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, which 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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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, which 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?
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.
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."
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!
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.