Una Cum: Mass 'in Union with our Pope'? - Part 2

(3) It is the practice of the Church to treat all those who publicly adhere to heresy as formal heretics in the external forum.This is the most important point. In my article on communion (Sacerdotium V), I pointed out that the Church makes no judgment about the interior dispositions of those who adhere to heresy, but rather treats them as formal heretics. If the Church did not do this, its very divine constitution as the congregation of the faithful (congregatio fidelium) would be eroded; the unity of faith would not survive as one of its four marks. If only those excommunicated by name were considered to be outside the Church the heresiarchs like Luther and the rest were considered to be in good conscience and therefore Catholics, the Church would have lost in the first few years of its existence the sacred deposit of faith. It is precisely because membership in the Church is strictly dependent upon the profession of the orthodox faith that the Church has her mark of unity of faith.

For this reason, regardless of our hunches about culpability of his heresy, it is necessary that we treat him as a heretic and as an excommunicate. For heresy incurs an automatic excommunication; in normal times it is authority which confirms the automatic excommunication with a declaratory sentence. When the authority itself falls into the heresy, and fails to excommunicate itself, so to speak, and other heretics who are deserving of it, the faithful of the Church must observe the reality of his self-severance from the Church, even if it is not established legally. For law is a reflection of reality, and reality does not cease to be reality because authority fails to enshrine it by law. When heretics occupy the places of authority, heresy becomes the law, and orthodoxy becomes heresy. This legalization of heresy does not debilitate the Catholic faithful, but rather places a heavy burden upon them to bear witness to the wickedness of the law, and to its logical consequent, the non-authority of the apparent authority.

For there are some who argue that, since John Paul II is not excommunicated by a declaratory sentence, that we are free to regard him as a Catholic.

Not so. The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which already exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless. The excommunicated person is already severed from the Church; the declaratory sentence merely legally ascertains both the fact of the delict and the guilt of the party who has committed it. Once the declaratory sentence is handed down, all in the Church, including the guilty party, are required to observe the excommunication.

In the present crisis of the Church, during which we are deprived of authority, a declaratory sentence of excommunication is impossible. This lamentable fact, however, does not and cannot mean that the Church becomes an absolute free-for-all, for the Church would be essentially defective if it did not maintain its unity of faith. This unity of faith is that by which is it constituted; it is that by which it is recognized as the one true Church of Christ.

Catholics then must recognize the heresy as heresy in the would-be authority, presume guilt (pertinacity) unless there is evidence to the contrary, and hold as excluded from the ranks of the Church those who profess adherence to the Vatican II religion. It is true that there are many cases of non-pertinacious adherence to the new religion among the lay people, and even perhaps among priests, but this particular lack of guilt is determined on a case-by case basis, whereas the presumption of guilt is required by the general law.

Hence most nearly all traditional priests of all persuasions do not require a formal abjuration nor an absolution from excommunication of Novus Ordites returning to the traditional Faith, for the reason that the priests perceive in them a lack of pertinacity in their adherence to the Novus Ordo. On the other hand, I know of no traditional priest who considers a Hans Kng to be a Catholic, since pertinacity is presumed in his case. So should it be presumed in the case of John Paul II, since (a) the law requires it, and (b) ignorance is the only viable excuse from pertinacity, and ignorance is virtually impossible in JP2, nor is there evidence of it.

Nonetheless it is important to recall that there is no substitute for the authority of the Church, and even the collective spurning of John Paul II by Catholics does not equal the same thing as the declaratory sentence of authority. For until someone is excommunicated by declaratory sentence, it would be legitimate for any Catholic to say, I think that there is evidence to say that he is not pertinacious in his heresy, and therefore not excommunicated. This is true since a presumption always yields to fact, and since John Paul IIs pertinacity is not an established legal fact, the fact of his excommunication is likewise not legally established.

In any case the certitude about John Paul IIs non-papacy does not arise from arguments of his pertinacity in heresy, but rather from serious ecclesiological arguments, namely, that it is impossible that the authority which he claims to have the very authority of Christ prescribe for the Church what John Paul II has prescribed. If the authority of the Church, which is the authority of Christ, can give us official teaching of heresy, heretical sacramental rites, and sinful laws, then the Church would be defectible. But this is de fide impossible. Therefore it is impossible, by the very nature of the Church, that John Paul II be the Pope.

(4) To recognize John Paul II as a member of the Catholic Church ruins the theological basis of resistance to the changes. This is where the una cum question becomes so critical. From the reasoning which I have just presented, it is evident that ecclesial communion with John Paul II as pope means one of two things:

(a) that the reforms of Vatican II are Catholic, since they come from the indefectible Catholic Church;

(b) that the Church has defected, since heresy and sin has come from the official teaching and laws of the Catholic Church.

Since (b) is against the Faith, only (a) is even considerable. If one admits (a), namely that the reforms of Vatican II are Catholic, then the whole motive of adherence to tradition and resistance to the reforms is exploded. What possible motive could there be to retain the traditional Mass, nostalgia excepted, if the New Mass is a Catholic Mass? The una cum traditional Mass, therefore, is either objectively schismatic (altar against altar, as in the case of the Society of Saint Pius X) or it is said under the auspices of the Novus Ordo hierarchy for nostalgic purposes (e.g., the Indult Mass and the St. Peter group). The una cum traditional Mass is, in all cases, an implicit recognition of the Vatican II religion as the Catholic religion, and as the ConciliarChurch as the Roman Catholic Church. But such a recognition is in odium religionis (in hatred of the Faith). Therefore to mention John Paul IIs name in the Mass is, objectively, in odium religionis.

Here let me pause, after having made this rather withering criticism, in order to reassure the reader that I am not saying that every single priest who mentions John Paul II in the Canon is guilty of formal schism or of formally positing acts in odium religionis. I have been very careful to use the word objectively in all cases in order to emphasize that it is quite easy for an una cum priest to be in good conscience about this matter. At the same time, everyone knows that the morality of an act is not determined objectively from the mistaken good conscience of the individual, but rather from the object itself. It is about this object that we are concerned in this article, and I am not recommending that anyone be burned at the stake.

And while we are on the subject, I should bring up something which has often been thrown up to me by critics: You, Fr. Sanborn,were once una cum! Yes, it is true, I was. Let me explain. I began adhering to the vacancy of the Apostolic See back in 1973 at Ecne, at a time when a third of the seminarians openly thought similarly. In 1979 Archbishop Lefebvre began his una cum campaign and concomitant persecution. I went to see him in Switzerland in January of 1980 for an entirely different matter, at which time he insisted that I become una cum. I reluctantly accepted to do so because, at the time, I labored under the notion that the vacancy of the Apostolic See was a matter of opinion, and that a probable argument could be made for both sides. I thought, erroneously, that the una cum or sede plena position was a legitimate theological opinion. I thus accepted to be una cum because of the principle that one can act on a probable opinion even though one might be convinced that the opposite opinion is more probable. [12] Even in my sede plena days, however, I always felt in my heart that the sede vacante position made much more sense. So I was una cum in all good though uncomfortable conscience from 1980 to 1983. I simply did not see the intrinsic and essential connection between John Paul IIs papacy and the legitimation of the NewChurch; I did not see the necessary logical link between the rejection of the New Religion and John Paul IIs claim to papal authority.

I now realize this link, and therefore realize that if John Paul IIs papal authority is a matter of theological opinion, then the non-catholicism of the New Religion and of the NewChurch is also a matter of theological opinion. For one cannot separate Pope and Church. Where Peter is, there is the Church. To make, therefore, the identity of Peter a matter of opinion is to make the identity of the Church a matter of opinion. Where true Peter is, there is the true Church; where there is a false Peter, there is a false church. But not: where there is a false Peter, there is the true Church, norwhere there is true Peter, there is a false church. Impossible, for the Pope is the principle of unity of the Catholic Church, as we have already seen; the identity of the Catholic Church, therefore, is inseparable from the identity of the Roman Pontiff. You cannot separate Pope and Church.

In Persona Ecclesi

In my article entitled Communion (Sacerdotium V), I spoke about the problem of validly ordained priests saying Masses which were liturgically Catholic but outside the Catholic Church. This is the case of the Greek schismatics, Old Catholics (in some cases valid), even High Church Anglicans who have gotten themselves validly ordained in one way or another.

I pointed out, by citing authorities on the matter, that for validity, it is necessary that the minister be acting in the person of Christ at the altar, but for the catholicity of the Mass, he must at the same time be acting in the person of the Church. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains the distinction:

And because the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which flows from the power of orders, those who are separated from the Church through heresy or schism or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist which, when consecrated by them, contains the true body and blood of Christ: they nevertheless do not do this rightly, but rather sin when they do it. They therefore do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.

The priest at Mass indeed speaks in the prayers in the person of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of orders. Consequently if a priest is separated from the unity of the Church celebrates Mass, not having lost the power of Order, he consecrates Christs true body and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy. [13]

Some saints and popes had some stronger words about schismatic Masses:

Pope Pelagius I: One body of Christ establishes the fact that there is one Church. An altar which is divided from the unity [of the Church] cannot gather together the true body of Christ.[14]

Saint Cyprian: The schismatic dares to set up an altar and to profane the truth of the divine Victim by means of false sacrifices.[15] (He also wanted returning schismatic priests to be reduced to the lay state, referring to them as those who against the unique and divine altar attempted to offer outside [of the Church] sacrilegious and false sacrifices[16]

Saint Augustine: Outside of the Catholic Church the true sacrifice cannot be found.[17]

St. Leo the Great: Elsewhere [that is, outside the Church] there is neither an approved priesthood nor true sacrifices.[18]

Saint Jerome:God hates the sacrifices of these [ i.e., heretics] and pushes them away from Himself, and whenever they come together in the name of the Lord, He abhors their stench, and holds his nose...[19]

Fr. Cappello explains this distinction clearly:

Priests who are cut off the Church, although they validly sacrifice in the name of Christ, nevertheless do not offer the sacrifice as ministers of the Church nor in the person of the Church. For the priest has the power to pray, to intercede and to offer in the name of the Church by virtue of his commission from the Church, and with regard to this, the Church can deprive the priest who is cut off from sacrificing in its name. [20]

From these texts, it is clear that the validity of the Mass is not sufficient that it be a Catholic Mass, but rather another very important factor is necessary: the fact that the priest act in the person of the Church, that is, that he be commissioned by the Church to pray in its name.

This factor creates a terrible problem for the una cum traditional Mass. If the priest is saying that John Paul II is the Pope, and that he is in communion with him, he is necessarily saying that the Church of which John Paul II is the head is the Roman Catholic Church. In order that the Mass which the priest is saying, therefore, be deemed a Catholic Mass, it is necessary that the priest be commissioned by John Paul II to say the Mass in the person of the Church.

Without this commission, without this authorization from him who has the care of Christs whole flock, from him who has the commission from Christ to teach, rule, and to sanctify, the Mass becomes a non-catholic Mass. The Catholic priest must be acting as the agent of his bishop, who has the care of the diocesan flock, who, in turn must be acting as an agent of the Pope who has care of the whole flock. The Pope, in turn, must be acting as an agent of Christ, of whom he is the Vicar. This is the very constitution of the Catholic Church; it is this tight link of agency and authority which makes the Church Catholic.

If the priest, therefore, is acting without the authorization of the diocesan bishop, he is then acting without the authorization of the Pope, and his Mass and sacraments are cut off from both Christ and His Church. His Mass is not Catholic, nor are his sacraments, for he is not acting in the person of the Church.

How does the traditional priest today act in the person of the Church, when there is no authority to authorize him to say Mass?

He does so by carrying on the mission of the Catholic Church, which is the sanctification of souls. Thus it is perfectly legitimate and necessary for priests to say Mass, preach, and distribute the sacraments, as they are authorized by the Church to do so through the principle of epikeia. This principle, however, cannot possibly be invoked if the superior is present; one cannot invoke epikeia against a present, acting, and ruling superior. It simply does not make sense, since epikeia is essentially an estimation of the mind of the lawmaker in his absence.[21]

But the una cum Mass puts the lawmaker in Rome, and his personal representative in the local chancery, and thus destroys the entire moral underpinning of the extraordinary apostolates which are carried on by traditional priests.

Thus the una cum Mass ends up as an objectively schismatic Mass no matter how you slice it:

(a) If, for the sake of argument, John Paul II were the Pope, the unauthorized (i.e., non-indult) traditional Mass is schismatic, since it is not said in the person of the Church.

(b) If John Paul II is not the Pope, then the una cum Mass is schismatic since it is said in union with, under the auspices of, a false pope and a false church.

In neither case does the priest have any business saying it.

The only situation in which it would be licit to carry on an extensive, habitual, unauthorized apostolate is in a case similar to our own, in which there is a long-term absence of authority. The authorization for saying Mass, preaching, and administering the sacraments would then be per modum actus, that is, in the individual acts themselves, and would not be a habitual authority. The authorization would be from the Church itself (Ecclesia supplet, that is, the Church supplies jurisdiction in the absence of the competent authority).

The Society of Saint Pius X is excommunicated by the person they say to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. They cannot invoke against his supposed authority the very authority of the Church (that is, they cannot invoke the principle of Ecclesia supplet), since he supposedly possesses the fullness of the authority of the Church. To do so is schismatic, and that is exactly what John Paul II considers the Society of Saint Pius X to be schismatic.

Conclusions of the Speculative Order

The speculative conclusions from the foregoing are the following:

The una cum phrase is a declaration of ecclesial communion with the reigning Roman Pontiff and local diocesan bishop.

This declaration of communion is particularly significant, since the Roman Pontiff is the principle of unity of the entire Roman Catholic Church, and the local bishop, subordinately, is the principle of unity of the particular Church or diocese.

 Because the Roman Pontiff and local bishop constitute the principle of unity of the Church, the mentioning of their name in the Canon is an ecclesiological declaration, namely that the Church of which they are the head is none other than the Roman Catholic Church.

 Because of the principle of outside the Church there is no salvation, it follows that union with and submission to the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop constitute a absolute condition of eternal salvation.

Because of the principle of the indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church, and of the infallibility of its ordinary magisterium and its general laws, it follows that the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff is free from error and the general laws which he promulgates cannot prescribe anything sinful.

Because of the principle that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is by nature an ecclesial act, that is, an act of the whole Church, it follows that in order for it to qualify as a Catholic Mass, it must be offered in the person of the Church, that is, the priest must be authorized by the Church to sacrifice in its name.

This authorization must be obtained from the duly constituted authority of the Catholic Church, that is, the Pope and local bishop. They have the power to withdraw this commission from a priest, in which case, should he say Mass, he would not be offering it in the person of the Church.

The principle of Ecclesia supplet, by which a priest obtains authorization to act in the Churchs name (in the person of the Church) in extraordinary circumstances cannot be invoked against the very authority which grants it. This would be an absurdity.

Nor can the authorization of the Church be presumed by the principle of epikeia, if the authority of the Church is present and functioning, since epikeia presumes the absence of the authority. Thus epikeia cannot be invoked against the present and ruling authority. This too would be an absurdity, and would lead to anarchy in any institution.

Now let us plug John Paul II, as pope, into the above principles:

The Church of which he is the head is the Roman Catholic Church.

The dogmatic and moral teachings of Vatican II, termed ordinary magisterium by Paul VI, deserve the assent of faith (cf. Vatican I), and the reforms of Vatican II, while perhaps not ideal, are Catholic and nonsinful.

Only those priests who are authorized by John Paul II (and the local bishop in communion with him) can be deemed to be saying Catholic Masses.

Masses offered by priests unauthorized by him and the local bishop are not Catholic Masses, since they are not offered in the person of the Church. Rather they are schismatic Masses, and fall under the severe condemnations of the Popes and Fathers mentioned in this article.

Now let us plug John Paul II, as nonpope, into these principles:

The church of which he is the head is not the Roman Catholic Church

Neither Vatican II nor its reforms deserve the assent of faith or obedience, but rather should be rejected and ignored by Catholics.

Masses offered in union with John Paul II are noncatholic Masses, since they are offered in the person of a heretical church.

Catholic priests may rightfully invoke the principles of Ecclesia supplet and epikeia as reasonable authorization of their apostolates, due to the absence of authority, and thus rightfully claim that their Masses and sacraments are authorized by the Catholic Church and are in the person of the Church.

Conclusions of the Moral Order

The following moral conclusions flow from what has been said:

I. If John Paul II were the Pope:

(a) the only traditional Mass which could be licitly attended would be one authorized by him, namely an Indult Mass, or a Mass offered by a priest of the Fraternity of Saint Peter.

(b) it would be gravely sinful to attend a Mass which was not authorized by him, e.g., the Mass of a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X or of a non-una cum priest, since these would be schismatic Masses. The confessions and marriages would be invalid.

II. If John Paul II is not the Pope:

(a) it would be objectively gravely illicit to attend a Mass which was together with Thy servant John Paul our Pope since (1) it would be an explicit declaration of union with a false, noncatholic church and religion (Where Peter is, there is the Church) and (2) it would be active participation in a Mass which was not offered in the person of the Church, in a Mass which would be, objectively, schismatic.

A Neither-Nor Ecclesiological Twilight Zone

The position of the Society of Saint Pius X is odd in this sense: on the one hand they insist that John Paul II is Pope, but on the other hand they carry on an extensive apostolate, including the consecration of bishops, in absolute defiance of his condemnation, as if he did not exist.

It puts them in a damned if you do and damned if you dont ecclesiological[22] position. For if you regard John Paul II to be the Pope, their apostolate is obviously off-limits, for the reasons stated above, viz., because it would not be in the person of the Church. On the other hand, if you say that John Paul II is not the Pope, then their apostolate becomes off-limits, since it involves both an adherence to a false religion and church, as well as attendance at Masses which are not offered in the person of the Church.

They are, therefore, in a neither-nor ecclesiological Twilight Zone which has to be resolved some day. The recent discussions about their claims to jurisdiction are a symptom of this radically impossible ecclesiology which they are asserting.

It must never be forgotten that they are still looking forward to an absorption by John Paul II into the NewChurch fold; they are still looking for the side chapel in the modernist cathedral. This was plainly stated in 1988, that is, that the negotiations with Rome would continue, and that perhaps in five years (= 1993) the whole problem would be resolved.

This desire to be reinstated by John Paul II is an important point to remember, for it means that the Society of Saint Pius X belongs by explicit desire to John Paul IIs NewChurch, and their una cum Masses are an expression of this desire. Whether all of the adherents of the Society of Saint Pius X will go along with the reconciliation remains to be seen. Bishop Williamson said to Monde et Vie last August (1992) that he thinks that the next pope will be an anti-pope. The Mother of All Battles might then be fought out in the Society of Saint Pius X.

Answers to Objections

Objection I. The priest who is una cum is in good conscience, and does not want to be part of anything which is non-catholic. Therefore he is not formally schismatic. Therefore his Mass is not schismatic.

Answer. That most priests who are una cum are in good conscience, I admit. That they are therefore not formally schismatic,I admit. That therefore their Masses are not schismatic, I deny. The Mass is an ecclesial act, and its ecclesiality, its very catholicity, does not depend on the formality or materiality of the schism of the priest. The priests good or bad conscience does not in any way affect the object of the act of the una cum statement, which is both to declare communion with John Paul II as pope, and to place the Mass under the auspices of something other than the Roman Catholic Church. By analogy, a priest may, through inadvertence, throw away a consecrated host into the sacristy trash can. Others around him who know that the host is consecrated cannot consent to or participate in the priests action, even though the priest did it in good conscience. Everyone knows that the objective morality of an act does not flow from the intention of the agent but from the object itself.

Objection II. Anyone who has not been officially excommunicated (by declaratory or condemnatory sentence) may still be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass. ButJohn Paul II has never been officially excommunicated. Therefore he may still be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass.

Answer. Anyone who has not been officially excommunicated (by declaratory or condemnatory sentence) may still be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass, I distinguish, in normal times, I admit, in times when the Apostolic See and apparently all episcopal sees are possessed by heretics, I deny. As I said earlier, heresy becomes the law when heretics gain positions of authority. Catholics in such a case cannot permit the Church to become an absolute anarchy and hold harmless the wholesale abandonment of the Faith throughout the world. By analogy, the New Mass has never been officially condemned by the Church. Yet Catholics by the instinct of their faith uncompromisingly reject it. Thus one could just as easily say, The Church has never officially condemned the New Mass, so therefore we are free to accept it. No, the firmness of Catholics against the New Mass, the new sacraments, the new doctrines of Vatican II, in short the whole new religion, must ecclesiologically translate into a rejection of the authority of the Popes who promulgated it. If the new religion is defective, it cannot be from the Catholic Church. If it cannot be from the Catholic Church, then the Conciliar Popes cannot be said to have the authority of the Church. Otherwise you end up with a defectible and defected Catholic Church. While it is true, therefore, that John Paul II has not been officially condemned, the situation in the Church is such that Catholics must bear witness to the heresy of the new religion, and therefore of his lack of authority. If Catholics let these Conciliar Popes pass as true Catholic Popes, then historically the Catholic Church will be said to have defected. Hence it is absolutely necessary that Catholics treat them as nonpopes.

Objection III. The mentioning of the name of John Paul II in the Mass is an evil, certainly, but it can be tolerated for the greater good of not depriving sacraments of a great many people.

Answer. An evil may only be tolerated if its toleration does not entail the positing of an intrinsically evil act. But to mention John Paul IIs name is intrinsically evil, for, as I have said, it involves the identification of the Roman Catholic Church with the NewChurch, the Roman Catholic Faith with the new religion. To mention his name is objectively, really and truly in odium religionis, in hatred of the Faith. It is a name loathsome to our Faith. Since he is being mentioned as pope, it involves an identification of what Church you belong to. It is an intrinsically evil act, however, to declare yourself to be a member of a non-catholic church, and in communion with a non-catholic heresiarch sect-leader. I do realize, on the other hand, that what I am saying presents dire consequences for many, should they accept it. I do not see, however, how the Te Igitur of the Mass is not a true ecclesiological battlefield in which a profession of Faith must be made. The reason why there has been such a great proliferation of the una cum Mass is because Archbishop Lefebvre always sought to have the traditional Mass under the auspices of the NewChurch. Only in 1976, when he declared the Vatican II Church to be a schismatic church, did he openly depart from this idea. Even then, however, he continued to seek to have the Society recognized by the schismatic church. Even now, despite the excommunication, the same Society seeks re-admission into this same schismatic church. If Archbishop Lefebvre had been as firm on the Church issue as he had been on the Mass, virtually no traditional priest would be una cum today. You cannot have the Catholic Mass in a schismatic church, but that is exactly what the Society is attempting to do. Catholics must reject the NewChurch as much as they reject the New Mass. Let us not do evil things in order that good things come about. (cf. Romans III : 8)

Objection IV. The lay people can attend the una cum Mass without necessarily consenting to the una cumphrase.

Answer. Active participation in worship is consent to the worship, and one is presumed to consent to everything which is part of the worship. The name of John Paul II in the Mass is exactly the same thing as the presence of John Paul II in the sanctuary as pope. It is a sign, a declaration of ecclesial communion. Such external and public signs deserve external and public disapproval; active participation gives external consent. Furthermore, the presence of John Paul IIs name as pope, as principle of unity of the Church, places the entire act of worship in the schismatic category, and not just the little phrase, since it places the entire act of worship outside the Church. But outside the Church there is no salvation.

Conclusion

It is evident, therefore, that the mention of John Paul IIs name in the Canon (a) is an explicit declaration of ecclesial communion with a heresiarch; (b) is an explicit declaration of the identity of the Roman Catholic Church with the Novus Ordo Church, for where Peter is, there is the Church; (c) causes intrinsic and insoluble problems ecclesiological nightmares for the traditional priest, since it places his Mass outside the Church and makes it schismatic, since he is setting up altar against altar.

The only logical alternative for someone who recognizes John Paul II as pope is to place himself in the Fraternity of Saint Peter, or to say an Indult Mass.

Since the una cum phrase is a statement of communion, the following things are true:

The una cum Mass is therefore the equivalent of having John Paul II in your sanctuary during the Mass, and of showing him the external signs of being the Pope, such as incensations, genuflections, etc. Of course you would have to give him Holy Communion, for if the Pope is not a member of the Catholic Church, then who is? Where Peter is, there is the Church.

The una cum Mass is the equivalent of singing the Oremus pro Pontifice, a hymn sung to pray for the Pope:Let us pray for our Holy Father John Paul. May God preserve him, and give him length of days, and make him blessed upon earth, and not deliver him into the hands of his enemies.

The una cum Mass identifies John Paul II and the local Novus Ordo bishop with all the orthodox and the maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. This is absurd. It is a lie. To lie in the Canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be pleasing to God.

And if they are the orthodox, and the maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, then, by God, let us be with them and not against them. But if they are not the orthodox, and the maintainers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, then, by God, let us be against them, and not with them.

Where Peter is, there is the Church:

where the Church is, there is eternal life.

(Sacerdotium 6, Winter 1993)

[1] DOM ERNEST GRAF, O.S.B., The Priest at the Altar, (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1926) p. 181.

[2] WILLIAM J.OSHEA, S.S., D.D.,The Worship of the Church (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1958) p. 393.

[3] Enarratio in Ps. 40, no. 30.

[4] op. cit., p. 51.

[5] op. cit.,  18.

[6] ibid.,  22.

[7] ibid., 23.

[8] In 4 Sent. dist. 18. qust. 2. art. 1.

[9] POPE BENEDICT XIV, op. cit.,  27 & 28.

[10] ERIC F. MACKENZIE, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. REV., The Delict of Heresy, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1932) p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200 2)

[11] ibid.

[12] Before the Thomists have a hemorrhage, let me point out quickly that one of the Princeps Thomistarum of this century, Hugon,, says that it is legitimate to do such a thing. Non repugnat ut intellectus adhreat uni opinioni, dum alteram existimat probabiliorem. Cursus Philosophi Thomistic Logica Maior, Tract. III., q. 1.

[13] IIIa q. 82 a. 7, corpus & ad 3um.

[14] Ep. ad Joan. Patr., P.L. 69, 412.

[15] De Unitate Ecclesi, c. 17. P.L. 4, 513.

[16] Ep. 72, c. 2. P.L. 3, 1048-1049.

[17] cf. PROSPERUM AQUITANUM,Sent., sent. 15 P.L. 51, 430.

[18] Ep. LXXX Ad Anatolium, cap. 2.

[19] In Amos, V: 22, P.L. 25, 1033-1034.

[20] CAPPELLO, FELIX M. S. I.., Tractatus Canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, (Turin: Marietti), 1962, I, p. 462.

[21] Epikeia non potest licite adhiberi: (a) Si superior, qui dispensationem legis concedere valet, facile adiri queat. Prmmer, Manuale Theologi Moralis I, no. 231 ff. q.v.

[22] the word ecclesiological means pertaining to the theology of the Church.