NO CHANCE OF DELETING OR EDITING THE PREVIOUS ATTEMPT TO POST THIS, so here it is again:
SkidRow, Please change your use of the term "convicted" to "convinced" or else you are liable to be misunderstood by others.
I am FULLY behind sedevacantist NOT attending R&R Masses for extrinsic reasons. But theoretically, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with assisting at the moment of the canon where the name of the pope occurs.
Look at the common denominator:
“As for the one who, during a time of schism, mentions in the Canon the name of him whom he believes to be the true Pontiff, even if he should be mistaken, he does not sin, provided he does so out of reverence for the office and from a desire to maintain ecclesiastical unity. For he intends to name the Supreme Pontiff, and the Sacrifice is offered for the whole Church, under whomever Christ has placed as its head.”
— St. Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis, Tom. II, De Conciliis, Lib. II, Cap. 19
“During the time of the Great Schism, priests were often bound by obedience to their lawful superiors to mention a particular name in the Canon. If they did so in good faith, following the directions of their bishop or the recognized authority in their region, they did not incur sin or render the Sacrifice invalid—even if the one named was not, in fact, the true Pontiff. For the intention of the priest is to offer the Sacrifice in union with the Catholic Church and its visible head, whom he honestly, though perhaps erroneously, believes to be such.”
— St. Antoninus, Summa Theologica, Pars III, Tit. 23, Cap. 4, § 6
“In the perplexity of a schism, the priest who, following the counsel of his ordinary or the common estimation of learned men, commemorates in the Mass that claimant whom he considers legitimate, commits no fault, nor does he violate the due order of the Sacrifice. The essence of the commemoration is not adherence to a person, but to the See and the unity it represents.”
— Francisco Suárez, S.J., De Sacramentis, Disp. 83, Sect. 3
“In the case of a doubtful pope, it is the common teaching that a priest who, guided by probability and the counsel of prudent men, commemorates one of the contenders in the Canon, does not sin. For he does not intend to separate himself from the unity of the Church, but rather to adhere to it according to his best judgment. The Mass is offered for the universal Church, and the commemoration is made of him who is presumed to be its head.”
— Cardinal Juan de Lugo, S.J., De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Disputatio 16, Sectio 4
“In the time of schism, those who in good faith adhere to one of the contenders for the Pontificate, and during the Holy Sacrifice name him in the Canon whom they believe to be the legitimate successor of Peter, are not to be considered as acting against unity; rather, they intend to profess that unity by rendering due obedience to him whom they judge to be the head of the Church on earth. The merit of this act is founded upon their intention to maintain Catholic communion.”
— St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, Tract. 2, Cap. 1, Dubium 3
“It is a sound theological conclusion that during a papal schism, a priest who, in the Canon of the Mass, commemorates the man he in good conscience and with probable reason believes to be the true Pontiff, offers a valid and licit Sacrifice. The essence of the prayer is the unity of the Church under the successor of Peter, not the personal worthiness or even the certain legitimacy of the individual named. The error, if there is one, is one of fact, not of intention against the faith or the Church.”
— Ludovico Molina, S.J., Commentaria in Primam Partem Divi Thomae, Qu. 83, Art. 3
Topic: The biggest reason I'm not Sede (Read 787528 times)