It appears when you say that since Bishop Sanborn was ignorant of the "una cum" mass you are contradicting yourself in another post where you clearly state that "inconsistency is error" and according to you error is always morally sinful. With this in mind, it appears to me that you are saying that Bishop Sanborn was inconsistent and was sinning if I am interpreting what you are saying correctly.
Hello Vincenzo,
No I am not accusing Bp. Sanborn of having sinned saying 'una cum' masses. I think the 'inconsistency is error' statement you are referring to is the one taken from Bp. Sanborn's article on sacramental policy:
"Inconsistency is error, and error in the moral order is always sinful." -
inveritateblog.com/2020/06/08/sacramental-policy/I was asking whether this argument is applicable.
Now let me be clear: I do not hold to Bp. Sanborn's hardcore NUC position. Initially, upon adopting the sedevecantist position, I did hold it, but that mostly because I was only familiar with one side of the argument, and it was stated so emphatically that it seemed like an unquestionable dogma. I thought the truth of the position was manifest. However, since acquainting myself with the counter arguments, I have been forced to admit that the problem is no where near is simple and obvious as it initially seemed; indeed, I now reject my prior position, and I find Bp. Sanborn's sacramental policy of denying Holy Communion towards Catholic sedes who refuse to stop attending una cum masses utterly repugnant.
My new, moderate position, is to treat this as a matter of moral opinion, of which there are many to be found in moral theology manuals. As the matter has not been settled by the Church, I think Catholics are free to take either position according to the dictates of their conscience.
What I am attempting to do here is to test arguments from the NUCers to see where they go wrong. Personally, I am still not comfortable attending an una cum Mass, mainly because I do not see how I could do so without assenting to the notion that Francis is Pope, the principle of unity etc. The following excerpt from Fr Cekada's "A Grain of Incense" is persuasive to me:
"B. Theological Meaning in the Liturgy
Thus the linguistic considerations. But what of the
far more important theological meaning that is attached
to mentioning the pope by name in the most solemn
prayer of the Catholic liturgy?
Here is how various popes and liturgical scholars
have explained its significance.
1. Recognition of the Head of the Church. In a Bull addressed to Eastern Rite Catholics, this was one of the
meanings that Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) assigned
to the mention of the pope’s name in the Sacred Liturgy:
“It suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for
[the pope] during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication
which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the
vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter,…”6"
2. Recognition of the Principle of Unity. In his lengthy book
on the Canon of the Mass, Father Gassner observed of
the first prayer in the Canon:
“The unity prayed for is specified with the addition
of the names of the Pope and the Bishop as the principle of that unity.”7
Further, according to a commentary by Fr. Thalhofer:
“The petition is offered for those instruments
through which God guides and governs the Church:
first, the Pope as the head of the whole Church and
the supreme bearer of ecclesiastical unity.”8
One of Cardinal Schuster’s observations lends additional support to this point. He says that older
manuscripts of the Canon include only the petition
that mentions the Pope, and not the petitions referring
to the diocesan bishop and all true believers. Thus the
expression una cum (together with) more clearly refers
back to the word Ecclesia (Church).
9
3. Profession of Communion with the Pope. This was yet
another meaning that Pope Benedict XIV attached to
the practice of mentioning the name of the pope in the
Mass.
“[This commemoration of the pope is, moreover]
the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by
Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils:
‘This commemoration is the chief and most glorious
form of communion’….”11"
mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SedesUnCum.pdfObviously I don't believe Francis is the Pope, Head of the Church, the principle of unity, or that he is in communion with the Church. I fear I would be consenting to these implications by participating in the Mass.
Samuel