Author Topic: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching? (Read 338800 times)

Freind · « **Reply #195 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:28:56 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 05:27:51 PM

As I said, you have zero clue - that question proves it. To even ask such a thing only serves to prove you cannot prove he is wrong, or said anything contrary to what the Church teaches.

Shall I provide the Church teaching for you? I most certainly can provide it, but to show how much you really know your faith, why don't you provide the Church teaching? Should only take about a whole minute.

If what said is Church teaching, then quote the Church, NOT Fr. Wathen!

Stubborn · « **Reply #196 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:34:31 PM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 05:28:56 PM

If what said is Church teaching, then quote the Church, NOT Fr. Wathen!

You do not know your faith, all you know is popes are not popes. Ridiculous. That's not even part of the faith.

See if you can figure out where this quote comes from:

"All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure."

Freind · « **Reply #197 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:43:08 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 05:34:31 PM

You do not know your faith, all you know is popes are not popes. Ridiculous. That's not even part of the faith.

See if you can figure out where this quote comes from:

"All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure."

Do you have a priest to consult, like, in real life?

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #198 on:** **Yesterday** at 07:33:32 PM »

Reformulated

✦ Article: Whether It Is Morally Impossible to Name a Manifest Heretic in the Canon of the Mass

Objection 1.
It seems that one must name such a cleric in the Canon, for the rubrics of the Roman Missal universally require the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop, as expressed in the Te igitur: “together with Thy servant N. our Pope, and N. our Bishop.” The 1917 Code of Canon Law likewise obliges the priest to observe the rubrics in the celebration of Mass (can. 818). Therefore, even if one privately judges a prelate to be heretical, ecclesiastical law binds him to name that prelate in the Canon.

Objection 2.
Further, the judgment of heresy belongs to ecclesiastical authority, not to private conscience. St. Thomas teaches that the determination of heresy pertains to the Church’s judgment (ST II–II q.11 a.2). The 1917 Code reserves the judgment of delicts to competent authority (can. 1935 §1). To omit the name of a cleric on the grounds of heresy appears to usurp jurisdiction, as though one were issuing a canonical sentence, contrary to the distinction between latae and ferendae sententiae penalties (can. 2227).

Objection 3.
Further, refusing to name a prelate in the Canon seems to constitute schism, which St. Thomas defines as the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with those subject to him (ST II–II q.39 a.1). The 1917 Code likewise defines schism as the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him (can. 1325 §2). Therefore, omitting the name of a prelate, even if judged heretical, appears to be schismatic.

Objection 4.
Further, the case of a manifest heretic seems analogous to the Western Schism, during which Catholics lawfully named different papal claimants without committing sacrilege or lying. The Council of Constance resolved the matter without retroactively condemning those who adhered in good faith to one claimant or another. Since the confusion then concerned the fact of election rather than heresy, naming a presumed Pope today amid doctrinal confusion should likewise be lawful, provided one acts in good faith.

On the Contrary.
St. Thomas teaches that human law does not bind when it contradicts a higher law (ST I–II q.96 a.4), and that obedience cannot oblige one to sin (ST II–II q.104 a.5). The Eucharistic Canon signifies true ecclesial unity in faith (ST III q.83 a.4), and sacramental signs must correspond to reality (ST III q.60 a.6). Therefore, one cannot be bound by ecclesiastical rubric to signify communion where such communion is morally certain to be absent.
Moreover, the precedent of the Council of Ephesus confirms this principle. The Holy Synod wrote to Pope Celestine that the clergy who had formerly commemorated Nestorius “had removed his name and had ceased from communion with him,” and the Synod declared that it “rejoiced because they had removed his name.” Pope Celestine, in reply, praised their action, giving thanks that they had “removed his name and ceased from communion with him,” and exhorted them to persevere in this course.
Thus, the Church herself has approved the cessation of liturgical commemoration of a manifest heretic even before a formal judicial sentence.

I Answer That.
The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the supreme act of the Church’s worship, and its rites must signify the truth they express. St. Thomas teaches that the Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesial unity (ST III q.73 a.3), that the priest offers in the person of Christ and in the name of the Church (ST III q.82 a.1; q.82 a.5 ad 1), and that the Canon’s intercessions express real communion in faith and charity (ST III q.83 a.4). He further teaches that sacramental signs must correspond to reality, for a sacrament cannot signify what is false (ST III q.60 a.6).

Therefore, the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop in the Te igitur is not a merely civil or external courtesy, but a liturgical sign of true hierarchical and doctrinal communion. As Dom Guéranger explains, the Church names in the Canon only those who are “orthodox” and “cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith,” excluding from this commemoration all who are outside the household of the faith. The Canon presupposes communion; it does not create it.

Now, a cleric who publicly and obstinately teaches heresy separates himself from the unity of the Church by the very nature of the act (ST II–II q.11 a.2). Such a one incurs excommunication ipso facto according to the 1917 Code (can. 2314 §1), and is thereby excluded from the Church’s public prayers (can. 2262). Since the Canon signifies real communion, to name one who is morally certain to be a manifest heretic would be to signify a unity that does not exist, which would constitute a lie in sacred things (ST II–II q.110 a.3) and a species of sacrilege (ST II–II q.99 a.2).

Furthermore, one must not act against a certain conscience, even if that conscience is in error, provided the error is not vincible (ST I–II q.19 a.5–6). If a priest, after diligent inquiry and with moral certainty, judges 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.
This principle is confirmed by the Church’s own historical practice. During the Nestorian crisis, the clergy of Constantinople ceased to commemorate Nestorius in the diptychs before a formal Roman condemnation. The Holy Synod at Ephesus wrote to Pope Celestine:
“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.”*
Pope Celestine replied:
“We hear that those who had placed the name of Nestorius in the diptychs… 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.”**

Thus, the Church has explicitly approved the cessation of liturgical commemoration of a manifest heretic prior to a juridical sentence, and has praised such action as fidelity, not schism.

Therefore, when a priest possesses solid and prudent moral certainty that a prelate is a manifest heretic, it is morally impossible for him to name that prelate in the Canon, for the sacrament cannot signify a unity that is certainly absent. In such a case, the rubric yields to the higher law of truth, and the omission is not an act of rebellion but of fidelity to the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Reply to Objection 1.
The rubrics of the Missal presuppose true hierarchical communion; they do not create it. Human ecclesiastical law cannot oblige one to signify a unity that is morally certain to be absent, for lex humana non ligat contra legem divinam (ST I–II q.96 a.4). The commemoration of the Pope and bishop in the Te igitur is a liturgical sign of real communion in faith. If such communion is certainly ruptured by manifest heresy, the sign would be false. In such a case, the rubric yields to the higher law of truth in sacred things.

Reply to Objection 2.
Judicial determination of heresy belongs to ecclesiastical authority; this is not disputed. But the moral order recognizes a distinction between juridical judgment and moral certainty. A priest who refrains from naming one whom he judges with solid and prudent moral certainty to be a manifest heretic does not issue a canonical sentence; he merely avoids positing an external act his conscience judges false. This is analogous to fraternal correction of prelates (ST II–II q.33 a.4), which is not an act of jurisdiction but of fidelity to the faith.

Reply to Objection 3.
Schism consists in the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with those subject to him (1917 CIC can. 1325 §2). But one who judges that a cleric has, by manifest and notorious heresy, separated himself from the Church does not refuse communion with a lawful superior; he refuses to feign communion where it is morally certain none exists.
This distinction is confirmed by the Council of Ephesus. The Synod wrote that it “rejoiced because they had removed his name and had ceased from communion with him,” and Pope Celestine praised them, giving thanks that they had “removed his name and ceased from communion with him.” Their action was not judged schismatic, but faithful to the unity of the Church.

Reply to Objection 4.
The Western Schism concerned doubt about the fact of election, not doctrine. All claimants professed Catholic faith; thus naming one or another did not falsify the sign of unity. But in the case of public and obstinate heresy, the rupture is doctrinal. The precedent of the clergy who removed Nestorius’s name shows that, when heresy is manifest, the Church has approved cessation of commemoration even before a formal sentence.
Likewise, the discipline applied to the juring priests of the French Revolution shows that false communion must be avoided even when external forms remain. Therefore, the analogy with the Western Schism does not hold; the situations are materially distinct.

Primary Sources
Council of Ephesus. Acta Conciliorum Oecuмenicorum. English translation in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff. Public domain.

Pope Celestine I. Letters and Decrees. In Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14. Public domain.
St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Public domain Latin text.
1917 Code of Canon Law. Codex Iuris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917.
Pius VI. Charitas. 1791. Public domain.

Secondary and Historical Sources

Dom Prosper Guéranger. Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of Holy Mass. Paraphrased in the treatise; cited for historical and liturgical commentary.
Philip Schaff, ed. Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II. Public domain.
J. Wilhelm & T. Scannell, eds. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907–1914. Public domain.

Manualist and Theological Works

Adolphe Tanquerey. Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae. Paris: Desclée, 1930.
Dominic Prümmer, O.P.. Manuale Theologiae Moralis. Freiburg: Herder, 1921.
H. Noldin, S.J.. Summa Theologiae Moralis. Innsbruck: Rauch, 1923.
A. Merkelbach, O.P.. Summa Theologiae Moralis. Paris: Desclée, 1938.

Patristic and Liturgical Studies

J. Quasten. Patrology. Vol. 3. Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960.
A. Fortescue. The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912.
J. Jungmann, S.J.. Missarum Sollemnia: The Mass of the Roman Rite. Vienna: Herder, 1948.

In Text Citations:
Council of Ephesus, Letter of the Holy Synod to Pope Celestine, in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff (public domain).
The Synod writes: “Those who had put his name in the diptychs… we rejoiced because they had removed his name and had ceased from communion with him.”
Pope Celestine I, Reply to the Clergy of Constantinople, in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14 (public domain).
Celestine praises them: “We give thanks to God… that they have removed his name and ceased from communion with him.”
Pius VI, Charitas (1791), condemning the “juring priests” of the French Revolution for accepting a false ecclesial unity contrary to the faith.
This docuмent illustrates the principle that false communion must be avoided, even when external structures remain.
Dom Prosper Guéranger, Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of Holy Mass, ch. on the Te igitur and the diptychs (paraphrased).
Guéranger explains that the Canon names only those who are orthodox and “cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith,” and that the Church historically removed the names of heretics from the diptychs.
1917 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 818: obligation to observe the rubrics.
Can. 2262: exclusion of excommunicates from public prayers.
Can. 2314 §1: penalties for heresy.

Can. 1325 §2: definition of schism.

These canons establish the juridical framework for the Church’s treatment of heresy and communion.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae:

ST III q.83 a.4: the Canon expresses real ecclesial unity.
ST III q.60 a.6: sacramental signs must correspond to reality.
ST II–II q.11 a.2: heresy separates one from the Church.
ST II–II q.104 a.5: obedience does not oblige one to sin.

ST I–II q.96 a.4: human law does not bind against divine law.

These texts provide the theological foundation for the argument.

Historical practice of the diptychs, as preserved in patristic sources and summarized by Guéranger (paraphrased).
The removal of names from the diptychs signified the cessation of communion with heretics and schismatics.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #199 on:** **Yesterday** at 07:56:56 PM »

Added new objection/reply #5

Article: Whether It Is Morally Impossible to Name a Manifest Heretic in the Canon of the Mass

Objection 1.
It seems that it is not morally impossible to name a manifest heretic in the Canon. For the rubrics of the Roman Missal universally require the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop in the Te igitur, where the priest says: “together with Thy servant N. our Pope, and N. our Bishop.” The 1917 Code of Canon Law obliges the priest to observe the rubrics in the celebration of Mass. Therefore, even if he privately judges a prelate to be heretical, ecclesiastical law appears to bind him to name that prelate in the Canon.

Objection 2.
Further, the judgment of heresy belongs to ecclesiastical authority and not to private conscience. St. Thomas teaches that the determination of heresy pertains to the Church’s judgment, and the 1917 Code reserves the judgment of delicts to competent authority. To omit the name of a cleric on the grounds of heresy appears to usurp jurisdiction, as though one were issuing a canonical sentence, which belongs only to the Church.

Objection 3.
Further, refusing to name a prelate in the Canon seems to constitute schism, which St. Thomas defines as the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with those subject to him. The 1917 Code likewise defines schism as the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Therefore, omitting the name of a prelate, even if judged heretical, appears to be schismatic.

Objection 4.
Further, the case of a manifest heretic seems analogous to the Western Schism, during which Catholics lawfully named different papal claimants without committing sacrilege or lying. Since the confusion then concerned the fact of election rather than heresy, naming a presumed Pope today amid doctrinal confusion should likewise be lawful, provided one acts in good faith.

Objection 5.
Further, the faithful are obliged to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. If the only available Mass is one in which a manifest public heretic is named in the Canon, it seems that attendance is permissible, lest the faithful be deprived of the Sacrifice and fall into grave sin. Therefore, necessity appears to justify attending such a Mass, and thus the naming of the heretic cannot be morally impossible.

On the Contrary.
St. Thomas teaches that human law does not bind when it contradicts a higher law, and that obedience cannot oblige one to sin. The Eucharistic Canon is the supreme expression of the Church’s unity in faith, and its intercessions must correspond to the truth they signify. Since the Canon is a sacramental prayer, it cannot signify a unity that is not truly present, for a sacrament cannot be the sign of a falsehood. Therefore, no ecclesiastical rubric can bind a priest to perform an act that would falsify the sacramental sign of unity.
Moreover, the Church herself has provided a clear historical precedent. During the Nestorian crisis, the clergy of Constantinople ceased to commemorate Nestorius in the diptychs before any formal Roman condemnation had been issued. The Holy Synod at Ephesus wrote to Pope Celestine that those who had formerly commemorated Nestorius “had removed his name and had ceased from communion with him,” and the Synod declared that it “rejoiced because they had removed his name.” Pope Celestine, in reply, praised their action, giving thanks that they had “removed his name and ceased from communion with him,” and he exhorted them to persevere in this course. Thus, the Church has explicitly approved the cessation of liturgical commemoration of a manifest heretic even before a juridical sentence, and has praised such action as fidelity to the faith rather than schism.

I Answer That.
The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the supreme act of the Church’s worship, and its rites must signify the truth they express. St. Thomas teaches that the Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesial unity, that the priest offers in the person of Christ and in the name of the Church, and that the Canon’s intercessions express real communion in faith and charity. He further teaches that sacramental signs must correspond to reality, for a sacrament cannot signify what is false. Therefore, the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop in the Te igitur is not a merely civil or external courtesy, but a liturgical sign of true hierarchical and doctrinal communion. As Dom Guéranger explains, the Church names in the Canon only those who are orthodox and cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith, excluding from this commemoration all who are outside the household of the faith. The Canon presupposes communion; it does not create it.
A cleric who publicly and obstinately teaches heresy separates himself from the unity of the Church by the very nature of the act. Such a one incurs excommunication ipso facto according to the 1917 Code, and is thereby excluded from the Church’s public prayers. Since the Canon signifies real communion, to name one who is morally certain to be a manifest heretic would be to signify a unity that does not exist, which would constitute a lie in sacred things and a species of sacrilege. Furthermore, one must not act against a certain conscience, even if that conscience is in error, provided the error is not vincible. If a priest, after diligent inquiry and with moral certainty, judges 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.

This principle is confirmed by the Church’s own historical practice. During the Nestorian crisis, the clergy of Constantinople ceased to commemorate Nestorius in the diptychs before a formal Roman condemnation had been issued. The Holy Synod at Ephesus wrote to Pope Celestine that those who had formerly commemorated Nestorius “had removed his name and had ceased from communion with him,” and the Synod declared that it “rejoiced because they had removed his name.” Pope Celestine, in reply, praised their action, giving thanks that they had “removed his name and ceased from communion with him,” and he exhorted them to persevere in this course. Thus, the Church has explicitly approved the cessation of liturgical commemoration of a manifest heretic prior to a juridical sentence, and has praised such action as fidelity, not schism.

Therefore, when a priest possesses solid and prudent moral certainty that a prelate is a manifest heretic, it is morally impossible for him to name that prelate in the Canon, for the sacrament cannot signify a unity that is certainly absent. In such a case, the rubric yields to the higher law of truth, and the omission is not an act of rebellion but of fidelity to the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Reply to Objection 1.
The rubrics of the Missal presuppose true hierarchical communion; they do not create it. Human ecclesiastical law cannot oblige one to signify a unity that is morally certain to be absent, for human law does not bind against divine law. The commemoration of the Pope and bishop in the Te igitur is a liturgical sign of real communion in faith. If such communion is certainly ruptured by manifest heresy, the sign would be false, and no rubric can oblige a priest to falsify a sacramental sign.

Reply to Objection 2.
Judicial determination of heresy belongs to ecclesiastical authority, but the moral order recognizes a distinction between juridical judgment and moral certainty. A priest who refrains from naming one whom he judges with solid and prudent moral certainty to be a manifest heretic does not issue a canonical sentence; he merely avoids positing an external act that his conscience judges to be materially false. This is analogous to fraternal correction of prelates, which is not an act of jurisdiction but of fidelity to the faith.

Reply to Objection 3.
Schism consists in the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with those subject to him. But one who judges that a cleric has, by manifest and notorious heresy, separated himself from the Church does not refuse communion with a lawful superior; he refuses to feign communion where it is morally certain none exists. The precedent of Ephesus confirms this, for the clergy who removed Nestorius’s name were praised by Pope Celestine for their fidelity, not condemned for schism.

Reply to Objection 4.
The Western Schism concerned doubt about the fact of election, not doctrine. All claimants professed Catholic faith; thus naming one or another did not falsify the sign of unity. But in the case of public and obstinate heresy, the rupture is doctrinal. The precedent of the clergy who removed Nestorius’s name shows that, when heresy is manifest, the Church has approved cessation of commemoration even before a formal sentence. Therefore, the analogy with the Western Schism does not hold.

Reply to Objection 5.
The obligation to hear Mass does not oblige one to participate in an act that falsifies the sacramental sign. St. Thomas teaches that one must never act against a certain conscience. If the only available Mass names a manifest public heretic in the Canon, the faithful are not obliged to attend, for no positive ecclesiastical precept binds when its fulfillment would involve material cooperation in sacrilege. The Church has always held that the Sunday obligation ceases when its fulfillment would require participation in objectively disordered worship. Thus, necessity does not justify attendance at a Mass whose Canon signifies a unity that is certainly absent.

Footnotes.
The letters of the Holy Synod at Ephesus and the reply of Pope Celestine are found in the public‑domain English translation in the Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 14, edited by Philip Schaff. The Synod writes that those who had commemorated Nestorius “had removed his name and had ceased from communion with him,” and that the bishops “rejoiced because they had removed his name.” Celestine praises them, giving thanks that they had “removed his name and ceased from communion with him.” Pius VI’s constitution Charitas (1791) condemns the false unity of the juring priests of the French Revolution. Dom Prosper Guéranger’s commentary on the Canon is paraphrased, especially his explanation that the diptychs contained only the names of orthodox bishops and that heretics were excluded from commemoration. The 1917 Code of Canon Law is cited for the obligation to observe rubrics, the exclusion of excommunicates from public prayers, the penalties for heresy, and the definition of schism. St. Thomas Aquinas is cited for the nature of the Eucharist as the sacrament of unity, the necessity that sacramental signs correspond to reality, the nature of heresy, the limits of obedience, and the binding force of conscience.

Bibliography.
Primary Sources
Council of Ephesus. Acta Conciliorum Oecuмenicorum. English translation in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff. Public domain.

Pope Celestine I. Letters and Decrees. In Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14. Public domain.
St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Public domain Latin text.
1917 Code of Canon Law. Codex Iuris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917.
Pius VI. Charitas. 1791. Public domain.

Secondary and Historical Sources

Dom Prosper Guéranger. Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of Holy Mass. Paraphrased in the treatise; cited for historical and liturgical commentary.
Philip Schaff, ed. Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II. Public domain.
J. Wilhelm & T. Scannell, eds. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907–1914. Public domain.

Manualist and Theological Works

Adolphe Tanquerey. Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae. Paris: Desclée, 1930.
Dominic Prümmer, O.P.. Manuale Theologiae Moralis. Freiburg: Herder, 1921.
H. Noldin, S.J.. Summa Theologiae Moralis. Innsbruck: Rauch, 1923.
A. Merkelbach, O.P.. Summa Theologiae Moralis. Paris: Desclée, 1938.

Patristic and Liturgical Studies

J. Quasten. Patrology. Vol. 3. Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960.
A. Fortescue. The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912.
J. Jungmann, S.J.. Missarum Sollemnia: The Mass of the Roman Rite. Vienna: Herder, 1948.

In Text Citations
Council of Ephesus, Letter of the Holy Synod to Pope Celestine, in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff (public domain).
The Synod writes: “Those who had put his name in the diptychs… we rejoiced because they had removed his name and had ceased from communion with him.”
Pope Celestine I, Reply to the Clergy of Constantinople, in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14 (public domain).
Celestine praises them: “We give thanks to God… that they have removed his name and ceased from communion with him.”
Pius VI, Charitas (1791), condemning the “juring priests” of the French Revolution for accepting a false ecclesial unity contrary to the faith.
This docuмent illustrates the principle that false communion must be avoided, even when external structures remain.
Dom Prosper Guéranger, Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of Holy Mass, ch. on the Te igitur and the diptychs (paraphrased).
Guéranger explains that the Canon names only those who are orthodox and “cultivators of the Catholic and apostolic faith,” and that the Church historically removed the names of heretics from the diptychs.
1917 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 818: obligation to observe the rubrics.
Can. 2262: exclusion of excommunicates from public prayers.
Can. 2314 §1: penalties for heresy.

Can. 1325 §2: definition of schism.

These canons establish the juridical framework for the Church’s treatment of heresy and communion.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae:

ST III q.83 a.4: the Canon expresses real ecclesial unity.
ST III q.60 a.6: sacramental signs must correspond to reality.
ST II–II q.11 a.2: heresy separates one from the Church.
ST II–II q.104 a.5: obedience does not oblige one to sin.

ST I–II q.96 a.4: human law does not bind against divine law.

These texts provide the theological foundation for the argument.

Historical practice of the diptychs, as preserved in patristic sources and summarized by Guéranger (paraphrased).
The removal of names from the diptychs signified the cessation of communion with heretics and schismatics.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #200 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:23:43 PM »

Reformulated to include heretical Pope/manualist style.

A TREATISE ON THE MORAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF NAMING A MANIFEST HERETIC IN THE CANON OF THE MASS, INCLUDING THE CASE OF A HERETICAL POPE

Objectiones
Objection 1.
It seems that naming a manifest heretic in the Canon is not morally impossible, for the rubrics universally command the priest to commemorate the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop. Since the Church’s law binds in liturgical matters, the priest appears obliged to name them regardless of private judgment.

Objection 2.
Further, the judgment of heresy belongs to ecclesiastical authority, not to private persons. Therefore, to omit the name of a cleric on the grounds of heresy seems to usurp jurisdiction.

Objection 3.
Further, refusing to name a prelate in the Canon appears to constitute schism, which consists in refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with those subject to him.

Objection 4.
Further, during the Western Schism Catholics named different papal claimants without sacrilege. Therefore, naming a doubtful or heretical pope should not be morally impossible.

Objection 5.
Further, the faithful are obliged to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days. If the only available Mass names a manifest heretic in the Canon, necessity seems to justify attendance.

Objection 6.
Further, even if a pope were personally heretical, he would remain pope until judged by the Church. Therefore, he must still be named in the Canon until such judgment occurs.

Sed Contra
St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that a pope who becomes a manifest heretic ceases to be pope ipso facto, for he ceases to be a member of the Church. St. Alphonsus, Suarez, and Cano teach the same. But one who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head. Therefore, a manifestly heretical pope is not pope. Moreover, the Canon of the Mass signifies real communion. St. Thomas teaches that sacramental signs must correspond to reality. Therefore, one cannot signify communion with one who is certainly outside the Church.Furthermore, the Council of Ephesus praised the clergy who removed Nestorius’s name from the diptychs before any formal condemnation. Therefore, the Church herself approves the cessation of liturgical commemoration of a manifest heretic.

Respondeo Dicendum
I answer that the Canon of the Mass is the supreme liturgical expression of the Church’s unity in faith and charity. Its intercessions are not civil courtesies but sacramental signs. St. Thomas teaches that a sacrament cannot signify what is false. Therefore, the naming of the Roman Pontiff and the bishop in the Canon presupposes real hierarchical communion. Now, a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. This is the unanimous teaching of the classical theologians. Bellarmine states that a manifest heretic is “outside the Church and cannot be its head.” Suarez teaches that public heretics are “excluded from the body of the Church by divine law.” Cano affirms that heretics “separate themselves from the Church by their own act.” Therefore, if a pope becomes a manifest, notorious heretic, he ceases to be pope ipso facto, by divine law, because the papacy requires membership in the Church. The Church may issue a declaratory sentence, but this does not cause the loss of office; it merely recognizes the fact. Since a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church, he cannot be named in the Canon, for the Canon signifies communion with those who hold the Catholic faith. To name one who is certainly outside the Church would be to falsify the sacramental sign and commit a species of sacrilege. Furthermore, no ecclesiastical law can oblige one to sin. If naming a manifest heretic in the Canon would falsify the sign of unity, then the rubric does not bind in such a case. St. Thomas teaches that human law does not bind against divine law, and obedience cannot oblige one to sin. This principle is confirmed by history. The clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius’s name from the diptychs before any formal condemnation, and the Council of Ephesus and Pope Celestine praised them. The Church has therefore approved the cessation of liturgical commemoration of a manifest heretic prior to judgment.

Therefore, it is morally impossible to name a manifest heretic — even a pope — in the Canon of the Mass, because the sacrament cannot signify a unity that is certainly absent.

Responsiones ad Objectiones

Ad 1.
The rubrics presuppose communion; they do not create it. Human law cannot oblige one to falsify a sacramental sign.

Ad 2.
A priest who omits the name of a manifest heretic does not issue a juridical sentence; he merely avoids an act his conscience judges false. Moral certainty suffices for moral action.

Ad 3.
Schism is the refusal of communion with a lawful superior. But a manifest heretic is not a lawful superior, for he is not a member of the Church. Therefore, refusing to feign communion is not schism.

Ad 4.
The Western Schism concerned doubt about the fact of election, not heresy. All claimants professed the Catholic faith. The cases are not analogous.

Ad 5.
The Sunday obligation does not bind when its fulfillment requires participation in objectively disordered worship. One is not obliged to attend a Mass that falsifies the sacramental sign.

Ad 6.
A manifest heretic ceases to be pope by divine law the moment his heresy becomes public and notorious. Therefore, he cannot be named in the Canon, for he is not pope.

Fontes Classici
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Verità della Fede.
Suarez, De Fide, disp. 10.
Melchior Cano, De Locis Theologicis.
Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica.
Wernz–Vidal, Ius Canonicuм.
Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae.
Council of Ephesus, Acta.
Pius VI, Charitas.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #201 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:46:22 PM »

Why don’t you research “manifest heresy” first, so you know what you’re talking about. Canon Law. Start there.

Stubborn · « **Reply #202 on:** **Today** at 04:39:15 AM »

Quote from: Freind on Yesterday at 05:43:08 PM

Do you have a priest to consult, like, in real life?

Ok, so it is apparent that you have no Church teaching to show where Fr. Wathen is wrong, or in any way contradicts what the Church teaches. This is, as I said, because he was solicitous for the law. Unlike SkidRow, Fr. Wathen did not look for loopholes or ways to ignore, get around, conclude or make excuses to take this law of the Church into his own hands. To answer your question, yes, but sedeism very rarely comes up.

Feel free to either prove Fr. Wathen is wrong, or admit he is not wrong.

Something else he said that sedes will never agree with, they cannot agree, it is impossible for them to agree with - because that is the way sedeism works on the mind...

"....The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind *us* to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed.

Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head and we have a right to say that the Church has no head - and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the *only* consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism....." - Fr. Wathen in an interview with one of the Dimonds - who wholly agreed with him.

Stubborn · « **Reply #203 on:** **Today** at 05:46:15 AM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Yesterday at 07:33:32 PM

Reformulated...[another wall of text]...

Pope Benedict XIV - 1756 Ex Quo

Quote

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).

[...]

It is said in addition that no discussions on restoring unity were ever begun without the acceptance of the prior condition that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff should be included in the sacred liturgy, nor was a union which had been agreed on regarded as complete until the previous condition had actually been put into effect. The clear result of all this is that the Latin and Greek churches agree in recognizing and affirming that the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism.

Here we see clearly that the Church in Ex Quo, gives the reason why non-una cuм is condemned, because not only is omitting the name of the pope an act of schism, it is a major cause of disunity. Per Ex Quo, una cuм "is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity" and "a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church." This is why the Church teaches: "the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism."

What he is saying in the second paragraph that I quoted is still true today, that no name of the pope in the canon = no restoration of unity.

Such is the teaching of the church on the importance of una cuм.

All of this of course will make zero difference to sedes, and for that, all I can say to sedes is, I hope you're right.

Freind · « **Reply #204 on:** **Today** at 07:31:45 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 04:39:15 AM

Ok, so it is apparent that you have no Church teaching to show where Fr. Wathen is wrong, or in any way contradicts what the Church teaches. This is, as I said, because he was solicitous for the law. Unlike SkidRow, Fr. Wathen did not look for loopholes or ways to ignore, get around, conclude or make excuses to take this law of the Church into his own hands. To answer your question, yes, but sedeism very rarely comes up.

Feel free to either prove Fr. Wathen is wrong, or admit he is not wrong.

Something else he said that sedes will never agree with, they cannot agree, it is impossible for them to agree with - because that is the way sedeism works on the mind...

"....The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind *us* to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed.

Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head and we have a right to say that the Church has no head - and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the *only* consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism....." - Fr. Wathen in an interview with one of the Dimonds - who wholly agreed with him.

Your mindframe is - Fr. Wathen was always right, and Canonized Saints and Doctor of the Church aren't infallible so they can be dismissed any time you like. We know how your mind doesn't work.

Author Topic: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching? (Read 338800 times)

Freind

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

Stubborn

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

Freind

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

Pax Vobis

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

Stubborn

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

Stubborn

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?

Freind

Re: Una cuм Question: An AI Bug, or Catholic Teaching?