Post by Pacelli on Mar 18, 2021 12:47:06 GMT -5
The following explanation of the "una cum" issue in the Mass is explained very succinctly by John Daly. The post was published in 2006 on the Bellarmine Forums. Unfortunately, I no longer have the link to the original post, but it was quoted by John Lane in this thread: HERE
John Daly Wrote (2006):
John Daly Wrote (2006):
The priest at Mass uses the Church's approved liturgy and we can safely associate ourselves with every word of it. But he also includes (or omits) the name of a bishop and a pope, the persons living and dead for whom he wishes to pray, and (mentally) the intention for which he is offering the Mass; These points are inaudible. Indeed at High Mass the rubrics require the Master of Ceremonies to withdraw so that he does not hear the intentions of the Mementos. What is the evidence that the faithful by the fact of assisting at a Mass necessarily associate themselves with and share these prayers, intentions, recognitions?
For instance suppose I find myself assisting at a Mass which the priest is offering for the intention that a certain country may win a given war, whereas I earnestly believe that the country in question is in the wrong. Must I abstain from assisting at his Mass?
I acknowledge that in the early centuries the "una cum" or equivalent clauses were read aloud at least in the East so that the faithful could know whether the priest was a Catholic. But they based that judgment on whether he was naming persons who had been condemned by the Church as heretics or schismatics. A priest who knowingly names condemned heretics is himself outside the Church. That is not the situation today. We are facing something more complicated: men who are dangerous heretics pretending to be popes and bishops of the Catholic Church but who have not been directly condemned.
That imposes on us a double duty of prudence: rejecting and avoiding the enemy while refusing to treat his status as if it were what it would be if the Church had directly condemned him. It isn't. And it makes a big difference as to the status of those who have not yet fully understood the present state of the Church.
May the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus unite all minds in truth and all hearts in charity.
For instance suppose I find myself assisting at a Mass which the priest is offering for the intention that a certain country may win a given war, whereas I earnestly believe that the country in question is in the wrong. Must I abstain from assisting at his Mass?
I acknowledge that in the early centuries the "una cum" or equivalent clauses were read aloud at least in the East so that the faithful could know whether the priest was a Catholic. But they based that judgment on whether he was naming persons who had been condemned by the Church as heretics or schismatics. A priest who knowingly names condemned heretics is himself outside the Church. That is not the situation today. We are facing something more complicated: men who are dangerous heretics pretending to be popes and bishops of the Catholic Church but who have not been directly condemned.
That imposes on us a double duty of prudence: rejecting and avoiding the enemy while refusing to treat his status as if it were what it would be if the Church had directly condemned him. It isn't. And it makes a big difference as to the status of those who have not yet fully understood the present state of the Church.
May the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus unite all minds in truth and all hearts in charity.