Una Cum Mass

[Bonaventure]

Running this poll as I am curious as to the results.

I selected option one.

I do not believe Bergoglio is pope. I believe it is acceptable and morally licit for a Catholic, including a sedevacnatist and myself included, to attend a Mass if Bergoglio's odious name is regrettably mentioned in the Canon.

I currently attend a Mass non una cum. However, if I am traveling or do not attend Mass with my regular priest, I attend Mass "una cum."

[Stubborn]

Talk about a one sided poll lol

I just wanted to post the issue as +ABL explains it....

Archbishop Lefebvre and the sedevacantists
(a little known docuмent)
https://dominicansavrille.us/archbishop-lefebvre-sedevacantists/

Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the "non una cuм" sedevacantist position, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne 1, France, on April 1st, 1989 (AUDIO excerpt attached).

« ... And then, he (Dom Guillou O.S.B. 2) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel-en-Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn't it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It's ridiculous! It's ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer.

Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed:
"We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope."

It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops..., would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!

Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little:
"In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Botte O.S.B. 3, the UNA cuм or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic Tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.

Let us collect the good grain, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and the "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLICUM AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."

It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.

Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, people no longer understand anything, they are completely desperate, they do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. »
Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at Saint-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

[awkward customer]

I selected option one and I'm a Sede.

I once overheard a very wise young Sede man say, "I've spoken to three bishops and they all disagree."  This was over a particular topic which I can't remember although his comment has stuck in my mind ever since.  Because for me he summed up the situation lay people find themselves in today.  If the Trad Bishops can't agree, what chance do we have?

Besides, I've seen Sedes at SSPX Masses and at the private TLM I used to attend.  People want the Sacraments and the Faith and if the Bishops can't agree on the details, then so be it.

PS Aren't option one and option two the same?

[LausTibiChriste]

If the Trad Bishops can't agree, what chance do we have?

This is pretty much how I've conducted myself the last 8 years or so (if memory serves).

There are a million different factions within Traditionalism alone and no one agrees on anything, so I think that it's safe to say that I can "let go and let God"

That is NOT to say don't always pursue the Truth, but the truth of the situation we find ourselves in is that it is so murky, I think God would rather us be loyal to our spiritual lives and grace rather than trying to figure out Church politics. A lot of Trads, in my experience, are more concerned with being right rather than authentically loving Christ. Sure they go through the motions, but it's BS. (I'm no better, I have a long way to go, don't get me wrong).

People tend to forget that the common lay person meddling, caring, commenting etc. on Church affairs, the Pope etc, is a very new phenomenon brought on by technology.


Of course there's going to be the sanctimonious manualists in the crowd who disagree with me, but I don't care.


As for the poll - I'm not a sede as we traditionally understand it, but my personal opinion is Frank ain't the Pope. But that's a personal opinion - I will still happily attend Mass where his name is said until the Church says otherwise.

Seems to be a spot of pride to say it's a sin to attend it - you're usurping the order of authority within the Church to say so.

[Baylee]

I selected #1 as well.  However, I would qualify that by saying that I don't agree that it is "acceptable" without exception. I agree with Bishop Mark Pivarunas' position.  Despite holding that one may petition such sacraments without sin, he also warns to use great discretion in doing so:

The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.) holds that the Catholic faithful may petition the Sacraments from traditional Catholic priests who unfortunately offer their Masses "una cum" (John Paul II).

Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cum" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church.

Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.
August 10, 2002

PS.  This also assumes that said priest is a certainly valid priest.  I would investigate that before even considering assisting at any una cum mass.

[Bonaventure]

Talk about a one sided poll lol

I just wanted to post the issue as +ABL explains it....

It's not meant to be a debate. Just a poll. I specifically posted it here for that reason.

We could discuss the entire issue if you'd like to create a thread. Frankly it's not a discussion I'm interested in. 

I'm 100% anti "una cum is mortal sin."

[Bonaventure]

I selected #1 as well.  However, I would qualify that by saying that I don't agree that it is "acceptable" without exception. I agree with Bishop Mark Pivarunas' position.  Despite holding that one may petition such sacraments without sin, he also warns to use great discretion in doing so

I actually was going to say I agreed with the Pivarunas statement but did not want this to really become a debate thread. My hopes and dreams probably won't matter!

In this day and age, I believe we have to have discretion wherever we go to Mass.

Look at the Rostand incident.

Look at Dennis McMahon.

Regardless of what Mass a man says, or what his "position" is, so what. We all have to be vigilant.

[Baylee]

I selected #1 as well.  However, I would qualify that by saying that I don't agree that it is "acceptable" without exception. I agree with Bishop Mark Pivarunas' position.  Despite holding that one may petition such sacraments without sin, he also warns to use great discretion in doing so

I actually was going to say I agreed with the Pivarunas statement but did not want this to really become a debate thread. My hopes and dreams probably won't matter!

In this day and age, I believe we have to have discretion wherever we go to Mass.

Look at the Rostand incident.

Look at Dennis McMahon.

Regardless of what Mass a man says, or what his "position" is, so what. We all have to be vigilant.

Yes, we should be vigilant about a lot of things, but Bishop Pivarunas WAS focusing on the position of the una cum priests when he mentioned using great discretion:

Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church.

So, his position on assisting at una cum masses is that the Faithful "may" go, but he certainly doesn't encourage it on a regular basis.  From things I've seen/heard him say, he is of the opinion that assistance at such masses is for when there is no non-una cum mass option. 

[Bonaventure]

He neither encourages, nor discourages.

He was ok with a prominent sedevacantist regularly attending the SSPX in Perth, Australia. This included an entire family of young children.

[Baylee]

He neither encourages, nor discourages.

He was ok with a prominent sedevacantist regularly attending the SSPX in Perth, Australia. This included an entire family of young children.

Was there a non-una cum mass available in Perth/within a reasonable distance?

[Bonaventure]

If the Trad Bishops can't agree, what chance do we have?

This is pretty much how I've conducted myself the last 8 years or so (if memory serves).

There are a million different factions within Traditionalism alone and no one agrees on anything, so I think that it's safe to say that I can "let go and let God"

That is NOT to say don't always pursue the Truth, but the truth of the situation we find ourselves in is that it is so murky, I think God would rather us be loyal to our spiritual lives and grace rather than trying to figure out Church politics. A lot of Trads, in my experience, are more concerned with being right rather than authentically loving Christ. Sure they go through the motions, but it's BS. (I'm no better, I have a long way to go, don't get me wrong).

People tend to forget that the common lay person meddling, caring, commenting etc. on Church affairs, the Pope etc, is a very new phenomenon brought on by technology.


Of course there's going to be the sanctimonious manualists in the crowd who disagree with me, but I don't care.


As for the poll - I'm not a sede as we traditionally understand it, but my personal opinion is Frank ain't the Pope. But that's a personal opinion - I will still happily attend Mass where his name is said until the Church says otherwise.

Seems to be a spot of pride to say it's a sin to attend it - you're usurping the order of authority within the Church to say so.

Trad bishops are only bishops "accidentally" - their entire ontological role and basis for existence is, to be a sacramental machine.

As someone I knew once wrote:

Whether it is well-willed earnestness or ill-willed hyper-criticism that moves certain individuals to posit the ecclesiological and Canonical questions pertinent to the above-mentioned controversies is of little consequence: for the fact remains that these questions which elucidate upon the problematic predicament of the present day clergy in light of the norms of the Sacred Canons are quite legitimate, precisely because the Apostolic See is vacant and therefore no living cleric can claim both formal and material apostolicity: only the latter can be ascribed to them[2] without infringing the ecclesiological doctrines taught by the theologians and manualists of past ages and enshrined in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II).

The central question here is: How are the faithful of the sedevacantist persuasion to reconcile the supreme reverence and unquestionable obedience due to the Apostolic See and the office of the Roman Pontiff alone, with the fact that they are paying obedience and entrusting the pastoral care of their souls, together with those of their families, to the clerici acephali, the episcopi vagantes, who have attained to Holy Orders without Apostolic mandate and are bereaved of a Canonical mission, and therefore do not hold ecclesiastical offices nor are they incardinated in lawfully established dioceses?

The non-sedevacantist or anti-sedevacantist polemicists readily see such an apparent contradiction, and avail themselves of their resources to point out how the sedevacantist explanation of the present-day crises within the Church is profoundly problematic and puzzling. This is especially the case when the sedevacantist clerics themselves behave in such a way so as to substantiate these polemicists' arguments against the sedevacantist thesis.

The sincere and earnest Catholic of the sedevacantist persuasion cannot answer the above-mentioned polemicists' arguments until he himself undertakes a ruthlessly realistic examination of the state of affairs in which the sedevacantist clergymen find themselves. The ratings and knee-jerk reactions of party-liners do no good but rather great harm to whatever position is being defended or attacked. An honest and informed conscience, especially after one has had recourse to prayer and spiritual counsel, can never fail but to lead individuals closer to the truth, and to Truth Himself: the Word Incarnate.

In the eyes of many, Bps. Pivarunas, Slupski, Petko, Neville, McKenna, Dolan, Sanborn, etc., are in the very same predicament. All these persons may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law ( cf. Can. 953,[3] Can. 2370[4]), for they have been consecrated as Bishops, and have themselves consecrated other Bishops, without Apostolic mandate. However, because of a salutary and necessary application of the principles of epikeia, there is no moral culpability to be imputed to them in this regard.

The difference between these Bishops lies in nothing more but the assent whereby the faithful, whose souls they have entrusted to their pastoral care, have justified the existence of their ministries in making them fit subjects of the principles of epikeia, despite the fact that they have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor inherent ordinary jurisdiction in the external forum since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147[5]). It must be emphasized that the sacred Episcopate is subordinated unto the Supreme Pontiff in the order of jurisdiction (cf. 108, § 3;[6] Can. 109[7]). Although the magisterial authority of the Bishops is dependent upon the jurisdictional and magisterial primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishops are truly doctors and teachers for those souls whose pastoral care they have undertaken or have been given by the authority of the Pope (cf. Can. 1326[8]). Moreover, Holy Mother Church, since the Sacred Council of Trent (session XXIII, de reformatione, caps. 11, 13, 16), has ordained that all clergy are to incardinated into a diocese or ingress unto Holy Religion (cf. Can. 111, § 1[9]). Therefore, all the present day traditionalist clerics are clerici vagi.

It is the salvation of souls that is the supreme law of the Church, so therefore it is now given to the faithful to evaluate each Priest and Bishop on an individual basis in order to ascertain if they are sincere in the work for the salvation of souls, since there is no Supreme Pontiff, and consequentially no Canonically legitimate hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction in the external forum, by whose authority the above-cited Canons can be implemented. Supplied ordinary jurisdiction and jurisdiction in the internal forum are all that the present clerics can claim due to the principles of epikeia, lest they transgress the limitations of their competence and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament any further. It is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences to their private opinion or practical judgments, save insofar as they conform with the doctrines and customs sanctioned by Holy Mother Church; nor can they ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Some Practical Principles

The question arises, how are the faithful to choose which independent Priest or Bishop is to have the care of their souls?

Although the faithful owe reverence to the clergy (cf. Can. 119[10]), these clerics must prove themselves worthy of the pastoral care of souls before the faithful for whom the intend to care with whatever supplied jurisdiction the Church can give, and this onus is all the more grave precisely because of the sanctity of Holy Orders. These clerics are to draw to themselves the layfolk and demonstrate their competence to work as Pastors of souls with the perfection of their interior lives as manifested in good works and a comportment that undoubtedly proves the possession of the sanctity and supernatural charity that rightly become the clerical state, together with their prudence and learning in the sacred sciences, as the Sacred Canons dictate (cf. Can. 124[11]). A traditionalist cleric must demonstrate that he is possessed of the competence, learning, and sanctity that are demanded by his sacred state, so that his whole self may be a living sermon, the eloquence thereof being that of the Holy Ghost rather than that of his own finite efforts, in order to efficaciously draw the faithful to his ministry. He truly ought to be a servant to the souls that have been committed to his pastoral care by the inscrutable designs of Divine Providence in these tumultuous times, and exercise meekness and humility before the terrifyingly unnerving reality that he is in a very strange Canonical predicament.

If the vagrant clergy prove themselves unworthy or incompetent by manifest abuse, injustice, immorality, imbecility, &c., then they lose the right to be reverenced merely because of the sacredness of their Orders until they do penance and restitution for their misdeeds, just as a violated Church cannot be licitly used for Holy Mass and other sacred rites (cf. Can. 1173, § 1 [12]) until it is reconciled according to the rites of the Roman Pontifical or Ritual (Can. 1174, § 1 [13]): for even the Oriental schismatics have valid Orders, and yet the faithful are not to compelled to reverence them for that reason alone, much less to have recourse to their ministries.

If they pretend to go beyond their competence, exceedingly limited by their problematic Canonical predicament, such clerics commit an aberration and stand in danger of losing their credibility before the faithful and thereby find themselves bereft of the opportunity of exercising the supplied jurisdiction that they do have. For without the laity to whom to administer the Sacraments, what reason is there for the "independent" clerics to exist at all?

This is most especially true regarding the sedevacantist Bishops, who attained to the sacred Episcopacy with the claim that it has been the exigencies of present circuмstance that have compelled them to do so, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See. If they are earnest and of good will in their intentions, then it follows that they ought to recognize the perilous position wherein they find themselves as episcopi vagantes in the eyes of Canon Law and are to comport themselves with all decorous humility and self-abnegation, applying to themselves with a very salutary and strict scrupulosity the words of Our Lord, "You know that the princes of the Gentiles overrule them; and they that are the greater, exercise power against them. It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: and he that will be first among you, shall be your servant. Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many" (St. Matt., ch. xx., 25-28). They, above all, must be servants of both clerics and layfolk: no one forced them to take on the Episcopacy, yet they did so, despite the problematic Canonical issues, in order to serve the faithful. Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, because the Roman Pontiff is out of the equation, such can no longer be the case. In doing otherwise one would perhaps substantiate the anti-sedevacantists' claims that the sedevacantist faithful discard the reverence and veneration due to the Papacy alone, whilst adhering to the vagrant clerics in an irony that is bereft of the "sensus Catholicus." If these Bishops fail to comport as they ought in light of the principles enunciated above, they run the risk of being criticized as cultists, and rightly so.

The sedevacantist Bishops are the only Catholics to whom one may say, "There is no such thing as excessive scruples." Would to God that all sedevacantist clerics work out their salvation seized with devout terror and trembling (Phil., ch. ii., 2), that they may be endued with greater light and grace and thereby lead the layfolk over whom they presume to exercise pastoral care to Christ all the more efficiently, instead of lording over them as if they had the competence and jurisdiction of the clergy who ruled and shepherded the faithful by authority of the Apostolic See and the local Ordinaries in times past.

The faithful need to be aware of whatever problems and possible culpability may be imputed to the present day clerics in order to arrive at a prudent and well-informed choice when it comes to the practical aspect of certain key praxes immediately pertaining to the faith: for example, what Chapel to attend, to which Seminary to send their sons, to which collection basket to give what amount of money, &c. Without the ability to make such practical judgments, one cannot have the stability necessary in order to cultivate the interior life, especially when there is danger of scandal that will either tempt one to despair and abandon the faith, or lull one into a Quietist and apathetic torpor that will merely perpetuate the sort of mediocrity that had allowed laxity amongst the earlier generations that led to the heresies and errors of "Vatican II."

Oftentimes, certain interior souls have admonished me to not enter into polemical and controversial exchanges pertaining to the scandals of the present day traditionalist clergy, and attempt to substantiate their counsel with the examples of the exceeding great reverence wherewith St. Francis of Assisi honored the Priests. Yes, the example of St. Francis is to be imitated, because Holy Orders confers upon a man a dignity that is wholly hallowed and ontologically superior to even the dignity of the Angelic choirs. However, St. Francis never faced the possibility of reverencing episcopi vagantes, clerics who attained to Sacred Orders without a Papal mandate, much less those who seem to take advantage of the vacancy of the Apostolic See so that they may conveniently lord their mitres and birettas over the faithful whom they have terrorized or trained into some sickening form of the Stockholm Syndrome whereby a number of traditionalists have somehow perverted the virtue of obedience into a Pavlovian catatonia that profanes reason enlightened by faith in degrading the virtue of religion into a cult of personality.

A Concrete Example

Here is a concrete example of how complex the situation really is. There was an article written by Rev. Fr. Anthony Cekada entitled "Untrained and Un-Tridentine: Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit." The article does contain good arguments and information, and does merit the consideration of all serious traditionalists. However, in light of recent controversies, particularly those regarding Most Holy Trinity Seminary, the following question may be considered legitimate: Who amongst the sedevacantist clerics is invested with the authority and competence to determine what exactly constitutes "Canonical training" in the present day?

If the reports of the Pristina Liturgica blog site [14] are accurate (and they are according to the interviews I myself have conducted), it does seem that the rectors and faculty of Most Holy Trinity Seminary are certainly not the ones who can claim such competence and authority. In light of recent controversies, one may legitimately posit the possibility that the arguments as set forth in the above-mentioned article may have been used, and may still be used, in order to aggrandize and exalt certain particular organizations; to place them authoritatively above others as having a sort of "Canonical credibility" (for lack of a better term) in order to assure that these organizations alone will receive the assent of the faithful, to the detriment of other clerics whose determination of "unfit and untrained" may have been determined arbitrarily and motivated by partisan divisiveness.

The sedevacantists should be the last individuals to insist upon such matters in such an absolutist way, because the truth is that there is necessarily, although unfortunately, a certain relativity when it comes to the application of certain prescripts of Canon Law by reason of the fact that the present-day crisis is utterly obfuscating to us all and no central authority is universally recognized in sedevacantist circles.

[LausTibiChriste]

I can barely convince myself to get out of bed in the morning and you think I'm gonna read all that?!

No way Jose

[Bonaventure]

I can barely convince myself to get out of bed in the morning and you think I'm gonna read all that?!

No way Jose

It would be worth your time.

[Michael Wilson]

Bone,
I voted #2; I don't think that a priest should mention Francis in the Canon, but it is not a schismatic act to do so. There has been no official Church declaration on the issue of the Conciliar Popes validity.
I regularly attend both the SSPX and Resistance Masses, and if I have an opportunity I would attend a non-una cum Mass
I think Bishop Pivarunas has the correct view on this, and I believe that this is also the position of the SSPV.

[maryslittlegarden]

I selected #1 as well.  However, I would qualify that by saying that I don't agree that it is "acceptable" without exception. I agree with Bishop Mark Pivarunas' position.  Despite holding that one may petition such sacraments without sin, he also warns to use great discretion in doing so:

PS.  This also assumes that said priest is a certainly valid priest.  I would investigate that before even considering assisting at any una cum mass.

I voted 3 but the above is pretty much what I think.  Don't know how to change my vote.  I'd avoid an una cum mass if at all possible. 

It's pretty much a moot point for me as the only latin mass in my area is a diocesan one and I won't go to it (for the una cum and a few other issues).  I've become a "home aloner" not exactly by choice.