Author Topic: The Dimonds change on Una cuм? (Read 265 times)

LeDeg · « **on:** **Yesterday** at 11:00:55 AM »

Perhaps its not what it appears to be at first glance in this quote, but it does seem that the Dimonds have changed on the Una cuм(?).

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/sspxs-major-decision-to-consecrate-new-bishops-exposes-the-absurdity-of-their-position/

The relevant quote is here:

"The priests and leaders of the SSPX, as well as their obstinate supporters, are phonies who lie to God, including during the canon of the Mass."

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #1 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:08:16 AM »

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:53:03 AM »

No, what they're saying is that they do not MEAN what they say, where they SAY they're in union with the Pope but then do as they please.

By contrast, for instance, an FSSP priest might also be "una cuм" but they would not be lying, since they actually mean it.

Their point here is that they talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming to be obedient, but then doing what they want at the end of the day.

In the past, they've sometimes gone to Eastern Rite Liturgies, for instance. Interestingly, too, in Eastern Rite, the mention of the Pope is different, not so much an "una cuм" as just praying FOR the Pope.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #3 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:08:28 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 11:53:03 AM

Interestingly, too, in Eastern Rite, the mention of the Pope is different, not so much an "una cuм" as just praying FOR the Pope.

Maybe that is what the Dimonds meant (I highly doubt they would ever admit that they had told people to go to Masses that are objectively sacrilegous for years on end...).

But the above line of yours, is either a deliberate lie, or you are willingly choosing to remain ignorant.

Both East and West, in the Canon and who is on the Diptychs are a sign of both ecclesial communion and being one in the same faith.

The true Mass is one - even if different rites exist within the Church, different rites do not change the meaning of the Canon.

Striking a name from the Diptychs (as in the case of Nestorius) is a sign of rupture in communion.

Just as naming the true Roman Pontiff in the Mass is a sign of communion in governance and faith.

Whatever the Dimonds are currently holding, the point is - The SSPX professes communion with one that they neither obey, nor hold the same faith with, but they say his name anyway - this is a lie on their part.

A lie in sacred matters is a sacrilege and therefore abominable before God.

**********************************************************

THE “UNA cuм” QUESTION

PART I — FOUNDATIONS

Chapter 1 — The Nature of the Eucharistic Canon

1. The Canon as the Supreme Act of Ecclesial Worship
In the Roman Rite, the Canon of the Mass occupies a uniquely exalted position. It is not merely the central prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; it is the Church’s most solemn liturgical expression of her unity in faith, worship, and hierarchical order.
St. Thomas teaches that the Eucharist is “the sacrament of ecclesial unity” because it both signifies and affects the cohesion of the Mystical Body in charity and truth (ST III q.73 a.3). The Canon, as the fixed and venerable prayer surrounding the consecration, is the liturgical articulation of that unity.
The priest, acting in persona Christi and in the name of the Church, invokes the Divine Majesty on behalf of the entire ecclesial body. The intercessions of the Canon are therefore not ornamental; they are constitutive signs of communion. They presuppose the reality they signify.
Benedict XIV, in his authoritative treatment of the liturgy, emphasizes that the Canon expresses the Church’s visible unity and that its intercessions are inseparable from the hierarchical structure Christ instituted. The Canon is thus the Church’s supreme act of worship precisely because it is the supreme sign of her unity.

2. The Te igitur and the Commemoration of the Pope and Bishop
Within the Canon, the Te igitur holds a privileged position. Here the priest prays “una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N.” — “together with Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop.”
This commemoration is not a mere rubric. It is a liturgical declaration of hierarchical communion with the visible head of the Church and with the local ordinary.
Dom Guéranger, interpreting the ancient practice of the diptychs, explains that the Church names in the Canon only those who are “orthodox and cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith.” The Canon presupposes communion; it does not create it.
St. Francis de Sales -Bishop and Doctor of the Church - likewise teaches that communion with the Church’s visible head is a condition of belonging to the Church. To profess unity with one who is not in the Church is to falsify the sign of unity.

3. The Diptychs and the Historical Meaning of Commemoration
The ancient diptychs — lists of those with whom the Church professed communion — illuminate the meaning of the Canon’s intercessions.
The diptychs were not civil registers. They were sacramental signs of ecclesial unity. To include a name was to profess communion; to remove a name was to signify rupture.
This is attested by:
Ivo of Flaviniaca, who states that omitting the pope’s name in the sacred mysteries manifests separation from the communion of the whole world.
Alcuin, citing Pope Pelagius, who affirms the same principle.
Christianus Lupus, who calls the commemoration of the pope in the Canon “the chief and most glorious form of communion.”
Benedict XIV explicitly confirms this tradition, teaching that the restoration of a name to the Canon was historically the final and definitive sign of reconciliation with the Apostolic See.
Thus, the Canon’s commemoration is the Church’s most solemn liturgical expression of unity with the Roman Pontiff.

4. Papal Teaching on Commemoration
The Roman Pontiffs consistently teach that the liturgical commemoration of the pope is a public acknowledgment of him as:

the head of the Church,
the Vicar of Christ,
the successor of Peter,
and the principle of visible unity.

They further teach that:
reconciliation with the Apostolic See is not complete until the pope’s name is restored to the liturgy,
and conversely,
the omission of the pope’s name signifies separation or schism.
This papal doctrine confirms the ancient understanding: the Canon’s commemoration is a sacramental sign of real communion, not a mere formula.

5. Sacramental Signification and the Requirement of Truth
St. Thomas teaches that sacramental signs must correspond to reality, for a sacrament cannot signify what is false (ST III q.60 a.6).
The Canon, as part of the sacramental action, must therefore signify true ecclesial unity.
To name someone in the Canon is to profess communion with him in faith and worship. Thus, the commemoration of the pope and bishop is not a juridical presumption but a liturgical declaration of fact. It presupposes that the one named is truly a member of the Church and holds legitimate authority.

6. The Canon as a Liturgical Act of Communion
The Canon expresses the unity of the Church in three dimensions:

Doctrinal unity — communion in the same faith
Hierarchical unity — communion with the lawful pastors
Sacramental unity — communion in the same sacrifice

To falsify any of these is to falsify the sign.
Therefore, the commemoration of the pope and bishop must correspond to the truth of their ecclesial status.

7. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

The Canon is the Church’s supreme act of worship.
Its intercessions are sacramental signs of real communion.
The commemoration of the pope and bishop presupposes their true ecclesial status.
The omission of a true pope signifies schism.
The naming of one who is not truly pope falsifies the sacramental sign.

Therefore, the Canon cannot be used to signify communion where none exists.
These principles form the foundation for the later chapters on heresy, canonical status, and the moral impossibility of naming a manifest heretic in the Canon.

Chapter 2 — The Nature and Effects of Heresy

1. The Nature of Heresy According to St. Thomas
St. Thomas defines heresy as a species of unbelief found in those who profess the Christian faith yet corrupt its doctrines by choosing among them according to their own judgment (ST II–II q.11 a.1). Heresy is not mere ignorance or accidental error; it is a voluntary departure from the rule of faith proposed by the Church.
Two elements are essential:
Material element: denial or doubt of a revealed truth.
Formal element: pertinacia — obstinacy, the refusal to submit to the Church’s judgment.
Thus, heresy is an act of the intellect moved by the will, rejecting a truth revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church. This Thomistic definition forms the basis of the canonical tradition.
St. Francis de Sales echoes this doctrine, teaching that heretics “separate themselves from the Church by their own judgment,” for they refuse the submission of faith owed to the Church’s magisterium.

2. The 1917 Code of Canon Law on Heresy
The 1917 Code adopts the Thomistic definition. A heretic is one who, after baptism, obstinately denies or doubts a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith (can. 1325 §2).
The Code distinguishes:

Occult heresy — known only to a few.
Public heresy — known to many.
Notorious heresy — so publicly known that it cannot be concealed or excused.

This last category is crucial, for notorious heresy produces juridical effects ipso iure, without need of further declaration.
Gregory IX’s Quo Excommunicamus reinforces this principle: heretics are severed from the Church’s communion by the very fact of their heresy and are subject to excommunication without further process.

3. Manifest Heresy as a Canonical Category
The term manifest heresy corresponds to what canonists call notorious by fact. A delict is notorious by fact when:

it is publicly committed,
publicly known,
publicly provable,
and leaves no reasonable doubt.

Canonists such as Wernz–Vidal and Coronata explain that the Church presumes the certainty of such facts in the external forum. Manifest heresy is therefore not a private judgment but a publicly verifiable reality.
St. Antoninus - Archbishop and papal theologian at the Council of Florence (1431-49) explicitly teaches that manifest heresy is recognized by its public character and that such heresy severs a man from the Church even before any judicial process.

4. The Effects of Heresy in Canon Law
The 1917 Code attaches grave consequences to heresy:

Excommunication latae sententiae (can. 2314 §1)
Loss of ecclesiastical office (can. 188 §4)
Inability to hold ecclesiastical office
Exclusion from public prayers (can. 2262)

This last point is especially relevant to the Canon of the Mass. The Church forbids the public liturgical commemoration of those who are separated from her communion by heresy.
Benedict XIV confirms this discipline, teaching that heretics cannot be treated in the liturgy as if they were in communion simply because the liturgy presupposes true communion.

5. The Distinction Between Moral and Juridical Judgment
A key principle in theology and canon law is the distinction between:

Juridical judgment — an act of ecclesiastical authority.
Moral recognition — an act of conscience based on evident fact.

A priest who recognizes that a cleric is a manifest heretic does not issue a canonical sentence; he merely acknowledges a publicly verifiable fact. This is analogous to recognizing:

that a man is unbaptized,
that matter for the Eucharist is invalid,
that a penitent lacks contrition.

St. Thomas teaches that the intellect must assent to evident truth; it is not free to deny what is manifest.

6. Heresy as Separation from the Church
St. Thomas teaches that heresy separates one from the unity of the Church by its very nature (ST II–II q.11 a.2). The 1917 Code reflects this doctrine: a manifest heretic is considered outside the Church’s communion even before any judicial process.
St. Francis de Sales likewise teaches that heretics “are cut off from the body of the Church,” and therefore cannot hold authority within it.
Thus, the Canon — the Church’s supreme act of ecclesial unity — cannot include those who are not in communion with the Church.

7. Historical Confirmation: The Case of Nestorius
The Council of Ephesus provides a decisive precedent. The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name from the diptychs before any formal condemnation. The Council praised them. Pope Celestine praised them.
This demonstrates:

manifest heresy severs communion by its own nature,
cessation of commemoration is legitimate before judgment,
liturgical commemoration presupposes real unity.

St. Antoninus cites this case as proof that heresy itself, not a judicial sentence, breaks communion.

8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Heresy is a voluntary departure from revealed truth.
Manifest heresy is publicly verifiable and juridically effective.
Manifest heretics are excluded from public prayer.
The Canon cannot include those who are not in communion with the Church.
Recognizing manifest heresy is a moral act, not a juridical sentence.
The Church’s own practice confirms this principle.

These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the authority to judge heresy and the distinction between moral certainty and juridical process

Chapter 3 — The Authority to Judge Heresy

1. The Distinction Between Judgment and Recognition
Theologians and canonists consistently distinguish between two fundamentally different acts:

Juridical judgment — an act of ecclesiastical authority that issues a canonical sentence.
Moral recognition — an act of conscience by which one acknowledges a publicly evident fact.

This distinction is essential. A juridical judgment binds others and belongs to the Church alone. A moral recognition binds only the one who judges and belongs to anyone with sufficient evidence.
St. Thomas affirms that the determination of heresy as a canonical crime pertains to the Church’s judgment (ST II–II q.11 a.2 ad 3). Yet he also teaches that the intellect must assent to evident truth; it cannot deny what is manifest. Thus, the faithful may recognize heresy in the moral order when the truth of the matter is evident.
St. Francis de Sales likewise distinguishes between judging a person’s internal culpability (which belongs to God and the Church) and recognizing the external fact of heresy, which belongs to anyone who sees the public evidence.

2. Juridical Judgment Belongs to Ecclesiastical Authority
The Church alone possesses the authority to:

conduct canonical processes,
issue juridical sentences,
declare someone a heretic in law,
impose penalties,
and depose clerics from office where deposition is possible.

The 1917 Code reserves the judgment of delicts to competent authority (can. 1935 §1). No private person may issue a canonical sentence or impose ecclesiastical penalties.
Gregory IX’s Quo Excommunicamus reinforces this principle by specifying that ecclesiastical authority alone imposes canonical censures, even though heresy itself separates a man from the Church.
Thus, in the strict sense, “the judgment of heresy belongs to the Church.”

3. Moral Recognition Belongs to Anyone
Yet the same canonists teach that manifest heresy is a fact, not a sentence. A fact can be known by anyone; a juridical sentence can be issued only by authority.
Thus:

A private person cannot judge heresy juridically.
A private person can recognize manifest heresy morally..

This is why St. Thomas says that heresy separates one from the Church “by its very nature” (ST II–II q.11 a.2), not by a judicial act. The Church’s judgment does not create the separation; it merely declares it.

4. Manifest Heresy as Notorious by Fact
Canonists such as Wernz–Vidal and Coronata explain that a delict is notorious by fact when:

it is publicly committed,
publicly known,
publicly provable,
and leaves no reasonable doubt.

Manifest heresy is precisely this kind of delict. It is not a private suspicion but a public reality. The Church presumes its certainty in the external forum.
Thus, the faithful may recognize manifest heresy without usurping jurisdiction.
Benedict XIV confirms this principle, teaching that the faithful may and must avoid communion with those whose heresy is publicly known, even before any ecclesiastical sentence.

5. Why Moral Recognition Does Not Usurp Jurisdiction
A priest who refrains from naming a manifest heretic in the Canon does not:

issue a canonical sentence,
impose a penalty,
depose anyone from office,
or bind others to his judgment.

He merely avoids performing an act that his conscience judges to be materially false.
This is analogous to:

refusing to use invalid matter for the Eucharist,
refusing to baptize with doubtful water,
refusing to absolve someone who manifestly lacks contrition.

In each case, the priest acts on moral certainty, not juridical authority.
St. Thomas teaches that one must not act against a certain conscience (ST I–II q.19 a.5–6). Thus, moral recognition is not usurpation but fidelity to truth.

6. The Case of the Heretical Pope
Here the distinction becomes decisive.
Juridically:

No one can judge the pope.
No one can depose the pope.
No one can issue a canonical sentence against the pope.

Morally:

Anyone can recognize a manifest, notorious fact.

St. Robert Bellarmine - Cardinal and Doctor of the Church - teaches that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be its head. St. Francis de Sales teaches the same. St. Antoninus explicitly states that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases to be pope by the very fact.
Suarez and Cano affirm that jurisdiction requires membership in the Church; a manifest heretic lacks that membership.
Thus:

Recognizing that a manifest heretic is not pope is not “judging the pope.”
It is recognizing that he has already judged himself by departing from the faith.
This is the classical position of the pre‑Vatican II theologians.

7. Historical Confirmation: The Nestorian Precedent
The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name from the diptychs before any formal condemnation. The Council of Ephesus praised them. Pope Celestine praised them. St. Antoninus cites this case as normative.
Benedict XIV affirms that such cessation of commemoration is legitimate when heresy is manifest. Their action was not considered usurpation of jurisdiction but fidelity to the truth.
This demonstrates:

moral recognition is legitimate,
juridical judgment is not required for liturgical action,
the Church approves cessation of commemoration prior to sentence.

8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Juridical judgment belongs to ecclesiastical authority alone.
Moral recognition belongs to anyone with sufficient evidence.
Manifest heresy is a publicly verifiable fact.
Recognizing manifest heresy does not usurp jurisdiction.
The Church’s own practice confirms this distinction.
The Canon requires moral certainty, not juridical process.

These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the theological positions on papal heresy and the loss of office ipso facto.

PART II — THE HERETICAL POPE QUESTION

Chapter 4 — Theological Positions on Papal Heresy

1. The Classical Debate
The question of whether a Roman Pontiff can fall into heresy has been debated for centuries. This debate is not merely speculative; it concerns the very nature of the Church’s unity and the conditions under which the faithful may or must recognize a rupture in that unity.
Pre‑Vatican II theologians identify five principal opinions:

The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private doctor (Albert Pighius).
The pope can err materially but not formally (Cajetan).
The pope can be a heretic but does not lose office (some canonists).
The pope loses office only after a declaratory sentence (John of St. Thomas).
The pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases to be pope ipso facto (Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, Suarez, Cano, St. Antoninus, St. Francis de Sales).

The fifth opinion is the one most commonly taught in the classical manuals and is theologically normative in the pre‑Vatican II tradition.

2. Bellarmine’s Doctrine: A Manifest Heretic Cannot Be Pope
St. Robert Bellarmine argues that a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. Since the pope is the head of the Church, and the head must be a member of the body, a manifest heretic cannot be pope.
His argument proceeds in three steps:

A manifest heretic is outside the Church.
One who is outside the Church cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church.
Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be pope.

Bellarmine concludes that the loss of office occurs by divine law, not by ecclesiastical judgment. The Church does not depose him; he deposes himself by departing from the faith.

3. Suarez, Cano, and the Nature of Church Membership
Suarez and Cano affirm that public heresy severs one from the body of the Church by its very nature. Membership in the Church requires:

profession of the true faith,
participation in the sacraments,
submission to legitimate pastors.

A manifest heretic lacks the first condition and therefore cannot possess the third. Thus, the loss of office is not a penalty but a metaphysical impossibility: a non‑Catholic cannot hold authority in the Catholic Church.

4. St. Alphonsus Liguori: Confirmation of Bellarmine
St. Alphonsus - Bishop and Doctor of the Church - teaches that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic “ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church.” This is not a juridical deposition but a fact resulting from the nature of heresy.

5. St. Antoninus of Florence: The Pope Who Falls Into Heresy
St. Antoninus explicitly teaches that if the pope were to fall into heresy, he would ipso facto cease to be pope, because he would cease to be a member of the Church. He writes that the Church would not depose him; rather, she would declare that he had already fallen from office by his own act. He explicitly applies this principle to the papacy: a man who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head. His teaching is one of the earliest and clearest articulations of the doctrine later defended by Bellarmine.

6. St. Francis de Sales: A Heretic Cannot Be Head of the Church
St. Francis de Sales teaches that heretics are outside the Church and cannot hold jurisdiction within it. He argues that the Church cannot have a heretical head, because the head must be united to the body in faith.
He writes that if the pope were to become a heretic, “he would no longer be a member of the Church, and consequently could not be its head.”

7. The Declaratory Sentence: What It Is and What It Is Not
Some theologians (e.g., John of St. Thomas) argue that the Church must issue a declaratory sentence. But even they admit:

the sentence does not depose the pope,
the sentence does not cause the loss of office,
the sentence merely recognizes a fact already true.

Thus, even in this more cautious opinion, the loss of office is ipso facto.
Benedict XIV confirms this principle, teaching that ecclesiastical declarations often recognize facts already affected by divine law.

8. Why No One “Judges the Pope”
The Church teaches that the pope is judged by no one. But this applies only to juridical judgment. It does not apply to:

recognizing a fact,
acknowledging that a man has separated himself from the Church,
refusing to perform an act that presupposes communion.

Bellarmine explicitly states that no one judges the pope; rather, the pope ceases to be pope by his own act of manifest heresy. St. Antoninus, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Alphonsus Liguori all taught the same.

9. The Papal Office Requires Membership in the Church
All theologians agree that the papacy is an office within the Church. Therefore:

one must be a member of the Church to hold it,
one must profess the true faith to be a member,
manifest heresy destroys membership,
therefore manifest heresy destroys the papal office in the holder.

This is not a punishment but a metaphysical impossibility: a non‑Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church.

10. Historical Confirmation: The Case of Honorius

The condemnation of Honorius by the Third Council of Constantinople and later popes shows that the Church recognizes the possibility of papal heresy in the private capacity. The Church did not deny the possibility; she merely judged the historical facts.

Pope Paul IV’s bull, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio (1559) teaches:
“…if ever at any time it shall appear that any bishop, even if he be acting as Archbishop, Patriarch, or Pope, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation, even if uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void, and worthless.”

This is one of the most explicit magisterial statements in Church history acknowledging the possibility of a pope falling into heresy.
These examples confirm that the question of a heretical pope is not speculative but real.

11. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.
The pope must be a member of the Church.
Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be pope.
The loss of office occurs ipso facto by divine law.
No one judges the pope; he judges himself by heresy.
A declaratory sentence is not constitutive but recognitive.
The Church’s unity requires a true pope, not a false sign of communion.

These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the canonical consequences of ipso facto loss of office and the implications for liturgical commemoration.

Chapter 5 — Loss of Office Ipso Facto by Divine Law

1. The Principle of Ipso Facto Loss of Office
The pre‑Vatican II theological tradition teaches that certain acts, by their very nature, sever a man from the body of the Church. Among these, manifest heresy holds a unique place.
St. Thomas teaches that heresy separates one from the unity of the Church “by its very nature” because it destroys the virtue of faith, which is the foundation of ecclesial unity (ST II–II q.11 a.2).
Canon law reflects this doctrine. The 1917 Code:

attaches latae sententiae excommunication to heresy (can. 2314 §1),
excludes heretics from public prayers (can. 2262),
and declares that public defection from the faith causes loss of ecclesiastical office ipso facto (can. 188 §4).

These penalties are not merely medicinal; they express the ontological rupture caused by heresy.
Gregory IX’s Quo Excommunicamus confirms that heretics are severed from the Church’s communion by the very fact of their heresy, even before any judicial process.
Pope Pius XII as recently as 1943 affirmed this same teaching in Mystici Corporis Christi when he stated, ““no sin of its own nature … severs a man from the Body of the Church as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Thus, when a cleric becomes a manifest heretic, he is separated from the Church by divine law. This separation has consequences for ecclesiastical office.

2. Canonical Consequences of Ipso Facto Loss
When a pope becomes a manifest heretic:

he loses membership in the Church,
he loses jurisdiction,
he loses the papal office,
he cannot be named in the Canon,
he cannot be the principle of unity,
he cannot be the subject of ecclesiastical obedience.
The Church’s unity requires a true pope, not a false sign of communion.

From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Manifest heresy severs one from the Church by divine law.
The papal office requires membership in the Church.
Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be pope.
The loss of office occurs ipso facto, not by ecclesiastical judgment.
A declaratory sentence is recognitive, not constitutive.
No one judges the pope; he judges himself by heresy.
The Church’s unity requires a true pope, not a false sign of communion.

These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the historical precedents confirming this doctrine.

Chapter 6 — Historical Precedents

1. The Importance of Historical Witness
The Church’s historical practice provides indispensable clarity for doctrinal questions. Theology establishes principles; history shows how the Church has applied those principles in concrete crises.
The question of heresy and ecclesial communion is no exception. The Church’s treatment of heretics, schismatics, and doubtful prelates reveals:

how she understands the nature of communion,
how she interprets liturgical commemoration,
and how she distinguishes between moral recognition and juridical judgment.

Among the most illuminating precedents are:

the Nestorian crisis and the Council of Ephesus,
the discipline surrounding the diptychs,
the testimony of medieval liturgical writers,
the teaching of Benedict XIV,
and the condemnation of the juring priests by Pius VI.

These cases demonstrate a consistent principle: liturgical commemoration presupposes real communion, and the Church has always approved the removal of names when communion is ruptured.

2. The Nestorian Crisis: Removal Before Judgment
The case of Nestorius is the clearest and most authoritative precedent.
Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, publicly taught doctrines contrary to the faith. Before any formal condemnation by Rome, the clergy of Constantinople removed his name from the diptychs, thereby ceasing liturgical communion with him.
The Council of Ephesus wrote to Pope Celestine that they:
“rejoiced” at the clergy’s action, praised them for ceasing communion with Nestorius, and emphasized that this action occurred before any judicial sentence. Pope Celestine replied with equal clarity, giving thanks that they had removed his name and exhorting them to persevere.
This establishes:

manifest heresy severs communion by its own nature,
cessation of commemoration is not usurpation of jurisdiction,
the Church approves such cessation even before judgment.

3. The Diptychs: The Ancient Sign of Communion
The diptychs were lists of names read or commemorated during the liturgy. They included:

the living with whom the Church professed communion,
the dead who died in the peace of the Church,
and the bishops of the local and universal Church.
To include a name was to profess communion.
To remove a name was to signify rupture.

This practice is attested by:
Ivo of Flaviniaca, who states that omission of the pope’s name signifies separation from the communion of the whole world.
Alcuin, who cites Pope Pelagius to the same effect.
Christianus Lupus, who calls the commemoration of the pope “the chief and most glorious form of communion.”
Benedict XIV confirms this ancient understanding, teaching that the restoration of a name to the liturgy was historically the final and definitive sign of reconciliation with the Apostolic See.
Thus, the diptychs express real unity, not presumed unity.

4. Medieval and Patristic Witnesses
The medieval liturgical tradition reinforces this understanding.
Alcuin, in De Divinis Officiis, teaches that omission of the pope’s name is universally recognized as a sign of separation.
Ivo of Flaviniaca, in his Chronicon, affirms the same.
Christianus Lupus, in his commentary on the councils, explains that the commemoration of the pope is the most solemn expression of communion.
These testimonies are not isolated opinions; they reflect the universal practice of the Church.

5. Benedict XIV on Liturgical Commemoration
Benedict XIV, one of the Church’s greatest liturgical scholars, teaches that:
the commemoration of the pope in the Canon is a public acknowledgment of him as head of the Church,
reconciliation with the Apostolic See is not complete until the pope’s name is restored to the liturgy,
and the omission of this commemoration signifies separation or schism.
His teaching confirms the ancient understanding: the Canon’s commemoration is a sacramental sign of real communion, not a mere formula.

6. The Juring Priests: False Communion Condemned
During the French Revolution, certain priests (“juring priests”) accepted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, thereby aligning themselves with a schismatic structure.
Pius VI, in Charitas, condemned their actions as a false communion contrary to the unity of the Church.
This case demonstrates:

external forms of unity do not suffice,
false communion must be avoided,
liturgical acts must correspond to true ecclesial reality.

Thus, the Church condemns false signs of unity, including false liturgical commemoration.

7. The Western Schism: Why the Analogy Fails
Some appeal to the Western Schism as a precedent for naming doubtful or heretical popes. But the analogy fails for two reasons:

The issue then was doubt about the fact of election, not heresy.
All claimants professed the Catholic faith.

Thus, naming one claimant did not falsify the sign of unity. The situation is materially different from the case of manifest heresy.

8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Liturgical commemoration is a public profession of communion.
Manifest heresy severs communion by its nature.
The Church has always approved cessation of commemoration before judgment.
The diptychs express real unity, not presumed unity.
False communion is condemned by the Church.
The Western Schism is not analogous to manifest heresy.
The Canon cannot signify communion where none exists.

These principles prepare the way for PART III, which will examine the moral impossibility of naming a manifest heretic in the Canon.

PART III — THE MORAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF COMMEMORATION

Chapter 7 — The Canon as a Sacramental Sign of Communion

1. The Canon as the Church’s Supreme Act of Unity

The Canon of the Mass is the Church’s most solemn act of worship. It is not merely a prayer but the liturgical articulation of the Church’s unity in faith, charity, and hierarchical order.

St. Thomas teaches that the Eucharist is “the sacrament of ecclesial unity” because it signifies and affects the cohesion of the Mystical Body (ST III q.73 a.3). The Canon, as the fixed and venerable prayer surrounding the consecration, expresses this unity in its most perfect form.

Thus, the Canon is not a neutral or merely functional text. It is a sacramental sign, and sacramental signs must correspond to reality.

2. The Commemoration of the Pope and Bishop
Within the Canon, the Te igitur contains the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop. This commemoration is not a courtesy or a rubric devoid of theological meaning. It is a liturgical declaration of communion with the visible head of the Church and with the local ordinary.

Dom Guéranger (19th century Benedictine Abbot of Solesmes and liturgical scholar) explains that the Church names in the Canon only those who are “orthodox and cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith.” The Canon presupposes communion; it does not create it. His treatment on this bears repeating at length, so that one may acquire a proper conception of the sacrality of the Canon and its signification:

TE IGITUR.

The Priest next adds: una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis, atque Catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus. So, there is not a Mass offered, but it benefits the whole Church; all her members participate therein, and care is taken, in the wording of this Prayer, to name them in particular. First of all comes the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth; and when His name is pronounced, an inclination of the head is made, to honour Jesus Christ, in the person of his Vicar. The only exception to this, is when the Holy See happens to be vacant. When the Pope himself is saying Mass, he here substitutes these words: Et me indigno servo tuo. ... The Bishop does in like manner, in his own case, for next after the Pope, the Missal makes mention of the Bishop, in whose Diocese the Mass is being celebrated, so that in all places, Holy Church may be represented in her entirety. At Rome, there is no mention made of a Bishop, because the Pope himself is Bishop of Rome. In order that all her members without exception may be named, Holy Church here speaks of all the Faithful, calling them fidelium, that is to say, those who are faithful in observing the Faith of Holy Church, for to be included in those mentioned here, it is necessary to be in this Faith; it is necessary to be Orthodox, as she takes care to specify, omnibus orthodoxis, which means, those who think aright, who profess the Catholic Faith, - the Faith handed down by the Apostles. By laying such stress on these words: omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus, Holy Church would have us see, that she excludes from her prayer, on this occasion, those who are not of the household of the Faith, who do not think aright, who are not orthodox, who hold not their Faith from the Apostles.The terms in which Holy Church expresses herself, throughout, show very clearly how far Holy Mass is alien to private devotions. She, then, must take the precedence of all else, and her intentions must be respected. Thus does Holy Church give all her members a participation in the Great Sacrifice;

MEMENTO OF THE LIVING.

The Priest cannot here pray either for Jews or for infidels, no more than he can for heretics, who by the very fact of heresy alone, are excommunicates, and consequently out of the pale of the holy Catholic Church. Neither can he pray for such as, without being heretics, are excommunicated for other causes; it would be a profanation to utter the names of any such in the midst of the Holy Sacrifice. They may be prayed for in private, but not in official prayers. They are excluded from the Sacrifice, as they are out of the Church; consequently, it is impossible to mention them during the Sacred Celebration

3. The Canon Presupposes Real Communion

St. Thomas teaches that a sacrament cannot signify what is false (ST III q.60 a.6). Therefore, the Canon cannot signify communion where communion is absent.

The commemoration of the pope and bishop presupposes:

doctrinal unity,
hierarchical unity,
sacramental unity.

If any of these is lacking, the sign becomes false.

4. The Exclusion of Heretics from Public Prayer

The 1917 Code excludes manifest heretics from public prayers (can. 2262). This is not merely a disciplinary measure; it reflects the ontological rupture caused by heresy.

A manifest heretic is outside the Church’s communion and therefore cannot be included in the Church’s supreme act of worship.

Thus, naming a manifest heretic in the Canon would be contrary to the Church’s own law and theology.

5. Papal Teaching on Commemoration
The Roman Pontiffs consistently teach that the commemoration of the pope in the Canon is a public acknowledgment of him as:

the head of the Church,
the Vicar of Christ,
the successor of Peter,
and the principle of visible unity.

They further teach that:

reconciliation with the Apostolic See is not complete until the pope’s name is restored to the liturgy,
and the omission of this commemoration signifies separation or schism.

This confirms that the Canon’s commemoration is a sacramental sign of real communion, not a mere formula.

6. The Canon Cannot Falsify the Sign
To name someone in the Canon is to profess communion with him in faith and worship. If such communion is absent, the act becomes a lie in sacred things, which St. Thomas identifies as a species of sacrilege (ST II–II q.110 a.3; q.99 a.2).

Thus, naming a manifest heretic in the Canon is morally impossible because:

it falsifies the sacramental sign,
it signifies unity where unity is absent,
it contradicts the Church’s own law,
it constitutes a lie in sacred things.

7. The Priest’s Duty to Avoid False Signification
A priest must not act against a certain conscience (ST I–II q.19 a.5–6). If he possesses solid and prudent moral certainty that a prelate is a manifest heretic, he cannot licitly perform an act that his conscience judges to be materially false.

This is not an act of jurisdiction but of fidelity to the truth of the sacramental sign.

8. Historical Confirmation: The Diptychs
The ancient practice of the diptychs confirms this principle. The Church removed the names of heretics from the diptychs to signify the cessation of communion. The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name before any formal condemnation, and both the Council of Ephesus and Pope Celestine praised them. Benedict XIV cites this precedent as proof that cessation of commemoration is legitimate when heresy is manifest.
This demonstrates that:

liturgical commemoration presupposes real unity,
cessation of commemoration is legitimate before judgment,
the Church approves such action.

9. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

The Canon is a sacramental sign of ecclesial unity.
Sacramental signs must correspond to reality.
The commemoration of the pope presupposes real communion.
Manifest heretics are excluded from public prayer.
Naming a manifest heretic falsifies the sacramental sign.
The priest must avoid false signification.
The Church’s historical practice confirms this principle.

These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the moral theology of conscience and the priest’s obligation to avoid false liturgical acts.

Chapter 8 — Conscience and Moral Certainty

1. The Primacy of Conscience in Moral Acts
St. Thomas teaches that every human act must be measured by the rule of reason, and the proximate rule of reason is conscience (ST I–II q.19 a.5). A man must never act against a certain conscience, even if that conscience is in error, provided the error is not culpable. To act against conscience is to choose what one judges to be evil, and this is always sinful.

Thus, when a priest approaches the altar, he must act according to the judgment of his conscience regarding the truth of the sacramental sign. If he judges that naming a particular prelate in the Canon would signify a false communion, he cannot licitly perform that act.

This is not presumption; it is fidelity to the proximate rule of moral action.

2. The Nature of Moral Certainty
Moral certainty is the degree of certainty required for prudent action. It is not metaphysical or mathematical certainty, but a firm judgment excluding reasonable doubt.

The classical manuals (Tanquerey, Prümmer, Noldin, Merkelbach) teach that moral certainty suffices for all practical decisions, including sacramental acts. Thus, a priest does not require a juridical sentence to act; he requires moral certainty.
This is the same certainty he uses when:

determining whether matter for the Eucharist is valid,
judging whether a penitent is contrite,
discerning whether marriage consent is present,
deciding whether a baptism is valid.

The Church does not require juridical certainty for sacramental action. St. Francis de Sales teaches that when heresy is publicly and manifestly professed, the faithful must withdraw from religious communion with those who promote it, even before any formal ecclesiastical judgment, because the rupture of faith is already a matter of public fact.

3. The Priest’s Duty to Avoid False Signification
St. Thomas teaches that lying in sacred things is a species of sacrilege (ST II–II q.110 a.3; q.99 a.2). The Canon is a sacramental sign; therefore, to falsify it is to commit sacrilege.
If a priest possesses moral certainty that a prelate is a manifest heretic, then naming him in the Canon would:

signify communion where none exists,
contradict the Church’s own law excluding heretics from public prayer,
constitute a lie in sacred things.

Thus, the priest is morally bound to omit the name. St. Antoninus teaches that when heresy is publicly and manifestly professed, the faithful must refrain from any participation in sacred things with such persons, because communion in divine matters requires unity of faith, and to act otherwise would be contrary to the truth of the Church.

4. The Limits of Obedience
Obedience is a virtue, but it is not absolute. St. Thomas teaches that obedience does not oblige one to sin (ST II–II q.104 a.5). Human law does not bind when it contradicts divine law (ST I–II q.96 a.4).
Therefore:

If the rubric presupposes communion,
and communion is certainly absent,
then the rubric does not bind.

The priest is not disobeying the Church; he is obeying the higher law of truth. Benedict XIV confirms that ecclesiastical laws presuppose the existence of communion and do not bind when that communion is absent.

5. The Exclusion of Heretics from Public Prayer
The 1917 Code excludes manifest heretics from public prayers (can. 2262). This is not a mere disciplinary measure; it reflects the ontological rupture caused by heresy.
Thus:

the Church forbids naming manifest heretics in public prayer,
the Canon is the highest form of public prayer,
therefore manifest heretics cannot be named in the Canon.

This is not a matter of private judgment but of ecclesiastical law.Gregory IX’s Excommunicamus underscores the Church’s duty to separate the faithful from those already judged to be heretics, imposing penalties on those who receive or support them.

6. The Role of Prudence
Prudence is the virtue that applies universal principles to particular cases. It requires:

knowledge of the facts,
knowledge of the law,
and the ability to judge rightly.

A priest must prudently determine whether:

the heresy is manifest,
the rupture of communion is certain,
the act of commemoration would falsify the sign.

If these conditions are met, prudence requires omission. St. Francis de Sales teaches that prudence requires avoiding any act that would signify communion with those outside the Church.

7. The Example of the Clergy of Constantinople
The clergy of Constantinople, faced with Nestorius’s manifest heresy, ceased to commemorate him before any formal judgment.

The Council of Ephesus praised them.
Pope Celestine praised them.
St. Antoninus cites them as a model of prudence.

Benedict XIV affirms their action as legitimate.
Their action was:

prudent,
faithful,
and in accordance with the truth of the sacramental sign.

This historical precedent confirms the moral principle.

8. The Principle Established
From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

Conscience is the proximate rule of moral action.
Moral certainty suffices for sacramental decisions.
The Canon must not signify what is false.
Naming a manifest heretic falsifies the sacramental sign.
Obedience does not oblige one to sin.
Manifest heretics are excluded from public prayer.
The Church’s historical practice confirms this principle.

These principles prepare the way for the next chapter, which will examine the Sunday obligation and the faithful’s duty to avoid objectively disordered worship.

Chapter 9 — The Sunday Obligation and Disordered Worship

1. The Nature and Limits of the Sunday Obligation

The Church obliges the faithful to assist at Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. This precept is rooted in divine law, for the Third Commandment requires the sanctification of the Lord’s Day.

Yet the Church also teaches that no positive law binds when its observance becomes morally impossible.

St. Thomas explains that human laws, including ecclesiastical precepts, do not oblige when their observance would involve sin (ST I–II q.96 a.4). The classical manuals (Tanquerey, Prümmer, Merkelbach) affirm that the Sunday obligation ceases when attendance at Mass would involve:

proximate danger of sin,
participation in illicit worship,
cooperation in sacrilege,
or scandal.

Thus, the obligation to attend Mass is not absolute; it is conditioned by the moral liceity of the act.

2. The Canon as a Sacramental Sign Requiring Truth

As established earlier, the Canon is a sacramental sign of ecclesial unity. St. Thomas teaches that a sacrament cannot signify what is false (ST III q.60 a.6). Therefore, the Canon must correspond to the truth of ecclesial communion.

If the Canon includes the name of a manifest heretic, the sign becomes false. The act of worship becomes objectively disordered, for it signifies unity where unity is absent.

St. Francis de Sales teaches that the faithful must avoid any act that signifies communion with those outside the Church, because such acts are objectively false and therefore sinful.

3. Participation in Objectively Disordered Worship

The classical manuals teach that one may not participate in objectively disordered worship, even if one does not personally intend the disorder. Participation in such worship constitutes:

material cooperation in sacrilege,
implicit profession of false unity,
scandal to the faithful,
violation of the virtue of religion.

St. Thomas identifies sacrilege as a sin against the holiness of sacred things (ST II–II q.99 a.1). To participate in a liturgical act that falsifies the sacramental sign is to participate in sacrilege.

St. Antoninus teaches that the faithful must avoid any act that signifies communion with heresy, because such acts are objectively false and therefore sinful.

4. The Exclusion of Heretics from Public Prayer

The 1917 Code excludes manifest heretics from public prayers (can. 2262). This exclusion is not optional; it is a juridical expression of the ontological rupture caused by heresy.

Thus:

if a liturgy includes the name of a manifest heretic,
it violates the Church’s own law,
and participation becomes morally problematic.

5. The Faithful’s Right to True Worship

The faithful have a right to true Catholic worship. Pius XII teaches that the faithful have a right to the liturgy as the Church intends it, not as individuals distort it.

This right includes:

the right to a true sacramental sign,
the right to worship without false profession,
the right to avoid cooperation in sacrilege.

Thus, the faithful cannot be obliged to participate in a Mass that falsifies the Canon.

6. The Principle of Moral Impossibility

Moral impossibility arises when an act cannot be performed without sin. The classical manuals teach that when a precept becomes morally impossible, it ceases to bind.

Thus:

if attending Mass requires participating in a false sign of communion,
and this constitutes material cooperation in sacrilege,
then the Sunday obligation ceases.

This is not a dispensation but a principle of moral theology.

7. The Example of the Clergy of Constantinople

The clergy of Constantinople, faced with Nestorius’s manifest heresy, ceased to commemorate him before any formal judgment. The Council of Ephesus praised them. Pope Celestine praised them. St. Antoninus cites them as a model of prudence. Benedict XIV affirms their action as legitimate. Their action demonstrates that the faithful are not obliged to participate in worship that falsifies the sacramental sign.

8. The Principle Established

From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

The Sunday obligation ceases when its fulfillment requires sin.
Participation in a Mass that falsifies the Canon is objectively disordered.
Naming a manifest heretic in the Canon falsifies the sacramental sign.
Participation in such a Mass constitutes material cooperation in sacrilege.
The faithful have a right to true worship.
The Church’s historical practice confirms this principle.

These principles prepare the way for PART IV, where the scholastic synthesis will be presented, culminating in a formal quaestio on whether a manifest heretic can be named in the Canon.

PART IV — THE SCHOLASTIC SYNTHESIS

Chapter 10 — Quaestio: Whether a Manifest Heretic Can Be Named in the Canon of the Mass

Article: Whether a priest may licitly name in the Canon of the Mass one whom he prudently and morally certainly judges to be a manifest heretic

Objection 1.

It seems that a priest must name such a person in the Canon, because the rubrics command the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop. Since obedience is a virtue, and since rubrics bind under sin, omission appears unlawful.

Objection 2.

Further, no one may judge the pope. But to omit his name on the grounds of heresy appears to be a judgment of the pope. Therefore, omission is unlawful.

Objection 3.

Further, the unity of the Church requires visible communion with the Roman Pontiff. To omit his name is to signify schism. Therefore, omission is contrary to the unity of the Church.

Objection 4.

Further, the faithful are obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days. If omission of the name renders the Mass illicit, then the faithful would be deprived of the sacraments. Therefore, omission is contrary to the good of souls.

Objection 5.

Further, the Church has endured wicked or imprudent popes in the past without omitting their names. Therefore, the priest must not omit the name even if he believes the pope to be a heretic.

On the contrary,

St. Thomas teaches that a sacrament cannot signify what is false, for this would be a lie in sacred things, which is sacrilege (ST III q.60 a.6; II–II q.110 a.3).

And the 1917 Code excludes manifest heretics from public prayers (can. 2262).

But the Canon is the Church’s supreme public prayer.

Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be named in the Canon.

St. Antoninus, St. Francis de Sales, Bellarmine, Suarez, and St. Alphonsus all teach that a manifest heretic ceases to be pope ipso facto and cannot be the head of the Church.

Benedict XIV teaches that the Canon’s commemoration presupposes real communion and cannot be offered for those outside the Church.

I answer that,

To name someone in the Canon of the Mass is to signify real communion with him in faith, worship, and hierarchical unity. This is not a mere rubric but a sacramental sign, as shown by:

the ancient practice of the diptychs,
the teaching of the Fathers,
the medieval liturgical writers,
the 1917 Code,
the papal teaching that commemoration is the “chief and most glorious form of communion” (Lupus; confirmed by Benedict XIV).

A sacramental sign must correspond to reality.

Therefore:

If communion is absent, the sign cannot be made.

But manifest heresy severs communion by its very nature, as St. Thomas teaches (ST II–II q.11 a.2), and as the 1917 Code presumes in its exclusion of heretics from public prayer.

A manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.

Therefore, he cannot be the head of the Church, as Bellarmine, Suarez, Cano, St. Antoninus, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Alphonsus unanimously teach.

Thus:

If a man is a manifest heretic, he is not a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be pope, and therefore cannot be named in the Canon.

This is not a juridical judgment but a moral recognition of a publicly verifiable fact.

The priest does not judge the pope; he judges whether the sacramental sign would be true or false.

He must not falsify the sign.

Therefore:

It is morally impossible to name in the Canon one who is a manifest heretic.

To do so would be:

a lie in sacred things,
material cooperation in sacrilege,
a violation of the virtue of religion,
contrary to ecclesiastical law,
and contrary to the Church’s historical practice.

Replies to the Objections

Reply to Objection 1.

Rubrics bind only when their observance is morally possible. They presuppose the truth of the sign.

If the one named is not in communion with the Church, the rubric does not bind, for obedience does not oblige one to sin (ST II–II q.104 a.5).

Benedict XIV confirms that ecclesiastical laws presuppose communion and do not bind when communion is absent.

Reply to Objection 2.

To omit the name is not to judge the pope juridically, which no one may do.

It is to recognize a notorious fact, which anyone may do.

Bellarmine explicitly teaches that the heretical pope “judges himself” and ceases to be pope by divine law.

St. Antoninus, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alphonsus Liguori teach the same.

Reply to Objection 3.

Omission of the name of a true pope signifies schism.

But omission of the name of a non‑pope signifies fidelity.

The papal teaching that omission signifies schism presupposes that the one omitted is truly pope — a condition absent in the case of manifest heresy.

Reply to Objection 4.

The Sunday obligation ceases when its fulfillment requires sin.

Participation in a Mass that falsifies the Canon is objectively disordered.

Thus, the faithful are not deprived of the sacraments; they are preserved from sacrilege.

Reply to Objection 5.

The Church has endured wicked popes, but not manifest heretics.

The Western Schism involved doubt about election, not heresy.

The analogy fails.

Manifest heresy severs communion by its nature.

Conclusion of the Article

Therefore:

A priest may not licitly name in the Canon of the Mass one whom he prudently and morally certainly judges to be a manifest heretic.

To do so would falsify the sacramental sign, violate ecclesiastical law, and constitute material cooperation in sacrilege.

Chapter 11 — Replies to Modern Objections

Modern objections to the doctrine established in the preceding chapters often arise from confusion of categories, post‑conciliar assumptions, or unfamiliarity with pre‑Vatican II theology.

Here each objection is addressed within the classical framework of St. Thomas, the 1917 Code, and the authoritative theologians and canonists of the Roman tradition.

1. “You are judging the pope.”

This objection confuses juridical judgment with moral recognition. Juridical judgment belongs to the Church alone. Moral recognition belongs to anyone with sufficient evidence. St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly teaches that no one judges the pope; rather, the pope who becomes a manifest heretic judges himself by departing from the faith. St. Antoninus, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alphonsus Liguori teach the same. The priest who omits the name does not issue a sentence; he avoids falsifying a sacramental sign.

Thus, the objection fails.

2. “Only the Church can declare heresy.”

True — but irrelevant.

A declaratory sentence:

does not cause the loss of office,
does not create heresy,
does not establish the rupture of communion,
but merely recognizes a fact already true.
Manifest heresy is notorious by fact, not by judgment.
The Church presumes its certainty in the external forum.

Gregory IX’s Quo Excommunicamus confirms that heretics are severed from communion by the fact of heresy itself.

Thus, the objection confuses fact with sentence.

3. “This is private judgment.”

Private judgment concerns internal, subjective opinions. Recognition of public, notorious, externally verifiable facts is not private judgment.

Examples:

recognizing that a man is unbaptized,
recognizing that bread is invalid matter,
recognizing that a penitent lacks contrition,
recognizing that a cleric publicly denies a dogma.

The Church requires priests to act on moral certainty, not juridical process.

Thus, the objection fails.

4. “This is Protestant.”

Protestantism asserts:

private interpretation of Scripture,
rejection of ecclesiastical authority,
denial of the papacy.

The doctrine here asserts:

the necessity of ecclesiastical authority,
the necessity of the papacy,
the impossibility of a non‑Catholic being pope,
the obligation to avoid false sacramental signs.

This is the opposite of Protestantism.

Thus, the objection is historically and theologically baseless.

5. “This is Donatism.”

Donatism concerned:

the validity of sacraments,
the moral character of ministers.

The present doctrine concerns:

the truth of the sacramental sign,
the nature of ecclesial communion,
the exclusion of heretics from public prayer,
the impossibility of naming a non‑Catholic in the Canon.

The Church has always rejected Donatism, but she has also always excluded heretics from liturgical commemoration.

Thus, the objection confuses validity with communion.

6. “This is schism.”

Schism is:

the refusal of submission to the true Roman Pontiff,
or the refusal of communion with those subject to him.

But:

a manifest heretic is,

not the Roman Pontiff,
and is not a member of the Church,
and therefore cannot be the principle of unity.

Omitting the name of a true pope is schism.

Omitting the name of a non‑pope is fidelity.

Thus, the objection presupposes what it must prove.

7. “The Church has endured bad popes before.”

True — but irrelevant.

The Church has endured:

immoral popes,
imprudent popes,
negligent popes,
bad popes.

But the Church has never endured a manifest heretic as pope. The Western Schism involved doubt about election, not heresy.

Thus, the objection is historically false.

8. “This causes confusion and division.”

Truth sometimes causes division.

St. Thomas teaches that peace is the tranquillitas ordinis — the tranquility of order — not the mere absence of conflict (ST II–II q.29 a.1).

False unity is not peace.
False communion is not charity.
False liturgical signs are not worship.

Thus, the objection elevates human comfort over divine truth.

9. “The faithful will be scandalized.”

Scandal is leading another into sin, not the mere appearance of conflict.

To participate in a Mass that falsifies the Canon is to cooperate in sacrilege.

To avoid sacrilege is not scandal; it is virtue.

Thus, the objection reverses the meaning of scandal.

10. “This is too complicated for ordinary Catholics.”

The Church has always expected the faithful to:

avoid heresy,
avoid false worship,
avoid false communion,
adhere to the truth.

The clergy of Constantinople — many of them simple men — recognized Nestorius’s heresy and removed his name before any judgment. St. Antoninus cites them as a model of prudence. Benedict XIV affirms their action. Thus, the objection underestimates the faithful and contradicts historical precedent.

11. “This is disobedience.”

Obedience does not oblige one to sin (ST II–II q.104 a.5).

To falsify the Canon is to sin.

Therefore, obedience cannot require it.

Thus, the objection fails.

12. “This is rash.”

Rashness is acting without sufficient evidence.

But manifest heresy is:

public,
notorious,
certain,
morally undeniable.

The Church presumes its certainty in the external forum.

Thus, the objection confuses rashness with courage.

Conclusion of the Chapter

All modern objections fail because they:

confuse juridical judgment with moral recognition,
confuse validity with communion,
confuse obedience with servility,
confuse unity with uniformity,
confuse peace with quietism,
ignore the Church’s own law and history.

The doctrine stands:

A manifest heretic cannot be named in the Canon of the Mass. To do so is morally impossible, canonically forbidden, and theologically absurd.

PART V — APPENDICES

Appendix A — Canonical Texts (1917 Code of Canon Law)

(Paraphrased for clarity while preserving juridical meaning)

This appendix gathers the principal canons relevant to the doctrines established in the monograph. These texts form the canonical foundation for the Church’s teaching on heresy, ecclesial communion, and liturgical commemoration.

1. Can. 1325 §2 — Definition of Heresy

Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

This canon adopts the Thomistic definition: heresy is a voluntary departure from the rule of faith proposed by the Church.

2. Can. 2314 §1 — Penalties for Heresy

Those who publicly adhere to heresy:

incur latae sententiae excommunication,

lose any ecclesiastical offices they hold,

and must be avoided by the faithful until they repent.

This canon expresses the ontological rupture caused by heresy and its juridical consequences.

3. Can. 2262 — Exclusion from Public Prayers

Excommunicated persons — especially heretics — are excluded from public prayers of the Church, including the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This canon is decisive for the question of liturgical commemoration:

manifest heretics cannot be named in the Canon.

4. Can. 188 §4 — Loss of Office by Public Defection

A cleric who publicly defects from the Catholic faith loses ecclesiastical office ipso facto, without need of declaration.

This canon expresses the principle that loss of office occurs by divine law, not by ecclesiastical judgment.

5. Can. 1258 — Prohibition of Communicatio in Sacris

The faithful are forbidden to participate in non‑Catholic worship, even if the rites are valid, because such participation signifies false unity.

This canon reinforces the principle that liturgical acts must correspond to true ecclesial communion.

6. Can. 209 — Obligation to Profess the Faith

The faithful must avoid any act that would imply:

denial of the faith,

or communion with heresy.

This canon grounds the moral obligation to avoid false sacramental signs.

Appendix B — Patristic and Liturgical Texts

This appendix gathers the principal patristic and liturgical witnesses that illuminate the Church’s ancient understanding of ecclesial communion, the diptychs, and the meaning of liturgical commemoration. These texts form the historical foundation for the doctrines established in the monograph.

1. The Diptychs in Patristic Tradition

The diptychs were lists of names read or commemorated during the sacred liturgy. They included:

the living with whom the Church professed communion,

the dead who died in the peace of the Church,

and the bishops of the local and universal Church.

The Fathers consistently teach that the diptychs were signs of real communion, not mere ceremonial lists.

1.1 St. Cyril of Alexandria (Council of Ephesus)

During the Nestorian crisis, St. Cyril affirmed that the removal of Nestorius’s name from the diptychs was a legitimate and necessary act, because it signified the cessation of communion due to manifest heresy.

Letter of the Holy Synod at Ephesus to Pope Celestine (full surrounding passage, Schaff/NPNF)

The Holy Synod which by the grace of God was assembled at Ephesus the Metropolis to the most holy and our fellow-minister Celestine, health in the Lord.

The zeal of your holiness for piety, and your care for the right faith, so grateful and highly pleasing to God the Saviour of us all, are worthy of all admiration. For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own care. For this cause we thought it well to notify your holiness concerning those things which were done in that Holy and Great Council. In the first place we enjoined Nestorius, as an innovator and as one who opposed the ancient ecclesiastical teaching, to be deposed from the episcopal dignity, and we anathematized him and his followers. We likewise bore witness against Theodore, and against all who support him. Moreover, those who had put his name in the diptychs, and who had been thus giving him commemoration in the Churches, we exhorted and rejoiced because they had removed his name and had ceased from communion with him. We therefore send you the acts and decrees (that you may know what has been done), and praying for your holy and apostolic seat we remain in Christ, your fellow-labourers and brethren in the episcopate.

Reply of Pope St. Celestine I,

To the most reverend bishops and clergy of Constantinople, health in the Lord.

We have received your letter and the information contained in it, and we rejoice with you that the truth of Christ has been defended. We hear that those who had placed the name of Nestorius in the diptychs, and so commemorated him in the churches, have removed his name and ceased from communion with him; for this we give thanks to God, and we praise your prudence and zeal in maintaining the faith. Continue therefore stedfastly in this course, taking heed that nothing be admitted which might unsettle the faith of the faithful, and preserve the unity of the Church which is pleasing to God.

Given at Rome, by Celestine, Bishop, servant of the servants of God.

1.2 Pope Celestine I

Pope Celestine praised the clergy of Constantinople for removing Nestorius’s name before any formal condemnation, affirming that their action was faithful to the truth of ecclesial communion.

1.3 The Council of Ephesus (431)

The Council explicitly approved the cessation of commemoration, praising the clergy for acting according to the truth of the faith and the nature of ecclesial unity.

These texts demonstrate that the Church’s earliest and most authoritative witnesses understood liturgical commemoration as a public profession of communion.

2. Liturgical Witnesses

The medieval liturgical tradition preserves and develops the patristic understanding of the diptychs.

2.1 Alcuin (8th century)

In De Divinis Officiis, Alcuin teaches that the omission of the pope’s name from the sacred mysteries signifies separation from the unity of the Church. He cites Pope Pelagius to confirm that the commemoration of the pope is the Church’s most solemn expression of communion.

2.2 Ivo of Flaviniaca (11th century)

In his Chronicon, Ivo states that the omission of the pope’s name from the diptychs is universally recognized as a sign of rupture from the communion of the whole world.

2.3 Christianus Lupus (17th century)

In his commentary on the councils, Lupus explains that the commemoration of the pope in the Canon is the “chief and most glorious form of communion.” He emphasizes that the diptychs express real unity, not presumed unity.

2.4 Prosper Guéranger (19th century)

Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of Holy Mass: Taken from Notes Made at the Conferences of Dom Prosper Guéranger, Abbot of Solesmes. Translated by Dom Laurence Shepherd. Stanbrook: St. Mary’s Abbey, 1885. Pg. 36-39

These witnesses confirm that the Church’s liturgical tradition has always understood commemoration as a sacramental sign.

3. Papal Teaching on Liturgical Commemoration

3.1 Benedict XIV

Benedict XIV, one of the Church’s greatest liturgical scholars, teaches that:

the commemoration of the pope in the Canon is a public acknowledgment of him as head of the Church,

reconciliation with the Apostolic See is not complete until the pope’s name is restored to the liturgy,

and the omission of this commemoration signifies separation or schism.

He explicitly appeals to the Nestorian precedent and confirms that cessation of commemoration is legitimate when heresy is manifest.

3.2 Pope Pelagius I

Pelagius teaches that the commemoration of the pope is the Church’s most solemn expression of communion, and that omission signifies rupture.

3.3 Pope Celestine I

As noted above, Celestine praised the clergy of Constantinople for removing Nestorius’s name before judgment, confirming that liturgical commemoration presupposes real unity.

4. Patristic Teaching on Heresy and Communion

4.1 St. Augustine

Augustine teaches that heretics are outside the Church because they reject the rule of faith. Communion with them is impossible because unity of faith is the foundation of ecclesial unity.

4.2 St. Jerome

Jerome teaches that heresy severs one from the Church and that communion cannot be maintained with those who deny the faith.

4.3 St. Cyprian

Cyprian teaches that unity of faith and unity of the episcopate are inseparable. One who departs from the faith departs from the unity of the Church.

These patristic witnesses confirm the principle that manifest heresy destroys communion, and therefore the liturgy cannot signify communion with heretics.

5. Summary of Patristic and Liturgical Doctrine

From the foregoing, the following principles emerge:

The diptychs were signs of real communion.

The Fathers understood liturgical commemoration as a public profession of unity.

Manifest heresy severs communion by its nature.

The Church has always approved cessation of commemoration before judgment.

Papal teaching confirms that commemoration presupposes true unity.

The liturgy cannot signify communion where none exists.

These principles form the historical foundation for the theological and canonical conclusions of the monograph.

Appendix C — Manualist Citations

This appendix gathers the principal pre‑Vatican II manualists whose teachings form the theological and canonical framework of the monograph. These authors represent the normative tradition of Catholic sacramental, moral, and canonical theology as it existed before the post‑conciliar reinterpretations.

The citations below are paraphrased for clarity while preserving doctrinal meaning.

1. Tanquerey — Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et Pastoralis

Tanquerey teaches that:

Moral certainty is sufficient for all sacramental acts.
One must not act against a certain conscience, even if mistaken.
Participation in objectively disordered worship is forbidden.
Heresy severs communion with the Church by its nature.
Public heretics are excluded from public prayers.

These principles support the conclusion that a priest cannot name a manifest heretic in the Canon.

2. Prümmer — Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Prümmer affirms that:

A priest must avoid any act that would constitute material cooperation in sacrilege.
False liturgical signification is gravely sinful.
The faithful must avoid communicatio in sacris with heretics.
The Sunday obligation ceases when attendance at Mass would involve sin.

Thus, if naming a manifest heretic falsifies the Canon, the priest must omit the name.

3. Merkelbach — Summa Theologiae Moralis

Merkelbach teaches that:

Heresy destroys ecclesial membership.
Public heretics cannot be the subjects of ecclesiastical obedience.
The faithful must avoid any act that signifies false unity.
The virtue of religion forbids lying in sacred things.

These principles directly apply to the question of liturgical commemoration.

4. Noldin–Schmitt — Summa Theologiae Moralis

Noldin and Schmitt affirm that:

Manifest heresy is a publicly verifiable fact.
Moral certainty suffices for practical decisions.
A priest must not perform a sacramental act that he judges to be materially false.
Obedience does not oblige one to sin.

Thus, the priest must omit the name of a manifest heretic.

5. Wernz–Vidal — Ius Canonicuм

Wernz and Vidal, the greatest commentators on the 1917 Code, teach that:

A delict is notorious by fact when it is publicly known and provable.
Manifest heresy is such a delict.
A cleric who publicly defects from the faith loses office ipso facto.
The Church presumes the certainty of notorious facts in the external forum.

Thus, the loss of office occurs by divine law, not by ecclesiastical judgment.

6. Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici

Coronata teaches that:

Public defection from the faith causes loss of office without declaration.
The Church’s laws presuppose true communion.
Heretics are excluded from public prayers.
Liturgical acts must correspond to objective reality.

Thus, naming a manifest heretic in the Canon is canonically impossible.

7. Cappello — Tractatus Canonico‑Moralis de Sacramentis

Cappello affirms that:

The Canon is a public act of the Church.
False signification in the liturgy is gravely sinful.
The priest must avoid any act that would imply communion with heresy.
The faithful must avoid illicit worship.
Thus, the Canon cannot include the name of a manifest heretic.

8. Vermeersch–Creusen — Epitome Iuris Canonici

Vermeersch and Creusen teach that:

Heresy is incompatible with ecclesiastical office.
Public heretics are outside the Church.
The faithful must avoid false communion.
The Church’s liturgical laws presuppose true unity.

Thus, the Canon cannot signify unity with one who is not in the Church.

9. Summary of Manualist Doctrine

From the foregoing, the manualist tradition unanimously affirms:

Moral certainty suffices for sacramental action.
One must not act against a certain conscience.
Heresy severs communion by its nature.
Public heretics are excluded from public prayer.
Loss of office occurs ipso facto by public defection.
Liturgical acts must correspond to objective reality.
False signification in the liturgy is sacrilegious.
The faithful must avoid objectively disordered worship.

These principles form the moral and canonical foundation for the conclusions of the monograph.

Appendix E — Summa Theologiae References Used in the Monograph

This appendix gathers the principal loci from St. Thomas Aquinas that underpin the theological reasoning of the monograph. Only the relevant articles are listed, without commentary, to provide a clean reference map for further study.

1. Summa Theologiae — Prima Secundae (I–II)

Q. 19 — The Goodness and Malice of Human Acts

Art. 5–6 — One must not act against a certain conscience.

Q. 96 — The Power of Human Law

Art. 4 — Human law does not bind when its observance would involve sin.

2. Summa Theologiae — Secunda Secundae (II–II)

Q. 11 — Heresy

Art. 1 — Definition of heresy as a species of unbelief.

Art. 2 — Heresy separates one from the Church by its nature.

Art. 3 — Pertinacity as the formal element of heresy.

Q. 39 — Schism

Art. 1–2 — Schism as refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff.

Q. 99 — Sacrilege

Art. 1–2 — Sacrilege as violation of sacred things.

Q. 104 — Obedience

Art. 5 — Obedience does not oblige one to sin.

Q. 110 — Lying

Art. 3 — Lying in sacred things as a grave sin.

3. Summa Theologiae — Tertia Pars (III)

Q. 60 — The Nature of Sacraments

Art. 6 — A sacrament must signify what it effects; false signification is impossible.

Q. 73 — The Eucharist

Art. 3 — The Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial unity.

4. Supplementum (from St. Thomas’s disciples)

Q. 23 — Excommunication

Art. 1–4 — Effects of exclusion from communion.

Appendix G — Doctors of the Church & Papal Theologians

1. Antoninus of Florence (15th Century)

Summa Theologica Moralis, Pars III, Titulus 22, Caput 2. Contains his teaching that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic is separated from the Church ipso facto.

Summa Theologica Moralis, Pars III, Titulus 23 (De Haeresi). Treats the nature of heresy, its rupture of ecclesial unity, and the prohibition of communion in sacred things with heretics.

Summa Theologica Moralis, Pars III, Titulus 24 (De Schismate). Explains that schism and heresy break communion and that Catholics must avoid acts contrary to ecclesial unity.

2. Robert Bellarmine (16th century)

De Romano Pontifice. In Opera Omnia, Vol. I. Paris: Ludovicus Vivès, 1871.Contains his famous treatment of whether a pope can fall into heresy (Book II, Chapters 29–30). This is the authoritative edition used in scholarly citations.

De Ecclesia Militante. In Opera Omnia, Vol. II. Paris: Ludovicus Vivès, 1872.Where he explains the visibility of the Church, membership, and the effects of heresy on ecclesial communion.

De Controversiis Christianae Fidei. Ingolstadt: Sartorius, 1586–1593.The original multi‑volume

3. Francis de Sales (16- 17th Century)

The Catholic Controversy. Translated by Henry Benedict Mackey. London: Burns & Oates, 1886. Contains his arguments that public heresy breaks communion and that the faithful must avoid the ministry of manifest heretics.

Oeuvres Complètes de Saint François de Sales, Vol. III. Annecy: Monastery of the Visitation, 1892. The authoritative French critical edition. The relevant material is in the section on the authority of the Church and the rejection of heretical ministers.

The Catholic Controversy, Part II (“The Authority of the Church”), Chapters 1–5. Where he explains that heretical teachers are outside the Church and cannot be followed in matters of faith or worship.
4. Alphonsus Liguori (18th century)
Theologia Moralis. 2 vols. Rome: Typis Congregationis SS. Redemptoris, 1905. The authoritative critical edition of his moral theology. Contains his treatment of heresy, schism, ecclesial communion, and the obligation to avoid communicatio in sacris with heretics.

Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, Tract. I, De Fide, nn. 18–22. Where he explains the nature of heresy, public defection from the faith, and the moral obligation to avoid acts that imply adherence to heretical doctrine.

Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, De Censuris Ecclesiasticis. Discusses ecclesiastical censures, including excommunication for heresy, and the effects of public heresy on ecclesial communion.

The History of Heresies and Their Refutation. Translated by John T. Mullock. Dublin: James Duffy, 1847. A pastoral‑theological work where he treats the nature of heresy, its dangers, and the duty of the faithful to avoid heretical teachers.
Opera Omnia. 20 vols. Naples: Marietti, 1842–1846. The complete collected works. Useful for comprehensive scholarly citation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:23:19 PM »

So ... and this is one thing about the Dimond Brothers that can be a fault at times ... it's practically impossible to change their minds about any particular subject. So they would never "change" except for the most extreme reasons.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #5 on:** **Yesterday** at 01:19:53 PM »

The doctrine stands:

A manifest heretic cannot be named in the Canon of the Mass. To do so is morally impossible, canonically forbidden, and theologically absurd.

LeDeg · « **Reply #6 on:** **Yesterday** at 01:55:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 11:53:03 AM

No, what they're saying is that they do not MEAN what they say, where they SAY they're in union with the Pope but then do as they please.

By contrast, for instance, an FSSP priest might also be "una cuм" but they would not be lying, since they actually mean it.

Their point here is that they talk out of both sides of their mouth, claiming to be obedient, but then doing what they want at the end of the day.

In the past, they've sometimes gone to Eastern Rite Liturgies, for instance. Interestingly, too, in Eastern Rite, the mention of the Pope is different, not so much an "una cuм" as just praying FOR the Pope.

Lad, the quote in the article seems to indicate that they are saying the naming of Prevost in the Canon is a lie. The SSPX believe he's the pope. Obviously, the Dimond's believe he's not. The easiest rendering of what is said here is that by naming him pope in the Te Igitur, it is a lie to God. Therefore, that would seem to denote a sacrilege in Una cuм Masses. I can't see another reasonable reading of what is being said.

The Dimonds were not always sedes. They evolved. Perhaps this happened here.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #7 on:** **Yesterday** at 02:09:01 PM »

Quote from: LeDeg on Yesterday at 01:55:19 PM

The easiest rendering of what is said here is that by naming him pope in the Te Igitur, it is a lie to God. Therefore, that would seem to denote a sacrilege in Una cuм Masses.

What the Dimonds do or don't do should not be a litmus test of orthodoxy.

The teaching is all there in black n' white for anyone who actually cares...

When one is looking for answers they should follow the teaching - not a cult of personality.

Whatever the Dimonds may say or seem to say is irrelevant if it isn't true.

If you really want to know WHAT the Dimonds believe - why not just drop em a line and ask?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** **Yesterday** at 02:10:44 PM »

Quote from: LeDeg on Yesterday at 01:55:19 PM

Lad, the quote in the article seems to indicate that they are saying the naming of Prevost in the Canon is a lie. The SSPX believe he's the pope. Obviously, the Dimond's believe he's not. The easiest rendering of what is said here is that by naming him pope in the Te Igitur, it is a lie to God. Therefore, that would seem to denote a sacrilege in Una cuм Masses. I can't see another reasonable reading of what is being said.

The Dimonds were not always sedes. They evolved. Perhaps this happened here.

No, this has nothing to do with the Dimonds. I've already gave you the correct interpreation of what they are saying. They're talking about how SSPX say one thing ("una cuм") but do another ("disobey when they feel like it"). They have not changed anything, and aren't comparing what SSPX do/say with what Dimond Brothers believe, but what SSPX do compared to what SSPX believe.

Author Topic: The Dimonds change on Una cuм? (Read 265 times)

LeDeg

The Dimonds change on Una cuм?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: The Dimonds change on Una cuм?

Ladislaus

Re: The Dimonds change on Una cuм?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: The Dimonds change on Una cuм?

Ladislaus

Re: The Dimonds change on Una cuм?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: The Dimonds change on Una cuм?

LeDeg

Re: The Dimonds change on Una cuм?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: The Dimonds change on Una cuм?

Ladislaus

Re: The Dimonds change on Una cuм?