I am looking forward to reading this through when my workload lightens, but I wanted to make a comment.
One relevant and extremely important point to address in this controversy that I do not see raised often (in fact I have only heard John Lane bring it up once in his conversations with Louie Verrecchio ) is that the charge of objective sin on the part of traditional priests who name the current false popes in the Canon of the Mass is a philosophical error. The error comes from distinguishing the guilt of a person from the objective evil of the act — which is a completely legitimate distinction — as relevant when the person acts out of error. Those are not the same kinds of situation because belief determines the voluntariness of the act because it determines the intention; and intention determines the species, and therefore the morality, of an act. Let me give an illustration I give to my ethics students.
Suppose I dial the phone in order to call my wife and tell her I love her. But I dial the wrong number and express my passionate affection to a complete stranger. Is this a voluntary action? No. Practical knowledge is absent: the description of the event does not match the description of my intention, the description that I would give myself of my intentional action. In a obvious sense, I don’t know what I am doing—objectively. Hence, my act here is not objectively sinful because I am not committing the act of declaring my love to someone other than my wife — that is not the species of my act. One could argue that I should have been more careful, or that I was negligent in some way, and so guilty on that account — but still, such guilt would not that of committing the act of declaring my love to another because that was not my act.
The above situation is not the same kind of situation in which I do something intentionally, but ignorant of its sinfulness. In this second kind of situation, I would be doing something sinful objectively, and thus the question of my guilt for committing THAT act is relevant.
When a priest through error or ignorance mentions a false pope in the Canon, he is not committing the act of naming a false pope, while ignorant of its sinfulness. Rather he is committing a different act, i.e., naming who he believe is the pope, while ignorant of the fact that he is not the pope.
So in sum: there is a distinction between (1) being ignorant of the sinfulness of an act, but intentionally committing that act, and (2) being ignorant of what you are doing, which is a kind of involuntary action.
This is Aristotelian-Thomistic moral psychology. You may look it up in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book III, lines 1110b17-1111a20 and in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa thelogiae, IaIIae q6 a8.
You understand that this comment condemns the general position of the RCI, right?
In any case, many non-sedes do recognise that, but disagree with us about the implications. They are wrong, and we are right. But this doesn't determine the question at hand; nor does it follow that they are quite lost.
Personally, I have thought for over a decade that the restrictive NUC position is probably greatest barrier to the sede conclusion's spread. If this position is true, then that's just a cross to bear; but if it is true, why is it so hard to get its proponents to prove their points?
Also, why is it so hard to get them to read legitimate criticisms and address rebuttals of their positions?
Bp Sanborn did at one time read criticisms and engage in debate and then he responded to an article by FX Lamaroux and he had to admit the central point of his NUC error: that the true meaning of the Una Cum phrase as taught by the Church was different to his teaching. He admitted this to be true and then doubled down on the error he admitted had just been refuted.
From then on it's been crickets. I suspect they refuse to engage because they know they've already been refuted and it doesn't suit them to think otherwise.
What I mean by cutting on multiple directions is this. If we are to accuse laymen who do not accept the restrictive NUC position of engaging in motivated reasoning, what should we say of the clergy who a) stand to benefit financially by laymen accepting this position, and b) stand to suffer financially from them not accepting it?
I do not want to make this the plank of an argument. It is those who accuse others of motivated reasoning who call for this observation to be made.
Catholic consciences need to be formed by the teachings of the Catholic Church. Not the novel opinions of men without any jurisdiction in the Church. Who has formed your conscience on this issue? The latter.
Read the article again and then pray for the grace to submit to the teachings of Holy Mother Church because it is faith in her as the authoritative teaching authority that is essential for supernatural faith and it is only supernatural faith that can save.
I'll lean on the perennial teachings of the Magisterium, thanks.
I don’t have an alphabet soup of letters behind my name, so with my simple mind and heart, I read papal encyclicals, the biographies and writings of saints, etc. to deepen my attachment and love of the Almighty.
My simple rule - if it sows confusion, then it's not from Him.
My comment is not about the legitimacy or sinfulness of attending an "una cum" Mass or the moral standing of the priest in celebrating such a Mass, but about a flaw in one common argument that attending an una cum Mass is sinful. I am not here refuting a position, but rebutting an argument. Serious questions like these should be considered with precision, as much as possible.
My mind may be too simple to understand the elevated reasoning being parsed here, but if una cum = allegiance (tacit or otherwise) with an illegitimate hierarchy, then I will separate myself from such "worship."
I understand why you understand it in that way and want to follow that course of action.
Not everyone agrees that it means that; not everyone agrees that it meaning that means that laymen can't attend the Masses in spite of that; still fewer believe that it is justified to use this as a basis of withholding the sacraments from someone who is otherwise properly disposed. There are three matters here, and they cannot be conflated into one, and then used to insinuate bad faith on the part of those who disagree.
It doesn't mean this at all. The Church teaches different. Then Fr Sanborn has even publicly acknowledged this in writing, but refuses to let go his NUC error because it doesn't suit him not to.
In the present crisis there is a temptation to see those who have been given the grace to see the sede position and accept it as being better than other Catholics. Some even think themselves to be more pure than those still stuck in the Novus Ordo.
In practice they want to separate themselves from fellow Catholics, but this isn't the spirit of fraternal charity, rather it is the all too human sectarian spirit that can arise at any time, but particularly during a crisis of authority in the Church.
The NUC position isn't found in Church teaching and comes from a spirit that is alien to her: a work of the flesh.
The last thing I ever think of myself is that I'm better than others...
My refusal to attend an una cum mass comes from simply this - if I am praying for that priest as he offers the Mass, and joining my intentions and thanksgiving to his prayers and if, as I believe, he is in persona Christi, then I'm hard pressed to agree with naming clergy (pope or bishop) who are heretical at best, apostates at worst.
You can have your personal reasons, but realise that your personal reasons for disagreement don't make the Mass non-Catholic, nor do they make the priests who make this error non-Catholic either.
Thank you for posting this. I have two take aways. One thought is one you have previously alluded to, regards his thoughtful comment on and my agreement with, contrary to a lot of, for lack of a better word, what I would term harsh sedes when it comes to Catholics who remain in the Conciliar Church out of conviction it is still the Catholic Church, in what might rightly be called error but not with the knowing intention of promoting or remaining in error. Many of them are still Catholics and, although a smaller number, also devout.
The second is my opinion that it is highly unlikely that a subsequent pope, even one who retracts Vatican II as a failed pastoral experiment despite being riddled with Modernist "tendencies" (or perhaps naming it outright heresy), will declare the post VII popes formal heretics. Just as in the Great Western Schism there will be a desire to return to normalcy and a downplaying of division. Sadly, the theologians and prelates who fostered Vatican II were not likewise more severely treated in the hope of correction so that that Council would never have happened but so it is as God has allowed and hopefully for the eventual betterment of the Church.
May I suggest that you publish here a translation of "L'enjeu de l'una cum" by Fr. Hervé Belmont? You have already published one of his materials on the Cassiciacum Thesis, why not check what he has to say on this other, even more important topic?
Now that we are talking about Fr. Belmont, you should also take a look at his works on episcopal consecrations without apostolic mandate. They are not available on his website, but you may ask him, and he'll send you copies. They are called "Les filles de Lot" and "Un abîme infranchissable". This is another extremely important topic, very few sedevacantists this side of the Atlantic are aware of.
Please tag @sdwright if you want to bring something to his attention, as he doesn't read every single comment. I would also like to see these works translated and published here. Thanks for sharing.
IMO, one should not give too much weight to what Sanborn, Cekada and associates have to say. Fr. Belmont's take on this issue is more nuanced and sober. Here's one quote from Pope Benedict XIV that I took from "L'enjeu...":
"The commemoration of the Roman Pontiff during Mass and the prayers made for him are - in testimony and IN REALITY - a certain sign by which we declare to recognize that SAME Pontiff as the head of the Church, Vicar of Jesus Christ and successor of St. Peter. In that way, it is realized a profession of spirit and heart that one adheres to Catholic unity..."
This article was, quite literally, an answer to prayer for me as it has organized and clarified all my conflicting thoughts on the issue. I am a sedevacantist but attend an SSPX chapel as it is all that is available to me for miles and miles. I simply cannot stop attending Mass and receiving the sacraments as Bp. Sanborn and others suggest. I was away from the church for many years and returned by the grace of God, and the graces I receive at Mass are what keep me grounded through this diabolical crisis in the Church. I cannot see how I would be better off just staying home and praying my Rosary and reading the Bible. Many thanks for this enlightening post; may God bless you richly.
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.
If I may be so bold as to point our an irony here, and correct me if I have misunderstood the intentions of the differing schools of thought.
But it seems the Thesis clerics hold the hard line, when in fact they hold that the recent popes are materially 'pope', while the Totalists, who hold that they are not popes at all, are more willing to see the acknowledgment of Leo as pope as a simple error of attribution.
I was referring explicitly to the Una Cum position in this case as it has been shown to be contrary to Church teaching on the matters discussed in the above article and many others.
However, since you've brought the matter up both the totalists and thesis adherents teach differently to the Church on other matters also. The WM review isn't the place to discuss these, but the following are some examples:
We live in unprecedented times, so some invention is unavoidable.
We either go along with the apostate council and embrace an entirely novel religion, only retaining obedience to the pope as our only traditional act of faith; popes who no longer claim to hold the traditional office.
Or we accept the pope but reject his and the council's novelties. Which is a novelty itself. Recognize and Resist is truly novel, and all examples cited from history, especially Paul resisting Peter, are off topic for how to deal with a procession of apostate 'popes' following an apostate council. And no, "pastoral" does not mean non dogmatic or non binding. "Saint" Paul 6 promulgated the council documents with his full solemn authority, if he was a valid pope.
Or we accept the obvious truth that the religion now promulgated by Rome is not the Catholic Faith, and that we can have nothing to do with that hierarchy or seek validity through its endorsing our priests and bishops.
We must accept we are the "Come out of her my people" stage of salvation history.
Yes this is a novel situation.
Yes there will be novel practices to cope with the challenging state we find ourselves in, but these are procedural not doctrinal, liturgical, or soteriological in any way.
Accepting a man as pope who is an apostate (who incidentally lives with his boyfriend in the papal apartments) and then disagreeing with everything he says or does, and not obeying him in any way IS a dogmatic novelty, diminishing the office of the Papacy, and may have soteriological implications. God is judge, not me.
I quite sincerely wish things were otherwise, I would rather just be Catholic, and go to my local cathedral, which is a 10 min walk away.
The position of St Robert Bellarmine on a heretical Pope is the correct one. The above links just show that it is easy to overstep other boundaries in the crisis.
That is a pretty authoritative response, does it have a papal affirmation. Calling this a crisis rather than an apostasy is part of the problem. These are absolutely unprecedented times. A merely heretical pope, like he held one or two errors is not the same as having a supposed pope who is persecuting the faithful, preaches nothing but error, and does not even intend to fulfil the duties of office, but rather intends to use the office for another agenda altogether. In what way is acknowledging the unacknowledgeable fulfill the will of the Lord? How is such a man a symbol of unity, or a ground in faith. The Chair of St Peter IS both of these things, seeing it as empty for the time being is the only way to keep it such. Saying that Leo and his immediate predecessors, who all equally rejected the duties of office, are valid popes is to say it is the Chair of Pestilence now. Or that it is made valid by having Satan sitting in it.
My personal take on this is that since Paul 6 removed his tiara, he abdicated the throne, and no ‘pope’ since has been coronated, thus none hold the throne validly.
Great banner. At first, I didn't notice Mgrs. Lefebvre and des Lauriers in the background. I wonder if the positioning was intentional, with Hecquard placed between them.
I am looking forward to reading this through when my workload lightens, but I wanted to make a comment.
One relevant and extremely important point to address in this controversy that I do not see raised often (in fact I have only heard John Lane bring it up once in his conversations with Louie Verrecchio ) is that the charge of objective sin on the part of traditional priests who name the current false popes in the Canon of the Mass is a philosophical error. The error comes from distinguishing the guilt of a person from the objective evil of the act — which is a completely legitimate distinction — as relevant when the person acts out of error. Those are not the same kinds of situation because belief determines the voluntariness of the act because it determines the intention; and intention determines the species, and therefore the morality, of an act. Let me give an illustration I give to my ethics students.
Suppose I dial the phone in order to call my wife and tell her I love her. But I dial the wrong number and express my passionate affection to a complete stranger. Is this a voluntary action? No. Practical knowledge is absent: the description of the event does not match the description of my intention, the description that I would give myself of my intentional action. In a obvious sense, I don’t know what I am doing—objectively. Hence, my act here is not objectively sinful because I am not committing the act of declaring my love to someone other than my wife — that is not the species of my act. One could argue that I should have been more careful, or that I was negligent in some way, and so guilty on that account — but still, such guilt would not that of committing the act of declaring my love to another because that was not my act.
The above situation is not the same kind of situation in which I do something intentionally, but ignorant of its sinfulness. In this second kind of situation, I would be doing something sinful objectively, and thus the question of my guilt for committing THAT act is relevant.
When a priest through error or ignorance mentions a false pope in the Canon, he is not committing the act of naming a false pope, while ignorant of its sinfulness. Rather he is committing a different act, i.e., naming who he believe is the pope, while ignorant of the fact that he is not the pope.
So in sum: there is a distinction between (1) being ignorant of the sinfulness of an act, but intentionally committing that act, and (2) being ignorant of what you are doing, which is a kind of involuntary action.
This is Aristotelian-Thomistic moral psychology. You may look it up in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book III, lines 1110b17-1111a20 and in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa thelogiae, IaIIae q6 a8.
Any priest who does not understand the Modernist "popes" are heretics at best, apostates at worst is himself quite lost.
You understand that this comment condemns the general position of the RCI, right?
In any case, many non-sedes do recognise that, but disagree with us about the implications. They are wrong, and we are right. But this doesn't determine the question at hand; nor does it follow that they are quite lost.
Personally, I have thought for over a decade that the restrictive NUC position is probably greatest barrier to the sede conclusion's spread. If this position is true, then that's just a cross to bear; but if it is true, why is it so hard to get its proponents to prove their points?
Also, why is it so hard to get them to read legitimate criticisms and address rebuttals of their positions?
Bp Sanborn did at one time read criticisms and engage in debate and then he responded to an article by FX Lamaroux and he had to admit the central point of his NUC error: that the true meaning of the Una Cum phrase as taught by the Church was different to his teaching. He admitted this to be true and then doubled down on the error he admitted had just been refuted.
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2842/sanborn-concedes-different-meaning-claim
From then on it's been crickets. I suspect they refuse to engage because they know they've already been refuted and it doesn't suit them to think otherwise.
From my first read through, seems like a long-winded way to appease his conscience.
You can't miss Mass if you don't have a Mass to miss.
Translation: una cum is not a Catholic Mass.
I'm able to attend a visiting priest's Mass and go to Reconciliation 1x/month and otherwise watch on line at sgg.org.
I'll read it again to see if it lands any different.
This is a low response. Accusations of motivated reasoning cut in multiple directions, as I mentioned in the note.
What I mean by cutting on multiple directions is this. If we are to accuse laymen who do not accept the restrictive NUC position of engaging in motivated reasoning, what should we say of the clergy who a) stand to benefit financially by laymen accepting this position, and b) stand to suffer financially from them not accepting it?
I do not want to make this the plank of an argument. It is those who accuse others of motivated reasoning who call for this observation to be made.
Catholic consciences need to be formed by the teachings of the Catholic Church. Not the novel opinions of men without any jurisdiction in the Church. Who has formed your conscience on this issue? The latter.
Read the article again and then pray for the grace to submit to the teachings of Holy Mother Church because it is faith in her as the authoritative teaching authority that is essential for supernatural faith and it is only supernatural faith that can save.
I'll lean on the perennial teachings of the Magisterium, thanks.
I don’t have an alphabet soup of letters behind my name, so with my simple mind and heart, I read papal encyclicals, the biographies and writings of saints, etc. to deepen my attachment and love of the Almighty.
My simple rule - if it sows confusion, then it's not from Him.
A long but very enlightening and rewarding read. Thank you.
My comment is not about the legitimacy or sinfulness of attending an "una cum" Mass or the moral standing of the priest in celebrating such a Mass, but about a flaw in one common argument that attending an una cum Mass is sinful. I am not here refuting a position, but rebutting an argument. Serious questions like these should be considered with precision, as much as possible.
Thanks Errin, a lot to chew over there.
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.
My mind may be too simple to understand the elevated reasoning being parsed here, but if una cum = allegiance (tacit or otherwise) with an illegitimate hierarchy, then I will separate myself from such "worship."
I understand why you understand it in that way and want to follow that course of action.
Not everyone agrees that it means that; not everyone agrees that it meaning that means that laymen can't attend the Masses in spite of that; still fewer believe that it is justified to use this as a basis of withholding the sacraments from someone who is otherwise properly disposed. There are three matters here, and they cannot be conflated into one, and then used to insinuate bad faith on the part of those who disagree.
It doesn't mean this at all. The Church teaches different. Then Fr Sanborn has even publicly acknowledged this in writing, but refuses to let go his NUC error because it doesn't suit him not to.
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2842/sanborn-concedes-different-meaning-claim
In the present crisis there is a temptation to see those who have been given the grace to see the sede position and accept it as being better than other Catholics. Some even think themselves to be more pure than those still stuck in the Novus Ordo.
In practice they want to separate themselves from fellow Catholics, but this isn't the spirit of fraternal charity, rather it is the all too human sectarian spirit that can arise at any time, but particularly during a crisis of authority in the Church.
The NUC position isn't found in Church teaching and comes from a spirit that is alien to her: a work of the flesh.
The last thing I ever think of myself is that I'm better than others...
My refusal to attend an una cum mass comes from simply this - if I am praying for that priest as he offers the Mass, and joining my intentions and thanksgiving to his prayers and if, as I believe, he is in persona Christi, then I'm hard pressed to agree with naming clergy (pope or bishop) who are heretical at best, apostates at worst.
You can have your personal reasons, but realise that your personal reasons for disagreement don't make the Mass non-Catholic, nor do they make the priests who make this error non-Catholic either.
Thank you for posting this. I have two take aways. One thought is one you have previously alluded to, regards his thoughtful comment on and my agreement with, contrary to a lot of, for lack of a better word, what I would term harsh sedes when it comes to Catholics who remain in the Conciliar Church out of conviction it is still the Catholic Church, in what might rightly be called error but not with the knowing intention of promoting or remaining in error. Many of them are still Catholics and, although a smaller number, also devout.
The second is my opinion that it is highly unlikely that a subsequent pope, even one who retracts Vatican II as a failed pastoral experiment despite being riddled with Modernist "tendencies" (or perhaps naming it outright heresy), will declare the post VII popes formal heretics. Just as in the Great Western Schism there will be a desire to return to normalcy and a downplaying of division. Sadly, the theologians and prelates who fostered Vatican II were not likewise more severely treated in the hope of correction so that that Council would never have happened but so it is as God has allowed and hopefully for the eventual betterment of the Church.
Dear Mr. Wright:
May I suggest that you publish here a translation of "L'enjeu de l'una cum" by Fr. Hervé Belmont? You have already published one of his materials on the Cassiciacum Thesis, why not check what he has to say on this other, even more important topic?
https://www.quicumque.com/documents/questions-actuelles/lenjeu-de-luna-cum/
Now that we are talking about Fr. Belmont, you should also take a look at his works on episcopal consecrations without apostolic mandate. They are not available on his website, but you may ask him, and he'll send you copies. They are called "Les filles de Lot" and "Un abîme infranchissable". This is another extremely important topic, very few sedevacantists this side of the Atlantic are aware of.
God bless!
Please tag @sdwright if you want to bring something to his attention, as he doesn't read every single comment. I would also like to see these works translated and published here. Thanks for sharing.
I do try to read them all. Some don’t come up as notifications though, so tagging does help.
WMR has a very strict policy of going where the wind takes us. All I can say is thank you for your suggestion and we'll see what happens.
@J0HNL3W1S @sdwright thank you for your replies.
IMO, one should not give too much weight to what Sanborn, Cekada and associates have to say. Fr. Belmont's take on this issue is more nuanced and sober. Here's one quote from Pope Benedict XIV that I took from "L'enjeu...":
"The commemoration of the Roman Pontiff during Mass and the prayers made for him are - in testimony and IN REALITY - a certain sign by which we declare to recognize that SAME Pontiff as the head of the Church, Vicar of Jesus Christ and successor of St. Peter. In that way, it is realized a profession of spirit and heart that one adheres to Catholic unity..."
The translation and the emphases are mine.
This article was, quite literally, an answer to prayer for me as it has organized and clarified all my conflicting thoughts on the issue. I am a sedevacantist but attend an SSPX chapel as it is all that is available to me for miles and miles. I simply cannot stop attending Mass and receiving the sacraments as Bp. Sanborn and others suggest. I was away from the church for many years and returned by the grace of God, and the graces I receive at Mass are what keep me grounded through this diabolical crisis in the Church. I cannot see how I would be better off just staying home and praying my Rosary and reading the Bible. Many thanks for this enlightening post; may God bless you richly.
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.
If I may be so bold as to point our an irony here, and correct me if I have misunderstood the intentions of the differing schools of thought.
But it seems the Thesis clerics hold the hard line, when in fact they hold that the recent popes are materially 'pope', while the Totalists, who hold that they are not popes at all, are more willing to see the acknowledgment of Leo as pope as a simple error of attribution.
Well, it was Fr Cekada who wrote the foundational essay....
A Totalist's Totalist. Haha
Those that follow and teach novel opinions that oppose the teachings of the Church aren't known for their logical consistency.
You mean the Thesis?
I was referring explicitly to the Una Cum position in this case as it has been shown to be contrary to Church teaching on the matters discussed in the above article and many others.
However, since you've brought the matter up both the totalists and thesis adherents teach differently to the Church on other matters also. The WM review isn't the place to discuss these, but the following are some examples:
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2362/new-heresy-denial-apostolic-succession
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2371/heresy-changing-meaning-apostolic-successor
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2388/closer-term-bishop-woods
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2482/contra-cekada-1955-stable-perpetuity
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2488/contra-cekada-cessation-applicable-holy
And a small thread on where the Church is today:
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/735/where-catholic-church-today-2017
You're welcome to comment on the discussion threads linked.
I will have a look.
We live in unprecedented times, so some invention is unavoidable.
We either go along with the apostate council and embrace an entirely novel religion, only retaining obedience to the pope as our only traditional act of faith; popes who no longer claim to hold the traditional office.
Or we accept the pope but reject his and the council's novelties. Which is a novelty itself. Recognize and Resist is truly novel, and all examples cited from history, especially Paul resisting Peter, are off topic for how to deal with a procession of apostate 'popes' following an apostate council. And no, "pastoral" does not mean non dogmatic or non binding. "Saint" Paul 6 promulgated the council documents with his full solemn authority, if he was a valid pope.
Or we accept the obvious truth that the religion now promulgated by Rome is not the Catholic Faith, and that we can have nothing to do with that hierarchy or seek validity through its endorsing our priests and bishops.
We must accept we are the "Come out of her my people" stage of salvation history.
Yes this is a novel situation.
Yes there will be novel practices to cope with the challenging state we find ourselves in, but these are procedural not doctrinal, liturgical, or soteriological in any way.
Accepting a man as pope who is an apostate (who incidentally lives with his boyfriend in the papal apartments) and then disagreeing with everything he says or does, and not obeying him in any way IS a dogmatic novelty, diminishing the office of the Papacy, and may have soteriological implications. God is judge, not me.
I quite sincerely wish things were otherwise, I would rather just be Catholic, and go to my local cathedral, which is a 10 min walk away.
The position of St Robert Bellarmine on a heretical Pope is the correct one. The above links just show that it is easy to overstep other boundaries in the crisis.
That is a pretty authoritative response, does it have a papal affirmation. Calling this a crisis rather than an apostasy is part of the problem. These are absolutely unprecedented times. A merely heretical pope, like he held one or two errors is not the same as having a supposed pope who is persecuting the faithful, preaches nothing but error, and does not even intend to fulfil the duties of office, but rather intends to use the office for another agenda altogether. In what way is acknowledging the unacknowledgeable fulfill the will of the Lord? How is such a man a symbol of unity, or a ground in faith. The Chair of St Peter IS both of these things, seeing it as empty for the time being is the only way to keep it such. Saying that Leo and his immediate predecessors, who all equally rejected the duties of office, are valid popes is to say it is the Chair of Pestilence now. Or that it is made valid by having Satan sitting in it.
My personal take on this is that since Paul 6 removed his tiara, he abdicated the throne, and no ‘pope’ since has been coronated, thus none hold the throne validly.
https://williamthesamaritan.substack.com/p/nulla-carona
Great banner. At first, I didn't notice Mgrs. Lefebvre and des Lauriers in the background. I wonder if the positioning was intentional, with Hecquard placed between them.