, that the sacrament be administered according to the rite of the Church. It is not very likely that the schismatical minister will administer the sacraments in exactly the same rite as would be observed by a Catholic priest.
“However, before the faithful could receive the sacraments from a schismatical minister, there would have to be some certainty that the substantial or essential rites necessary for the validity would be observed by him when he confers the sacrament.
“As for the accessory rites, be they preceptive or directive, one could tolerate an omission or change in them. Suarez (1548-1617) held that if the non-Catholic minister employed other accessory rites which were of a superstitious character or foreign to the customs of the Roman Church, one could not co-operate in them. However, he admitted that one could sometimes tolerate them if there were no scandal or contempt of religion, and if at the same time one could not exclude the use of them.”21
“Returning to the case of active but merely external participation, besides the instances mentioned above in which such action would be wrong in itself because of the thing done, we may imagine a case in which it would be wrong solely, or at least primarily, because of the circumstances.
“Suppose that the service, though conducted under heretical or schismatical auspices, happens to be genuinely valid, and identical with the corresponding Catholic service. In assisting actively the Catholic has the intention of participating in it as a Catholic service, which in a sense it truly is. Strictly speaking, his act is not wrong because of the thing done, though it may well be wrong because of the same two circumstances already mentioned, namely, the foreseen effect of danger to his own faith or to the religious loyalty of other Catholics.”22
Rev. Benedikt Merkelbach, O.P.:
“Active communication or participation in the sacred rites themselves, i.e. public worship, is illicit, because it is implicit approval of the exercise of worship and recognition of the sect; generally it is illicit, but sometimes it can be licit for a grave reason. Hence:
a) If it is with heretics (or schismatics), by natural and ecclesiastical law per se and regularly it is more gravely illicit for the faithful either due to the danger of perversion in Catholic faith, or due to the danger of participation in heretical rite, or due to the danger and occasion of scandal or seduction, or due to the appearance of adhesion to the false sect which in itself it signifies (Rom. XVI, 17; Tit. III, 10).
b) Per accidens however and extraordinarily it can be licit, provided the action is not intrinsically evil, and there is a proportionate cause, which requires to be all the more grave the more the sacred thing in which communication takes place is of greater importance, and the more the action pertains properly to worship.
c) With infidels, a fortiori it is illicit, especially because their worship tends to be false and superstitious.”23
Let us address more directly the consequences that would follow from the idea that active participation in a liturgical function necessarily means that one approves of all of its elements:
Let us suppose that the celebrant in question believes he is not obliged to use the reforms of Pius XII, John XXIII or Paul VI (before 1965) in the celebration of the Mass. Do those congregants who believe he is so obliged formally cooperate in his violation of the rubrics?
Let us suppose that the celebrant in question has been consecrated a bishop without canonical institution and believes that he is obliged to commemorate himself in the Canon of Mass as “me indigno servo tuo.” Do those congregants who believe this is an implicit usurpation of privilege formally cooperate in this?24
Let us suppose that the celebrant in question is performing the Rite of Episcopal Consecration. During the course of this Rite, many references are made to the authority, power, right, City, people, clergy etc. of the “Bishop-elect” (even this term is problematic). Do those congregants who believe that “sacramental bishops” are deprived of all these things formally cooperate in falsehood?
Let us suppose that one is functioning as a witness during the reception of a convert. During the course of the ceremony, the priest mentions the Authority of the Apostolic See which he exercises here, referring to a faculty reserved to the Sacred Penitentiary and delegated only to Ordinaries and those to whom they grant it. Does the witness formally cooperate in an implicit usurpation of this faculty?25
Let us suppose that a person adheres to the Cassiciacum Thesis of Bp. Guérard des Lauriers, and applies the same thesis to Prevost – viz. that he is papa materialiter by means of proximate disposition to become the Pope in virtue of his nomination to the Roman See, but not papa formaliter due to an internal obex to the habitual communication of Christ's “Being-With.” Some who adhere to this position have been known to affirm that recognizing the materialiter is as important as denying the formaliter, due to issues such as the preservation of apostolicity, and so on. If a person of this position were to attend the Mass of a “totalist” priest, viz. one who does not recognize Prevost as papa materialiter, who believes the Roman See to be “totally” vacant, and who omits the una cum clause from the Canon precisely for this reason, would the person be formally cooperating in what he believes to be both an error, and a usurpative judgment?
Let us suppose that one is a citizen of a country, and that he is hearing a Mass celebrated by a minister who is a citizen of his country’s opponent, which country he believes is waging an unjust war against his own. If the celebrant prays for his country’s victory in the Collect, would he formally cooperate in a prayer he does not agree with?
Examples may be multiplied, but the essential point is this: while active participation in a liturgical function does constitute implicit formal cooperation in the act of worship, it does not necessarily mean that one approves of everything accidental in it, for if it did, we would be obliged to avoid every ceremony which does not happen to square perfectly with our personal convictions.
A short digression on the sin of scandal
Scandal is defined by St. Thomas as “any word or deed not fully upright which is the occasion of sin to another.” It is the moral cause or occasion of another’s sin. It is divided into active (direct and indirect) and passive (infirmorum and pharisaical). Direct scandal is given when one intends to induce another to sin, indirect when one does not so intend. Scandal of the weak is received due to ignorance or weakness, pharisaical due to malice and evil inclinations.
For scandal to be given, the performance or omission of an external act must either be evil in itself or in appearance. We have shown above that it is not evil in itself to attend and participate in so-called “una cum Masses,” so we will only address the idea that doing so is evil in appearance, i.e. due to others thinking it to be sinful through ignorance or weakness.
Is it certain or probable that others will sin due to the fact that a Catholic assists at an una cum Mass? This question cannot be answered affirmatively in all cases, but even presuming this to be so ex hypothesi, is it always illicit to give such scandal? If the act performed is good in itself and necessary for the attainment of a good, it is justified and no sin of scandal at all it committed, whether venial or mortal, provided that the good to be obtained is proportionate to the scandal received.
Now the goods to be obtained in this case are spiritual goods, viz. the actual and Sacramental graces attached to hearing Mass and receiving Holy Communion. As a rule, then, it seems that a Catholic is justified in assisting at an una cum Mass, and out of charity to the weak and ignorant, he ought either conceal or explain his conduct so that even the appearance of evil is removed, so long as this does not entail serious inconvenience.
Salus animarum suprema lex, or ipse dixit?
We will speak here only of Holy Communion, since presumably this is the Sacrament most likely to be refused to someone who attends an una cum Mass and requests it of an Institute priest.
Holy Communion (viz. the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist) is relatively and morally necessary for salvation, and all adults are bound by a Divine and an ecclesiastical precept to receive communion at least some times during life. In order that the Eucharist may be received both sacramentally (validly) and spiritually (fruitfully), one must be baptized and have the requisite intention. The dispositions of the soul required are freedom from mortal sin and from ecclesiastical censure.
“Communion should be administered to all those who ask it reasonably, excluding, at least until they make sufficient reparation, public sinners and such as lead openly scandalous lives. So, too, it is not to be given to those likely to treat it with irreverence, or to the mentally deranged or those suffering from certain forms of illness.”
“The Church has always claimed the power to refuse participation in the divine mysteries of the Eucharist to those whom she judged unworthy. The sentence of excommunication, although its precise effect has varied at different periods, always excluded from Holy Communion. [...] But the Roman Ritual forbids the priest to administer the Holy Communion to those whose unworthiness is public and notorious, such as blasphemers, those who live in concubinage, harlots, usurers, and dealers in magic. No formal sentence of the Church authorities is required in cases like these, provided the facts are beyond all doubt notorious.”26
Revs. John McHugh and Charles Callan, O.P.:
“Communion may not be given, first, to those who have not the use of reason (i.e., to infants and the perpetually insane), nor to those who are unable to understand the essential truths of religion and morality (i.e., to those who have always been deaf and dumb or blind, and who are uninstructed)...
“Secondly, Communion may not be given to those who cannot receive without grave peril of unbecoming treatment of the Sacrament, as in the case of those who cough or vomit continually or frequently, or of those who are delirious, or unconscious, or insane…
“Next those persons are denied Communion who cannot receive without scandal (e.g., those who are infamous, such as prostitutes or defamers, persons intoxicated or insufficiently dressed).”27
Canons 845-869 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law concern the Holy Eucharist as a Sacrament. The Canons pertinent to our discussion are Canons 853 & 855.
Canon 853: Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Canon 855: § 1. All those publicly unworthy are to be barred from the Eucharist, such as excommunicates, those interdicted, and those manifestly infamous, unless their penitence and emendation are shown and they have satisfied beforehand the public scandal [they caused]. § 2. But occult sinners, if they ask secretly and the minister knows they are unrepentant, should be refused; but not, however, if they ask publicly and they cannot be passed over without scandal.
Yet, the Institute does not appeal to any of these principles to justify refusing to administer the Sacrament to those who frequent an una cum Mass: in fact, they positively reject such a claim, stating that this refusal “must not be construed as an accusation of public sin, or of public heresy, or any other delict.” Upon what other basis could Holy Communion be refused to a baptized adult otherwise well disposed? The basis is supposedly this:
“...ecclesiological principles logically require the priest of the Institute to refuse sacraments… there is no reasonable cause… to administer sacraments to them would be contrary to reason.”
The foundation of this argument is a complete novelty, i.e., that somehow “sacramental jurisdiction” comes from “the principle of epicheia,” and that without “consistency,” this flow of jurisdiction would cease.
“Inconsistency” has never been an impediment to receiving Holy Communion, nor disagreement with the opinions of others regarding matters not yet settled by the Authority. If we may petition the Sacraments and sacramentals from and hear the Mass of unsentenced heretics, schismatics and excommunicates whose guilt is not notorious either by notoriety of fact or notoriety of law, and this for any just cause (e.g., the dispelling of doubt concerning the gravity of a sin, the intention of approaching Holy Communion with greater purity of soul, the intention of receiving Holy Communion more frequently, etc.), why may we not petition them from a traditionalist minister with whom we happen to disagree?
The faithful have no obligation to receive the instruction of those bereft of authority, power and right over them. Explicit and conscious belief in God as the Head of the supernatural order, as the Rewarder of the just and the Punisher of the wicked, as a Trinity in Unity and as our Incarnate Redeemer are the essential mysteries of our Faith, and beyond this all that is required of the simple faithful is the ability to discern the consecrated Host from common bread.
This is all an inane fallacy to justify imposing sanctions upon those who fail to follow the ipsedixitism of the Institute’s officials, as if they had the authority, power or right to do so. Sadly the words of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in response to the Nine seem to be coming true:
“Thus slowly, slowly, they put all the people far from Rome... far from the pope... far from the Church. That is very dangerous. Many people now have this tendency... they do a sect, a sect. Slowly, slowly, very slowly they form a sect!! That is a schismatic tendency. I cannot accept that!”
Conclusion
Let it be remembered that in religious controversies regarding matters debated, doubtful and undefined by the Church, we ought follow this rule: in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. No ill-will or malicious intent is meant towards those so mentioned in this analysis.
St. Cyprian of Carthage, referring to those who disagreed with him during the re-baptism controversy, said:
“It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us. For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another.”28
In this spirit, we submit these considerations to the judgement of the competent authority, viz. to the Apostolic See, which we hope to one day see again occupied by a baptized Catholic man properly disposed to receive the habitual communication of Christ’s “Being-With.” If any errors are present in this article, we wish to have them pointed out to us so that they may be corrected.
To this end, we make the words of St. Thomas Aquinas our own:
“If any one, however [...] wishes to say anything in contradiction to what we have written, let him not do his talking in out-of-the-way corners, or before mere boys who know not how to judge of difficult problems.
“But, if he dares, let him write an answer to what has been here written. He will find not me alone, who am the least, but many others who know and foster the truth, by whom his error may be refuted or his ignorance enlightened.”29
Sancte Hypati Bithyniæ et Sancte Thoma More, orate pro nobis!
Appendix I
For further reading, we recommend the following resources:
Una Cum Controversy (Bellarmine Forums)
Una Cum (Trad + Cath + Forum)
“Interview with Bishop Guérard des Lauriers o.p. on the Thesis of Cassiciacum”
“L’enjeu de l’Una Cum“ (Abbé Hervé Belmont)
“Mise au point !!!” (Abbé Olivier Rioult)
“Messes una cum : quelques explications à mes amis.” (Maxence Hecquard)
“My Thoughts in Regard to the Una Cum Issue” (Bp. Mark Pivarunas, CMRI)
“Let’s get the facts straight” (Fr. Martin Stépanich, O.F.M.)
“Una Quicum?” (F.X. Lamoureux)
“Objections to ‘Vatican II, The Pope, and The Mass.’” (John Lane)
“Communicatio in sacris - A Few Notes” (John S. Daly)
“A letter to a friend about assistance at Mass in which Francis is named as pope” (John S. Daly)
“On The Una Cum” (Michael of Nineveh)
“Scrupulosity: Una Cum version” (Louie Verrecchio)
“Una Cum and the Pied Piper” (Anonymous)
“Undeclared Heretics” (Introibo)
Appendix II
An associate of ours submitted to us these objections some time ago with regard to the positions and policies of the Institute on the subject of the una cum Mass. Some of these have already been discussed in the body of the paper, and others we find objectionable, but we feel that presenting them in full, without comment, will benefit the reader.
To our knowledge, these points were never answered.
I. Paul VI’s name was not removed from the Canon by traditionalist priests until the promulgation of the New Mass. But it is impossible for the Church to cease to offer acceptable worship to God. Therefore, the una cum Mass is not displeasing to God and it is permissible to assist at it.
II. The only means of obtaining valid Orders until the 1980s was via assisting at an una cum Mass. But, according to St. Thomas, it is impossible that the Church be deprived of “apt ministers sufficient for the needs of the people.” Therefore, it is permissible to assist at an una cum Mass in order to obtain valid Orders.
III. The Church permits the faithful to have recourse to an excommunicated confessor when in danger of death. But to be deprived of the Sacraments, esp. Holy Communion, is to be placed in danger of spiritual death. Therefore, it is permissible to actively participate in an una cum Mass.
IV. One does not formally cooperate in the sin of another unless one intends and approves of the evil committed. But to internally protest the insertion of the name of Leo into the Canon is not to intend and approve of the evil committed. Therefore, one may actively participate in the una cum Mass without formally cooperating in the sins of the priest.
V. A false hierarchy is one which is in material and formal schism from the Catholic Church. But the Novus Ordo hierarchy truly constitutes a material hierarchy. Therefore, Masses offered in the person of the Novus Ordo hierarchy are truly offered in the person of the Church (“in persona Ecclesiae”).
VI. A Mass is rendered intrinsically evil by being offered in union with and under the auspices of a formally schismatic hierarchy. But the Novus Ordo hierarchy is not a formally schismatic hierarchy. Therefore, the una cum Mass is not intrinsically evil.
VII. The Sacraments are morally necessary in order to achieve salvation. But one deprives oneself of the Sacraments, esp. Holy Communion, if one refrains from assisting at an una cum Mass. Therefore, it is permissible to assist at an una cum Mass.
VIII. A layman may form his conscience in accordance with the opinion of an approved theologian. But Bp. Guérard was an approved theologian. Therefore, one may adhere to the opinion of Bp. Guérard, viz., that it is licit to assist at an una cum Mass in order to receive Holy Communion.
IX. It is permissible in case of necessity to materially cooperate in the sin of another. But active participation in an una cum Mass constitutes material cooperation in the sins of real sacrilege and capital schism. Therefore, it is permissible to actively participate in an una cum Mass in case of necessity.
X. The virtue of faith is lost by the sins of heresy, schism and apostasy. But actively participating in an una cum Mass constitutes none of these. Therefore, we will not lose the Faith if we actively participate in an una cum Mass.
XI. The privation of Holy Communion is a penalty of excommunication. But those who actively participate in an una cum Mass are not excommunicated. Therefore, it is a violation of Canon Law to refuse Holy Communion to those who actively participate in an una cum Mass.
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.
(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:
“Quel est le sens correct des mots una cum ? Je pense que l’analyse de M. Lamoureux est correcte, c’est-à-dire que la troisième interprétation est la vraie.”
“... commemorationem Romani Pontificis in Missa, fusasque pro eodem in Sacrificio preces, censeri, et esse declarativum quoddam signum, quo idem Pontifex tanquam Ecclesiæ Caput, Vicarius Christi, et B. Petri Successor agnoscitur, ac professio fit animi et voluntatis Catholicæ unitati firmiter adhærentis…”
Benedict XIV, Ex quo primum.
English: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14exquo.htm.
Latin: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044105193700&seq=300 (starts on p. 288)
“Hæc commemoratio est suprema et honoratissima Communionis species.”
n. 2274.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C_mmV91WFf-izceOiFmGZk2vlaHlfSag/view?usp=drivesdk, p. 49 of the PDF starting with "adherendo autem tanquam pape."
Ibid., p 313.
Pohle, p. 388
Rev. Felix M. Cappello, S.J. Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Vol. I, pp. 493-498, §547.3, translation mine.
Inc. in Ex Quo Primum.
n. 963.
https://archive.org/details/MerkelbachSummaTheologiaeMoralisI/page/n288/mode/1up, pp 584-5, translation mine.
It is true that the rubrics make no distinction, but they presuppose that the celebrant, if he be a bishop, has become one in accordance with the law, i.e. that he has been consecrated a bishop by mandate of the Apostolic See and has been canonically instituted in some vacant see.
Titular bishops, despite being deprived of actual jurisdiction, still possess potential jurisdiction in virtue of their canonical institution, and therefore participate in the governance of the Church. (See: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm) If their territory were to once again be habitable and possess subjects, they would be obliged to take up residence there and begin to actually rule their subjects.
The episcopi vagantes affiliated with the traditional movement do not participate in the governance of the Church and therefore have no right to commemorate themselves here in the prayer for the living heads of the Church militant, i.e. "for kings, and for all that are in high station." (See 1 Tim. ii. 2.)"
n. 2704
 | A guest post by
|
SD Wright said:
“Anecdotally, we have found that separating such issues, and allowing them to be dealt with individually, seems to “take the sting” out of the Pope Question itself, and makes it easier and more likely for sedeplenists to progress towards the conclusion of the extended vacancy of the Holy See.
By contrast, the agitation and fear which comes under the pressure of making high-stakes decisions are not conducive to discerning the truth of the matter.”
I am living proof of the benefits and advantages of taking this approach, which otherwise would have been too overwhelming.
Bravissimo.