CathInfo.com

Thoughts?

Sir:

I suggest you to read what Fr. Guérard des Lauriers had to say about the una cuм issue:

Interview with Bishop Guérard des Lauriers o.p. on the Thesis of Cassiciacuм – Sodalitium

TLDR: A Mass celebrated "una cuм" non-popes is objectively tainted with sacrilege and the crime of capital schism. However, there are some circuмstances under which the faithful may be allowed to assist due to the risks of total deprivation of the sacraments.

Fr. Hervé Belmont, formerly a disciple of GdL, elaborates that one may assist provided that there are really no other options, that the Mass is celebrated by a validly ordained and "serious" priest and that one protests internally before God that one does not believe that Leo XIV is pope. See the attached docuмent. Google translate it if you don't know French, I'm not aware that there are any English translations.

Fr. Guérard des Lauriers is the one who originally analyzed this issue. Sanborn, Cekada, Dolan, the IMBC et c. all got it from him. He was a theological "heavy weight". Search his credentials elsewhere. It is commonly believed that he was the ghostwriter of the "Ottaviani Intervention". I've always found odd how trads appreciate the Ottaviani Intervention, but ignore everything else that he thought and wrote.

May Our Lady keep you under her mantle.

EDIT: I realized that the attachment is not signed by Fr. Belmont. Here's where you may find it on his website: L’enjeu de l’una cuм - Quicuмque - Abbé Hervé Belmont

TLDR: A Mass celebrated "una cuм" non-popes is objectively tainted with sacrilege and the crime of capital schism.

Well....duh...

But the Sedes are committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question" because they assume that it's verifiable, unquestionable, dogmatic fact that the V2 popes are non-popes.

To go back to +Sanborn, he believes in sedeprivationism, which means that the V2 popes are "partial popes" or "material popes".  That's NOT the same thing as a non-pope.  So even if des Lauriers was 100% correct on his assertion of "non popes", the debate that's been going on for 50 years is around this question:

Taking John XXIII as an example:

1.  Was he validly elected and then became a non-pope due to heresy of V2?
2.  Was he a heretic before his election and then ineligible for the papacy?
3.  Was he materially elected only, but not spiritually, due to heresy?
4.  Was he spiritually the pope for a few days, until his first heresy?  Then he lost his spiritual authority and remained a material pope only?
5.  Some combination of the above?

No one knows the above, because it's never happened in history.  And no 2 sedes agree on the above, or can explain it.  Nor do we have enough facts to know if John23 was a mason before, or a heretic before, or only after.  Nor can anyone agree on WHEN he fell into heresy absolutely, except to say "well, due to V2".  But V2 lasted 3+ years.  So saying he became a heretic "in a 3 year period" is hardly a determining statement.

So, yes, we all know the popes are "non popes" but no one can agree in the degree, or when, or exactly why (all we know is, they are heretics).  So you can't apply some moral criteria to people (i.e. 'una cuм') which is a damnable offense (in your opinion) when you can't even tell these people the conditions on when, where, why and how the popes became 'non popes'.

Saying they are 'non popes' is just overly simplistic and rather elementary.  It's the easy way out.  Explaining it is anyone's guess.  And that's why the 'una cuм' is a fail.