Una Cum: Mass 'in Union with our Pope'? - Part 1

Naming the post-Vatican II popes in the Canon of the Mass.

Introduction

In the many discussions which have taken place over the past fifteen years about the vacancy of the papal see since the time of the Vatican II popes, there has always been a bottom line which occurs in the Te Igitur of the Mass, which is the first prayer of the Canon. It is the passage in this prayer which requires the priest to pray for the reigning pope and bishop of the diocese in which the Mass if offered. If you pick up your missal, and turn to the Canon, you will see the phrase we are presently talking about: ...which in the first place we offer up to Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to protect, unite and govern throughout the world, together with Thy servant N. our Pope, N. our Bishop, and all true believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. In Latin the phrase together with is rendered by una cum. Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant, i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected, the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priests position about John Paul II and the New Church. If he thinks that John Paul II is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cum, says it all: is he or isnt he the Pope?

The position of the Society of Saint Pius X is quite clear: he is, and if you do not agree, then get out. If I am not mistaken, they take an omission of the name to be a schismatic act. This they maintain despite the fact that they seem to admit a gray area in the speculative order; many of them openly speak about doubt concerning John Paul IIs papacy. Fr. Schmidberger even stated that the Fraternity was not in communion with the ConciliarChurch which identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Miss. How such non-communion would not include John Paul II is mysterious. How can they be so emphatic about breaking communion with the conciliarists, and yet at the same time insist that priests declare themselves in communion with the head of the conciliarists?

Actions speak louder than words, and the appearance of the odious name in the Canon of the Mass is an action which clearly states that the Fraternity is in communion with the ConciliarChurch.

What if, however, you are not in communion with the NewChurch, but the only traditional Mass available to you is one in which a public declaration of communion with the Heresiarch is made? Is it licit to attend such a Mass?

In the course of the discussion, I will first examine the import of the una cum phrase, as there are varying theories, as is evident from the accompanying article in Forum. Next I will cite texts from diverse authors indicating that the mention of the reigning popes name is an explicit declaration of ecclesial communion. From here I will examine the ecclesiological problems of being in communion with John Paul II, and the liturgical problems which arise therefrom, and finally draw some moral conclusions from the principles stated. Afterwards I will respond to objections.

Import of the Una Cum Phrase

To my knowledge, there are three differing opinions of how this phrase should be understood. The first is to take una as an adjective, modifying Ecclesia, thus rendering the meaning to be one with or united with. The basis for this opinion is the fact that the Roman Pontiff is the principle of unity of the Catholic Church as a whole, and the local bishop the principle of unity of the particular Church. The second is to take una as an adverb modifying offerimus. We offer...together with etc. The reason for this opinion is that the Mass is an ecclesial act, offered not merely by a particular priest, but by the whole Church, in the name of which the priest is functioning. Since the Roman Pontiff is the head and principle of unity of the whole Church, it is fitting that his name be mentioned as the principal offerer. The third interpretation is to take the una cum phrase as an appositional link with Ecclesia, by which it would mean essentially including: ...which we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church, which includes...

Which is the correct way to accept una cum? I think that the third way is correct. Convincing proof to me is the fact that in medieval times, the name of the king was often inserted in this place, as well as that of the pope and bishop, which name is incompatible with the first two meanings of una cum, but not with the third. For the king is neither the principle of unity of the Church, nor is he in any way a principal or extraordinary offerer of the Mass. In these matters, he does not differ from the peasant in the pew. He is, however, a prominent member of the Mystical Body, as are pope and bishop, and does deserve special mention as such in the Mass and at other times in the sacred liturgy. The una cum phrasealso appears in the Exsultet of Holy Saturday where the names of the pope and local bishop are to be inserted and, prior to 1918, the name of the Austrian Emperor. In this context the names are clearly there as prominent members of the Mystical Body.

Such a conclusion, however, does not deny the fact that the Roman Pontiff is the principle of unity of the Roman Catholic Church, nor that the Mass is an ecclesial act. To the contrary, both of these truths must be asserted about both the Church and the Mass.

A Declaration of Ecclesial Communion

Praying for someone as pope and as bishop of the diocese is different from merely mentioning the name of your favorite aunt, or even that of the king or emperor. It is more, much more, than a mere friendly gesture of praying for someone. Rather the mentioning of these names of pope and bishop and particularly that of the pope has always been taken by the Church to be a sign of recognition of communion with the Roman Pontiff. Conversely, the deliberate failure to mention these names, and particularly that of the pope, has always been interpreted by the Catholic Church to be a declaration of noncommunion with the Roman Pontiff. Submission to the Roman Pontiff is the foundation of the relation of the communion among the members of the Mystical Body, which is the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church. (Cf. Sacerdotium V, Communion). The mentioning of the name of the pope in the Mass, therefore, has always been commonly taken as a token of recognition of and submission to the power of the reigning pontiff; its omission has been taken as a sign of lack of recognition of and of submission to the reigning pontiff. Thus the eastern schismatics omitted the name in their Masses, and, when they returned to the unity of the Catholic Church, would resume the mention of the name, and purposely omitted any name which was obnoxious to the Catholic Church, such as that of the schismatic patriarch.

I adduce the following texts in proof of the foregoing:

Pope Benedict XIV

But whatever can be said about this controverted point of ecclesiastical learning, it is sufficient for us to be able to affirm that the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff in the Mass as well as the prayers said for him in the Sacrifice are considered to be, and are a certain declarative sign, by which the same Pontiff is recognized as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Successor of Saint Peter, and becomes of profession of a mind and will firmly adhering to Catholic unity; as Christian Lupus correctly indicates, writing on the councils (Tom. 4. Editionis Bruxell. pag. 422): This commemoration is the supreme and most distinguished kind of communion. Nor is this any less proven by the authority of Ivo Flaviniacensis (in Chronicle, p. 228) where it reads: Let him know that he separates himself from the communion of the whole world, whoever does not mention the name of the Pope in the Canon, for whatever reason of dissension; nor [by the authority of] the well-known Alcuin, who, in his book De Divinis Officiis (chap. 12) wrote this: It is certain, as Blessed Pelagius teaches, that those who, for whatever reason of dissension, do not observe the custom of mentioning the name of the Apostolic Pontiff in the sacred mysteries, are separated from the communion of the whole world. This fact is further proven by a more severe statement of the Supreme Pontiff Pelagius II, who held the Apostolic throne in the sixth century of the Church, and who in his letter contained in the Labbeana Collectio Conciliorum (Tome 5, col 794 sq. and col 810)left this in writing concerning our subject: I am shocked at your separation from the whole Church, which I cannot tolerate; for when blessed Augustine, mindful of Our Lords words which placed the foundation of the Church in Apostolic Sees, says that he is in schism whosoever shall separate himself from the authority of or communion with those who preside in these same Sees, and who does not publicly profess that there is no other Church than that which is established in the pontifical roots of the Apostolic Sees, how can you not esteem yourselves to be cut off from the communion of the whole world, if you withhold the mention of my name in the sacred mysteries, as is the custom, in whom, though unworthy, you see at the present time the strength of the Apostolic See through the succession of the episcopate?

It is clear from this text that the mentioning of the name of the reigning pope is not a mere friendly gesture, but rather a test of communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and that failure to mention the name of the reigning pope is a sure sign of schism from the one, true Church.

R. P. Pierre Le Brun

UNA CUM FAMULO TUO....with our Pope N. your servant. Saint Paul recommends to us that we pray for our pastors. We name in particular and in the first place the bishop of the first See, who alone is called because of honor and distinction the Holy Father, our Pope, that is, our Father. It is quite fitting that in praying for the unity of the Church, we also pray for him who is the center of communion, who presides over this Church, as St. Ireneus says, with which every other Church must agree. He presides as Vicar of Jesus Christ, as the successor of Saint Peter, upon which the Church has been established.

ET ANTISTITE NOSTRO N. ...& our Prelate N. After the Pope we mention the bishop who governs the local diocese. For since the successor of Saint Peter is the center of unity of all the Churches of the world, the bishop is the center of unity of his flock, who form with him one Church, as St. Cyprian says. This union of the faithful with the bishop makes a particular Church, like the union of all the faithful and of all the bishops together make the universal Church, as the same holy Doctor also states.

Dom Ernest Graf, O.S.B.

Let us note in the first place that the priest speaks in the plural. Like the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Eucharistic Sacrifice is a universal one. The Mass is the act of the Church, accomplished on behalf of the Church that is, for the pastors and the sheep and the lambs entrusted to their care. Hence we make explicit mention of the Pope, the universal shepherd, of the diocesan bishop, and finally of all those who profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.[1]

Fr. William J. OShea, S.S., D.D.

There is one official who symbolizes and represents the unity of the Church in each diocese, and who has been placed there by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God: that is the bishop. Originally only the local bishop was mentioned: papa once meant any bishop, but was later restricted to the pope. Outside Rome the words et antistite nostro N. were added to avoid confusion; our Canon now prays both for the symbol and center of unity in the Church at large and in each diocese in particular. Et omnibus...fidei cultoribus is an ancient addition which refers not to the faithful but to the other bishops throughout the world, who are real cultores fidei: maintainers of the catholic, apostolic and orthodox faith. The faith is designated by its ancient titles: it is catholic, for the whole world; apostolic, coming from them and resting upon their teaching; orthodox, the true faith.[2]

F. Lucius Ferraris

First the priest offers the sacrifice for the Church, then in particular for the Pontiff, in accordance with an extremely old custom of the Churches, for the purpose of signifying the unity of the Church and the communion of the members with the head.

All of the authors speak similarly. It is, therefore, accurate to say that the mention of the name of the reigning pope is a declaration of ecclesial communion with him as head of the Catholic Church, and not merely as a private Catholic.

An Ecclesiological Nightmare

The obvious question which poses itself now is: is it licit to declare oneself in communion with John Paul II as head of the Roman Catholic Church? I declare emphatically no, since to do so is an explicit recognition of the new religion as the Catholic Faith, and of the NewChurch as the Catholic Church. For where Peter is, there is the Church. The notions of pope and Catholic Church are intrinsically inseparable, and to be united to one is to be united to the other; to be separated from one is to be separated from the other.

To hold, however, that the new religion is the Catholic Faith and the New Church is the Catholic Church is to implicitly assert that Vatican II, including its heresies on religious liberty, ecumenism, and the Church, is the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church (declared to be such by Paul VI), that the New Mass and sacraments are Catholic and not sinful to accept, that the 1983 Code of Canon Law is a heresy-free and sin-free Catholic document.

Thus the mentioning of John Paul IIs name in the canon of the Mass is to approve of the entire Vatican II reform as Catholic and to accept the entire NewChurch hierarchy as the Catholic hierarchy. It is to declare that the new religion is the way of salvation, and that every Catholic can accept it in perfectly good conscience, nay, must accept it under pain of grave disobedience or even schism. This fact becomes evident when we hear the rest of St. Ambroses well-known ecclesiological axiom: Where Peter is, there is the Church: and where is the Church is, there is no death, but life eternal.[3] If, therefore, John Paul II is the Pope, then the Church of which he is the head is the Roman Catholic Church, and the hierarchy with which he is in communion is the Catholic hierarchy. It would then follow that their ordinary magisterium (e.g., Vatican II) is infallible, their rites and sacraments are both valid and Catholic and therefore entirely acceptable, and that their general laws (e.g., 1983 Code) do not prescribe anything sinful. For where the Church is, there is eternal life, and the Catholic would need not trouble his conscience about the doctrines, rites, sacraments and practices of the Novus Ordo Church.

I would sooner accept death than admit these things about the John Paul II church.

But the loathsome name in the canon is an implicit admission of the legitimacy of the reform and of the new church; it is like the tiny grain of incense offered to the Emperor. It is therefore not licit to mention the name of John Paul II in the canon.

The Society of Saint Pius X attempts to avoid the ecclesiological problem which the mentioning of the name causes by asserting the impossible ecclesiology to which they adhere. They do recognize John Paul II as pope and his Church as the Catholic Church and his hierarchy as the Catholic hierarchy, but say, at the same time, that the faithful must sift the acts of the hierarchy in order to distinguish what is Catholic from what is non-catholic.

This theory strips the Church of its essential role as infallible mother and teacher of the human race, and transfers this dignity to the sifter, in this case the Society of Saint Pius X. It separates the three things which St. Ambrose so aptly linked together: pope, Church, and eternal life. If the doctrines, sacraments and laws of the pope and of the Church have to be sifted, lest something non-catholic, sinful, or poisonous be given to the faithful, then eternal life is not something intimately linked with the Church.

If the Church needs a sifter, then why have the Church? Of what use is it? The purpose of the Church is to bring men infallibly to their ultimate supernatural end of eternal life. It accomplishes this infallibly by its three essential functions of teaching, ruling and sanctifying. The effect of its act of teaching is its doctrine; the effect of its act of ruling is its laws, and the effect of its act of sanctifying is eternal life by means of its sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

If the Church can err in these matters, so much so that a sifter is necessary, then she can err in her essential mission, which is to bring men to eternal salvation. But if she can err in this mission, that is, if we could go to hell by following her and believing her, then for what purpose does she exist?

This is why St. Ambrose has linked eternal life to pope and Church, since they are linked inexorably together in the divine constitution of the Catholic Church.

The priest who is saying the traditional Mass in defiance of the orders of John Paul II and the local Novus Ordo hierarch is doing so because the New Mass and sacraments are evil, the new doctrines are erroneous, and the new practices of the N.O. church are sinful. He must necessarily conclude that they do not proceed from the Church, since the general doctrine and practice of the Church cannot be evil, erroneous or sinful. From this he must conclude that John Paul II cannot be the pope, since, if he were, the author of the evil, erroneous and sinful doctrines and practices would be the Church. But this is de fide impossible. Ergo.

Pope, Church and eternal life are three inseparable entities: when one is removed, the other two immediately perish.

Communion with Heretics

Another problem with the una cum declaration is that it is a sin against the profession of the Faith.

As much as it is necessary for the Catholic priest to mention the name of the reigning pontiff as a sign of his communion with him and the Catholic Church as a whole, it is equally necessary for him to avoid mentioning the name of anyone who is not in communion with the Catholic Church. When schismatics were reconciled to the Catholic Church, they had to omit, as part of their sign of adherence, the names of their schismatic Patriarchs from the canon of the Mass. In his Bibliotheca, Fr. Ferraris cites the case of a schismatic bishop who was reconciled to Rome. The papal legates reassure the pope that, during the course of the Mass, no name was mentioned which was odious to the Catholic Faith:

Finally the legates of [Pope] Hormisda recount to the Pope with these words what happened to them during the reconciliation of the bishop of the city of Troili Scampina: We confess, they said, that it would be hard to find in another people so much devotion to you Holiness, so much praise to God, so many tears and so much joy. Nearly all the people received us into the city , both the men and the women with candles, and the soldiers with crosses. Masses were celebrated, and no name which is loathsome to religion was mentioned but only that of Your Holiness.

He also mentions that it is licit to pray for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics in the Memento of the living, since it is a private and not a public prayer, thereby implying that it would not be licit to mention them publicly:

The priest should be warned however [with Azor. lib X, cap. 22, qust. 3,] that he can correctly pray in the Memento for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics, since this is a private and not public prayer.[4]

Benedict XIV himself ordered the Italo-Greeks to mention the name of the Pope and local bishop, lest there be any suspicion of schism among them, and furthermore forbade from mentioning the name of a schismatic Patriarch:

The second part of the same warning follows in which, as was noted above, the Greek priest is enjoined, during the Mass, after he has prayed for the Roman Pontiff, to pray also for his own bishop, and for his Patriarch, provided that they be Catholic; for if one or the other or both were a schismatic or a heretic, he would not be permitted to make a mention of them.[5]

Pope Benedict, in fact, makes frequent warning of the necessity not to mention the name of anyone who is a schismatic or a heretic:

...but let him carefully avoid making mention of the names of schismatics or heretics.

Nor is he [the Greek priest] generally prohibited, in the often cited Monitum, from making mention of the Patriarch, but only in the case where the Metropolitans or Patriarchs should be schismatics or heretics...[6]

He then cites three cases in which priests were specifically forbidden by the Holy Office to mention the name of schismatic prelates, in 1673, 1674 and 1732 respectively. The one in 1673 is of special interest, since the priests motive in mentioning the name of the schismatic was to attract the schismatics to the Catholic Church. The answer was it is absolutely forbidden. Put that in your ecumenical pipe and smoke it.

Pope Benedict states that the reason for this prohibition is that heretics and schismatics are excommunicates, and it is not licit to pray publicly for excommunicates: The Sacred Canons of the Church prohibit praying for excommunicates...And although there is nothing wrong with praying for their conversion, this must not be done by pronouncing their names in the solemn prayer of the Sacrifice. This observance is in accordance with the traditional discipline...[7] He furthermore quotes St. Thomas: One can pray for excommunicates, although not in those prayers which are offered for the members of the Church.[8]

Oddly neither Pope Benedict nor St. Robert Bellarmine see any problem in mentioning the name of an infidel ruler (e.g., the Turkish Sultan of Constantinople). St. Robert, whom Pope Benedict follows, states that it is tolerable since there is nothing proper to the nature of the Mass which prohibits it to be offered for infidels, and that they know of no Church law which condemns the practice. Both are clear, however, that they are not referring to heretical or schismatical rulers, but only the unbaptized, for the heretical and schismatical are excommunicated, and are therefore subject to exclusion by the laws of the Church. Thus heretical and schismatical rulers fall under the same prohibitions as heretical and schismatical Patriarchs. Since there is no law prohibiting the mention of infidels, however, it seems to Pope Benedict and St. Robert that it can be done. The former, however, qualifies his opinion by saying, However, leaving these assertions to their probability..., and goes on to say that it is a moot point in any case, since none of the Greek Catholics mention the name of the Turk in the Mass.[9]

But, John Paul II is a Heretic

Now that we have established that heretical and schismatical prelates must not be mentioned in the Mass, it remains only to assert the minor: John Paul II is a heretic. Therefore he must not be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass.

The fact that he is a heretic I must leave to other books and articles to prove. This task has been accomplished already in diverse times, publications, and languages. Suffice it to say that he has, both by word and by deed manifested an adherence to heresy.

The glaring objection to this minor premise of the argumentation is that John Paul II is not formal in his heresy, and therefore does not incur an excommunication. Therefore he may still be licitly mentioned in the Mass.

I respond to this objection in the following manner: (1) there is strong evidence that he is formal in his adherence to heresy; (2) the law of the Church presumes guilt (i.e., formality) in the public profession of heresy until the contrary be proven; (3) it is the practice of the Church to treat all those who publicly adhere to heresy as formal heretics in the external forum, whether or not, in the internal forum, they be morally guilty of their heresy; (4) to recognize John Paul II as a member of the Catholic Church ruins the theological basis of resistance to the changes. Now let us examine each of these responses individually.

(1) There is strong evidence that John Paul II is formal in his adherence to heresy.Formal heresy is distinguished against material heresy. The former involves stubbornness against the teaching authority of the Catholic Church; the latter lacks this stubbornness. The only manner in which a person may lack stubbornness, or pertinacity as the canonists call it, is through ignorance of the fact that the opinion to which he adheres is contrary to divine and Catholic faith. For the other motives of adhering to false opinion, such as pride, vainglory, a spirit of contradiction, etc., all constitute a sufficient bad will to qualify the heresy as pertinacious and formal.

John Paul II, however, cannot be reasonably excused on the title of ignorance, even culpable ignorance. He received his seminary education in one of the finest institutions of the Church, the Angelicum, under the tutelage of one of this centurys best theologians, Garrigou-Lagrange. Nor is John Paul II a brainless dolt. He speaks many foreign languages fluently, and he could never have risen to the heights of bishop, cardinal and pope unless he possessed a sharp intellect. To the contrary, he is one of these post-World War II avant-garde theologians like de Chardin, de Lubac and Rahner, who set out to overthrow the tradition of the Catholic Church and replace it with what we have today. He was a liberal seminarian, a liberal young priest, a liberal bishop, and liberal phony cardinal, and now is a liberal phony pope.

He is not some do-gooder Catholic-at-heart who has, through no fault of his own, stumbled into modernism along the way. Rather he is one of the great Novus Ordo theoreticians, the choice of none other than Cardinal Knig, who was among the most modernistic prelates in the whole world.

The pertinacity of a John Paul II and of clergy like him can be seen in their hatred for the pre-Vatican II Church. In this consists their bad will, for in hating the pre-Vatican II Church, they are hating the Church.

Another strong argument in favor of his pertinacity is that lack of formality on his part does not assign a sufficient cause for the destruction which has been wrought in the Church. The devastation which surrounds us is not the work of a disorganized group of ignorant Catholic clergy who dont know any better, but the effect of a diabolical conspiracy of the gates of hell against the Church. An enemy hath done this. To say that the spearheads of this noxious reform, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, are not conscious parties to the overthrow of the traditional Faith is to posit an effect without a sufficient cause. It is impossible. It would be comparable to Our Lords saying in the parable of the wheat and the cockle, The sowers just made an honest mistake. The Novus Ordo religion is so radically different from Catholic Faith, that no person in his right mind, regardless of education, could fail to recognize the difference. The pertinacious modernist simply replies: vive la diffrence.

Nor am I saying here that John Paul II must necessarily be one of the plotters. Sufficient for formal heresy is any type of mala voluntas: pride, curiosity, self-aggrandizement. Only ignorance excuses.

Furthermore, John Paul II has been sufficiently told that his new religion is a substantial departure from the pre-Vatican II religion. He does not live in a cave. Yet he continues to adhere to and implement this new religion.

The question of John Paul IIs pertinacity is admittedly a judgment call, but to paint him as a material heretic is to me the same thing as saying that Robespierre was only a material terrorist. He meant well.

(2) The law of the Church presumes pertinacity unless the contrary be proven. The presumption of the law is against John Paul II:

The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g.,, the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity.[10]

Not only has John Paul II made statements of doctrine contrary to revealed and defined dogma (e.g., non-catholic religions are means of salvation, contradictory to outside the Church there is no salvation), but he has also explicitly declared himself to be in communion with in the same Church as schismatics and heretics. He has, furthermore, compounded these abominable statements with acts which confirm his adherence to heresy, such as communicatio in sacris and ecumenical services with everything that walks on two legs. It is not, therefore, the law or the spirit of the Church to automatically exonerate the guilt of someone publicly spewing heresy, but rather to presume it. The guilty party must come forward and prove his innocence:

There may however be circumstances which excuse the person either from all responsibility, or else from grave responsibility. These excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist. When satisfactory proof is offered, the juridical presumption will yield to fact, and the person will be pronounced innocent of heresy, and not liable to censure.[11]