Bishop Donald Sanborn recently held a conference at Sacred Heart Church in Lawrence Massachusetts. During the conference, he spoke on the Una Cuм question for about 15-20 or so minutes. I do not hold the Non Una Cuм position but admittedly it sometimes puts me/my conscience at ill ease, especially since I struggle greatly with scrupulosity.

Here is the the entire "Una Cuм" section of the conference. Thoughts?

So, watching this video, Bishop Sanborn makes a slight concession to people who might err "in good faith", but still considers it objectively grave sin, so that, once informed, such as by him here, then the person commits grave sin by assisting at the Novus Ordo.  That's just like saying that a person who doesn't go to Mass on, say, Ascension Thursday, not knowing it's a Holy Day of Obligation, can be excused subjectively of grave sin, but objectively commits grave sin.

But he continues to make the absurd claims that ...

1) the Mass of St. Vincent Ferrer, wherein he put the name of an Anti-Pope into the Canon, were schismatic Masses (his term) that displeased God as much as when the Orthodox don't put the Pope's name into the Canon -- making no distinction whatsoever between the fact that St. Vincent made a material error only, but put the name in there mistakenly THINKING he was the Pope, i.e. that his formal intention was to put the name of the Pope in there, whereas the Orthodox have the formal intention to NOT put the name of the Pope in there, and the same would hold of the guy who was just mistaken about the name of the current pope

2) also then categorizes a sedeprivationist who puts him in there since the material occupation of the office might serve as a visible sign of material unity) ... into that same category

3) claims that putting the name in there is tantamount to declaring the Novus Ordo and Conciliar Church legitimate ... which is also utter hogwash.  Father Chazal, for instance, puts Leo's name into the Canon, and holds that Leo has no authority whatsoever, and that none of his teaching is legitimate, etc. ... but puts him in there because he's the material / visible symbol of Communion and of Unity, without thereby professing the legitimacy of the Conciliar Church

Nor does he make a distinction between the priest who puts the "una cuм Leone" into the Canon and the faithful who assist at his Masses, even if they would not put the name in there if they were priests and offering the Mass, but who nevertheless do NOT agree with Bishop Sanborn's position regarding the "una cuм" matter.

Here we get into the schism being a transmissible disease like cooties, where I'm a shismatic not only for doing something schismatic, but also if I think that the priest is NOT doing something schismatic.  So, for instance, one radical proponent of BoD called me a heretic not because I believe in BoD (since I do not) because because I do not believe that those who believe in BoD are "per se" heretics.

Finally, for all that Bishop Sanborn talks about "the Church", ahem, well, as the Dimond Brothers -- and you don't get any more diehard SV than they are -- as the Dimond Brothers researched, the Church's attitude toward similar cases was quite different than Bishop Sanborn's, where, in some specific cases, the faithful were NOT commanded to avoid assisting at the Masses schismatic compromisers, provided they had used the Catholic Rite.

https://tinyurl.com/5atr69xp

A long time ago +Sanborn's private judgement, almost overnight morphed into dogmatic fact. You should have no scruples about this issue as long as you remember that the una cuм issue (and pretty much everything that has to do with it) is nothing more than people's opinion, it's nothing more than private judgement, a theory, a conspiracy theory, that the conciliar popes are not popes.   

So, the mistake they make is this, and others like, say, Father Jenkins has pointed this out, at a higher level, but does not break it down into the form of a syllogism (which is how I tend to see the world) --

Bishop Sanborn rightly identifies a dogmatic PREMISE of the implied syllogism leading to the SV conclusion.  He therefore classifies all those who reject his conclusion as heretics, because, the only way to reject a conclusion is to reject, what? ... ALL the premises?  Bishop Sanborn ignores the MINOR premises, that even if they're certain, even morally certain ... they are NOT de fide, and therefore, according to the "weakest link" principle of logic, peiorem partem sequitur conclusio, the conclusions cannot be dogmatic either.  One could deny the conclusion by 1) denying a non-dogmatic premise (rejecting the syllogism materially), or 2) pointing out some issues with the formal logic (a missed distinction being most common), or a combination of both.  That's actually what +Lefebvre did, hold back on affirming the MINOR premise, while explicitly affirming the MAJOR that Bishop Sanborn (in his muddled binary thinking) insists must be denied in order to reject the SV conclusions.  That is false, and that thinking speaks to the same black-and-white binary thinking they apply to the "una cuм" issue, where a priest who puts the name of the Conciliar Pope in the Canon because he THINKS the man is the Pope (having made an error), or just that he MIGHT be, or even that he likely is NOT, but adheres to the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas opinion, or just isn't sure and wants to give "benefit of the doubt" ... is exactly the same as someone who deliberately excludes the Pope due to rejection of the papacy (Orthodox).  For them, there's no difference between a Father Chazal, who inserts the name because he's the "visible sign of unity" (little different from sedeprivationists in this regard), and a Greek Orthodox who rejects the papacy in principle, i.e. between a materially-erroneous motive for inserting the name and a formally-erroneous motive.

Now, if +Sanborn at el. wanted to explain how or why, for these purposes, that distinction is not relevant, I invite them to do so and I will listen with an open mind, but they continue to plod along on this "una cuм" issue, causing consternation among the faithful's consciences, while pretending that such distinctions don't exist, where, according to Father Deposito, a priest who THINKS Leo is or might be the Pope might as well be a Satanist offering the Mass "una cuм diabolo".  What utter hogwash  That reductio ad absurdum alone suffices to debunk their reasoning.

Now, in the next step, they could argue ... well, even if the priest is mistaken, you can't go there if you don't think Leo is the Pope.  That's also false, since I could go there simply for DISAGREEING with their position on "una cuм" and thinking it's not inherently sacrilegous, blasphemous, and resulting in a "schismatic Mass" to put the name in there due to material error only, i.e. if I felt that I could have in good conscience assisted at the Mass of St. Vincent Ferrer even if I thought the one of the other guys was the pope  Again, I invite arguments along those lines, but they never even attempt to address these objections, but simply ignore them, pretend they don't exist, and circle the wagons behind the comfort and convenience of their black-and-white binary thinking ... having no tolerance for gray areas.

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.

So what if a couple hundred years ago some priest was putting "Pope Innocent's" name in the canon despite the fact that he had died and the current Pope was "Pope Clement"

This touches on the example I always use, of a priest waking up one morning, the Pope having died during the night, and not having yet had the news on, goes to the church and offers Mass una cuм [whatever the Pope's name is], and then learning the news after Mass is over.  He did err materially, but cannot be said to have had any willful intent.

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:

Yeah, and that's one of the most surprising things about the sedeprivationists being the most dogmatic anti-una-cuм types, since you absolutely could make an easy case for putting the name in the canon by virtue of their material possession of office or at least their claim to office or right to the office.

I'd find it much easier to at least consider internally consistent for some Totalist types to make this claim, but they're by far the most virulently dogmatic anti-una-cuм types out there.  Meanwhile, Totalists like CMRI and SSPV are not dogmatic-una-cuм, nor are the dogmatically SV Dimond Brothers.

So, I am a bit cynical about Bishop Sanborn's "conversion" to sedeprivationism.  I personally believe that he was influenced to find a way to embrace the position because he wanted to be consecrated in the +des Lauriers line but Bishop McKenna insisted that he would only consecrate privationists.  But if you listen to Bishop Sanborn talk, he still really talks like a dogmatic SV, where the "pope-elect" status means almost nothing.  I think that he does sincerely adhere to his versoin of it, but the +Sanborn version and the Fr. Chazal version of what (to all intents and purposes) is the same thing ... you'd never know it, since they're still battling it out and not finding common ground, the same distinction with Bishop Sanborn emphasizing the glass-half-empty and Fr. Chazal emphasizing the glass-half-full, and believing that they two perspectives are radically opposed to one another.

This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed: "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!" - Archbishop Lefebvre

No, it does not say that anyone "embraces" their ideas, but you are professing to be in a unity of faith, so that's implicit.  You're saying that you basically share the same faith as ... Bergoglio and co-exist in ecclesiastical communion, which Traditional Catholics most certainly do NOT do.  You, and here +Lefebvre, are completely UNDER-stating the significance of the "una cuм".  As is often the case, the truth lies in the middle.

Stuborrn, you are and have long been as much a problem on the dogmatic R&R side as the dogmatic SVs are on their side, an obstacle to any rational consideration of the matter, and a polarizing force, leading to unnecessary division.  You're as insanely dogmatic an R&R as the SVs on the opposite extreme.