CathInfo.com

I don't have a dog in the fight, but personally I'm very much NOT A FAN of Bp. Dolan, of "Dolan/Cekada" fame. NOTHING I have ever heard about that group (and I've heard quite a bit!) has piqued my interest in a good way.

As a matter of fact, everything I've heard about the Dolan/Cekada milieu made me glad I live FAR, FAR away from Cincinnati, OH.

ESPECIALLY their schismatic "una cuм" novelty, which has no theological basis whatsoever. That scam is an obvious ploy to eliminate the competition.

Huh, this just answered a question that I had thank-you, Matthew. I had made a private comment to you in a message before I signed up about this very thing of "una cuм."  I still do not know what it means entirely, but I thought it was weird.

Many years ago, I was on another site. There was some sort of in-fighting with a church in Ohio called Saint Gertrude, if memory serves. There was an issue with people attending and a visiting Priest/s who were (or were not?) including the name of the Pope and Bishop in the Mass, and then there was something to do about Holy Week. I think it was Good Friday and the prayers for including the Jews.

I made a comment about there is always a prayer for the conversion of the Jews, and well...you would think that I had poured gasoline on a fire!

To this day I do not know what I said or did wrong, but I apparently went to the wrong Mass then. (I was not refined enough in my position was basically what I was told. You would think I was playing a game of Battleship or something).

Open questions for anyone willing to address them then, because I honestly do not know.
1) If a Priest does not believe Pope Francis is the Pope, then what name does he use during that part of the Mass?
2) If a Priest does not believe that Pope Francis is the Pope (in his heart), is he still obligated to say a name of the Pope at Mass?
3) Which of these refers to una cuм? If any?
4) What about the name of the Bishop in Mass? 


OR, does this Priest just skip over this entire part of the Mass? (And not name any names). Does this invalidate the Mass?

It is no secret that a number of SSPX Priests branched off and formed SSPV. So if I happened to be in an area where some of them were, and it was an emergency, I would call them up. 

BUT, and I think it has been hinted at already in this thread, some of the Priests (or the Bishops?) may be refusing Sacraments unless someone claims the Chair is Vacant. If it is a matter of life and death though, would they still do this??

Thanks,
Anne

Open questions for anyone willing to address them then, because I honestly do not know.
1) If a Priest does not believe Pope Francis is the Pope, then what name does he use during that part of the Mass?
They omit the name of the Pope in the Canon. As they believe the See is vacant, they treat it as such and skip over that part.
2) If a Priest does not believe that Pope Francis is the Pope (in his heart), is he still obligated to say a name of the Pope at Mass?
From my understanding, no. Unless whatever order he adheres to listens in on his recitation of the Canon, no, he doesn't have to say the name of the Pope.
3) Which of these refers to una cuм? If any?
Una cuм refers to the prayer in which the celebrant offers the Mass in union with (una cuм) the apparent Pope and Ordinary of the diocese. The term "non una cuм" expresses the position of those like SSG, CMRI, and other sedevacantist orders who omit the name of Francis from the Canon in their Masses.
4) What about the name of the Bishop in Mass?
 This, I really do not know. Since most do not believe the local ordinary is legitimate, they would most likely omit this section of the Canon, or, insert the name of their superior (such as priests under Bp. Dolan or Bp. Sanborn).


OR, does this Priest just skip over this entire part of the Mass? (And not name any names). Does this invalidate the Mass?
This does not at all invalidate the Mass. It is still a Mass which is, presumably, pleasing to God provided all of the correct rubrics are performed and it is celebrated by a legitimate priest. Those in the dogmatic "non una cuм" camp, such as +Sanborn and +Dolan, teach that it is a mortal sin for any priest to say Mass with an illegitimate Pope in the Canon, and is also sinful for laymen to attend such Masses, because they are saying they are one in faith with Francis and his Novus Ordo heretics.

I believe this is nonsense, with no real basis in Church history or practice. Sedevacantist writer, John Lane, points to the Canon used in England where the name of the King is said; and since the King of England is the head of the schismatic and heretical Anglican Communion, all English Masses would henceforth have been offensive to God and mortally sinful. Which is nonsense. Further, those saints and priests during the Great Western Schism who said Mass in the name of one of the anti-popes would also fall into this supposed mortal sin; which is obviously not the case, as they were simply wrong about who the Pope was, or if there even was a legitimate Pope during that period. The same can be said of those SSPX and Resistance priests who say Francis in the Canon in good faith.

I support the fact that the Canon is said through the apparent office of the putative Pope and Bishop, not their person. Just like English Catholics offering Mass in union with the office of the King of England, who is a heretic. So, I don't see where anyone can say that these Masses are sinful without an official declaration from the Church, or an explicit teaching from a past traditional authority on this matter.

My responses are in red