Author Topic: Non Una cuм and the Resistance (Read 7918 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** April 21, 2018, 10:14:11 AM »

Seems relevant once again:

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/

“Non Una cuм” and the Resistance

By Sean Johnson,

20 January 2017

Introduction:
As the deterioration of the papacy accelerates under Pope Francis, with revealed doctrine consistently being openly flouted and contradicted, some priests in the Resistance have embarked upon a campaign to make the prayer for the Pope in the canon of the Mass (ie., “una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco”) optional. These usually deny being sedevacantists, instead preferring to argue that, “as the status of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II Popes is uncertain (so they say), likewise, so too ought the rendition of the prayer “una cuм” (which means “One with thy servant, Pope Francis”) be optional, since we cannot be sure he really is a Pope.”

These same priests will often be found wielding a newly created term: “Dogmatic sedeplenists,” by which they mean to adversely describe those Catholics who are rightly intolerant of the suggestion that the recognition of Francis as Pope is optional. Just as the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs created the term “homophobia” (with its connotations of irrational opposition) to make their opponents seem the “bad guys,” create a perception of being unjustly persecuted, and spread the idea that sɛҳuąƖ orientation was merely a choice or personal preference, a similar tactic is used by the “non una cuм” priests:

“Who can say whether Francis is Pope? As the matter is doubtful, we ought not persecute -or be dogmatic- in the defense or assertion of his Papacy. We ought to tolerate those with opposing views until the Church settles the matter, etc. And after all, since we cannot pray for heretics in the Canon of the Mass, it is better to leave Francis’ name out.”

By this artifice, they hope to create sympathy and openness among Resistance Catholics to the idea that one may decide on his own accord whether or not the “una cuм” prayer should be prayed for Francis, or as they now prefer “una cuм Petro.”

Let us review Church teaching to discover whether this is justified and permitted.

What Does the Church Teach About Praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass?
In 1756, Pope Benedict XIV promulgated the encyclical Ex Quo,1 which announced to the Church that the “Euchologion”2 of the Eastern uniates had been corrected in conformity with Catholic doctrine. One of the corrections which had taken place was the insertion of the prayer for the Pope (which quite logically was absent in the schismatic Euchologion).

The Holy Father explained:

“But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “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).1

It is evident, therefore, that the omission of the prayer for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass is considered by the Church to be a schismatic act, which deprives the violator of communion with the Catholic Church.

But Who is to Say Francis is a Pope?
The “non una cuм” priests attempt to skirt this trap by questioning the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate: “Sure, this applies to validly reigning Popes, but since it is not certain Francis is a legitimate Pope, it is not clear this passage from Benedict XIV’s encyclical applies to him.”

But is it really true that the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate is, for a Catholic, a matter open to question?

Siscoe/Salza cite several weighty authorities asserting the contrary: 2

1) Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”3

2) Msgr. Van Noort asserts the legitimacy of a reigning Pope to be a dogmatic fact (and therefore unquestionable4 ):

“The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, but on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: Was the First Vatican Council a legitimate ecuмenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the First Vatican Council are infallible; whether the Vulgate is truly sacred Scripture; whether Pius XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.”5

3) Fr. Berry’s manual (lauded by both sedevacantists and Catholics) teaches the following:

“A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the First Vatican Council truly ecuмenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate Pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or Pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecuмenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.”6

4) Siscoe/Salza also cite the 1951 work of Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J. “On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning them7” as declaring:
“The rejection of a dogmatic fact is a mortal sin against faith.”8

It is therefore scarcely tenable to claim, as the “non una cuм” priests do, that the mandate from Pope Benedict XIV’s encyclical Ex Quo can be evaded on the pretext that it is not certain Francis is a legitimate Pope, when the Church considers that determination to be one of dogmatic fact (and therefore theologically certain).

But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!
One priest I recently corresponded with on this issue said to me, “Anyone who says that I am a sedevacantist is a liar!”

Then in the very next breath, he continued to explain to me that:

-He rejects the authority of Francis;

-He rejects the jurisdiction of Francis;

-He refuses to say the name of Francis in the Canon...

Is that position coherent? [Note: This is a dishonest ploy: These priests are sedeprivationists, which they would superficially distinguish from sedevacantists]

Can one who claims Francis has no authority, or jurisdiction, and whose name he refuses to pray in the Mass, avoid the label of “sedevacantist?”

No.

As (sedevacantist) Bishop Sanborn explained in a well-known article, the prayer “una cuм” is the litmus test for sedevacantism:

“Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant (i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected), the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priest’s position about John Paul II [or Francis] and the New Church. If he thinks that John Paul II is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cuм, says it all: is he or isn’t he the Pope?9

And after reaching out to Fr. Anthony Cekada (another well-known sedevacantist priest in America), I received the following response to my question on whether a non-sedevacantist could omit Francis from the Canon of the Mass (in the typically blunt Fr. Cekada fashion):

“The rubrics do not allow this. If there is a pope, his name must be inserted where prescribed. If there is no Pope, the entire phrase is omitted. The idea of inserting something else is simply stupid.”10

The same argument would have been made by every other “faction” in the Church: Sedevacantists, SSPX, indult, and conciliar. All recognize that either Francis is Pope, and you must pray for him in the Canon, or he is not, and therefore you must omit his name.

Therefore, to omit the prayer for Francis, while simultaneously denying one is a sedevacantist, is either incoherent at best, or dissimulating at worst.

In 2007, Fr. Anthony Cekada wrote a lengthy article titled “The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una cuм Masses,”11 which several years later was distilled into an abridged version titled “Should I Assist at a Mass that Names ‘Pope Francis’ in the Canon?”12

The purpose of those articles was to explain the importance of the “una cuм” prayer to sedevacantists, and thereby exhort them NOT to attend any Mass which prays for the conciliar Popes.

Conversely, these arguments are exceptionally useful, by inversion, for explaining to Resistance clergy and laity the importance of maintaining the “una cuм” prayer, and shunning the Masses of any priest who refuses to pray Francis’ name in the Canon:

These examples from our sedevacantist adversaries, applied to the matter of Resistance priests omitting the “una cuм” highlight the absurdity of excising the prayer from the Canon of the Mass, while simultaneously denying they are sedevacantists (i.e., Doing so denies all the above, in addition to contradicting the teaching of the Church in Ex Quo.13

I would ask them, along with Pope Pelagius I:

“How can you believe that you are not separated from communion with the universal church if you do not mention my name within the sacred mysteries, as the custom is?”14

“Well, That is Between the Priest and God, Not Me”
Wrong.

The Holy Mass is a public act of worship, and those who actively participate in it unite their actions to the priest who offers the sacrifice, thereby expressing their acceptance of his position.

Fr. Cekada cites Merkelbach (i.e., The same Dominican moralist taught by the SSPX in its own seminaries, by the way) as teaching that active religious participation:

“is rightly considered a sign of religious unity.” It constitutes “implicit approval of an exercise of worship.”15

Fr. Cekada cites several additional Popes and theologians, all expressing the same opinion.

It is not possible, therefore, to discharge oneself from moral culpability from attending “non una cuм” Masses by implementing this fictitious distinction: Whatever mental reservation one might desire to create for oneself, his actions demonstrate his support and agreement with the priest’s act.16

But there is also the problem of “insincerity” and communicatio in sacris:

If omission of Francis from the Canon implies schism for refusing to recognize him as head of the Church, then one is quite possibly running into the same preclusions that apply to prevent Mass attendance at Orthodox and other schismatic Masses.

In such cases (unless ignorance, extreme necessity, or double effect would excuse such a course of action), sanctifying grace from the sacrament would not be communicated, since, though it would be produced in the sacrament “ex opere operato,” it would fail to transmit “ex opere operantis,” because of the bad disposition of the subject (i.e., Who would be objectively and knowingly committing a grave sin, and therefore would not be in the state of grace to receive an increase of same).

Conclusion:
There is nothing “optional” in the matter of praying Pope Francis’ name in the Canon of the Mass.

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least. One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion. They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).

As a friend wrote to me:

The ‘non una cuм’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”

I quite agree:

Do not be deceived, and let their pleas to “tolerance of opinion” fall upon deaf ears.

The Church has explained in her encyclicals (and rubrics) the necessity of praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, and declared those who refuse to do so as severed from communion with the universal Church.

Moreover, the vast majority of approved theologians recognize the identity of the Pope to be a dogmatic fact, and therefore infallible (or at least theologically certain).

Finally, the theologians explain that the knowing laity may not exempt themselves from moral culpability (via mental reservation or practical considerations), as their active participation and public worship are joined to the intentions of the priest.

We must pray for the conversion of such priests, or insist upon their departure from the Resistance, and the laity must be told that it is not possible to attend their Mass venues.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2018, 10:32:34 AM »

For whatever reason, this was omitted [formatting issue/error] from the section titled: "But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!"

"Then in the very next breath he continued to explain to me that:

-He rejects the authority of Francis;

-He rejects the jurisdiction of Francis;

-He refuses to say the name of Francis in the Canon...

PS: Matthew: If you can add that into the OP, it would be much appreciated

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2018, 10:41:19 AM »

NB:

It has been 16 months since this article was originally published on SP.

Reconsider this excerpt, and think about the case of Fr. Ringrose as you do:

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least. One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion. They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).

As a friend wrote to me:

The ‘non una cuм’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”

I quite agree

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2018, 11:17:35 AM »

NB: Just realized, in the section titled "But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!" a list of examples/arguments was also omitted for some reason:

After the words:

"Conversely, these arguments are exceptionally useful, by inversion, for explaining to Resistance clergy and laity the importance of maintaining the “una cuм” prayer, and shunning the Masses of any priest who refuses to pray Francis’ name in the Canon:..."

...followed the list.

Note that after several attempts, I am not able to get this list to show

Seems like CI formatting deleted anything with a number in front of it, and I am not even able to replace numbers with hyphens....frustrating.

Might just be best to read the original here: http://sodalitium-pianum.com/non-una-cuм-and-the-resistance/

Marlelar · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2018, 11:23:48 AM »

Yes, I think next time just a teaser paragraph and then a link to your original will save you a lot of frustration.

Thanks so much for all the work you put into your site.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2018, 11:36:01 AM »

It’s more of a sure thing that Jorge Bergoglio is a fake pope than that Ambrose Moran is a fake bishop. Too bad you can’t see that.

Meg · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2018, 11:44:19 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2018, 10:14:11 AM

But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!
One priest I recently corresponded with on this issue said to me, “Anyone who says that I am a sedevacantist is a liar!”

Then in the very next breath, he continued to explain to me that:

Is that position coherent? [Note: This is a dishonest ploy: These priests are sedeprivationists, which they would superficially distinguish from sedevacantists]

Can one who claims Francis has no authority, or jurisdiction, and whose name he refuses to pray in the Mass, avoid the label of “sedevacantist?”

No.

------------

Conclusion:
There is nothing “optional” in the matter of praying Pope Francis’ name in the Canon of the Mass.

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least. One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion. They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).

Very good article. The above two quotes are what sums it up, IMO.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2018, 12:07:04 PM »

Just like during the Great Schism, there is positive doubt regarding the identity of the current pope. Anyone who takes the matter of Bergoglio being pope or not being pope as dogmatic, arrogates to himself a power that he simply doesn’t have. There is sufficient case for positive doubt. The theory of loss/non-loss of papal office of formal and manifest heretics has been debated and the Church has allowed the debate for centuries without stepping in to pronounce either way. Those who carry this to the point of dogma accusing the other side of heresy or schism could not truly call themselves Traditional Catholics. Bishop Williamson himself has admitted that it is possible that Benedict XVI is pope and admitted this in his video in Canada with then Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Gruner present. The positive doubt is present and only a fool would deny it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2018, 12:21:26 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on April 21, 2018, 12:07:04 PM

Just like during the Great Schism, there is positive doubt regarding the identity of the current pope. Anyone who takes the matter of Bergoglio being pope or not being pope as dogmatic, arrogates to himself a power that he simply doesn’t have. There is sufficient case for positive doubt. The theory of loss/non-loss of papal office of formal and manifest heretics has been debated and the Church has allowed the debate for centuries without stepping in to pronounce either way. Those who carry this to the point of dogma accusing the other side of heresy or schism could not truly call themselves Traditional Catholics. Bishop Williamson himself has admitted that it is possible that Benedict XVI is pope and admitted this in his video in Canada with then Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Gruner present. The positive doubt is present and only a fool would deny it.

The example of the GWS is inapplicable:

1) Precisely because the Church was divided in assenting to the claims of three papal claimants, none of the claimants' "papacies" ever attained the status of dogmatic fact.

2) Conversely, precisely because the Church is unanimous in the recognition of Francis' papacy, his legitimacy is a dogmatic fact (and therefore theologically certain).

See Billot above:

"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”'

manilavanilla · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2018, 12:54:50 PM »

Slightly tedious article especially considering that Mr. Johnson is a self appointed theologian of the resistance.

The ways in which is is right are the following:
-Sedevacantists usually aren't long in trying to convert others to their point of view, and it is hard for them to stay "non-dogmatic".
- They often tend to be slippery in the way they do this and can cause trouble.

- Mr Johnson deserves praise for having finally had the courage to publish his articles here in his own name, rather than get someone else to do it.

Ways in which he is wrong:
- They are not as much as a threat as he makes them out to be. Sometimes there can be sedes who just don't cause trouble. I suspect that he is causing such a scene about this to disguise his own liberalism.

We should note that an equally big threat in the resistance, if not bigger,is those laity, and certain clerics, who seek to impose artificial structures on the resistance. They then act in the most arrogant manner pretending that those outside these structures are inferior in some way. Mark my words, my dear friends, these people are snakes in the grass. Canon law is already very demanding without having to insist that we HAVE to have everyone in such structures. This is a form of liberalism, with a tinge of communism IMHO.

songbird · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2018, 01:34:18 PM »

Is the New Order mess heretical or not?! Anyone who says it, is heretical, IMO. That is the fruits. You will know them by their fruits! Don't overlook the disgusting changes! A insult to Our Lord!

As catholics, we pray for the intentions of Christ the King, for the Church He instituted!

When do you cut off the Mass as true Mass? How do you see Ordination since 1968? This pope you call pope, says the heretical mess.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2018, 01:37:25 PM »

Quote

Ways in which he is wrong:
- They are not as much as a threat as he makes them out to be.

The main problem with dogmatic sedevacantism, and the “una cuм” lie, is not the uncharity or divisiveness (as much of a problem as that is) it is that it leads to some people in the movement staying at home from mass. And there is no greater sin, tragedy, and pain to God than when His people fail to honor Him on Sundays.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2018, 01:56:45 PM »

The claim that the Church is unanimous is false. Completely false. Countless lay Catholics, priests and bishops consider Bergoglio doubtful at best. The most recent case is the retired bishop of Corpus Christi, Bishop Gracida.

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2018, 02:12:21 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2018, 01:37:25 PM

The main problem with dogmatic sedevacantism, and the “una cuм” lie, is not the uncharity or divisiveness (as much of a problem as that is) it is that it leads to some people in the movement staying at home from mass. And there is no greater sin, tragedy, and pain to God than when His people fail to honor Him on Sundays.

Would you attend a non una cuм mass if it were the only mass available to you? Or would you stay home?

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2018, 02:23:06 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on April 21, 2018, 01:56:45 PM

The claim that the Church is unanimous is false. Completely false. Countless lay Catholics, priests and bishops consider Bergoglio doubtful at best. The most recent case is the retired bishop of Corpus Christi, Bishop Gracida.

Unless those that say it is unanimous don't consider those folks to be part of the Church.

Author Topic: Non Una cuм and the Resistance (Read 7918 times)

SeanJohnson

Non Una cuм and the Resistance

SeanJohnson

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

SeanJohnson

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

SeanJohnson

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

Marlelar

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

Clemens Maria

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

Meg

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

Centroamerica

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

SeanJohnson

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

manilavanilla

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

songbird

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

Pax Vobis

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

Centroamerica

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

2Vermont

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance

2Vermont

Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance