Post by John Lewis on Mar 21, 2023 2:48:15 GMT -5
Source: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/03/undeclared-heretics.html accessed 20/03/2023
This will be a controversial post, but I don't shy away from controversy. As I have written in the past, I do not subscribe to the so-called Una Cum position, i.e., Traditionalist Catholics are required not to attend the Masses of SSPX priests (and other valid R&R priests) who use the name of false "Pope" Francis in the Canon of the Mass. Likewise, I am adamantly opposed to the "Home Alone" position which states there aren't any true Catholic priests with jurisdiction to administer the sacraments, and/or canonical mission to do so. Therefore, they stay "home alone," like the 1990 movie of the same name--minus the joyful conclusion.
I have received some information from readers regarding the above. After vetting the sources, I am not only more convinced of the correctness of my positions, but I'm certain the problem with both Home Aloners and the Una Cum position is the failure to correctly understand how undeclared heretics figure into our situation of the Great Apostasy. This post is a combination of my prior writing updated to include the new information, and I thank those who sent it to me. To them I give full attribution for providing the resources and allowing me to vet them.
Furthermore, although I will be attacking the positions of such clerics holding the Una Cum position, this is not a personal attack.
With all these things in mind, I hope this post will serve to further clarify the issues in the minds of those who read it. As always, as this matter has not been settled by a true pope, I will immediately submit to the decision of a true pope, should we ever have one again.
Una Cum
Let me begin by defining what kind of Mass I refer to when using the phrase "Una Cum." It must be offered by a validly ordained priest who professes the Integral Catholic Faith whole and entire, who is not in actual union with Modernist Rome and specifically rejects all the errors of both Vatican II and the post-conciliar "popes." The priests of the SSPX and independent R&R priests fall into this category. My position is that if your conscience would not permit you to go, then don't. However, it is not wrong or sinful to attend. This problem is unique to the times in which we live and this issue (for obvious reasons) has never been explicitly decided by the pope. Therefore, Traditionalist priests and bishops have no business declaring attendance at an Una Cum Mass a "mortal sin."
Fr. Anthony Cekada (RIP) was one of the most prolific sedevacantist writers and he did much good for Traditionalist Catholics. Unfortunately, he was the strongest proponent of Una Cum Masses being off limits, and he took it to an extreme. Not only are these Masses "mortally sinful" to attend:
1) It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in a chapel/church while such a Mass is being offered.
2) You can't receive Holy Viaticum from a priest who offers Mass Una Cum since the Sacred Host was consecrated during such a Mass.
3) It's OK to go to Confession to a priest where the Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal.
(See fathercekada.com/2017/09/20/some-questions-on-una-cum-masses. The article also references his previous writings on Una Cum, most notably, "The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses").
Fortunately, none of the assertions above is true because the distinction between undeclared and declared heretics is not properly referenced.
Canon 2261, section 2
The Church's stance on receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics is spelled out in the 1917 Code of Canon Law Canon 2261, section 2. Canon 2261 states in full:
1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow.
2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
Why is this Canon dispositive? Most of those against the Una Cum believe that if a Traditionalist priest uses the name of Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass (perhaps thinking he's praying for him and his conversion, or mistakenly believes him pope and wants to be with the Church), it puts him in union with the heretic Francis, making the offering priest a heretic as well. I'm not claiming this to be true, but it is the worst thing that could result, and ad arguendo, I will consider it to be true and accurate for this post. It is the worst thing that could happen to the priest offering the Una Cum Mass. So, what is the problem with Una Cum now?
Framed as I just described it, the issue was not: Is this priest a heretic? Rather, may one participate in public divine worship with him although he is a heretic? The answer is yes.
This is the case of one who incurs laetae sententiae [i.e., automatic] excommunication for heresy or schism without adhering to any condemned sect.
According to theologian Hyland:
Canon 2261, section 2 has reference to petitioning the sacraments and sacramentals from excommunicates who are neither vitandi, nor tolerati against whom any sentence, either declaratory or condemnatory, has been issued. They will be spoken of as the simpliciter tolerati. For any just reason, the faithful may request a simpliciter toleratus to administer the sacraments and sacramentals, especially when there are no other ministers available. When so requested, the excommunicate may administer the sacraments and sacramentals and he is not obliged to inquire why the petitioner wishes to receive them.
The principle reason for which the faithful may ask the sacraments and sacramentals from a simpliciter toleratus is the absence of other ministers. However, it is not the only reason; any just cause will suffice; a grave cause is not required. As examples of just causes which will permit the faithful to request the sacraments and sacramentals from a simpliciter toleratus may be mentioned, the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of a doubt concerning the gravity of a sin, the the intention of approaching Holy Communion with greater purity of soul, the intention of receiving the Holy Eucharist more frequently, etc. "Any reason may be called just which promotes devotion or wards off temptations or is prompted by real convenience, for instance, if one does not like to call another minister." [Citing the eminent canonist Augustine]. (See Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development, And Effects, [1928], pgs. 91-92).
The Vatican II sect, obviously, was never declared a condemned sect, for there was no pope to do such. The "Una Cum priest" is therefore a simpliciter toleratus as mentioned by theologian Hyland above. I now credit Mr. John Daly for his insightful analysis of Cardinal De Lugo, one of the greatest approved theologians of the twentieth century, who wrote on this topic This work and its analysis by Mr. Daly are as follows:
On Communication in Religious Rites with Heretics--Cardinal De Lugo
Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1.
The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs, or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in a Catholic rite, etc.
This is denied by Basil. Pont. […] where he says, “one may not celebrate in the presence of a heretic on any grounds, not even by virtue of very grave fear,” and he takes this for granted and offers no proof of his claim. I am astonished that such a learned man should have failed to notice that the authority of all the Doctors is against him, and that they are followed by Sanchez […], Suarez […], Azor […] and others, followed by Hurtado […], and this [sc. the opposing view] is certain from what has been said, because an undeclared excommunicate who is not notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, need not be avoided even in sacred rites, as is established by the said litterae extravagantes (2), and the fact that he is a heretic is not a special reason why it should be unlawful unless on some other grounds there be scandal or irreverence against the faith, or some other such factor, all of which are extrinsic and not always found.
[…]
Thirdly however an object of greater doubt is whether Catholics may receive the sacraments from heretics who have not been declared to be such. This is denied by Azor. […], though he is scarcely consistent as to his grounds, for in the first place he says that this is due not only to the excommunication, but also to the heresy; but in the second place he says that it is on account not of the heresy but of the excommunication, inasmuch as every excommunicate, even occult, lacks jurisdiction. Soto agrees with him […], though on different grounds, since he thinks that all heretics and schismatics are deemed to have been excommunicated by name and to be vitandi.
But the opposite view is generally held [communis] and is the true one, unless it should be illicit in a given case for some other reason such as scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez […], Suarez […], Hurtado […] and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance […] and of matrimony and the other sacraments […]. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes(3) in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.
So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds it may often be illicit to do so unless necessity should excuse as I have explained in the said places.
Analysis:
Cardinal de Lugo holds that the law forbidding Catholics to participate in worship together with heretics or schismatics does not apply unless those in question have been declared to be such by the Church (or belong to a condemned sect). And de Lugo also shows that the majority of theologians hold his view on this subject, against a minority who disagree.
This teaching is supported by Pope Martin V's Ad Evitanda Scandala which expressly allows communion with excommunicates until they have been condemned by the Church. Naturally this does not apply to what is certainly forbidden by divine law – as would be participation in a rite which itself contained heresy or which exposed oneself or others to grave scandal.
It should be noted that there has been no noteworthy change in ecclesiastical law on communication in sacris since de Lugo wrote. The law forbidding communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics remains in force (Canon 1258). And the law authorizing the reception of the sacraments from uncondemned excommunicates (Canon 2261) remains in force also.
The purpose of drawing attention to this text is not to encourage Catholics to frequent uncondemned heretics or schismatics for the sacraments.
It is to show those who have written on this topic without even discussing this distinction are insufficiently well informed about the matter and are unworthy of trust. The whole issue needs to be re-examined.
It seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that in our days de Lugo would have considered it not intrinsically illicit to assist at Mass offered una cum the Vatican II pseudo-popes, since he allows what is in fact a greater departure from the principle of assisting only at a fully Catholic Mass.(Emphasis mine).
A Twisted and Misleading Footnote
In Fr. Cekada's "Grain of Incense" article, he writes the following:
F. Participation in a Sin
More than that, de la Taille maintains that mentioning a heretic by name in any liturgical prayer is also a sin: “Moreover, since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” [51]
Nor would it be morally permissible to assist at a rite where this is done. In a 1729 the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed:
… There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith… especially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics— who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal. [52] (Emphasis in original).
Footnote #52 states:
SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505. “Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur:... vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriacha- rum, et Episcoporum, schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut fidei catholicae praedicatores commendatur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus celebratione conveniunt in his facti circumstansiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt.”
Further on in that article, Fr. Cekada makes the following assertion under "Objections and Responses:"
B. No Official Declaration
Objection: Anyone who has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. But Benedict XVI has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic. Therefore, Benedict XVI may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. Therefore, a sedevacantist is permitted to assist at a Mass where his name is so mentioned.
(1) The hidden assumption behind the major premise is false. As we have seen above, de la Taille says:
“This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” [79]
The various Vatican pronouncements quoted above, moreover, made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.”[80] It did not then add that no sin occurred if “undeclared” heretics and schismatics were commemorated. Nor in 1756, when Pope Benedict XIV forbade commemorating schismatics and heretics in the sacred liturgy, did he limit the prohibition to “declared” heretics and schismatics.
(2) Nor by analogy does the major premise make any sense in light of the general rules of canon law and pastoral theology. These norms prohibit offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic, period. They do not limit the prohibition to one who has been “declared” a heretic — so you can put off planning that Requiem High Mass for your Methodist Uncle Wesley…
He claims that the Vatican pronouncements, as in footnote #52 made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.”[80]. This is not true. One of my readers has the book referenced by Fr. Cekada of the Vatican pronouncements. It is very rare, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, not available online. This reader was able to get photos of the decree (the book is all in Latin), and it is nine paragraphs long. The pictures may be found at the following links:
(1) postlmg.cc/crGQJLZh; (2) postimg.cc/8FcvYFBp; (3) postlmg.cc/87tWwdvX
Fr. Cekada used a snippet of a quote with an ellipsis. I wish Fr. DePauw were here to give me the perfect Latin translation. However, even when put through Google translate, it is enough to show the quote was ripped out of context and actually teaches the opposite of what Fr. Cekada claims.
Here is the pertinent part in Latin:
Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos, qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur: nam in eorum ecclesiis, vel dedicatio est in memoriam schismatici alicuius, quem ut sanctum venerantur; vel extant imagines, vel coluntur reliquiae vel festa celebrantur eorum, qui in schismate mortui, veluti sancti habentur, vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriarcharum, et Episcoporum schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut catholicae praedicatores commendantur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus conveniunt in his facit circumstantiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt. Ne ceos excusat assisteniae mere materialis praetextus; facto enim ipso excluditur, qui functioninus hisce haerticorum, aut schismaticorum intersunt, satis cum ipsis convenire in unitate orationis, in unitate cultus, in unitate venerationis et obsequii perversos ministros haereseos schismatisque praeseferunt.
Here is the Google Translate in English:
This is further confirmed by the fact that there is scarcely any rite among the heterodox that is not tainted by some error in the matter of faith: for in their churches, it is either a dedication to the memory of some schismatic whom they venerate as a saint; either images exist, or relics are venerated, or festivals are celebrated of those who died in the schism, as if they were considered saints, or, finally, there is a commemoration of living patriarchs, and schismatic bishops, and heretics who are recommended as Catholic preachers. For this reason, those who in these rites and prayer and worship meet in these circumstances, Catholics, cannot be cleared of the guilt of perverted communication, or at least of pernicious scandal. He does not excuse the gods on the pretext of merely material assistance; for by the very act he is excluded, those who are involved in the function of these heretics or schismatics, are sufficient to agree with them in the unity of prayer, in the unity of worship, in the unity of veneration and submission, they preside over perverse heretical and schismatic ministers. (Emphasis mine).
When the entire paragraph is read in context, it becomes very clear that the Vatican Instruction from the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith was referring to schismatic sects declared as such. While true that the terms "declared" and "undeclared" heretics are not used, the Society of the Propagation of the Faith is specifically charged with the Church in non-Catholic lands. Hence, the very fact that this document came from that Congregation, it is obvious that this deals with sects, not undeclared heretics. The latter would have been dealt with by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (formerly known as the "Inquisition"). When the entire paragraph, and especially when the entire document is read, it's clear that this is only dealing with sects, who by the way claim to hold and preach the True Faith, pretending that they are the preachers of the One True Church. Catholics cannot go to schismatic rites, even though they are valid, and may seem Catholic.
The document has nothing to do with undeclared heretics--period.
Therefore:
The Una Cum Mass doesn’t require the layman in the pew to stay home alone rather than be present when the priest errs. The Church has not judged the question, so that the priest’s inclusion of the name is a sign that he wishes only to belong to the Catholic Church, even though mistaken/wrong as to the status of Bergoglio.
The Home Alone Connection
The section will be brief, as everything necessary has already been written. Home Aloners must agree that the Vatican II sect is not a canonically and formally condemned sect as there was no one with Magisterial authority to do so. If Traditionalist clergy are "without jurisdiction" and "without a mission from the Church"--how could an undeclared heretic priest pre-Vatican II (i.e., outside the Church) have both jurisdiction and mission?
Canon 2261, section 2 makes it clear that the faithful can approach said priest for the sacraments and sacramentals setting a very low bar for going to him, and having no limitation on how many times you can approach him. The Canon does not restrict what sacraments can be received, and it therefore includes Penance; and that sacrament requires jurisdiction for validity. How does a priest outside the Church get jurisdiction? Not from common error, for this Canon presupposes knowledge by the faithful that the priest is a heretic. It must be supplied by the Church.
Moreover, as the Church permits you to receive the sacraments from an undeclared heretic priest, whatever "canonical mission" the Home Aloners think the priest must possess is also granted. Unless you wish to subscribe to the prolix writings of pseudo-scholarship cranked out by Theresa Benns, Home Aloners can be "Home Free"!
Conclusion
I hope and pray this post has made the Una Cum and Home Alone issues more clear. If you still feel the need to avoid the Una Cum or to stay Home Alone, then follow your conscience. However, please refrain from burdening the consciences of others with made up "sins" over issues the Church has not resolved.
This will be a controversial post, but I don't shy away from controversy. As I have written in the past, I do not subscribe to the so-called Una Cum position, i.e., Traditionalist Catholics are required not to attend the Masses of SSPX priests (and other valid R&R priests) who use the name of false "Pope" Francis in the Canon of the Mass. Likewise, I am adamantly opposed to the "Home Alone" position which states there aren't any true Catholic priests with jurisdiction to administer the sacraments, and/or canonical mission to do so. Therefore, they stay "home alone," like the 1990 movie of the same name--minus the joyful conclusion.
I have received some information from readers regarding the above. After vetting the sources, I am not only more convinced of the correctness of my positions, but I'm certain the problem with both Home Aloners and the Una Cum position is the failure to correctly understand how undeclared heretics figure into our situation of the Great Apostasy. This post is a combination of my prior writing updated to include the new information, and I thank those who sent it to me. To them I give full attribution for providing the resources and allowing me to vet them.
Furthermore, although I will be attacking the positions of such clerics holding the Una Cum position, this is not a personal attack.
With all these things in mind, I hope this post will serve to further clarify the issues in the minds of those who read it. As always, as this matter has not been settled by a true pope, I will immediately submit to the decision of a true pope, should we ever have one again.
Una Cum
Let me begin by defining what kind of Mass I refer to when using the phrase "Una Cum." It must be offered by a validly ordained priest who professes the Integral Catholic Faith whole and entire, who is not in actual union with Modernist Rome and specifically rejects all the errors of both Vatican II and the post-conciliar "popes." The priests of the SSPX and independent R&R priests fall into this category. My position is that if your conscience would not permit you to go, then don't. However, it is not wrong or sinful to attend. This problem is unique to the times in which we live and this issue (for obvious reasons) has never been explicitly decided by the pope. Therefore, Traditionalist priests and bishops have no business declaring attendance at an Una Cum Mass a "mortal sin."
Fr. Anthony Cekada (RIP) was one of the most prolific sedevacantist writers and he did much good for Traditionalist Catholics. Unfortunately, he was the strongest proponent of Una Cum Masses being off limits, and he took it to an extreme. Not only are these Masses "mortally sinful" to attend:
1) It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in a chapel/church while such a Mass is being offered.
2) You can't receive Holy Viaticum from a priest who offers Mass Una Cum since the Sacred Host was consecrated during such a Mass.
3) It's OK to go to Confession to a priest where the Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal.
(See fathercekada.com/2017/09/20/some-questions-on-una-cum-masses. The article also references his previous writings on Una Cum, most notably, "The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses").
Fortunately, none of the assertions above is true because the distinction between undeclared and declared heretics is not properly referenced.
Canon 2261, section 2
The Church's stance on receiving sacraments from undeclared heretics is spelled out in the 1917 Code of Canon Law Canon 2261, section 2. Canon 2261 states in full:
1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow.
2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.
Why is this Canon dispositive? Most of those against the Una Cum believe that if a Traditionalist priest uses the name of Bergoglio in the Canon of the Mass (perhaps thinking he's praying for him and his conversion, or mistakenly believes him pope and wants to be with the Church), it puts him in union with the heretic Francis, making the offering priest a heretic as well. I'm not claiming this to be true, but it is the worst thing that could result, and ad arguendo, I will consider it to be true and accurate for this post. It is the worst thing that could happen to the priest offering the Una Cum Mass. So, what is the problem with Una Cum now?
Framed as I just described it, the issue was not: Is this priest a heretic? Rather, may one participate in public divine worship with him although he is a heretic? The answer is yes.
This is the case of one who incurs laetae sententiae [i.e., automatic] excommunication for heresy or schism without adhering to any condemned sect.
According to theologian Hyland:
Canon 2261, section 2 has reference to petitioning the sacraments and sacramentals from excommunicates who are neither vitandi, nor tolerati against whom any sentence, either declaratory or condemnatory, has been issued. They will be spoken of as the simpliciter tolerati. For any just reason, the faithful may request a simpliciter toleratus to administer the sacraments and sacramentals, especially when there are no other ministers available. When so requested, the excommunicate may administer the sacraments and sacramentals and he is not obliged to inquire why the petitioner wishes to receive them.
The principle reason for which the faithful may ask the sacraments and sacramentals from a simpliciter toleratus is the absence of other ministers. However, it is not the only reason; any just cause will suffice; a grave cause is not required. As examples of just causes which will permit the faithful to request the sacraments and sacramentals from a simpliciter toleratus may be mentioned, the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of a doubt concerning the gravity of a sin, the the intention of approaching Holy Communion with greater purity of soul, the intention of receiving the Holy Eucharist more frequently, etc. "Any reason may be called just which promotes devotion or wards off temptations or is prompted by real convenience, for instance, if one does not like to call another minister." [Citing the eminent canonist Augustine]. (See Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development, And Effects, [1928], pgs. 91-92).
The Vatican II sect, obviously, was never declared a condemned sect, for there was no pope to do such. The "Una Cum priest" is therefore a simpliciter toleratus as mentioned by theologian Hyland above. I now credit Mr. John Daly for his insightful analysis of Cardinal De Lugo, one of the greatest approved theologians of the twentieth century, who wrote on this topic This work and its analysis by Mr. Daly are as follows:
On Communication in Religious Rites with Heretics--Cardinal De Lugo
Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1.
The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs, or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in a Catholic rite, etc.
This is denied by Basil. Pont. […] where he says, “one may not celebrate in the presence of a heretic on any grounds, not even by virtue of very grave fear,” and he takes this for granted and offers no proof of his claim. I am astonished that such a learned man should have failed to notice that the authority of all the Doctors is against him, and that they are followed by Sanchez […], Suarez […], Azor […] and others, followed by Hurtado […], and this [sc. the opposing view] is certain from what has been said, because an undeclared excommunicate who is not notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, need not be avoided even in sacred rites, as is established by the said litterae extravagantes (2), and the fact that he is a heretic is not a special reason why it should be unlawful unless on some other grounds there be scandal or irreverence against the faith, or some other such factor, all of which are extrinsic and not always found.
[…]
Thirdly however an object of greater doubt is whether Catholics may receive the sacraments from heretics who have not been declared to be such. This is denied by Azor. […], though he is scarcely consistent as to his grounds, for in the first place he says that this is due not only to the excommunication, but also to the heresy; but in the second place he says that it is on account not of the heresy but of the excommunication, inasmuch as every excommunicate, even occult, lacks jurisdiction. Soto agrees with him […], though on different grounds, since he thinks that all heretics and schismatics are deemed to have been excommunicated by name and to be vitandi.
But the opposite view is generally held [communis] and is the true one, unless it should be illicit in a given case for some other reason such as scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez […], Suarez […], Hurtado […] and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance […] and of matrimony and the other sacraments […]. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes(3) in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.
So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds it may often be illicit to do so unless necessity should excuse as I have explained in the said places.
Analysis:
Cardinal de Lugo holds that the law forbidding Catholics to participate in worship together with heretics or schismatics does not apply unless those in question have been declared to be such by the Church (or belong to a condemned sect). And de Lugo also shows that the majority of theologians hold his view on this subject, against a minority who disagree.
This teaching is supported by Pope Martin V's Ad Evitanda Scandala which expressly allows communion with excommunicates until they have been condemned by the Church. Naturally this does not apply to what is certainly forbidden by divine law – as would be participation in a rite which itself contained heresy or which exposed oneself or others to grave scandal.
It should be noted that there has been no noteworthy change in ecclesiastical law on communication in sacris since de Lugo wrote. The law forbidding communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics remains in force (Canon 1258). And the law authorizing the reception of the sacraments from uncondemned excommunicates (Canon 2261) remains in force also.
The purpose of drawing attention to this text is not to encourage Catholics to frequent uncondemned heretics or schismatics for the sacraments.
It is to show those who have written on this topic without even discussing this distinction are insufficiently well informed about the matter and are unworthy of trust. The whole issue needs to be re-examined.
It seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that in our days de Lugo would have considered it not intrinsically illicit to assist at Mass offered una cum the Vatican II pseudo-popes, since he allows what is in fact a greater departure from the principle of assisting only at a fully Catholic Mass.(Emphasis mine).
A Twisted and Misleading Footnote
In Fr. Cekada's "Grain of Incense" article, he writes the following:
F. Participation in a Sin
More than that, de la Taille maintains that mentioning a heretic by name in any liturgical prayer is also a sin: “Moreover, since today neither in the commemoratio pro vivis nor in any other part of the Mass does the Church commend by name any living person except such a one as is considered to be in communion with her, today it would also appear sinful to mention by name in any liturgical prayer whatever, an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” [51]
Nor would it be morally permissible to assist at a rite where this is done. In a 1729 the Vatican Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decreed:
… There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith… especially where a commemoration is made of living Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics— who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circumstances like this to celebrate a rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal. [52] (Emphasis in original).
Footnote #52 states:
SC de Prop. Fide, Instruction (Pro Mission. Orient.), 1729, Fontes 7:4505. “Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur:... vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriacha- rum, et Episcoporum, schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut fidei catholicae praedicatores commendatur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus celebratione conveniunt in his facti circumstansiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt.”
Further on in that article, Fr. Cekada makes the following assertion under "Objections and Responses:"
B. No Official Declaration
Objection: Anyone who has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. But Benedict XVI has not been officially declared a heretic or a schismatic. Therefore, Benedict XVI may still be mentioned by name in the Canon of the Mass. Therefore, a sedevacantist is permitted to assist at a Mass where his name is so mentioned.
(1) The hidden assumption behind the major premise is false. As we have seen above, de la Taille says:
“This privation of the common suffrages of the Church is by no means confined to the excommunicati vitandi alone, as may be seen from the Code of Canon Law (can. 2262, parag. 1).” [79]
The various Vatican pronouncements quoted above, moreover, made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.”[80] It did not then add that no sin occurred if “undeclared” heretics and schismatics were commemorated. Nor in 1756, when Pope Benedict XIV forbade commemorating schismatics and heretics in the sacred liturgy, did he limit the prohibition to “declared” heretics and schismatics.
(2) Nor by analogy does the major premise make any sense in light of the general rules of canon law and pastoral theology. These norms prohibit offering Mass publicly for a heretic or schismatic, period. They do not limit the prohibition to one who has been “declared” a heretic — so you can put off planning that Requiem High Mass for your Methodist Uncle Wesley…
He claims that the Vatican pronouncements, as in footnote #52 made no distinction between “declared” and “undeclared” heretics. The 1729 decree said that Catholics who participated in rites at which heretics and schismatics were commemorated “cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship.”[80]. This is not true. One of my readers has the book referenced by Fr. Cekada of the Vatican pronouncements. It is very rare, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, not available online. This reader was able to get photos of the decree (the book is all in Latin), and it is nine paragraphs long. The pictures may be found at the following links:
(1) postlmg.cc/crGQJLZh; (2) postimg.cc/8FcvYFBp; (3) postlmg.cc/87tWwdvX
Fr. Cekada used a snippet of a quote with an ellipsis. I wish Fr. DePauw were here to give me the perfect Latin translation. However, even when put through Google translate, it is enough to show the quote was ripped out of context and actually teaches the opposite of what Fr. Cekada claims.
Here is the pertinent part in Latin:
Id ex eo etiam confirmatur magis quod vix ullus sit ritus apud heterodoxos, qui aliquo errore in materia fidei non maculetur: nam in eorum ecclesiis, vel dedicatio est in memoriam schismatici alicuius, quem ut sanctum venerantur; vel extant imagines, vel coluntur reliquiae vel festa celebrantur eorum, qui in schismate mortui, veluti sancti habentur, vel denique commemoratio fit viventium Patriarcharum, et Episcoporum schismaticorum, et haereticorum, qui ut catholicae praedicatores commendantur. Qua de re, qui in ea ritus et orationis et cultus conveniunt in his facit circumstantiis catholici quique, reatu perversae communicationis, aut saltem perniciosi scandali purgari non possunt. Ne ceos excusat assisteniae mere materialis praetextus; facto enim ipso excluditur, qui functioninus hisce haerticorum, aut schismaticorum intersunt, satis cum ipsis convenire in unitate orationis, in unitate cultus, in unitate venerationis et obsequii perversos ministros haereseos schismatisque praeseferunt.
Here is the Google Translate in English:
This is further confirmed by the fact that there is scarcely any rite among the heterodox that is not tainted by some error in the matter of faith: for in their churches, it is either a dedication to the memory of some schismatic whom they venerate as a saint; either images exist, or relics are venerated, or festivals are celebrated of those who died in the schism, as if they were considered saints, or, finally, there is a commemoration of living patriarchs, and schismatic bishops, and heretics who are recommended as Catholic preachers. For this reason, those who in these rites and prayer and worship meet in these circumstances, Catholics, cannot be cleared of the guilt of perverted communication, or at least of pernicious scandal. He does not excuse the gods on the pretext of merely material assistance; for by the very act he is excluded, those who are involved in the function of these heretics or schismatics, are sufficient to agree with them in the unity of prayer, in the unity of worship, in the unity of veneration and submission, they preside over perverse heretical and schismatic ministers. (Emphasis mine).
When the entire paragraph is read in context, it becomes very clear that the Vatican Instruction from the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith was referring to schismatic sects declared as such. While true that the terms "declared" and "undeclared" heretics are not used, the Society of the Propagation of the Faith is specifically charged with the Church in non-Catholic lands. Hence, the very fact that this document came from that Congregation, it is obvious that this deals with sects, not undeclared heretics. The latter would have been dealt with by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (formerly known as the "Inquisition"). When the entire paragraph, and especially when the entire document is read, it's clear that this is only dealing with sects, who by the way claim to hold and preach the True Faith, pretending that they are the preachers of the One True Church. Catholics cannot go to schismatic rites, even though they are valid, and may seem Catholic.
The document has nothing to do with undeclared heretics--period.
Therefore:
The Una Cum Mass doesn’t require the layman in the pew to stay home alone rather than be present when the priest errs. The Church has not judged the question, so that the priest’s inclusion of the name is a sign that he wishes only to belong to the Catholic Church, even though mistaken/wrong as to the status of Bergoglio.
The Home Alone Connection
The section will be brief, as everything necessary has already been written. Home Aloners must agree that the Vatican II sect is not a canonically and formally condemned sect as there was no one with Magisterial authority to do so. If Traditionalist clergy are "without jurisdiction" and "without a mission from the Church"--how could an undeclared heretic priest pre-Vatican II (i.e., outside the Church) have both jurisdiction and mission?
Canon 2261, section 2 makes it clear that the faithful can approach said priest for the sacraments and sacramentals setting a very low bar for going to him, and having no limitation on how many times you can approach him. The Canon does not restrict what sacraments can be received, and it therefore includes Penance; and that sacrament requires jurisdiction for validity. How does a priest outside the Church get jurisdiction? Not from common error, for this Canon presupposes knowledge by the faithful that the priest is a heretic. It must be supplied by the Church.
Moreover, as the Church permits you to receive the sacraments from an undeclared heretic priest, whatever "canonical mission" the Home Aloners think the priest must possess is also granted. Unless you wish to subscribe to the prolix writings of pseudo-scholarship cranked out by Theresa Benns, Home Aloners can be "Home Free"!
Conclusion
I hope and pray this post has made the Una Cum and Home Alone issues more clear. If you still feel the need to avoid the Una Cum or to stay Home Alone, then follow your conscience. However, please refrain from burdening the consciences of others with made up "sins" over issues the Church has not resolved.
Addendum--3/23/23
There are a few things I would like to add to this post:
No, it is not. Despite Fr. Despositio's contention to the contrary, the Una Cum Mass is not a mortal sin against the First Commandment, nor is it "worse than abortion" as he once had the temerity to tweet.
1. There is ample evidence that the prayer in the Canon is merely intercessory, not an "offering with" the false pope.
From the book The Heart of the Mass, [1936], which information comes from approved sources, has this to say on page 54:
After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore we implore the Divine assistance on their behalf. A third petition is added for the faithful Catholics throughout the world. (Emphasis mine).
According to theologian Fortescue:
The Intercession (from "in primus"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop, and the faithful. Medieval missals have: "et rege nostro N." after the bishop. This was omitted in 1570, but certain Catholic countries still keep the custom of praying for the sovereign here. Before the XIth century, the local bishop was often not mentioned. In the middle ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself. (See The Mass: The Study of the Roman Liturgy, [1912], pg. 329; Emphasis mine). Do the anti-Una Cum mean to suggest those priests in the middle ages added a prayer mentioning themselves so they could pray "in union" with themselves? It's illogical, but maybe Fr. Despositio can explain "the ontology" of praying in union with yourself.
2. On December 20, 1949, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office promulgated the decree Instructio ad locorum Ordinarios, “De Motione Ecumenica” which declared that the recitation in common by a mixed group of Catholics and non-Catholics of the Our Father or of a prayer approved by the Church does not constitute a forbidden act of communicatio in sacris (loosly, "communication in sacred things" or worship/sacraments in common with non-Catholics). Divine Law does forbid communicatio in sacris if the (a) minister is not validly ordained, if (b) the rite used is not wholly Catholic or if (c) the circumstances are such that sacramental communion is equivalent to a profession of heresy — or (d) on grounds of scandal. In regards to "scandal" it must be noted that it does not mean people would be "shocked" ("oh, my goodness!"), nor does it mean "shocking to the senses" as in civil law ("how dare someone do that"!). In theology, it means something that provokes others to commit sin.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on the anti-Una Cum to show (a) the priest is not validly ordained, or (b) the Missals of 1954, 1958, or 1962 are heretical and not Catholic, or (c) receiving Communion from an SSPX priest is "profession of heresy" or (d) it provokes other people to commit sin. Furthermore this analysis isn't even necessary as the non-Catholics mentioned in the decree belong to DECLARED heretical sects--a higher bar to pass than UNDECLARED heretics.
My final word in this post to the anti-Una Cum: Stop enforcing theological issues upon which there can be honest disagreement, and there is no Magisterial authority to decide. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."---Introibo
There are a few things I would like to add to this post:
- What I have written is not an endorsement or an approval of the "Recognize and Resist" position. This blog has always been sedevacantist, and remains such. The R&R position is not Catholic and its theology is severely flawed, to say the least. I hold the so-called "Thesis" (sedeprivationism) to be a mere possibility--and a very low possibility at that.
- While the Una Cum is lawful to attend, it does not always follow that it is desirable to do so under all conditions. For example, someone who is weak in the Faith might buy into the R&R position. There was one independent R&R chapel that required an "abjuration of sedevacantism." The Masses of sedevacantist priests are always to be preferred and attended whenever possible.
- In this age of Great Apostasy, we should not blindly follow clerics. To a large extent, that's how we got here in the first place. I had some disagreements with Fr. DePauw, and since it wasn't settled Church teaching involved, he had no problem with respectful disagreements. The anti-Una Cum clerics do their position little good by behaving boorishly like Fr. Despositio, or falsifying citations to make them say the opposite of what was taught, like Fr. Cekada. It seems they are more interested in pursuing an agenda then seeking and defending truth.
- Why did I write a controversial post? It is because I don't shy away from any issue that affects Traditionalists. There's a lot we need to figure out. I believe in the old aphorism, "It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it."
No, it is not. Despite Fr. Despositio's contention to the contrary, the Una Cum Mass is not a mortal sin against the First Commandment, nor is it "worse than abortion" as he once had the temerity to tweet.
1. There is ample evidence that the prayer in the Canon is merely intercessory, not an "offering with" the false pope.
From the book The Heart of the Mass, [1936], which information comes from approved sources, has this to say on page 54:
After praying for the Church in general, a special petition is added for the Sovereign Pontiff and the diocesan bishop. Great responsibilities rest upon our ecclesiastical superiors; the welfare of mankind depends largely upon their fidelity to duty; therefore we implore the Divine assistance on their behalf. A third petition is added for the faithful Catholics throughout the world. (Emphasis mine).
According to theologian Fortescue:
The Intercession (from "in primus"), now scattered throughout the Canon, begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop, and the faithful. Medieval missals have: "et rege nostro N." after the bishop. This was omitted in 1570, but certain Catholic countries still keep the custom of praying for the sovereign here. Before the XIth century, the local bishop was often not mentioned. In the middle ages the celebrant added a prayer for himself. (See The Mass: The Study of the Roman Liturgy, [1912], pg. 329; Emphasis mine). Do the anti-Una Cum mean to suggest those priests in the middle ages added a prayer mentioning themselves so they could pray "in union" with themselves? It's illogical, but maybe Fr. Despositio can explain "the ontology" of praying in union with yourself.
2. On December 20, 1949, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office promulgated the decree Instructio ad locorum Ordinarios, “De Motione Ecumenica” which declared that the recitation in common by a mixed group of Catholics and non-Catholics of the Our Father or of a prayer approved by the Church does not constitute a forbidden act of communicatio in sacris (loosly, "communication in sacred things" or worship/sacraments in common with non-Catholics). Divine Law does forbid communicatio in sacris if the (a) minister is not validly ordained, if (b) the rite used is not wholly Catholic or if (c) the circumstances are such that sacramental communion is equivalent to a profession of heresy — or (d) on grounds of scandal. In regards to "scandal" it must be noted that it does not mean people would be "shocked" ("oh, my goodness!"), nor does it mean "shocking to the senses" as in civil law ("how dare someone do that"!). In theology, it means something that provokes others to commit sin.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on the anti-Una Cum to show (a) the priest is not validly ordained, or (b) the Missals of 1954, 1958, or 1962 are heretical and not Catholic, or (c) receiving Communion from an SSPX priest is "profession of heresy" or (d) it provokes other people to commit sin. Furthermore this analysis isn't even necessary as the non-Catholics mentioned in the decree belong to DECLARED heretical sects--a higher bar to pass than UNDECLARED heretics.
My final word in this post to the anti-Una Cum: Stop enforcing theological issues upon which there can be honest disagreement, and there is no Magisterial authority to decide. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."---Introibo