Una Cum Twitter Debate (Fr. Valerii & In Principio)
Jan 6, 2024 2:08:34 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski, Pacelli, and 3 more like this
Post by Caillin on Jan 6, 2024 2:08:34 GMT -5
Fr. Valerii:
During Holy Mass, faithful are united in spirit with a priest in offering of the sacrifice and in prayer. When a priest mentions a Pope and a Bishop (or a heretic, or a schismatic) faithful are united with him as well. More soon.
In the prayers of the Mass the priest includes the people with himself as those who offer the oblation: "Oráte, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrifícium acceptábile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipoténtem".
Therefore, when SSPX or other R&R priests, offer the sacrifice "una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro Francesco", laity of any sedevacantist congregattion participating in those Masses offer the sacrifice "una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro Francesco" as well.
In Principio:
Father, all commentaries say it is a prayer for the pope, not an *offering with* the pope. The pope is being prayed for together with the Church, not offering the sacrifice together with those at the Mass. The "una cum" in the canon means "as also for."
Fr. Valerii:
"Una cum" is "Together with". More examples: "Dominus vobiscum" is "The Lord be with you". "Et cum spiritu tuo" is "And with your spirit".
In Principio:
Yes, Father, "together with" = "as also for". Two translations, same meaning. The prayer is *for* the Church *together with* the pope; meaning the prayer is *for* the Church *as also for* the pope, not an offering of the participants *together with* the pope. Here's Fortescue:
Fr. Valerii:
With and/or for the Pope is the emphasis on the unity with him. The Mass is the sacrifice of the Cross. A priest sacrifices by his own hands and the faithful by priest's hands in the unity with the Pope. This is the Church's teaching.
In Principio:
Father, in mentioning the pope's name in the prayer, the priest is expressing communion with him, yes. But the prayer doesn't mean the priest is *offering the sacrifice with* the pope. It's a prayer *for* the pope, not a prayer being offered *with* the pope.
Here is the Fr. Lasance missal, which uses "as also for", instead of "together with":
Fr. Valerii:
See THE ROMAN MISSAL, ENGLISH, FOR THE LAITY of 1865, Approved by Frederick James Bishop of Philadelphia, p. xxxiii "together with thy servant N. our pope" ANYWAY, with or for, the emphasis is on the offering by the priest and the faithful in unity with Pope.
In Principio:
Yes, Fr., the translation "together with" means "as also for", showing that the prayer is *for* the Church, *as also for* the pope, etc. Nothing in the prayer indicates that the priest *offers the sacrifice with* the pope, etc., and no commentary supports that interpretation.
Fr. Valerii:
For (pro) holy Catholic Church...together with (una cum) our Pope.I don't say a priest offers with Pope. By mentioning a Pope, a priest manifests unity with Pope. By mentioning a heretic, a priest manifests unity with heretic. Laity in attendance manifest the same unity.
In Principio:
If it's never permissible to participate in a Mass where a priest mentions a heretic, because being united to the priest, one is united to the heretic mentioned, doesn't it follow that participation is never permissible when the priest is a heretic, being united to him in a Mass?
Fr. Valerii:
Active participation in such Masses (communicatio in sacris) is prohibited. Only passive attendance in some cases is allowed.
In Principio:
Father, while active participation in non-Catholic rites is always prohibited, active participation in Catholic rites where the minister is an undeclared heretic is not always prohibited, in virtue of c.2261. See p.79 of Rev. Eric MacKenzie's "The Delict of Heresy" (1932):
Also, to pray and offer sacrifice for a heretic is not strictly an act of communication in sacris at all, and doesn't belong to the kind of communication that is practically illicit, as Fr. Livius, C.SS.R. explains on p. 155 of this 1885 Irish Ecclesiastical Record article.
Fr. Valerii:
An excellent example for those who believe that the successor of Peter is now reigning. But what is the justification for those who believe that the Throne of Peter is vacant, and the priest in the canon of the Mass mentions a non-pope as a Pope?
In Principio:
If a participant is united to the priest that offers Mass, and through the priest is united to anyone the priest offers the Mass for, the participant would not be united to the latter more than the former.
Therefore, if it’s possible to participate in a Mass offered by an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic, then it’s possible to participate in a Mass offered for an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
Since it is possible to participate in a Mass offered by an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic (c.2261), then it is possible to participate in a Mass offered for an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
Therefore, it is possible for a sedevacantist to participate in a Mass offered for someone they know is an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
Additionally, since offering the sacrifice for anyone is only communication in a wide sense, and not strictly communication at all, whatever unity exists between the participant and a heretic priest would be greater than whatever unity exists with the heretic prayed for.
During Holy Mass, faithful are united in spirit with a priest in offering of the sacrifice and in prayer. When a priest mentions a Pope and a Bishop (or a heretic, or a schismatic) faithful are united with him as well. More soon.
In the prayers of the Mass the priest includes the people with himself as those who offer the oblation: "Oráte, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrifícium acceptábile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipoténtem".
Therefore, when SSPX or other R&R priests, offer the sacrifice "una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro Francesco", laity of any sedevacantist congregattion participating in those Masses offer the sacrifice "una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro Francesco" as well.
In Principio:
Father, all commentaries say it is a prayer for the pope, not an *offering with* the pope. The pope is being prayed for together with the Church, not offering the sacrifice together with those at the Mass. The "una cum" in the canon means "as also for."
Fr. Valerii:
"Una cum" is "Together with". More examples: "Dominus vobiscum" is "The Lord be with you". "Et cum spiritu tuo" is "And with your spirit".
In Principio:
Yes, Father, "together with" = "as also for". Two translations, same meaning. The prayer is *for* the Church *together with* the pope; meaning the prayer is *for* the Church *as also for* the pope, not an offering of the participants *together with* the pope. Here's Fortescue:
"The Intercession (from 'in primis'), now spread throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful"
Fr. Valerii:
With and/or for the Pope is the emphasis on the unity with him. The Mass is the sacrifice of the Cross. A priest sacrifices by his own hands and the faithful by priest's hands in the unity with the Pope. This is the Church's teaching.
In Principio:
Father, in mentioning the pope's name in the prayer, the priest is expressing communion with him, yes. But the prayer doesn't mean the priest is *offering the sacrifice with* the pope. It's a prayer *for* the pope, not a prayer being offered *with* the pope.
Here is the Fr. Lasance missal, which uses "as also for", instead of "together with":
"Wherefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world; as also for Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith."
Fr. Valerii:
See THE ROMAN MISSAL, ENGLISH, FOR THE LAITY of 1865, Approved by Frederick James Bishop of Philadelphia, p. xxxiii "together with thy servant N. our pope" ANYWAY, with or for, the emphasis is on the offering by the priest and the faithful in unity with Pope.
In Principio:
Yes, Fr., the translation "together with" means "as also for", showing that the prayer is *for* the Church, *as also for* the pope, etc. Nothing in the prayer indicates that the priest *offers the sacrifice with* the pope, etc., and no commentary supports that interpretation.
Fr. Valerii:
For (pro) holy Catholic Church...together with (una cum) our Pope.I don't say a priest offers with Pope. By mentioning a Pope, a priest manifests unity with Pope. By mentioning a heretic, a priest manifests unity with heretic. Laity in attendance manifest the same unity.
In Principio:
If it's never permissible to participate in a Mass where a priest mentions a heretic, because being united to the priest, one is united to the heretic mentioned, doesn't it follow that participation is never permissible when the priest is a heretic, being united to him in a Mass?
Fr. Valerii:
Active participation in such Masses (communicatio in sacris) is prohibited. Only passive attendance in some cases is allowed.
In Principio:
Father, while active participation in non-Catholic rites is always prohibited, active participation in Catholic rites where the minister is an undeclared heretic is not always prohibited, in virtue of c.2261. See p.79 of Rev. Eric MacKenzie's "The Delict of Heresy" (1932):
"2. When the priest or other cleric is excommunicated, but has not received either a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful are permitted to ask and receive from him any Sacrament or Sacramental, especially if other ministers are absent. In these circumstances the said minister is free to administer to the faithful, and does not thereby violate the censure of which he is conscious. The faithful are required to have a just cause for their request, but canonists do not require that it be a serious (gravis) cause; the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of doubt concerning the gravity of a sin and the state of conscience, the desire for greater purity of soul when approaching the Holy Table, or the wish to communicate more frequently, have been recognized as just causes for requesting Sacraments even from priests known to be under simple censure. Meanwhile the minister is not required to investigate the reasons impelling the faithful to approach him, nor to verify the justice of their reasons. On being asked to administer a Sacrament, he is immediately free (ratione censurae) to do so. Even more, canonists do not require him to wait for an explicit request. Any implicit or reasonably presumed petition will be sufficient. Hence, when no other minister is available, a priest who is consciously guilty of a delict of heresy may go to the Church, and show himself as ready to hear Confessions at the regular hours, to distribute Communion and celebrate Mass when the faithful gather for these purposes."
archive.org/details/MackenzieTheDelictOfHeresy1932/page/n45/mode/2up?view=theater
archive.org/details/MackenzieTheDelictOfHeresy1932/page/n45/mode/2up?view=theater
"What the S. Cong. de Prop. Fide, Benedict XIV., and theologians in general had specially in view was reception of Sacraments from heretics, and taking part in such other religious acts as are always fraught with danger to the faithful themselves of participation in heretical worship, and of perversion. But if there are any cases of communication of quite another kind, and from which no such danger could possibly arise, we may conclude that they do not come under the practical prohibition of the Church and of theology; and that consequently the faithful may use the liberty conceded to them since Constance with regard to heretics. Now such an act of communication in divinis is prayer, or the offering of Mass for a heretic. To pray, or to offer sacrifice in anyone's behalf (as De Lugo says in effect,1) is in true ecclesiastical meaning, or technically speaking, to communicate with him in divinis: but such an act is communication only in a wide sort of sense, and, strictly speaking, is not so at all; and, as evidently from such acts no danger arises of participating in anything heretical, one can hardly think that it belongs to that kind of communication which, according to the teaching of the Church, is practically illicit."
archive.org/details/irishecclesiast3618unse_0/page/154/mode/2up
archive.org/details/irishecclesiast3618unse_0/page/154/mode/2up
Fr. Valerii:
An excellent example for those who believe that the successor of Peter is now reigning. But what is the justification for those who believe that the Throne of Peter is vacant, and the priest in the canon of the Mass mentions a non-pope as a Pope?
In Principio:
If a participant is united to the priest that offers Mass, and through the priest is united to anyone the priest offers the Mass for, the participant would not be united to the latter more than the former.
Therefore, if it’s possible to participate in a Mass offered by an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic, then it’s possible to participate in a Mass offered for an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
Since it is possible to participate in a Mass offered by an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic (c.2261), then it is possible to participate in a Mass offered for an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
Therefore, it is possible for a sedevacantist to participate in a Mass offered for someone they know is an undeclared heretic without being sinfully united to that heretic.
Additionally, since offering the sacrifice for anyone is only communication in a wide sense, and not strictly communication at all, whatever unity exists between the participant and a heretic priest would be greater than whatever unity exists with the heretic prayed for.