Oh dear that's not good. Was the denial only for going to resistance mass? Or was doctrines on salvation and baptism also involved?

Only going to Resistance Mass... With a six-year old it's not a question of doctrine 😉.

What I know from personal knowledge is that the SSPX will not deny communion to sedevacantists or those who attend Resistance Masses, UNLESS you are known to be canvassing people or distributing literature. In essence, you should keep your sedevacantist/Resistance opinions to yourselves. In the past some people have been ejected from the chapels because they were caught distributing unauthorized literature.

Well, let me tell you that was NOT the case. A six year old doesn't canvass people or distribute literature. Parents were not denied communion, only the six year old... 
In France, Father Pivert's (Resistance) sister was also denied communion by the SSPX. And if memory serves , it also happened in New Zealand, although I do not know to whom.

No, they are obviously not. Only Fr. Cekada came up with this novel doctrine against Masses where the Pope is named in the Canon -- which is prescribed by the rubrics.

With all due respect, Matthew, Fr. Cekada was not the originator of this issue. Here's Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, the ghostwriter of the 'Ottaviani Intervention', condemning "una cuм" masses in the late 1980s:

This being so, we must conclude that the “una cuм” Mass is, “ex se”, objectively stained with sacrilege. The MASS, in fact, is the sacred action par excellence, since the Priest acts “in Persona Christi”. And if this instrumental role eminently concerns the consecratory act, it is equally realized, by derivation, in what precedes and prepares this act, or what immediately follows it. Now, everything that a sacred action includes must be pure, that is, in conformity with that which nature requires. A proclamation that immediately specifies the concrete exercise of the Faith must always be TRUE, taking into account Faith itself. It must be so, in a second sense, if it is done during a sacred action. Therefore, if a proclamation that immediately specifies the concrete exercise of the Faith is made during a sacred action, and if it is erroneous, it constitutes IPSO FACTO AND OBJECTIVELY A SIN, not only against the Faith but also against the sacred action. Such a proclamation is therefore tainted [weighed on] by a crime of the kind: “Sacrilege”: and this is so OBJECTIVELY AND INESCAPABLY, regardless of the sin committed by the participants [see 6].

(...)

Such a Mass is valid [assuming the priest has been validly ordained!], due to the rite which, like the Deposit, remains divinely guaranteed by the Magisterium of the Church. However, whatever desire the celebrant may SUBJECTIVELY have, the act he carries out OBJECTIVELY and INELUCTABLY implies the affirmation of being in communion with [una cuм], and even under the DEPENDENCE of [papa nostro] a person in a state of capital schism. The act of such a celebration is therefore tainted with a crime of the kind: “schism”; and this, OBJECTIVELY AND INELUCTABLY, regardless of the sin committed by the participants: the celebrating priest, or the attending faithful [see 6].

Emphasis not mine. Source: Interview with Bishop Guérard des Lauriers o.p. on the Thesis of Cassiciacuм – Sodalitium (sodalitiumpianum.com)

Ave María Purísima

EDIT: Does anybody know where I can find the booklet "Sedevacantists and the una cuм problem" by Pattrick Henry Omlor or, at least, the objection by Fr. Collins that Gladius Veritatis mentioned in a previous post on this thread?

Well, let me tell you that was NOT the case. A six year old doesn't canvass people or distribute literature. Parents were not denied communion, only the six year old...
In France, Father Pivert's (Resistance) sister was also denied communion by the SSPX. And if memory serves , it also happened in New Zealand, although I do not know to whom.

Like a lot of other things SSPX, I believe this happened but it is not official or any kind of across the board rule, rather, it depends on the priest. Heck, I invited my SSPX priest to a resistance mass when +Williamson came to my area 5 or 6 years ago - he knew that I and some others from our SSPX chapel went and nothing at all happened to any of us. Same thing when +Zendejas visited some years later, again, nothing happened. 

Regarding the 6-year-old being refused communion:  I thought First Communion was given to at least 7-year-olds.  Should the 6-year-old be receiving at all?

In fairness, this non una cuм issue was discussed prior to Vatican II.

Fr. A. Fortescue, The Formula of Hormisdas, CTS 102 (London: Catho-
lic Truth Society 1913), 12.

“The purpose and chief use of the diptychs (Canon) was to retain Catholic communion both of the living with one another and of the living with the dead.”

“To read the name of a living bishop in the diptychs was always a recognized sign of communion with him.”


R. Maere, “Diptych,” Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: 1913) 5:23.

“The liturgical diptychs admitted only the names of persons in communion with the Church; the names of heretics and of excommunicated members were never inserted.”

(Verdale WA: Catholic
Research Institute 2002), 8–9.

“The main object of the Rule of Faith of Pope St. Hormisdas was to condemn the naming of heretics in the diptychs,… reportedly 2,500 bishops signed the Rule of Faith in order to become restored to
communion with the Church. Until they signed they were denied communion solely and specifically because they had persisted in naming heretics in their diptychs.”


1756 Bull of Pope Benedict XIV:

“…’Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one’s own Bishop and Patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either of both of them are schismatics or heretics they should by no means be commemorated’.”


The theologian de la Taille:

“Hence were anyone to mention by name an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person (whether a king, or a bishop, or any other) either in the prayer Te igitur or in our commemoratio
pro vivis, he would certainly violate the law of the
Church.”

1729 the Vatican Congrega-
tion for the Propagation of the Faith decreed:

… "There is hardly any rite among the heterodox that is not stained with some error in faith… especially where a commemoration is made of living
Patriarchs and Bishops — schismatics and heretics— who are proclaimed preachers of the Catholic faith. For this reason, any Catholics who come together under circuмstances like this to celebrate a
rite of prayer and worship cannot excuse themselves from the sin of evil common worship, or at least, from the sin of pernicious scandal"

1756 Bull of Pope Benedict XIV:

“…’Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one’s own Bishop and Patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either of both of them are schismatics or heretics they should by no means be commemorated’.”

Why doesn't this quote from Benedict XIV settle it for all "Traditional Catholics?" This is settled teaching coming from a papal Bull.

If you believe that the person claiming to the Pope is a heretic, to attend such a mass outside of some necessity is not a good thing. Does it need to be a "sin" to avoid something bad? Is it not at least a near occasion of sin?

Why doesn't this quote from Benedict XIV settle it for all "Traditional Catholics?" This is settled teaching coming from a papal Bull.

If you believe that the person claiming to the Pope is a heretic, to attend such a mass outside of some necessity is not a good thing. Does it need to be a "sin" to avoid something bad? Is it not at least a near occasion of sin?

You quote explicitly says the "Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated." He then goes onto say as long as the bishop and patriarch are Catholic, they should also be mentioned - which I would think he is referring to the patriarch specifically, but who knows?

But your question is my question as well.....
From Ex Quo, Pope Benedict XIV in the year 1756

“Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p.228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

You apparently just want to start a fight. I bolded the key words in my question. Here are my words again:

"If you believe that the person claiming to be the Pope is a heretic..."

Some Trads are not sure what to believe. They are confused and misled. I'm not talking about those people. I'm referring specifically to those Trads who are morally-convinced that Bergoglio is a heretic.

Are you saying that Benedict XIV thought that if a future papal claimant was a heretic, then a Catholic priest should name him in the Canon? When Benedict XIV says "the Apostolic one" could he have possibly meant a manifest heretic posing as the Pope? Of course not.

So do you believe Bergoglio is a heretic or not, Stubborn? Let's start with that.

I say if you do believe he's a heretic, then I say that it would "be a bad thing," outside of some necessity, to attend a Mass in which a heretic is commemorated. And it could be a near occasion of sin because it promotes indifferentism to the teaching that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

And it could be scandalous to some who believe that true teaching and see a Trad who seems to be indifferent to it. By your example, you teach those around you that heresy is no biggie, even in the case of the Pope. Is that not scandalous?