Anti-NUC argument – canonists on the precept of hearing Mass
Apr 16, 2022 9:59:55 GMT -5
Pacelli likes this
Post by EricH on Apr 16, 2022 9:59:55 GMT -5
Here's a possible argument against the NUC position; I just came across it and thought it was worth discussing.
According to canon 1249 (LINK), in order to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and Holydays one must hear Mass (1) in a Catholic rite, (2) in a proper place, which is basically anywhere but a private chapel. To my surprise, canonists say that hearing Mass said by a heretic or schismatic satisfies the precept, if the Mass meets the two requirements just mentioned, although it would be a sin to attend such a Mass.
At first I thought that Coronata was talking about an undeclared heretic or schismatic priest who says Mass in a Catholic church building. But Guiniven and Gasparri make it clear that they mean public non-Catholics. Such priests don't say Mass in Catholic church buildings, but in their own places owned by their non-Catholic sects. It's very likely that they will name non-Catholic religious leader(s) in the una cum clause, instead of the true pope and the local Catholic bishop.
If to commemorate non-Catholics as pope and/or bishop in the una cum clause ruins the Mass itself – makes it unacceptable as a sacrifice – makes it offensive to God intrinsically, not merely accidentally by the wrong use being made of it – then how could it satisfy the obligation for a Catholic to hear Mass? That would clash with similar situations in the law, such as:
A sacrilegious communion does not satisfy the precept of Easter communion (can. 861). LINK1 LINK2
A sacrilegious confession does not satisfy the precept of annual confession (can. 907). LINK
It seems that the requirement for the Mass itself to be objectively good is adequately expressed by the requirement that it be said in a Catholic rite. If to name a public heretic bishop in the una cum clause essentially ruins the Mass, although it's said by a valid priest in a Catholic rite, then some canonists should have said so. If they didn't, but rather said things that imply the opposite (Guiniven and Gasparri quoted above), then the NUC position is apparently wrong, and certainly is debatable.
According to canon 1249 (LINK), in order to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and Holydays one must hear Mass (1) in a Catholic rite, (2) in a proper place, which is basically anywhere but a private chapel. To my surprise, canonists say that hearing Mass said by a heretic or schismatic satisfies the precept, if the Mass meets the two requirements just mentioned, although it would be a sin to attend such a Mass.
Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, n. 824: “One who hears the Mass of a heretical or schismatic priest appears to satisfy [the obligation] as well, although he would sin by communicatio in sacris.” (translated from Latin)
Guiniven, The Precept of Hearing Mass, pp. 110-11: “Canon 1249 states expressly that the precept of hearing Mass may be fulfilled by the attendance at Mass celebrated in any Catholic rite whatsoever. This is merely a repetition of the old law, and needs no explanation. The only doubt which may arise in connection with this is whether one would fulfill the precept if he were to hear Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite by a validly ordained priest of an heretical or schismatic sect. Though the attendance at such a Mass is in itself gravely prohibited, and though one would commit a mortal sin by attending it, it seems probable nevertheless that the precept would be fulfilled.”
Gasparri, De Sanctissima Eucharistia, n. 961 (pre-1917 Code) (LINK): “If [the priest] is excommunicated vitandus, the faithful cannot hear his Mass, so that, if no other Mass is available, they are excused from the precept [of Mass attendance]; by hearing the Mass they would commit a sin, but would fulfill the precept. The same is true if the priest is declared by name as a heretic or schismatic, or, which is the same thing, publicly belongs to a condemned sect, if he observes all the Catholic rites.” (translated from Latin)
Guiniven, The Precept of Hearing Mass, pp. 110-11: “Canon 1249 states expressly that the precept of hearing Mass may be fulfilled by the attendance at Mass celebrated in any Catholic rite whatsoever. This is merely a repetition of the old law, and needs no explanation. The only doubt which may arise in connection with this is whether one would fulfill the precept if he were to hear Mass celebrated in a Catholic rite by a validly ordained priest of an heretical or schismatic sect. Though the attendance at such a Mass is in itself gravely prohibited, and though one would commit a mortal sin by attending it, it seems probable nevertheless that the precept would be fulfilled.”
Gasparri, De Sanctissima Eucharistia, n. 961 (pre-1917 Code) (LINK): “If [the priest] is excommunicated vitandus, the faithful cannot hear his Mass, so that, if no other Mass is available, they are excused from the precept [of Mass attendance]; by hearing the Mass they would commit a sin, but would fulfill the precept. The same is true if the priest is declared by name as a heretic or schismatic, or, which is the same thing, publicly belongs to a condemned sect, if he observes all the Catholic rites.” (translated from Latin)
At first I thought that Coronata was talking about an undeclared heretic or schismatic priest who says Mass in a Catholic church building. But Guiniven and Gasparri make it clear that they mean public non-Catholics. Such priests don't say Mass in Catholic church buildings, but in their own places owned by their non-Catholic sects. It's very likely that they will name non-Catholic religious leader(s) in the una cum clause, instead of the true pope and the local Catholic bishop.
If to commemorate non-Catholics as pope and/or bishop in the una cum clause ruins the Mass itself – makes it unacceptable as a sacrifice – makes it offensive to God intrinsically, not merely accidentally by the wrong use being made of it – then how could it satisfy the obligation for a Catholic to hear Mass? That would clash with similar situations in the law, such as:
A sacrilegious communion does not satisfy the precept of Easter communion (can. 861). LINK1 LINK2
A sacrilegious confession does not satisfy the precept of annual confession (can. 907). LINK
It seems that the requirement for the Mass itself to be objectively good is adequately expressed by the requirement that it be said in a Catholic rite. If to name a public heretic bishop in the una cum clause essentially ruins the Mass, although it's said by a valid priest in a Catholic rite, then some canonists should have said so. If they didn't, but rather said things that imply the opposite (Guiniven and Gasparri quoted above), then the NUC position is apparently wrong, and certainly is debatable.