Attendance Una Cum Benedicto Masses (Stépanich, 2009)
Mar 15, 2021 11:51:41 GMT -5
Voxxkowalski likes this
Post by Pacelli on Mar 15, 2021 11:51:41 GMT -5
The following, "Attendance at “Una Cum Benedicto” Tridentine Latin Masses," by Fr. Martin Stépanich, OFM, STD, was published in the Four Marks, March, 2009. All formatting for emphasis is in the original.
(Comment: while I admire Fr. Stépanich for taking this public stand against those seeking to impose this new doctrine on Catholics, and in some cases even by threatening or actually denying sacraments to Catholics, I only partially agree with his conclusions. Father argued that one could go to a mass "una cum V2 Pope" if no "non una cum" mass was available, and that is certainly a good thing to do in many cases, but, I would argue that a Catholic is not restricted to go to only the "non una cum" mass if one is near them.
When we approach a traditional priest to request the sacraments, that decision is for us to make on an individual basis. These chapels are not canonical churches, and the priests who say mass there are not sent by the local jurisdictional bishop. What authorizes these priests to say the mass and administer the sacraments is the request of the laity. We are free to request the sacraments from any validly ordained priest who is Catholic.
My second point, the status of the current antipope has not been settled by the Church. We, on an individual basis, may have formed moral certainty that the current claimant is not a legitimate Pope, but as this is not a settled matter, our brothers in the Faith who are not convinced of this, are not bound by our reasoning or conclusions. These people remain fellow Catholics. We may and even should worship with them, and attend mass with them, so long as the Catholic rite is used, and there are no other good reasons why we should not worship with them.
Someday, and let's hope sooner than later, a legitimate Pope will hopefully judge this matter of Vatican II and the "popes" of the Vatican II age, and then and only then will it be a settled matter. If any, after that point, maintain defiance against the Pope, and continue to recognize a false conciliar Pope, or refuse to submit to the lawful Pope, then we must cut off communion with such persons. Until that time, as painful as it is, we are stuck with this situation, a situation that exists because we do not have the living authority which can settle and end this problem.)
The article is also available in PDF. The PDF copy also contains a letter from Fr. Stépanich to Bishop Dolan. The PDF is linked HERE
(Comment: while I admire Fr. Stépanich for taking this public stand against those seeking to impose this new doctrine on Catholics, and in some cases even by threatening or actually denying sacraments to Catholics, I only partially agree with his conclusions. Father argued that one could go to a mass "una cum V2 Pope" if no "non una cum" mass was available, and that is certainly a good thing to do in many cases, but, I would argue that a Catholic is not restricted to go to only the "non una cum" mass if one is near them.
When we approach a traditional priest to request the sacraments, that decision is for us to make on an individual basis. These chapels are not canonical churches, and the priests who say mass there are not sent by the local jurisdictional bishop. What authorizes these priests to say the mass and administer the sacraments is the request of the laity. We are free to request the sacraments from any validly ordained priest who is Catholic.
My second point, the status of the current antipope has not been settled by the Church. We, on an individual basis, may have formed moral certainty that the current claimant is not a legitimate Pope, but as this is not a settled matter, our brothers in the Faith who are not convinced of this, are not bound by our reasoning or conclusions. These people remain fellow Catholics. We may and even should worship with them, and attend mass with them, so long as the Catholic rite is used, and there are no other good reasons why we should not worship with them.
Someday, and let's hope sooner than later, a legitimate Pope will hopefully judge this matter of Vatican II and the "popes" of the Vatican II age, and then and only then will it be a settled matter. If any, after that point, maintain defiance against the Pope, and continue to recognize a false conciliar Pope, or refuse to submit to the lawful Pope, then we must cut off communion with such persons. Until that time, as painful as it is, we are stuck with this situation, a situation that exists because we do not have the living authority which can settle and end this problem.)
The article is also available in PDF. The PDF copy also contains a letter from Fr. Stépanich to Bishop Dolan. The PDF is linked HERE
Attendance at “Una Cum Benedicto” Tridentine Latin Masses
Our Lord’s “Little Flock” of today’s genuine traditional Catholics, scattered about as it is in various places, has the distinction of preserving intact the Tridentine Latin Mass as it was put before the Catholic
world by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, in response to a directive of the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545- 1563). In his Quo Primum decree of July 19, 1570, the Holy Father declared that his objective was to “restore”, as he worded it, the ancient “norm and rite of the Mass of the Fathers” – that is, the norm and rite of the Latin Mass as it was offered by popes and bishops and priests since the early years of the Church’s existence.
A strange development of these distressing Vatican II times is the fact that the Tridentine Latin Mass is now being offered by bishops and priests of two conflicting groups. One groups of today’s truly traditional bishops and priests offering the Tridentine Latin Mass leaves out completely the name of any pope from the una cum phrase that comes up towards the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Tridentine Mass begins. Those who use hand missals, such as Father Lasance’s missal or St. Andrew’s missal, will know right away just where the una cum phrase comes up in the Mass, and will know what it means.
The other group, on the contrary, does the untraditional and decidedly un-Catholic thing of inserting into the una cum phrase the name of the current modernist occupier of Peter’s Papal Chair (called also the Holy See). At this time, it is the name of modernist Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) that is added to the una cum phrase, making it an una cum Benedicto phrase. The full wording of that phrase, as it is given in the altar missal used by the priest, is una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.—that is, “together with Thy servant, our Pope, N.” Before Benedict, it had been the name of modernist John Paul (Wojtyla) that was put into the una cum phrase for some almost endless 25 years, and before him it was modernist Paul (Montini) and modernist John (Roncalli).
Both groups are really sedevacantist in regard to the vacancy of the Holy See that is caused by the death of a true Catholic pope, or by a pope’s resignation (which did happen once, many centuries ago). But the vacancy issue that divides the two groups today is the vacancy of Peter’s Chair that is brought about by modernist claimants and occupiers of that Chair who have not been professing nor practicing the traditional and unchangeable Catholic Faith for practically the past 50 years, and who therefore did not really belong on the Papal Chair of infallible truth and supreme authority.
Benedict XVI (b16), the present illegitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, plainly does not profess nor teach nor defend the complete and unchanged traditional Catholic Faith. In fact, his brand of supposedly “catholic” religion is a mixture of religions. As the whole world has been able to see, B16 has been boldly and brazenly associating and collaborating with leaders of other religions in their kind of manmade religious performances, in open contradiction to the one and only true Christian religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
A man like that cannot possibly be a true Catholic pope, nor can he be honestly addressed as “The Holy Father”. He is not even a genuine Catholic. And that means that the Chair of Peter is in reality vacant, even with B16 all dressed up as a pope occupying it. That is what is meant by that word “sedevacantism” which is used so much today—that is, the vacancy caused by a no-pope illegitimately occupying the Papal Chair.
The first of the two groups mentioned above includes, for example, the famed “Legendary Nine”, that is the nine priests dismissed from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) by Archbishop Lefebvre long ago, with some of those priests now being bishops. That first group includes also those of the so-called “Thuc line” (after Archbishop Thuc), as well as those of the Spokane-based CMRI—plus others, including even some lone Franciscans.
Thesecondgroupincludesmainly,butnotonly,thoseoftheSSPX,suchasitistoday,thatis,a mixed confusion of ant-sedevacantism, inasmuch as it mistakenly and stubbornly looks upon B16 as being a legitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, and at the same time of sedevacantism, inasmuch as it stubbornly persists in disobeying B16 in refusing to go along with all of his aberrations – as if telling him that, for them, he is not really the pope, and therefore, the Papal Chair is really vacant.
Such being the confused and confusing situation facing today’s traditional Catholics, they are in the perplexing position of being obliged to decide whether it is ever lawful for them to attend the otherwise valid Tridentine Latin Masses of the SSPX, despite the presence of no-pope religion-mixer B16’s name in the Canon of those Masses. There are variations of understanding and practice among sedevacantist traditional Catholics as to the lawfulness of them attending una cum Benedicto Masses.
Many traditional Catholics are fortunate enough—Deo gratias!—to be living within reachable distance of a sedevacantist church, or Mass location, where they can always attend a Benedicto-free Tridentine Latin Mass. However, if for some serious reason or other they are unable to get to their own usual sedevacantist church on a given Sunday (for example, because of bad weather conditions), yet are able to get to a near-by anti-sedevacantist SSPX church featuring the una cum Benedicto Mass, some of them will decide simply to stay home, not wanting to be part of such a Mass.
Others among them, on the contrary, decide to go anyway to an SSPX una cum Benedicto valid Tridentine Latin Mass figuring that in such a case they surely would be justified in so doing provided that they do not consent to the priest adding the name of B16 to the una cum phrase. And then there are still others in whose region or country there is no B16-free Tridentine Latin Mass at all to go to, while there is an SSPX una cum Benedicto Mass within reach. They, too, would believe that they are justified in attending such a validly offered Mass, as long as they do not approve of the priest giving honorable mention in the Mass to a false pope.
Which is the right decision for sedevacantist traditional Catholics to make on this puzzling headache issue? Is it, as some believe, never lawful to attend any una cum Benedicto Mass for any reason whatsoever, no matter how valid and Catholic it may otherwise be? Does the name of a false pope in the Canon of the Mass so vitiate the Mass that it is unfit to be attended by conscientious traditional Catholics? Are the act of offering the Mass by the priest and his act of naming a false pope so closely bound up together that the Mass cannot be spiritually beneficial to those attending the Mass if the name of a false pope is included in the prayers of the Mass? Does the very presence of traditional Catholics at an una cum Benedicto Mass automatically an unavoidably mean that they ratify and consent to the naming of B16 in the Mass?
We naturally had to wonder if there is some kind of teaching of popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times that would help clear up things for us on that thorny una cum Benedicto issue.
A determined and well-meaning attempt to settle things on that issue has indeed been made, although the purpose was decidedly one-sided, inasmuch as the idea was to prove that in no way could traditional Catholics ever lawfully attend una cum Benedicto Masses. Research, described a “exhaustive research”, has come u with the statement that “various popes and pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the laity who assist actively at mass, in so doing manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the Sacrifice,” but also to his adding of the name of B16 to the Canon of the Mass.
However, it is as plain as could be that there is no indication whatsoever, in the above quote, that the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians referred to gave any thought at all to Masses with the name of a false pope in the una cum phrase of the Canon. They undoubtedly had in mind the kind of Mass they knew, that is , the traditional Latin Mass of the ages, not anything like the una cum Benedicto Masses that we know today.
The unquestionable fact is that the popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times did not see with their own eyes the Modernist popes promoting a plainly new un-Catholic religion, the way we have been doing, nor did they hear with their own ears the false teaching of modernist popes and theologians, nor did they ever get to read their modernist un-Catholic writings. So they did not have occasion to warn against, and condemn, Masses like the una cum Benedicto Masses that today’s traditional theologians, as well as informed lay Catholics, have been obliged to condemn repeatedly in these Vatican II times. Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians did not address the una cum Benedicto Mass issue, of which they knew nothing first hand the way we have known it.
If we try to use the words of popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, as already quoted above, and make them say that attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses is always absolutely forbidden under any and all circumstances, it is we who are really doning that kind of forbidding, not the popes and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Just try to find anything in the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians that totally and absolutely forbids any and all attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses by traditional sedevacantist Catholics. It just isn’t there!
A second quote resulting from the afore-mentioned “exhaustive research” tells us that “the Fathers of the Church, as well as Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to, and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites.”
What that second quote really does is to stress the fact that the faithful attending Mass are not there merely as spectators watching the priest perform at the altar. No, they are present at Mass to unite themselves with the priest in heart and mind and intention as he offers the Sacrifice. It is not enough for the faithful to be there at Mass only bodily, while maybe saying prayers of their own that have no connection with the Mass.
The faithful attending Mass are there as one with the priest, so that the Mass is being offered by the priest and the faithful together. The priest alone has the power to offer the Mass and to consecrate, but the faithful unite themselves with the priest, as he offers the Mass, though not as he consecrates. The idea that the faithful as closely united with the priest in the offering of the Mass runs all through the various prayers of the Sacrifice. For example, “offerimus”, that is, “we offer” – also, “pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable before God the Father Almighty.”
And that is the issue which the second quote given above really addresses –that is, the issue of the union of the attending faithful with the offering priest. And that is why that second quote says that the faithful “ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites.” Those prayers of the Canon which the Fathers and Pius XII, were undoubtedly referring to were the traditional fully Catholic prayers of the Mass as they were always recited before Vatican II, without any false pope’s name being mixed into the prayers. The Fathers and Pius XII, as well as the pre-Vatican II theologians, did not have occasion to warn about attendance at Masses giving recognition to a false pope. They did not address an issue like that because such an issue did not as yet exist.
Even if we recognize the fact that sedevacantist traditional Catholics definitely can, for the right reason and with the right attitude, lawfully attend valid SSPX una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Lasses by not consenting to the naming of the pope-pretender B16 in the Canon, we may still have reason to advise caution if we see that some may have the reckless and careless notion that the priest can say what he wants in the prayers of the Mass, just so they have a valid Mass to attend. Such an attitude is inexcusable.
A very disturbing thing about attendance at una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses is the fact that it is an awful sin to give honorable mention in the Holy Sacrifice to a false pope. To put it bluntly, it is a mortal sin—that is, in itself, considered objectively, it is plainly mortally sinful. To what extent SSPX and other priests naming a false pope in the Canon of the Mass are subjectively guilty before God —that is consciously and knowingly—that is something that only God can judge accurately and correctly.
But even though it is in itself and objectively mortally sinful for a priest to add the name of a no-pope to the una cum phrase of the Canon, that mortally sinful action can in no way change the nature of the Sacrifice itself, nor nullify its validity, nor lesson its spiritual value for those attending it.
The situation created by naming a false pope in the Mass has been called a “mortal sin situation.” It helps to understand how we should look upon such a “mortal sin situation” if we consider the fact that in this sinful world we are constantly running into “mortal sin situations.” We do so, for example, just by living with mortal sinners, maybe even in our own family circles; or, in dealing with and cooperating with such sinners at work or play or leisure; or, in business deals, in shopping in stores whose owners and managers approve of and promote, for example, abortion and sodomy and other evils; or, owners who are part of some evil secret society. Even such a thing as having to go through store check-outs displaying all those raw flesh mortal sin magazines is plainly an unavoidable “mortal sin situation.” And how could we possibly avoid all the ubiquitous raw flesh mortal sin creatures that infest just about every place on earth, sparing not even Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
What we cannot fail to understand is that being unavoidably caught in a “mortal sin situation” does not mean that we necessarily “ratify, assent to, and participate in” the mortal sins in question. Similarly, neither are traditional Catholics automatically and necessarily and unavoidably guilty of “ratifying, assenting to, and participating in” the mortal sin of naming a false pope in otherwise valid una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses, if they attend such Masses for a justifiable reason and with the right attitude of mind.
Some might wonder what happens to the two words, una cum (“together with”) when there is no pope to be named in the una cum phrase. The truth is that those two words are still needed for mentioning the name of the bishop of the diocese in which the priest is offering Mass. Thus: una cum antistite nostro, N. (That is, “together with our bishop, N.”). When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, priests living in the Chicago Archdiocese still had to say when offering Mass, una cum ... antistite nostro Alberto (That is, “together with... our Bishop Albert”, meaning Albert Meyer, later Cardinal Meyer).
And when there is neither pope nor bishop to be named in the una cum phrase—whether because of death or apostasy from the true catholic Faith—those two una cum words are still needed for mentioning all the faithful in general at the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Mass begins. Those using missals at Mass will know that the Te Igitur prayer ends up with these words: una cum ... orthodoxies, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus (that is:”together with ... all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith”).
Those who have been thoughtlessly and carelessly making it look as if all una cum Masses are objectionable, and are to be avoided, had better get things straight finally and tell their hearers and readers that it is the una cum Benedicto Masses that are objectionable, and are normally to be avoided, not the una cum Masses.
The plain fact is that all Tridentine Latin Masses are una cum Masses. All of my over 24,000 Tridentine Latin Masses offered since May of 1941, the month and year of my ordination, have been una cum Masses. None of them were Novus Ordo performances. For that a jubilant Deo gratias!!!
Our Lord’s “Little Flock” of today’s genuine traditional Catholics, scattered about as it is in various places, has the distinction of preserving intact the Tridentine Latin Mass as it was put before the Catholic
world by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, in response to a directive of the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545- 1563). In his Quo Primum decree of July 19, 1570, the Holy Father declared that his objective was to “restore”, as he worded it, the ancient “norm and rite of the Mass of the Fathers” – that is, the norm and rite of the Latin Mass as it was offered by popes and bishops and priests since the early years of the Church’s existence.
A strange development of these distressing Vatican II times is the fact that the Tridentine Latin Mass is now being offered by bishops and priests of two conflicting groups. One groups of today’s truly traditional bishops and priests offering the Tridentine Latin Mass leaves out completely the name of any pope from the una cum phrase that comes up towards the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Tridentine Mass begins. Those who use hand missals, such as Father Lasance’s missal or St. Andrew’s missal, will know right away just where the una cum phrase comes up in the Mass, and will know what it means.
The other group, on the contrary, does the untraditional and decidedly un-Catholic thing of inserting into the una cum phrase the name of the current modernist occupier of Peter’s Papal Chair (called also the Holy See). At this time, it is the name of modernist Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) that is added to the una cum phrase, making it an una cum Benedicto phrase. The full wording of that phrase, as it is given in the altar missal used by the priest, is una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.—that is, “together with Thy servant, our Pope, N.” Before Benedict, it had been the name of modernist John Paul (Wojtyla) that was put into the una cum phrase for some almost endless 25 years, and before him it was modernist Paul (Montini) and modernist John (Roncalli).
Both groups are really sedevacantist in regard to the vacancy of the Holy See that is caused by the death of a true Catholic pope, or by a pope’s resignation (which did happen once, many centuries ago). But the vacancy issue that divides the two groups today is the vacancy of Peter’s Chair that is brought about by modernist claimants and occupiers of that Chair who have not been professing nor practicing the traditional and unchangeable Catholic Faith for practically the past 50 years, and who therefore did not really belong on the Papal Chair of infallible truth and supreme authority.
Benedict XVI (b16), the present illegitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, plainly does not profess nor teach nor defend the complete and unchanged traditional Catholic Faith. In fact, his brand of supposedly “catholic” religion is a mixture of religions. As the whole world has been able to see, B16 has been boldly and brazenly associating and collaborating with leaders of other religions in their kind of manmade religious performances, in open contradiction to the one and only true Christian religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
A man like that cannot possibly be a true Catholic pope, nor can he be honestly addressed as “The Holy Father”. He is not even a genuine Catholic. And that means that the Chair of Peter is in reality vacant, even with B16 all dressed up as a pope occupying it. That is what is meant by that word “sedevacantism” which is used so much today—that is, the vacancy caused by a no-pope illegitimately occupying the Papal Chair.
The first of the two groups mentioned above includes, for example, the famed “Legendary Nine”, that is the nine priests dismissed from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) by Archbishop Lefebvre long ago, with some of those priests now being bishops. That first group includes also those of the so-called “Thuc line” (after Archbishop Thuc), as well as those of the Spokane-based CMRI—plus others, including even some lone Franciscans.
Thesecondgroupincludesmainly,butnotonly,thoseoftheSSPX,suchasitistoday,thatis,a mixed confusion of ant-sedevacantism, inasmuch as it mistakenly and stubbornly looks upon B16 as being a legitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, and at the same time of sedevacantism, inasmuch as it stubbornly persists in disobeying B16 in refusing to go along with all of his aberrations – as if telling him that, for them, he is not really the pope, and therefore, the Papal Chair is really vacant.
Such being the confused and confusing situation facing today’s traditional Catholics, they are in the perplexing position of being obliged to decide whether it is ever lawful for them to attend the otherwise valid Tridentine Latin Masses of the SSPX, despite the presence of no-pope religion-mixer B16’s name in the Canon of those Masses. There are variations of understanding and practice among sedevacantist traditional Catholics as to the lawfulness of them attending una cum Benedicto Masses.
Many traditional Catholics are fortunate enough—Deo gratias!—to be living within reachable distance of a sedevacantist church, or Mass location, where they can always attend a Benedicto-free Tridentine Latin Mass. However, if for some serious reason or other they are unable to get to their own usual sedevacantist church on a given Sunday (for example, because of bad weather conditions), yet are able to get to a near-by anti-sedevacantist SSPX church featuring the una cum Benedicto Mass, some of them will decide simply to stay home, not wanting to be part of such a Mass.
Others among them, on the contrary, decide to go anyway to an SSPX una cum Benedicto valid Tridentine Latin Mass figuring that in such a case they surely would be justified in so doing provided that they do not consent to the priest adding the name of B16 to the una cum phrase. And then there are still others in whose region or country there is no B16-free Tridentine Latin Mass at all to go to, while there is an SSPX una cum Benedicto Mass within reach. They, too, would believe that they are justified in attending such a validly offered Mass, as long as they do not approve of the priest giving honorable mention in the Mass to a false pope.
Which is the right decision for sedevacantist traditional Catholics to make on this puzzling headache issue? Is it, as some believe, never lawful to attend any una cum Benedicto Mass for any reason whatsoever, no matter how valid and Catholic it may otherwise be? Does the name of a false pope in the Canon of the Mass so vitiate the Mass that it is unfit to be attended by conscientious traditional Catholics? Are the act of offering the Mass by the priest and his act of naming a false pope so closely bound up together that the Mass cannot be spiritually beneficial to those attending the Mass if the name of a false pope is included in the prayers of the Mass? Does the very presence of traditional Catholics at an una cum Benedicto Mass automatically an unavoidably mean that they ratify and consent to the naming of B16 in the Mass?
We naturally had to wonder if there is some kind of teaching of popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times that would help clear up things for us on that thorny una cum Benedicto issue.
A determined and well-meaning attempt to settle things on that issue has indeed been made, although the purpose was decidedly one-sided, inasmuch as the idea was to prove that in no way could traditional Catholics ever lawfully attend una cum Benedicto Masses. Research, described a “exhaustive research”, has come u with the statement that “various popes and pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the laity who assist actively at mass, in so doing manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the Sacrifice,” but also to his adding of the name of B16 to the Canon of the Mass.
However, it is as plain as could be that there is no indication whatsoever, in the above quote, that the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians referred to gave any thought at all to Masses with the name of a false pope in the una cum phrase of the Canon. They undoubtedly had in mind the kind of Mass they knew, that is , the traditional Latin Mass of the ages, not anything like the una cum Benedicto Masses that we know today.
The unquestionable fact is that the popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times did not see with their own eyes the Modernist popes promoting a plainly new un-Catholic religion, the way we have been doing, nor did they hear with their own ears the false teaching of modernist popes and theologians, nor did they ever get to read their modernist un-Catholic writings. So they did not have occasion to warn against, and condemn, Masses like the una cum Benedicto Masses that today’s traditional theologians, as well as informed lay Catholics, have been obliged to condemn repeatedly in these Vatican II times. Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians did not address the una cum Benedicto Mass issue, of which they knew nothing first hand the way we have known it.
If we try to use the words of popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, as already quoted above, and make them say that attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses is always absolutely forbidden under any and all circumstances, it is we who are really doning that kind of forbidding, not the popes and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Just try to find anything in the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians that totally and absolutely forbids any and all attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses by traditional sedevacantist Catholics. It just isn’t there!
A second quote resulting from the afore-mentioned “exhaustive research” tells us that “the Fathers of the Church, as well as Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to, and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites.”
What that second quote really does is to stress the fact that the faithful attending Mass are not there merely as spectators watching the priest perform at the altar. No, they are present at Mass to unite themselves with the priest in heart and mind and intention as he offers the Sacrifice. It is not enough for the faithful to be there at Mass only bodily, while maybe saying prayers of their own that have no connection with the Mass.
The faithful attending Mass are there as one with the priest, so that the Mass is being offered by the priest and the faithful together. The priest alone has the power to offer the Mass and to consecrate, but the faithful unite themselves with the priest, as he offers the Mass, though not as he consecrates. The idea that the faithful as closely united with the priest in the offering of the Mass runs all through the various prayers of the Sacrifice. For example, “offerimus”, that is, “we offer” – also, “pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable before God the Father Almighty.”
And that is the issue which the second quote given above really addresses –that is, the issue of the union of the attending faithful with the offering priest. And that is why that second quote says that the faithful “ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites.” Those prayers of the Canon which the Fathers and Pius XII, were undoubtedly referring to were the traditional fully Catholic prayers of the Mass as they were always recited before Vatican II, without any false pope’s name being mixed into the prayers. The Fathers and Pius XII, as well as the pre-Vatican II theologians, did not have occasion to warn about attendance at Masses giving recognition to a false pope. They did not address an issue like that because such an issue did not as yet exist.
Even if we recognize the fact that sedevacantist traditional Catholics definitely can, for the right reason and with the right attitude, lawfully attend valid SSPX una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Lasses by not consenting to the naming of the pope-pretender B16 in the Canon, we may still have reason to advise caution if we see that some may have the reckless and careless notion that the priest can say what he wants in the prayers of the Mass, just so they have a valid Mass to attend. Such an attitude is inexcusable.
A very disturbing thing about attendance at una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses is the fact that it is an awful sin to give honorable mention in the Holy Sacrifice to a false pope. To put it bluntly, it is a mortal sin—that is, in itself, considered objectively, it is plainly mortally sinful. To what extent SSPX and other priests naming a false pope in the Canon of the Mass are subjectively guilty before God —that is consciously and knowingly—that is something that only God can judge accurately and correctly.
But even though it is in itself and objectively mortally sinful for a priest to add the name of a no-pope to the una cum phrase of the Canon, that mortally sinful action can in no way change the nature of the Sacrifice itself, nor nullify its validity, nor lesson its spiritual value for those attending it.
The situation created by naming a false pope in the Mass has been called a “mortal sin situation.” It helps to understand how we should look upon such a “mortal sin situation” if we consider the fact that in this sinful world we are constantly running into “mortal sin situations.” We do so, for example, just by living with mortal sinners, maybe even in our own family circles; or, in dealing with and cooperating with such sinners at work or play or leisure; or, in business deals, in shopping in stores whose owners and managers approve of and promote, for example, abortion and sodomy and other evils; or, owners who are part of some evil secret society. Even such a thing as having to go through store check-outs displaying all those raw flesh mortal sin magazines is plainly an unavoidable “mortal sin situation.” And how could we possibly avoid all the ubiquitous raw flesh mortal sin creatures that infest just about every place on earth, sparing not even Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
What we cannot fail to understand is that being unavoidably caught in a “mortal sin situation” does not mean that we necessarily “ratify, assent to, and participate in” the mortal sins in question. Similarly, neither are traditional Catholics automatically and necessarily and unavoidably guilty of “ratifying, assenting to, and participating in” the mortal sin of naming a false pope in otherwise valid una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses, if they attend such Masses for a justifiable reason and with the right attitude of mind.
Some might wonder what happens to the two words, una cum (“together with”) when there is no pope to be named in the una cum phrase. The truth is that those two words are still needed for mentioning the name of the bishop of the diocese in which the priest is offering Mass. Thus: una cum antistite nostro, N. (That is, “together with our bishop, N.”). When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, priests living in the Chicago Archdiocese still had to say when offering Mass, una cum ... antistite nostro Alberto (That is, “together with... our Bishop Albert”, meaning Albert Meyer, later Cardinal Meyer).
And when there is neither pope nor bishop to be named in the una cum phrase—whether because of death or apostasy from the true catholic Faith—those two una cum words are still needed for mentioning all the faithful in general at the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Mass begins. Those using missals at Mass will know that the Te Igitur prayer ends up with these words: una cum ... orthodoxies, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus (that is:”together with ... all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith”).
Those who have been thoughtlessly and carelessly making it look as if all una cum Masses are objectionable, and are to be avoided, had better get things straight finally and tell their hearers and readers that it is the una cum Benedicto Masses that are objectionable, and are normally to be avoided, not the una cum Masses.
The plain fact is that all Tridentine Latin Masses are una cum Masses. All of my over 24,000 Tridentine Latin Masses offered since May of 1941, the month and year of my ordination, have been una cum Masses. None of them were Novus Ordo performances. For that a jubilant Deo gratias!!!