Monday, July 10, 2017

Una Cum


 As you read this post, I'm enjoying myself with my family on the first extended vacation I've had in over two years.  As always, I enjoy and invite comments, but please remember that I cannot respond as quickly as I usually do when I'm not on vacation. Speaking of comments and vacations, "Where do I go to Mass when I'm away from home?" is a commonly asked question. So is the issue of "Can I attend a Mass offered una cum?" (i.e. with the name of false pope Francis in the Canon). A reader of my blog sent me an article written by Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor, one of the first Traditionalists, for whom I have the greatest respect. This reader was a personal acquaintance of Mr. Omlor and wanted my opinion on the issue of attendance at an Una Cum Mass (Mr. Omlor was decidedly against attendance at such a Mass and was the subject of the article he wrote).

This is bound to be controversial, but understand: (a) I'm not a theologian, nor do I claim to be one. I'm just trying to find my own Catholic way through the Great Apostasy. There are issues that are not (and cannot be) settled without a pope. This is one of them. (b) Feel free to disagree with me. I'm just expressing my opinion based on the principles taught by the Church, and I'm comfortable with the conclusions I have reached before God. It is possible that someday I may change my mind on this issue as I'm always open to fraternal correction because I try to follow the evidence where it leads.


What Does Una Cum Mean in The Canon of the Mass?

 Relevant to this discussion is the March 2007 article by Mr. Omlor entitled, The SSPX and the Una Cum Problem, and the article of Fr Anthony Cekada, The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses. Mr Omlor states that Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is not a true pope but a heretic and cannot possibly be the Vicar of Christ. I agree wholeheartedly. The same holds true for Bergoglio (Francis). Mr. Omlor passed less than two months after Bergoglio's "election" in March 2013, at the age of 81. 

Fr. Cekada, like Mr. Omlor,  writes about the problem of "...a traditional Latin Mass offered by a validly ordained priest who utters a phrase in the Canon referring to Benedict, our Pope. This practice is followed by all priests who offer the recently instituted Motu Masses, as well as by priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), its affiliated organizations and the majority of 'independent' traditionalist priests." These Masses are referred to as Una Cum Masses after that phrase in the Canon which translates as "together with." What does it mean to offer Mass "together with Francis, Our Pope"? Is it permissible to attend?

 Mr. Omlor quotes from theologian  Father Maurice de la Taille, in his book Mystery of Faith, 2: 316-318: 
"This [i.e. certain ancient customs] was all the more reasonable, because priests gradually became more accustomed to commend no living person in these public suffrages of the Church, except those as could be reckoned among those with whom he was considered to be offering the sacrifice."

He continues, "This brings out the fact that the celebrating priest offers the Mass with those whose names are mentioned, who in a sense become co-offerers. Hence Benedict XVI[now Francis] is a co-offerer in Masses of priests who recite his name in the Te Igitur." 

Quoting theologian de la Taille, Mr. Omlor continues, "The same is clear also from the actual formula found in our own Roman Missal at the end of the prayer Te Igitur, the first prayer of the Canon, where the celebrant says:' WE OFFER . . . together with our Pope N. and our Bishop N. (and our King N.) and with all orthodox worshippers of the Catholic and apostolic faith.' " Note: The ellipsis (. . .) and also the capitalized words "WE OFFER" appear as such in the original text. Again this underlines the fact that the Mass is being offered in union with those named (Benedict XVI). It has been claimed that we merely "pray for" those whose names are mentioned in the Te igitur prayer of the Canon of the Mass. This is proven to be completely false in light of the words of Fr. de la Taille : "WE OFFER . . . together with our Pope N. and our Bishop N.(and our King N.) and with all orthodox worshippers of the Catholic and apostolic faith."

Fr. Cekada correctly lists four ways the Latin grammar could be construed:

(1) Adjective modifying Church = one with, or united with: "The heretic/false pope Bergoglio is united to the Catholic Church and vice versa."

(2) Adverb modifying we offer = we offer together with: "The heretic/false pope Bergoglio jointly offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass along with the priest and he Church."

(3) Appositional link with Church = for thy Church, which includes:
"The heretic/false pope Bergoglio is among the members of the Church for whom the priest and the Church intercede through the offering of the Mass."

(4) Coordinating conjunction with Church, bishop, all true believers = and for Thy servant, the pope: "The
priest and the Church offer the Mass for the servant of God and heretic/false pope Bergoglio. 

Hopefully, all now see why this issue is important. We cannot pray "together with" a heretic. That would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris, described in Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "The reasons for this prohibition are founded in the natural and divine positive law. Among them are the following: the Catholic Church is the only Church in which, by divine ordinance, worship may be rendered to God; such communication with non-Catholics in their services involves a threat of perversion to Catholics or at least the danger that they will gradually become indifferent in religious belief; Catholics who observe it may take scandal from it; and non-Catholics may see in it a quasi-approbation of their services or of their erroneous belief...Though not mentioned by the Code, the active and public participation by non-Catholics in Catholic worship is always forbidden, since it would promote indifferentism through the impression given that there is no essential difference between the Catholic Faith and the errors of the sects. " (See The Sacred Canons 2: 512-513).

 Before I continue with my analysis, let me remind my readers precisely what type of Una Cum Mass to which I am referring. 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 SSPX would currently fall into that category, but not if they "reconcile" with Bergoglio.

Una Cum is NOT Preferred Yet NOT Forbidden

 I agree that Masses that mention Bergoglio should be avoided whenever possible and the Mass of a sedevacantist should be the ideal. However, there are reasons I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Omlor and Fr. Cekada that they cannot be attended under pain of sin. 

1. In the early nineteenth century, the king was mentioned by name in England within the Canon. 

This would show that interpretation # 4 above is correct. The Mass is offered for the heretic, not in union as co-offerers. It is offensive to pious ears to believe that Pope Pius VII would allow Mass to be offered with the Anglican heretics King George III and IV. (See https://archive.org/details/a550137400unknuoft). Mr. Omlor cites theologian de la Taille: "Hence were anyone to mention by name an infidel, heretic, a schismatic or an excommunicated person (whether a king, or a bishop, or any other [e.g. Ratzinger] ), either in the prayer Te Igitur or in our commemoratio pro vivis [i.e. the commemoration of the living in the second prayer of the Canon], he would certainly violate the law of the Church." Obviously, this is mere ecclesiastical precept, not one of divine positive law or natural law. Therefore, we cannot be talking about the sin of communicatio in sacris. There was an allowance for the King of England under Pope Pius VII. If a priest is mistaken about the identity of the pope, he may objectively violate a precept of the Church, but be subjectively guiltless. Furthermore, a breach of a precept in good faith is not "contagious." You do not thereby sin, especially in the current Great Apostasy, where there is a grave necessity for the reception of the sacraments.  But isn't the priest speaking a lie by calling Francis "our pope"? Not necessarily, as I shall set forth the reason why below. 

2. Would mentioning Bergoglio in the Canon effectuate the sin of communicatio in sacris by being schismatic
Going back to Canon 1258 and its proper interpretation by canonists Abbo and Hannon, how does the name of Bergoglio turn the Mass into a non-Catholic service? Fr. Cekada cites theologian Merkelbach: "The Sacrifice of the Mass," says the theologian Merkelbach, is directly offered only for members of the Church."
For this reason, the Church does not offer intercessory prayers for heretics and schismatics during the course of the Mass, nor can a heretic or a schismatic be mentioned by name in a liturgical prayer." (Internal citation omitted). Again, how does this square with mentioning the King of England? The prohibition is purely ecclesiastical. Furthernore, according to theologian Szal, "...a schismatic professes belief in the sovereign power and primacy of the Pope, but out of malice refuses to be subject to him and obey him as the Head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2) It is precisely because the priest does not want to risk being schismatic that he recites the name of Bergoglio. He is not acting out of malice to refuse obedience to a real pope, nor is he in actual union with Bergoglio. Una Cum Masses cannot be considered schismatic.

3. Does Una Cum involve scandal? 

Does the Mass of an SSPX priest  "...involve a threat of perversion to Catholics or at least the danger that they will gradually become indifferent in religious belief; Catholics who observe it may take scandal from it; and non-Catholics may see in it a quasi-approbation of their [non-Catholics] services or of their erroneous belief..."? (See Abbo and Hannon, above).

I don't think that it necessarily would. Some SSPX priests are "crypto-sedevacantists" themselves, and are afraid of expulsion. Remember that although both logical and true, the position that Bergoglio is not pope is not de fide. The SSPX priests (as of this writing) are not in actual union with Modernist Rome and hold to the faith by rejecting the errors of Vatican II. I agree it is not ideal to mention the false pope. However, I can't say it is a non-Catholic service or a sin to attend. Those not strong in the Faith may need to stay away. How vocal (if at all) is the priest about Francis as "pope"? Will your children be confused? Will they think the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church? These things need to be considered on an individual basis, not as general prohibition based on scandal.

 As I wrote in a previous post, "Do not let the position of the SSPX on the 'pope' make you soft. Rather, use it as an opportunity to forge friendships and influence others in that chapel (including the priest) to re-think their position on Francis with some well placed questions. In so doing you might get others to reject Antipope Francis and further expose his sect of darkness. Deo gratias."

4. Traditionalist Priests who offer the Una Cum and become sedevacantists, do not have to abjure their errors. 

As Bp. Pivarunas of the CMRI noted, this means it can't seriously be maintained as heretical or schismatic to do so. If offering the Mass with the name of Bergoglio ipso facto makes them actually "in union with him," then we must shun them as non-Catholics. Interestingly, I've never heard Fr. Cekada or Mr. Omlor profess that Traditionalists can't go to SSPX priests for Penance outside the danger of death. Yet this would be the case if they somehow were in union with Bergoglio simply by the use of Una Cum. In August of 2002, Bp. Pivarunas declared,

  "Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cum" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

"Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

"This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

"Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church."

Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.

To be fair, Fr. Cekada does not claim Traditionalist priests who offer Una Cum Masses to be excommunicated heretics or schimatics (nor did Mr. Omlor in his article). Both claim that you  participate in a lie, profess union with a false pope, etc. Such is not necessarily true, because see #4 below.

4. Another possibility is that we offer the Mass with the OFFICE of the pope and king, not the actual person as such. 

Fr. Cekada thinks that you cannot pray for a "material" pope (placeholder), without invoking the formal part of the office (his authority), as in the case of sedeprivationists who claim Bergoglio a "material" but not "formal" pope. However, I find his objection to be without merit. He claims that," The various linguistic and theological meanings for the una cum in the Canon, however, can only be applied to a true pope who possesses papal authority —e.g., head of the Church, Vicar of Christ, Successor of  Peter, principle of unity, visible pastor, etc." This is unpersuasive. Fr.Cekada does not cite why someone who possess potentially the office of pope cannot be prayed for as the holder of the office and why. You would look to him as the potential principle of unity and pray that he renounces his errors. It's probably why the name of the King of England can be inserted; we pray for the office he holds, not the heresy that comes with the person holding the office. In this case we would NOT be participating in a lie! Since no theologian of which I'm aware has ever tackled this question head on, I'm not going to tell people to stay away from an Una Cum Mass based on what some people indirectly construe in the writings of theologians; in the case of Mr. Omlor, a single theologian. Fr. Cekada cites several sources, it is true, however we are left with his interpretation, not a black and white reading of the material. We have Church practice that goes directly against what he wrote in the case of mentioning the King of England.  Without a hierarchy such opinions (pro and con Una Cum) can certainly be maintained, but not enforced.

Conclusion

I will conclude with my summary from a previous post about attendance at SSPX chapels. To read it in its entirety go to http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2013/11/can-traditionalist-attend-mass-at-sspx.html.

Here is the summary of deciding where to go for Mass, on vacation or otherwise:


  • Judge the priest(s) theological positions, not the organization.
  • Always attend the Mass of a Traditionalist sedevacantist priest whenever feasible. (Some SSPX priests are "crypto-sedevacantists" who can't say what they believe or face expulsion).
  • Ask the priest the name of his ordaining Bishop, and if the Traditional Rite of ordination was used to make sure he is a valid priest.
  • NEVER attend the Mass of a "priest" who is in union with the Modernist Vatican (even if validly ordained) such as the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FFSP) and certain "Motu" priests. 
  • Ask if he rejects the errors of Vatican II (he must or he is a heretic)
  • Ask if he accepts BOD [Baptism of Desire] and BOB [Baptism of Blood]; (he must or he is a heretic)
  • Ask what Missal he uses. 1954 is best, then 1958, then 1962.
  • Any priest who refuses to answer such questions has something to hide and must be avoided at all costs.

Using these principles, if there is no option for you except an SSPX chapel, you may attend provided he rejects Vatican II's errors in principle and was validly ordained in the Traditional Rite. All SSPX priests are taught to reject the Feenyite heresy and they use the 1962 Missal with some pre-1962 rubrics. I know there are those who will disagree with my positions on the validity of Thuc Bishops [I believe them to be valid] and attending the so-called "una cum" Mass (using the name of Francis in the Canon). However, I am comfortable before God with the positions I have taken and conclusion I have drawn. I hope this helps Traditionalists in deciding where to attend Mass and receive the sacraments. [I also hope the day will come when we fight less among ourselves as Traditionalists and realize Francis as the enemy. We can all be sedevacantists on that glorious day, and hasten an imperfect general council for the election of a true pope with whom we can ALL be UNA CUM.---Introibo]

113 comments:


  1. I agree with you, Introibo. Perder sedevacantists here in Brazil told me that we should do an act of rejection to the arch-heretic Francis in the masses Una Cum. Is that correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An "act of rejection"? As long as you realize the priest is mistaken, that is sufficient. If you make an internal "act of rejection" I see no harm in that either.

      God bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the answer. Exactly. It would be an inner act.

      Introibo, have you done any article about Canon 188 of the 1917's Code of Canon Law? I hear Christopher Ferrara, a traditionalist R & R famous there in the US tried to disqualify his use by sedevacantistas.

      Delete
    3. No, not yet. I'll look into it.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. I was under somewhat false pretenses lured into attending an SSPX Mass last Wednesday.

    I knelt, because of the canon prayer and transsubstantiation and presence of Christ.

    I also did NOT answer the prayers, like the Amen after Pater or Blessing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a valid priest/Bishop & the SSPX is all that is available,please attend that chapel regularly!
      Its better than not going I promise you.
      We are blessed to have a sede chapel that celebrates the pre-1950 rubrics,holy week,etc...
      If the SSPX with a valid priest was all I had available,I would attend every week!

      Delete
    2. LOL! You have a good sense of humor George!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Like Buster Keaton, often not intended on my part.

      Like this time.

      Delete
    4. Well of course "Pope" Michael is against Una Cum, because he delusionally thinks HE is the pope and should be mentioned! Any one who thinks his mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and Theresa Benns (the ersatz "theologian" who set up the farmhouse "conclave") can make him "pope" has serious issues, no matter how nice and well intentioned.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Anyone who thinks a bunch of heretics dressed up as Catholic cardinals can make someone a pope also has serious issues. While I am not a proponent of Michael being Pope, at least he was alledgedly elected by Catholics. We know that Bergolio was elected by modernists. So who's claim to the papacy is more valid?

      Delete
    6. Tom,
      I'd have to respectfully say neither has a claim on the papacy. The reasons for Bergoglio you mentioned. For David Bawden ("Pope" Michael) it takes more than six lay Catholics (three WOMEN among them) to make a "conclave"!

      Yet I take your point--Bergoglio is completely unCatholic. An apostate elected by a group of heretics, each of whom was appointed by a heretic. Bawden may be whacky but he is closer to authentic Catholicism than Bergoglio.
      God bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Yes Bawden may be misguided, but at least he professs the Catholic faith. He also saw that the logical next step to sedevacantism is to elect a new Pope. Seeing how modernist imposters in Rome are incapable of electing a true Pope, the job falls on the remaining traditional bishops and clergy. I can sympathize with Bawden. Everyone complains about Rome yet no one gives the faithful a true Pope. Making a Pope is not a sacramental act. Its a legal action. In times of emergency, the law should not be used to tie mans hands for survival. The ultimate law is the salvation of souls so I would think the traditional bishops could take extraordinary steps to restablish order in the remnant of faithful left. What are they waiting for?

      Delete
    8. I share your frustration Tom. When the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered. You have correctly put your finger on the problem, and the problem goes deep. The "Una Cum" issue is just one example of division that keeps an imperfect general council from happening. SSPV won't attend with Thuc Bishops. Certain Thuc Bishops won't attend with Lefebvre bishops--who still don't accept sedevacantism. Still other bishops DON'T want a council because they are sedeprivationists, and are waiting for Bergoglio or his successor to have their "Saul into St. Paul" experience and become formally (not just materially) the pope. It is a mess.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. OK, and thinking one can licitly consecrate bishops with no normal apostolic mandate is somehow better than convening a conclave, inviting cardinals, and considering them as heretics and no longer valid electors if they still accept Wojtyla after 1986?

      Delete
    10. Hans,
      Until we get a morally unanimous consensus that (a) we are in a state of sedevacantism and (b) we proceed according to the laws of the Church as properly set forth for such an extraordinary situation, it's the best we can do for now.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. Did Monsignor Lefèbvre wait for a morally unanimous consensus in 1988?

      Delete
    12. Comparing apples and oranges. The requirements for a conclave is not the same as for a valid Sacrament.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. There is more than validity, there is also licitity of episcopal consecration.

      If an episcopal consecration without normal apostolic mandate is normally IL-licit (if valid), the act of Monsignor Lefèbvre means that he considered there was a case of necessity, in which normal rules don't quite apply.

      IF normal rules apply, Williamson, Galarreta, Tissier de Mallerais, Fellay were all validly consecrated, like Rifan, but the only one whom it is or was for long licit to approach about his episcopal powers was Rifan, since he quickly made up with Rome. It would in that case still be illicit to approach Bishop Williamson.

      If on the other hand the matters are so bad that normal rules do NOT apply to the situation, or were so, why stop at episcopal consecration, and not add a conclave of emergency which removes the state of emergency?

      Pope Michael - or if you prefer, Bishop Bawden (yes, he was consecrated in 2011, Gaudete Sunday, having been priest since c. 24 hours earlier) made a study of what epikeia as a virtue means, it is a virtue dealing with emergency situations in which normal rules don't apply, and the response he got is that for normal rules NOT to apply, one has to act in ways so as to remove emergency and restore full applicability of normal rules. Which means not stopping at episcopal consecrations out of normal licitness, but making a creative move about papal elections (usually referred to as "conclaves" due to the usual and normal mode in which e g Pope St Pius X was elected).

      This is his argument against those who have been (in their view) prolonging the case of necessity which justified their positions.

      Delete
    14. Normal rules means rules that are not of divine positive law that cannot be changed. For example, the mandate for episcopal consecration is of purely ecclesiastical origin and admits of circumstances that would render it null and void. On the other hand, the requirement that only a validly ordained priest can offer Mass is of Divine positive law, such that a layman cannot offer Mass validly no matter what the circumstances.

      The election of a pope has changed over the years, but certain things have not. Women are barred from participating in a conclave or an imperfect general council. Bawden was "elected" by his mommy, his daddy, and two nice neighbors along with Mrs. Benns and himself. This is what is commonly known as a farce.

      He is not even a bishop or priest. He derives his orders from one "Bp" Bob Biarnesen. Bp Bob received his orders through the Old Catholic line in the US which are held as doubtful. What ever happened to ol' Bp. Bob? We know nothing of his ecclesiastical training and education (if any). That compounds the doubt. Why did he leave Bawden? Why isn't he mentioned on his website and made a "cardinal" with an office outside the chicken coop?

      David Bawden is a well-intentioned, yet delusional man.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    15. If women cannot even participate in a conclave, that makes the two votes of his mother and Theresa Benns invalid.

      This leaves 3 votes against one (his own).

      "He derives his orders from one "Bp" Bob Biarnesen. Bp Bob received his orders through the Old Catholic line in the US which are held as doubtful."

      I had read sth on the wikipedia of some consecrating bishop actually deriving HIS line via two intermediates from Duarte Costa, which is not doubtful.

      Sure Bob Biarnesen was chief consecrator and not just coconsecrator?

      As to "delusional", this word smacks too much of modern psychiatry, in which ideologically charged questions can be used to denote insanity.

      If you wanted to say "he is wrong", those words would have sufficed.

      As to why the consecrating bishops are not mentioned, I have wondered that too, and just mentioned that for now I am supposing His Holiness has a good reason not to mention them (good as in valid, not as in excellent for egoistic purposes).

      As for Theresa Benns, she also left him.

      She - and one Indian man who debated with me while as Palmarian I was opposed to his election on the simple ground I considered the See filled in 1990 by "Gregorio XVII" - are on a site denouncing him as a fraud, and one of their grounds seems to be his ... character.

      According to them, he is a bully.

      Perhaps, but that changes nothing about the validity of his papacy.

      For me, I have not been quite able to verify where certain blocks to my carreer as a writer and composer are coming from, even if His Holiness has not completely overturned them by publishing things by me either. Whoever IS responsible is very much a bully, but he could have been under pressure.

      Delete
    16. Hans,
      The very idea that there were only six Catholics left in the world is an absurd contention. Bawden voted for himself, and he has no clue on how to read the dense Latin pages on an imperfect general council. There can be no conclave of non-Cardinals. "Bp" Bob performed the ceremony alone and disappeared. Sound fishy? In the extreme.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    17. "The very idea that there were only six Catholics left in the world is an absurd contention."

      I don't think that was the contention.

      The only six who acted justly in the matter does not equal the only six who were Catholics, like such who hadn't heard of the invitations to the conclave.

      "Bawden voted for himself,"

      Says who?

      I assumed he didn't, because in a conclave no one does, so if he did, I'd like to know a source for it.

      "and he has no clue on how to read the dense Latin pages on an imperfect general council."

      I have seen one fault in Latin by him in the past, but that does not mean he has no clue on how to read Latin - a page being dense has little to do with it.

      "There can be no conclave of non-Cardinals."

      If by "conclave" we mean ordinary and in usual legal form conducted papal election, agreed. If we mean papal election in general, I think he beats you in Church history.

      ""Bp" Bob performed the ceremony alone and disappeared. Sound fishy? In the extreme."

      At least somewhat, yes. It could be a case of fraud, but it could also be a case of someone putting pressure on Bob after the fact or someone putting him up to putting His Holiness in an awkward position before it.

      Also, I think I recall the ceremony was by two bishops.

      One thought crossing my mind is that they had agreed beforehand to ordain him and consecrate him and then leave him, so he could not document it, properly.

      I do not have proof culpability is on him.

      It could also be they were blackmailed after the fact.

      Delete
    18. That there were other methods of electing a pope but once gone, that method can no longer be used. Only an imperfect general council (or sedeprivationism) hold the key. No approved theologian teaches otherwise.

      The source that Bawden voted for himself was Bawden's own site that claimed the vote was "unanimous." He may have changed it, but that's what I had read.

      He has no formal Ecclesiastical training or education. He has a high school education and was expelled from SSPX.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    19. "That there were other methods of electing a pope but once gone, that method can no longer be used."

      Not even in a state of emergency?

      "Only an imperfect general council (or sedeprivationism) hold the key. No approved theologian teaches otherwise."

      I tried sedeprivationism. Was John Paul II a material Pope? Could Benedict XVI have been a formal Pope? I hoped so. I have felt deceived since hoping so.

      Imperfect general council ... I think that one was tried at Elx (Elche). I have rejected the result since I - like Pope Michael - am not a Feeneyite.

      "The source that Bawden voted for himself was Bawden's own site that claimed the vote was "unanimous." He may have changed it, but that's what I had read."

      OK, I took that as meaning five votes against one.

      "He has no formal Ecclesiastical training or education."

      I have noticed on certain issues.

      But does that invalidate his conclusion? No.

      If his conclusion on emergency conclave was valid, does it invalidate his election? No.

      Formal training and formal education are overvalued items. No sacrament or faculty or jurisdiction depends on someone having it. If I were a bishop and ordained a man who had not got the philosophy course under others, and even one who had legitimately flunked philosophy and whom it would be sinful for me to ordain, he would still be validly ordained.

      If I had given him faculties to hear confession, his faculties would not become invalid because I found out he had flunked or never even made the exams in moral theology or canon law.

      And if I had died and the pope given him jurisdiction as administrator of my diocese up to election of bishop by a chapter vote, the jurisdiction he would be exercising would also not be invalid because he lacked formal training.

      "He has a high school education ..."

      Plus home schooling and continued studies at home.

      "...and was expelled from SSPX."

      You agree with him he has been a student at SSPX. He has given another version on how it ended.

      Delete
    20. No, not even in a state of emergency can a conclave be called. It requires cardinals appointed by a pope. Right there it ends the "papacy" of Bawden. Some things can never be done even in a state of emergency. For example, if someone was in danger of death you could not validly baptize them using milk or beer as a substitute for water.

      An imperfect general council has to meet the right standards, just as a conclave can't be called without real cardinals. You can't be elected "pope" by your mommy, your daddy and two nice neighbors on your Kansas farmhouse.

      Read the theologians pre-V2 and you won't fall for phonies like Bawden or Dominguez ("Pope" Gregory) who taught heresy, molested the "nuns" and became a "Saint." His "stigmata" in a picture I saw looked like ketchup--and probably was!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    21. I am an ex-adherent of "Gregorio XVII".

      Theologians (not Church fathers or scholastics, but contemporary) pre-V2 and especially pre-Pius XII even (like Dorsch) are no doubt good, but a bit hard to come by.

      I ditched Dominguez over a doctrinal matter before hearing/reading he had molested monks as well.

      "Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the eighth dimension"

      Hey, what about God creating space in THREE dimensions, to indicate He is THREE Persons?

      So, I am an ex-Palmarian.

      Ditching Dominguez came as per reading St Augustine, less hard to come by, most works, than Father Dorsch. Or as per having read Augustine.

      Either way, validity of a sacrament is different from validity of jurisdiction.

      And an antipope can become a true pope if one is needed and no one else is available.

      One of my theories (abandoned) was that Pope Krav in Zagreb had been carrying the torch to 2012. But that was a comedy act, and the comedian gave it up when he saw sedevacantist popes exist for real. Now, if this had been right, the 1990 conclave would have been invalid for another reason, namely the see not being vacant.

      That means, Pope Michael would have started out as an antipope, but could have become a true Pope after cessation of "Pope Krav" (had he been for real).

      How come an antipope can become a true pope? See Pope St Felix II. He bagan to be Pope (after starting as an antipope) when clergy of Rome considered Liberius apostate, abdicated when Liberius cleared himself and reigned as true Pope a second time after Pope Liberius died.

      On the other hand, this happened with "clergy of Rome" = equivalent of cardinals.

      And "on the third hand" / "first hand again", time is a bit running out for sedevacantism proper. Perpetuos successores.

      I got a view on an apologetics video by JPHolding, he defended replacing of Old Covenant by new by saying "olam" (I think it was, I'm no Hebraist) means perpetual rather than "eternal".

      But the, if so, perpetual covenant of Sinai was interrupted for 70 years. 1958+70=2028.

      That might be the limit for a break not changing perpetuity of papacy, as defined in Vatican council of 1869-70.

      An imperfect general council could of course also confer papal jurisdiction on someone previously an antipope, I suppose?

      Or recognise someone who was suspected of being so was a Pope, after all?

      A decision of such an imperfect general council could trump the otherwise correct opinion of Father Dorsch, I suppose?

      Delete
  3. A couple of comments: Does not a crypto sedevacantist do harm to the Church by not declaring the grave error of accepting the recent imposters as true Popes? Francis like his predecessors continues to destroy the faith of all who accept him as Pope or remain quiet about the fact that he is an antichrist. Should not the watchman cry out and warn the Faithful? By acting as a crypto-sedevacantist a clergy or layman gives the impression that the R and R Catholics are justified. It is a grave mistake to be satisfied with the Latin Mass and Sacraments. R and R Catholics will inevitably be absorbed into the false Novus Ordo sect over time.
    Second comment: The argument that we must strive for unity as sedevacantists or as traditionalists is dangerous and false. The true unity is the entire teaching of the Faith in union with Christ and a true Magisterium and a true Pope. To think that we should strive for any unity other than that is naive and harmful. Already we can see various heresies and a spirit of independence growing in the SSPX. Should we be silent about their errors regarding the Papacy because they are traditionalists? Should we ignore their schism because some of their claims are correct?
    There is more than just the Una Cum issue in attending an SSPX Mass. Whether they make a deal with the false sect of modernism doesn't matter. The matter is they hold to a number of absolutely contradictory doctrines and thus lead people astray despite the fact that their Masses are in Latin and they have a semblance of piety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr Miller,
      As to your first comment, I agree with you that "crypto-sedes" do more harm than good. However, not all SSPX are crypto, they do mental gymnastics to "save" a "pope" they don't follow. In either case, a sedevacantist layman who has no choice for Mass, can influence the clergy and faithful with well placed questions. Let's not forget the SSPV was formed by nine priests of the SSPX!

      I also agree with your second comment. But please remember that if we have universal recognition of sedevacante among SSPX and the R&R crowd, we can begin the process of an imperfect general council to elect a successor to Pope Pius XII.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Great article we Catholics need more unity & LESS DIVISION!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is quite conceivable that many SSPX priests omit the Una Cum anyway. How would the laity know if he omits it or not? This is a matter for a real Pope to settle. I can see good points on both side of each position but am not convinced one way or another. So I have no problem going to SSPX chapels. If SSPX regularizes with the anti-Church then I would probably change my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true Tom. The Canon is recited in the "secret voice" and only a real pope can render a binding decision. If SSPX joins Modernist Rome, they become part of that evil sect and cannot be attended.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Another great article, Introibo. I didn't know that about Mr Omlor and the una cum. His son in law, John Lane, is a Society man and puts up good arguments to show why the una cum is a non-issue, and that a valid Mass and Sacraments, if available, should not be avoided, a position with which I agree, especially in these dark times of terrifying apsotasy.

      I keep running into Tom A in the same corners of the internet that I frequent, and he almost always has just posted the same thing I was about to say. It's quite uncanny. I agree with Tom.

      Delete
    3. ...And both Tom and you read my blog each week! You know what they say, "Great minds think alike!"

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. I would say "should not be attended" for prudence sake. Even if regularized, the sacraments would still be valid. There is a local indult mass with a priest ordained in the old rite. I believe his sacraments are valid even though I generally avoid that mass since I have to witness desperate traditionally minded Catholics kneeling at the altar adoring a doubtful host that was "consecrated" at a previous Supper of the Lamb by a probably invalidly ordained "priest" using a probable invalid rite performed by a "bishop" who was probably invalidly "ordained" using an invalid episcopal rite. Get the picture? Way too much doubt with the NO. Not worth taking a chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No disagreement from me! To this I would add That ANYONE IN ACTUAL UNION with Modernist Rome, must (in principle) accept the heresies of V2 and the post-V2 "popes." They become heretics and outside the Church--where we all know there is "nulla salus "!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. This is a subject that I disagree with Inroibo on. But I am glad he wrote that he is open to being wrong. Here we have sedevacantists who have gone as far as pronouncing that the chair of peter has been vacant for 50 years and yet some of the same think so little of praying Una Cum? This makes no sense at all. "One With" an arch heretic and precursor to the antichrist? No, those who think this way have it all wrong. And no it is not simply praying for the heretic. The essence of communion is just that - communion. The Eucharist is what unites the mystical Body of the Church, essentially making it One Body in Christ. Including the names of the hierarchy in the canon of the mass is no small matter - it is indeed an acknowledgment of unity in the mystical body. Some Sedevacantists seem to want it both ways: yes they pope is an antichrist they will say, but because we need Mass outlets, it is ok to mystically unite with the antipope. How confused some Sedevacantists are. Father Cekada is correct on this one. I'm sorry that it is an inconvenience that there are not more masses to assist at, but that does not justify this massive error.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is fine that you disagree. As I stated above, I'm no theologian and I have no Magisterial authority. I sympathize with much of what you say---the very mention of Bergoglio makes me wince. However, what I can't get around is this: The Indefectibility of the Church tells us that She cannot give that which is evil or false. Pope Pius VII allowed praying for the Anglican King of England in the Canon. Therefore, praying for a heretic can't be considered evil or wrong per se, unless Pope Pius VII was a heretic and not pope.

      Also, I've explained above there is good reason to think we are only praying for the OFFICE he holds!

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. No, you are not praying for the office that a heretic holds because a heretic can't hold the office in the first place...unless your name is really John Salza. The fact that the heretic's name is stated is proof that they are praying in communion with him and not his office anyway. This should not even be a debate except for the fact that Pius VII allowed praying una cum with the heretic of England. By the way, if Pius VII allowed this practice it was because he was pope whereas you are not. Once someone concludes Francis is not a pope that should be it for una cum. The only people who should be given any slack on the matter are people who are confused about Francis. Sedevacantists are NOT confused about the heretic in Rome so stop trying to confuse them just so they can attend a schismatic Mass. Same goes for Bp Pivarunas who should know better.

      Delete
    3. How is the Mass schismatic? The burden is on you to show how a Traditionalist priest And/or layman who wants to remain Catholic separates himself from the Church. He does not meet the requirements set forth by the Church for schism as elucidated by theologian Szal.

      If you are praying WITH the heretic, I don't see anyway around concluding Pope Pius VII lost his office. The sedeprivationist theory is viable. The eminent theologian and Traditionalist Bishop M. Guerard de Laurier (who drafted the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" for Pope Pius XII defining the Assumption) taught the "material/formal distinction and is held by many Traditionalists such as Bp Sanborn.

      If you can present cogent arguments against what I've written, I'll have to change my opinion and post a retraction. Until then my opinion remains as I've written above.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Anon, since there is no Pope at the moment, no one can rule that its sinful to attend an Una Cum mass. It is less than ideal and one must measure the benefits of attending a TLM with valid sacraments against the Una Cum. It may be prudent or it may not be. This is a matter of opinion until definitevely declared. I can never say you sin by using your best judgment in this case. Nor can you do the same to someone who still goes to indult masses or someone who has decided to stay home. We each deal with the crisis as best we can. What should unite us now more than ever is the Rosary. It is now so obvious why Our Lady gave it to us. She knew it would be all some faithful would have left in this great apostasy.

      Delete
    5. Tom, this is not as complicated as you want to make it out to be. This portion of the Canon "Te Igitur..." is a prayer of communion specifically for members of the Church. Communion Tom. As I said above, if you have personally concluded that Francis is not a member of the Church then you should not falsify your worship with those who have not reached that same conclusion.

      Delete
    6. Anon,
      You still haven't explained why we can't be in union with a material pope thereby praying for the office of pope NOT the person.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Introibo, first, thanks for a very interesting subject and for letting us anonymous folks post our comments here.

      This is common sense. If Francis is a formal heretic who does not belong to the Church then why would you ever think you can include him among the communion of the faithful? Should we add the words, "together with Francis our cardboard pope." I don't agree with he material pope theory. But if anyone does, he or she might just as well join the SSPX who believe about the same thing rather than use them for their sacraments. The material / formal pope theory actually makes Sedevacantism superfluous.

      Delete
    8. I always allow comments from my readers as long as they contain no profanity or blasphemy. I have learned a lot from my readers! I do sympathize with those who despise the Una Cum. I even state that I believe it should be avoided if at all possible. Nevertheless, without a pope to decide the issue (and with good arguments on both sides), I think liberty in this area is the only way to go. I cannot, in good conscience, tell someone to stay away from such a Mass (as I described it) in this time of The Great Apostasy. I have no Magisterial authority and I'm no theologian.

      The Sedeprivationist Theory was developed by theologian de Laurier. It doesn't make sedevacantism superfluous, it has the same practical effect, but it gives a definite answer to exactly how we get back a pope. Should the material pope (placeholder with no authority) publicly abjure his heresies, embrace the Catholic Faith whole and entire, and get validly ordained/consecrated ---he would be a real pope (material and formal).

      The SSPX (as an organization) believes Francis to be BOTH materially and formally pope (I.e. A true pope). There's a world of difference.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. What if a priest says that there is salvation outside the Church, and that baptism is not necessary for salvation, should he be avoided?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George,
      I know where you are going with this and I agree that MANY clergy (even those from pre-Vatican II days, such as Abp. Lefebvre), did a VERY BAD job of explaining BOD and BOB. They were imprecise (to say the least) when speaking on the topic.

      If any priest said that someone could be saved outside the Church, so that (for example) a Moslem could be saved as a Moslem (because of Islam) not within the Church and sanctifying grace---such a priest would indeed be a heretic and his Mass must be shunned.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. The times in which we live and the issue of the vacancy of the Holy See is an inherent paradox.

    We need a Pope to finally declare from the Chair, once and for all, that his Chair is vacant. That would settle it for everyone, surely!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does seem circular and paradoxical Mike! However, just as we know an abortionist is a murderer without any declaration, so tô can we know a heretic can't be pope. How people perform mental gymnastics to "keep Francis pope" is sad and pathetic.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. An equally important issue as the status of the Chair of St Peter is the question of why there is a circumflex above the letter "o" in the word "to" in your reply. How did you do that anyway?

      Delete
    3. I have no idea Mike! Typed fast on vacation! Maybe another issue for a true pope to resolve LOL

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Introibo, I can't find where Pope Pius VII specifically allowed the names of the King of England to be inserted in the canon of Mass. I clicked on the link you provided to the Roman Missal of 1806 but there is no indication that the pope allowed the Anglican Kings to be inserted here by name. It appears to be a general missal in use by the Church at the time and so it should not be surprising that it includes the sentence "together with...and N. our King" but that does not mean Roman Catholics inserted their names. I have to believe the bishops skipped the sentence and instructed the priests to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found the citation two places online and in a rare book I have in my personal library (about 4,000 titles). I'm on vacation and don't have access to try and find it this week.

      Thankfully, I know I'm not crazy because the link I provided is also on Wikipedia under "Canon of the Mass" and states the names of the King were used. Not a great source, to say the least, but it's all I have at the moment.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia states that Pope St Pius V eliminated the clause for the King in the Canon except by special permission such as in Hungary (which had a Catholic monarch). So why would an 1806 Missal have that clause which was eliminated unless it was used by permission? I stated I am always open to fraternal correction and changing my mind to follow the evidence where it leads. I will dig for the citation I found a few years back when I return from vacation. If anyone can provide me with a solid citation that the name of the King of England, despite the change in the Canon by St Pius V, was nevertheless NOT given approbation by the Holy See, I must remove that argument and reassess accordingly.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Just curious as to who it was that initially came up with the idea of sedevacantism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea is basically as old as the Church Herself. The idea of a pope falling into heresy and losing his authority is taught by all theologians and even by Pope Paul IV in the 16th century.

      The period between popes was called "sedevacate" meaning the "seat is vacant." One of the first people to apply the term to our situation was Fr Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, who wrote the book "The New Montinian (meaning "of Montini"--"Pope " Paul VI) Church"
      Fr Arriaga was using the term in the late 1960s!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo - According to the following article the first proponent of Sedevacantism was Francis Schuckardt and later followed by Fr. Arriaga.
      wikipedia>wiki>sedevacantism

      Delete
    3. Thank you for the information! We all know Wikipedia is not reliable but it could very well be true in this case. Shuckardt was indeed one of the very first sedevacantists. He may very well have preceded Fr Arriaga. We may never know with complete certainty, but those two are at the forefront. Unlike Fr Arriaga, Schuckhardt began the CMRI as what can rightfully be called a cult. Much to the credit of many within, they purged themselves of all cult activities. Under the wonderful leadership of Bishop Pivarunas, the CMRI is now a fully Traditionalist Catholic organization and highly recommended for your spiritual needs. Hopefully, Schuckardt repented before he died.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. If Schuckardt had just been ordained by an old Catholic bishop & refused consecration until he could find a valid Catholic Bishop (for conditional ordination) 10 yrs later,I wonder if his sacraments and Holy Mass would've been valid?
      Given the dire state of emergency in 1971/1972,I think his Orders would've been fine until he could find a valid Bishop.(assuming he would've refused old catholic consecration)

      Delete
    5. Schuckhardt was ordained by Dan Q Brown from the Old Catholic sect in the US. Their orders are dubious. Thankfully, Bp Pivarunas gets his priestly and episcopal orders through the Thuc line.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Oh I know,I was just wondering had he just been ordained and abstained from consecration,would his old Catholic ordination been valid given the dire state of emergency in 1971?
      Also assuming he would've sought conditional ordination once he found a valid Catholic Bishop?

      Delete
    7. "We all know Wikipedia is not reliable"

      Wikipedia is not totally reliable, nor are any other works of reference.

      A work of encyclopaedic reference is not a papal dogmatic bull, nor, usually, a passage from Holy Scriptures, and therefore not totally reliable, but humanly fallible.

      Why would wikipedia be worse than the rest?

      Delete
    8. Because anyone can edit it, unlike hard copies of peer-reviewed literature.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. That cuts two ways.

      I can't edit the correct facts in thousands of copies on paper by a click, and make them less reliable.

      But I cannot edit the incorrect facts to make them more reliable either.

      Wikipedians correcting each other is a form of peer review, if you like, and in my view superior to pre-publication review.

      Except during the period in which such was required for theological books, because God was giving the censors behind nihil obstats a special grace.

      No such special grace protects the peer reviewer accepting an evolutionist or rejecting a creationist article proposal on Science or Nature.

      Obviously, on that ideological scale, wikipedia is no real help, since any wikipedian article tends to reflect the general culture of its linguistic area.

      In German, you can get good wiki articles about Austrofascism, in English you can't as much and in French you can't at all. Reflecting the fact that Dollfuss and Schuschnigg are better known in German than in English or let alone French.

      But when it comes to a single writer making a blunder, wiki is superior on getting that blunder corrected.

      So, wikipedia would normally not be worse than the rest.

      Delete
    10. None one academic accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source. Teddy Roosevelt was listed as an alien from space for two weeks before it was flagged.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    11. "None one academic accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source."

      None one is a huge negative.

      I suppose that is what overwhelmed you so as to garble your English and make you type sth other than "not one" or "none of the -s".

      Seriously, it is a very huge negative. How do you prove it?

      And apart from that, it is also not very to the point.

      Not one Church Father is both easier to prove (there are fewer Church Fathers in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Graeca and I suppose also Syriaca and Coptica all taken together than Academics in today's Academia) AND more relevant.

      You see, the Council of Trents forbids us to go against the consensus of Church Fathers. It does NOT forbid us to go against the consensus of Academics, especially not at a particular time.

      "Teddy Roosevelt was listed as an alien from space for two weeks before it was flagged."

      1) You saw it on January first and waited to January 15th when seeing someone had taken it down or simply flagged it as "source required" or "vague"? Why didn't you take it down on January 2 yourself?

      Or you have it from someone else who did? Same question for that someone else.

      Or you have it from an Academic work which says so?

      Yes, right, someone can have planted that as a fake item in a wiki and checked how long it takes before it is taken down. If academic professors all over the world are doing so, many wikis may involve fake items - for the period when the professors are saying it.

      These checks are of course downgrading the quality of wikipedia for the time concerned.

      2) As you say "listed", are you sure the list was not an appropriate one for that listing?

      Like "claimed aliens from space" might certainly involve Our Lord and Elvis Presley, and why not Teddy Roosevelt?

      If someone actually did claim it, they are, for each who has suffered such a claim, a "claimed alien from space".

      If you had tried to insert a paragraph on his own article, saying he was or even was claimed as an alien, you can be fairly sure it would have disappeared lots sooner.

      3) The English wiki on Teddy Roosevelt, as well as the English wiki on claimed aliens from space, is separate from the German wiki on Deddi Ruhsewelt (sorry, they probably do spell it correctly) and the German article on "behauptete Fremdlinge aus dem Weltraum" if there is such a list, and both are separate from both French and Spanish wikis.

      In other words, you can check around between wikis if you find a suspect claim in one of them (unless you only speak one language).

      4) Inserting one fake item (if such, like if the listing was on aliens known to be real such, in which case it should be empty, or if no one ever even claimed Teddy Roosevelt was an alien) in one presumably less important article (I suggest UFOlogy articles are less well visited than Teddy Roosevelt articles?) is obviously much less easy than to infect an entire area of articles with a systematic and less detectable fake.

      The easiest way for wiki to warp a correct information flow is for wiki admins to suppress what they think are fake, and to suppress what is not fake - something which happens in academia too.

      To return to your first claim, I am about as academic as Hilaire Belloc.

      About as, meaning he made a honours degree, which implies 5 years at Oxford, I made, not an honours degree, but 5 years. I do claim wikipedia is about as reliable as any academic stuff.

      And like Hilaire Belloc, I am not making academia my carreer after the studies. Those who do may perhaps have two reasons of non-academic type against wikipedia:

      * it is annoying to be corrected by student after student on topic after topic because they read wikipedian article after wikipedian article which is better researched than their own work, because revised by more hands;
      * it is a fear among some that people might start getting information for free from wiki instead of studying and getting them paid.

      Delete
  12. Can you tell me who came up with the theory of the non-Una Cum?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a "theory." Whenever a pope died, and before the election of the next pope, there was no name to be mentioned so the priest omitted any name. Apply that to our extraordinary times. If the last pope (Pius XII) died on October 9, 1958--until (if) we get another pope, they rightfully treat this as an extraordinary extended interregnum.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Interesting. To suggest that an objective lie being offered up to God Who is Truth, during Holy Mass, instituted by Truth Incarnate (and only ever pleasing to God Who is Truth when perpetuated by true priests of the Eternal Order of Melchisedech keeping His altars pure from lies), may, perhaps, not be, maybe subjectively, not kinda, bad or maybe displeasing sometimes, in a New Order 'licit' sort of way. Relativism is the forte of modernists. "'With' heresy", is Antichrist - always.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'll disagree on this my friend. As I stated above, if offered for the OFFICE OF POPE which Francis holds only materially, how is this a lie or evil?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. Calling Francis Pope isn't going to make him a Pope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is true. Is it possible for the sedeprivationist theory to be true? Bergoglio could abjue his heresies, become Catholic, get validly ordained/consecrated and become a true pope? We may never know. Only time will tell.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. The idea that attending an "una cum" Mass is gravely sinful has long since been refuted by John Lane: http://www.sedevacantist.com/una_cum.html

    That being said, I hesitate to recommend people to go to SSPX chapels because the SSPX accept the new rite of ordination and consecration, and allow Novus Ordo "priests" ordained in these modernist rites to function in their chapels without being ordained in the traditional rite by a traditional bishop with an unbroken lineage of consecration in the traditional rite.

    This makes it virtually impossible to be sure the priest saying Mass or hearing your confession is even validly ordained. Sure, you can ask him if he was ordained by one of the Society bishops, but in my experience most Society priests become offended by this question and refuse to answer. And the Novus Ordo-trained "priests" among them are the worst of all in this regard.

    Worse still, even if you do know that the priest saying Mass that day is properly ordained, if you want to receive holy communion, you can't know the hosts are validly consecrated unless the priest distributes from a ciborium that he himself consecrated in that same Mass. Otherwise it's impossible to know whether a modernist-ordained "priest" might have been visiting during the week and "consecrated" the ciborium during the week. This may seem like a stretch, but priests tend to travel around a lot, so there's no way to be sure, and we need to have certitude about the validity of the sacraments we receive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your points are valid and well taken. Aside from Una Cum, there are myriad problems with the organization, many of which you have pointed out. That's why I urge everyone to abide by the vetting method of the individual priest above. (Also ask if any other priest uses that Church or Chapel).

      Any priest --SSPX or otherwise---who refuses to answer or who gets annoyed/evasive should be completely avoided.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. John Lane is a layman.
      Where is it stated in Canon Law we must obey a layman?

      Delete
    3. Taking advice and obeying are two different things.

      Delete
  16. Dear Introibo Ad Altare Dei, thank you for another interesting blog.
    There is one point you made that I would question. You wrote:
    Fr.Cekada does not cite why someone who possess potentially the office of pope cannot be prayed for as the holder of the office and why. You would look to him as the potential principle of unity and pray that he renounces his errors. It's probably why the name of the King of England can be inserted; we pray for the office he holds, not the heresy that comes with the person holding the office. In this case we would NOT be participating in a lie!”
    First, praying for the King of England would not be parallel with mentioning, for example, Bergoglio or a Novus Ordo ordinary. The King (or Queen, as the case may be) of England is, yes, the head of a heretical sect, but the point is that he (or she) is actually the reigning monarch and if he (or she) is prayed for, it is as the monarch, not as a heretic. I agree that Bergoglio is materially-speaking the pope, in the sense that he has been elected to the office and has accepted it, but is not formally the pope, because he does not enjoy the fullness of power which God does not confer so long as Bergoglio adheres to his heresy. If he were to renounce his errors, he would remove the obstacle that he is currently placing in the way of God conferring on him the fullness of papal power. This is where the parallel between an actual monarch and a material pope, it seems to me, breaks down. Even if Bergoglio is, so to speak, potentially the pope, he is, by his heresy, outside the Mystical Body, so it would not be outside Catholic practice to pray for him in the liturgy.
    Secondly, the parallel falls down too, because we pray for the monarch, but in mentioning the name of a pope and the name of a bishop in the Mass, the priest is offering the sacrifice in union with them, which is why the expression used is una cum, that is, at one with this pope who is deemed to be offering the sacrifice with the priest. To be offering the sacrifice of the Mass in union with the pope presupposes that there is a pope, that is, a formal pope who possesses the power and authority to act as the visible head of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, at the end of the second paragraph, I meant to say that it would be outside Catholic practice to pray for Bergoglio in the Sacred Liturgy. A rogue negative found its way into the text.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the kind words as well as the well-written and thoughtful comment on the Una Cum issue. I will address your concerns where you feel my argument fails.

      It seems as if you are a sedeprivationist. So far so good, as it is certainly a viable theory.

      As to your first point, if the King/Queen of England may be prayed for as monarch but not as a heretic--the exact same holds true for Bergoglio! The one power that heresy does NOT take away is that of Absolute Monarch of Vatican City. This is true by reason of the 1929 Latern Treaty signed by and between Mussolini and Pope Pius XI. His civil power is real and immediate, even if he is outside the Church. His temporal power is recognized bu all the governments of the world, including the Masonic United Nations. Therefore what you said of the King/Queen of England would hold equally true of Bergoglio. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that you can only pray for a heretic as monarch if and only if you live under his/her immediate jurisdiction.

      As to your second objection, you can't have it both ways. The Latin grammar can't be read in the Te Igitur one way for the pope and bishop, and another way for the King/Queen. the "una cum" modifies them all in the same sentence so what holds true for one must hold true for all. We either pray FOR or WITH them all. It can't be read as FOR the monarch but WITH the pope. The Latin rules of grammar must work the same, and how it modifies one name, it modifies them all.

      You also seem to suggest that by using Una Cum, the priest somehow becomes a "co-offerer" of the Mass using his priestly powers (non-existent in the case of Bergoglio and most V2 "bishops"). It just doesn't jibe with using the name of the monarch.

      You end by making the following assertion: "To be offering the sacrifice of the Mass in union with the pope presupposes that there is a pope, that is, a formal pope who possesses the power and authority to act as the visible head of the Church." You cite no reason, nor cite any relevant authority (theologians, canonists, decrees of Roman Congregations, etc.) to back it up. If you have any such citations, I would love to see them!

      Thank you for commenting. God bless.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  17. Introibo, it is a pity you didn't quote Mr. Omlor's article in full. Did you know that he wrote two earlier pieces on the topic, one of them refuting John Lane's position on the "una cum" issue? I asked Father Cekada about your claim that Pope Pius VII allowed the name of an heretical king to be inserted in the Una Cum prayer. His response: "There is no citation in the article to any Vatican decree. The author merely provides a link to an 1806 Latin-English missal for the laity in which [the] Latin text of the Canon contains the phrase “pro Rege nostro N.” (for our King, N.). The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic. Until I see an actual Vatican decree, therefore, I will treat the claim as nonsense."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For reasons I hope are obvious, I cannot quote an entire article in a short blog post. I work a full-time job, and have both family and religious obligations to which I must attend. I would be happy to put a link here in the comments section for anyone who has such for articles from Mr. Omlor and Mr. Lane. My readers could access these articles and make up their own minds.

      As to Fr. Cekada, I respect him greatly and hope his health remains for many years to come. he remains in my prayers as always. However, among Traditionalist priests there is a "follow me or die" attitude and egos get in the way. I wish we would fight against Bergoglio and his sect of darkness and NOT each other. The refusal of the SSPV to reconsider the validity of Thuc consecrations come to mind. They (wrongly)refuse Communion to those who recognize the orders as valid. Likewise, I disagree with Fr. Cekada's assessment of Una Cum and his contention that it is sinful to attend. His opinion is just that--his opinion--and devoid of Magisterial authority.

      Does Fr. Cekada really believe that Bp. Pivarunas and the priests of the CMRI are encouraging others to sin by saying it's OK to attend the Una Cum Mass?

      As to what he specifically wrote to you, in 1806, Catholics enjoyed full freedom of worship in England. The government no loner persecuted Catholics as during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. They were allowed to possess and print materials germane to the Catholic Faith, which the government knew full well did not support the English monarch as "Head of the Church." Why would the laity be using hand Missals, approved by the Church, which contained a phrase for the King? Fr. Cekada correctly states that Pope St. Pius V discontinued the mention of civil rulers except by way of privilege. Is it possible one such privilege was given in England and hence the reason for the name of the ruler in the Canon? It is a logical inference.

      Nevertheless, If Fr. Cekada wants to consider the idea "nonsense" unless he sees a specific Vatican decree, that is his prerogative. I will likewise consider his statement, " The various linguistic and theological meanings for the una cum in the Canon, however, can only be applied to a true pope who possesses papal authority —e.g., head of the Church, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, principle of unity, visible pastor, etc." as nonsense in the absence of a citation to Vatican decree declaring the contrary.

      It works both ways.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Consider that it has always been Catholic practice only to name Catholics in the "una cum". If Pope Pius VII had contradicted this consistent tradition by allowing a heretic's name to be inserted, surely such a blatant departure from tradition would not have gone unnoticed. Where is your evidence of his having done so? The onus is on you to provide it. Hence, Fr. Cekada quite rightly termed your claim as "nonsense". A missal, published in England in 1806, does not prove your case that the Pope allowed the names of Protestant kings to be inserted in the Canon. In the light of the foregoing, Fr. Cekada does not need to appeal to a Vatican decree in support of his quote that you cite at the end of your response. The Papal office, as such, is not prayed for in the "una cum" but only an actual current holder of it is specifically named. Incidentally, Fr. Cekada is hardly likely to cite a Vatican decree declaring the contrary to his quote - because such a thing is hardly likely to exist!

      Delete
    3. Your first argument is a gratuitous assumption that Catholics of the time were so theologically sophisticated, an addition of the monarch's name to a silent prayer would have evoked a firestorm! My evidence is indirect, like a sleuth. How do you account for Missals produced with a place to name the King when that part of the Canon had been ordered REMOVED by Pope St Pius V? It seems like there should be a reason; like permission to do so. Remember too that the arguments for Una Cum are many and do not rely on the "King Argument" alone. He is also accusing the clergy of the CMRI of promoting sin, by declaring Una Cum as sinful--which he can believe privately but has no Magisterial authority to burden the consciences of others.

      How does Fr Cekada, or anyone else, know that the office of pope is not prayed for in the case of sedeprivationism? You correctly assert that no such Vatican decree exists because it is unique to our times. So how does he make such an assertion? Based on the unanimous consent of the theologians? No. Based on papal decrees? No. The teachings of various catechisms? No. It is based on Fr.'s non-binding, non-Magisterial opinion, and nothing more. Feel free to reject Una Cum, but please don't attempt to settle for others a question which can only be definitively resolved by a restored papacy.

      ---Introibo



      Delete
    4. @Introibo I agree with you that we need more unity & less "follow me or die!"

      Delete
    5. Dear Introibo,
      Your evidence that Pope Pius VII allowed the name of a heretic to be inserted in the "una cum" prayer is non-existent; you say it is "indirect". Such a momentous departure from tradition would have necessitated a decree from the Holy Father. Unless you can produce such a document, one is safe in holding it does not even exist. Please note Fr. Cekada's comment: "The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic." The context of the "una cum" makes it perfectly clear that individuals are named therein, not offices without a holder of that office. I cannot speak for Fr. Cekada but note that he stated in "Should I Assist At A Mass that Names Benedict XVI In the Canon?": "If any priest disagrees with my conclusions in “Grain of Incense,” I invite him to research the issue in the various sources I cited, and then offer a point-by-point refutation of my arguments. (No one, please note, has done this so far.) Until then, I am confident that my arguments and conclusions stand." Incidentally, my one-time spiritual mentor, the late, great Father Oswald Baker of Downham Market, England, told me (back in 1988) that he could not see how anyone not holding JP2 to be the Pope could go to Masses where his name was inserted in the Canon. Dear Introibo, not only have you failed to refute Fr. Cekada's case but also Pat Omlor's. Oremus pro invicem!

      Delete
    6. "Such a momentous departure..." As if this issue was the burning theological issue of the day! I must have missed the explanation as to why England produced Missals in 1806 with a phrase that had been ordered removed over 100 years earlier!

      "The context makes it perfectly clear..." that the individual being named cannot bea matrial pope but of necessity a formal one? How so? All we have is Fr Cekada's ipse dixit!

      I have offered many arguments and have shown how Fr Cekada has NOT given good reasons as to why the material pope cannot be prayed for in these unique circumstances. He also implies the the good priests of the CMRI encourage sin by telling people it's ok to attend Una Cum.

      Bottom line: Neither you, nor Fr Cekada, nor Fr Baker have Magisterial authority to decide a novel issue of theology. Until such time a real pope can make such a decision, people should be free to follow their conscience and not be burdened by made up "sins" which only Magisterial authority can pronounce.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Speaking of controversies within the Traditional movement..

      "It was felt necessary to revise and enrich the formulae of the Roman Missal. The first stage of such a reform was the work of Our Predecessor Pius XII with the reform of the Easter Vigil and the rites of Holy Week (1), which constituted the first step in the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the contemporary way of thinking"

      (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969)

      Delete
    8. Thank God our chapel celebrates the pre-1950 Rubrics & Holy Week.

      Delete
    9. Montini (Paul VI) was a liar. That he would calumniate Pope Pius XII is no surprise. However, I believe Pope Pius XII may have been making a true Catholic variation of Mass for the Latin Rite---NOT the Novus Bogus!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Pius XII promoted Montini to Archbishop of Milan.
      The same post Pius XI held in 1922 before being elected Pope.
      He (Pius XII) also promoted Roncalli.

      Delete
    11. Yes, but their is a problem with this line of reasoning. The pope is NOT infallible or protected by the Holy Ghost when making ecclesiastical appointments. Pope Pius XII was consecrated a bishop by Pope Benedict XV and promoted to Cardinal by Pope Pius XI. Do we blame Pius XI for making him a Cardinal? Do we blame Benedict XV for consecrating him a bishop, and call into question the Code of Canon Law he promulgated in 1917?

      Were his actions wise? No. But it does not involve papal authority such that his pontificate could be called into question. His trusted confessor was Cardinal Bea. Bea held himself out to be very orthodox, but was a secret Modernist. He influenced Pope Pius XII and Bea's true colors came out right after the "election" of Roncalli.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. I hear what you're saying and was thinking along the same lines as your last comment.
      My point is Pius XII had to know Montini was not good.
      There are multiple pics of them in same room pre-1958.
      Montini was legendary for his modernism throughout his career.
      I have read Montini and Pius XI (yes Pius XI as Pope in the 20's) held versus populum masses in the 1920's two different times.
      I just don't like anything Pius XII did after December 1950 and avoid it (post 1950) all together.
      I sometimes wonder if Pius XII lost his office in 1956 for the "new holy week"
      Not saying he did it's just a thought because it was in reality the first major change and with it inaugurated the Novus Ordo era.

      Delete
  18. Speaking of "Una Cum" and other somewhat controversial topics,I thought of something tonight.
    BOTH SSPX camps are fond of quoting John of St.Thomas and St.Cajetan.
    It's highly probable that both John of St.Thomas & St.Cajetan would outright reject the Novus Ordo,post 1965 bare minimum.
    (Possibly sooner)
    Just imagine what they would think upon seeing all of this insanity from the Novus Ordo post 1965?!?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imagine transporting a priest from 1958 to 2017? If you brought him to the Vatican II sect Church, he would either think he was having a delusional episode or he would scream as he ran away knowing the time of the Great Apostasy had arrived!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  19. I can't speak for "Feeneyites," but Fr. Feeney said private Masses for the deceased Protestant parents of convert associates of his, according to a friend who knew Fr. Feeney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting! He was a strange character. See my post of December 16, 2016 for more about his other weird beliefs: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-strange-ideas-of-fr-leonard-feeney.html?m=1

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  20. Introibo you said, “The Indefectibility of the Church tells us that She cannot give that which is evil or false. Pope Pius VII allowed praying for the Anglican King of England in the Canon. Therefore, praying for a heretic can't be considered evil or wrong per se, unless Pope Pius VII was a heretic and not pope.”

    1. Does Pope Pius VII allowing this for the Anglican King fall under infallible magisterium? (i.e. could you be correct that it was allowed, but wrong in assuming it had to be ok)

    2. How certain are you that this happened? If it were shown that this was in fact not promoted by the pope, would you still conclude the Una Cum is ok or would you agree with Fr. Cekada?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The praying for the Anglican King of England in liturgical functions is now certain. See my post of 8/14 "Praying For Non-Catholics." Further the Church is infallible in Her decisions on the liturgy. (See theologian Van Noort, "Dogmatic Theology" 2: 114-115).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Una cum is not about praying FOR the Pope, but WITH the Pope ("cum" means "with" and "una" means together).

      Delete
    3. Yes, and it could be with the OFFICE for a material pope. When gaining a plenary indulgence you must pray for "the pope's intentions." It does not mean a particular individual, but the intentions of the office.

      To wit:
      the exultation of Holy Mother Church
      the propagation of the One True Faith
      the uprooting of heresy
      the conversion of sinners
      peace and concord among Christian nations
      the other needs of Christianity

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  21. Praised be Jesus, I finally find some TRUTH in this una cum cnaon question.This passed week I have been persecuted by a friend for attending sspx..Now I know what BP M Pivarunas has trluy said on this topic!!!I am a CMRI sede/...isabelle V DeMers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much as I disagree with the CMRI regarding their observations of every Pius XII "change" up until 1958,it's refreshing to see a Bishop and his order being intelligent enough to acknowledge they aren't the official magisterium during this long interregnum.

      Delete
    2. The CMRI isn't the "official" magisterium because it isn't part of the Catholic Church. But since you disagree, let's move on to an important question: Who, according to you, is the "official magisterium" in the Catholic Church right now? Try and answer the question without simultaneously proving that the Church defected in its hierarchical constitution. Good luck.

      Delete
    3. The Magisterium continues albeit in an imperfect way. The Magisterium itself taught this through Her approved theologians pre-V2:

      According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

      Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

      Objection answered and luck had nothing to do with it!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  22. "Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed." = HERESY. As I said, good luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then theologian Dorsch was a heretic? His writings were solemnly approved by the Magisterium for use in the seminaries! Maybe if you understood the terms "heresy" and "Magisterium" you wouldn't write such ignorant comments.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. When was Dorsch approved, by the Magisterium of what Pope?

      Acc to Pope Michael there were 32 years without a Pope (58-90).

      Other possibility, Pius XII lost papacy, Michel Colin was validly Pope, which I why I am asking about Dorsch, and there were 16 years of vacancy (74-90, Clement XV dying in 1974, yes, I know he is supposed to have abdicated in favour of "John Gregory XVII", but that abdication in 1968 was forced).

      Delete
    3. Bawden, "Pope" Michael, is a fraud as I explained in my response to you above. Dorsch was approved in the 1920s under Pope Pius XI.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Bona fide error or fraud, two different things.

      I noted Aegidius Dorsch was publishing around 1930, which is fairly good.

      Not a man suspect of heresy, at any rate.

      Delete
  23. Fr. Anthony Cekada responds to this article:
    http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/09/20/some-questions-on-una-cum-masses/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, I saw it and tomorrow I respond to Fr Cekada (9/25/17 post)

      ---Introibo

      Delete