The Question of Assistance at the Mass of a Priest Who Professes Communion With John Paul II as Pope
“Certainly it is clear
that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the
position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…” St.
Augustine.[1]
Determining whether or
not to receive the sacraments from any particular traditional priest can be a
fearful challenge. What would
otherwise be a straightforward matter has in the present circumstances become an
apparent labyrinth of difficulties and
contradictions.
Without pretending to
discuss every consideration which conceivably might bear on such a decision,
this paper is an attempt to analyse two key
factors:
It should be borne in
mind that the question, in itself, of whether or not John Paul II is truly the
Vicar of Christ is simply momentous.
Upon it hang the gravest possible theoretical conclusions and practical
consequences. Either that man in
Rome is Christ’s Vicar on earth, or he is not. Every Catholic is gravely obliged either
to submit to his divinely ordained authority as he would to Christ Jesus
Himself, or to reject him outright as a perfidious fraud. Realistically, there is no third
possibility.
Therefore nothing could
be further from my purpose here than to minimise or render unimportant this
crucial question. It is merely that
the full consideration of this matter is outside of the scope of this
article. That is to say that
whatever momentous and lamentable consequences flow from adherence to John Paul
II as Vicar of Christ, the analysis of these consequences are not within the
purpose of this article except insofar as they might bear upon the present
availability of Holy Mass for Catholics.
I propose to consider
two questions which are related to the broad issue of the verbal submission to
John Paul II by many traditional clergy, without exhaustively analysing the
entire problem; these questions are: does adherence to John Paul II, in itself,
place one outside the Church? And,
what is the effect, if any, of the mention of John Paul II’s name in the Canon
of Holy Mass? Various parties who
have expressed opinions on the matter have broken these two essential questions
into a series of sub-questions.
In turn,
this question has been addressed in various ways, as
follows:
a)
May Catholics ever assist at the Masses of
non-Catholics?
b)
Is such a Mass a "Catholic
Mass"?
c)
If John Paul II is named in the Canon, is the Mass
illicit?
d)
Does assistance at such a Mass imply co-operation
with the naming of John Paul II as pope?
By baptism a person
becomes a member and subject of the Church with all the rights and duties of a
Christian, unless, insofar as rights are concerned, there is some obstacle
impeding the bond of communion with the Church, or a censure inflicted by the
Church.[2] That is to say, every baptised person
remains a member of the Church of Jesus Christ unless he departs from her in
some way.
There are only three
ways to leave the Church voluntarily, that is, by heresy, schism,
or apostasy. There are only two
ways one can depart from the Church involuntarily, that is, by laying violent
hands upon the Roman Pontiff or being declared vitandus by Rome. Evidently neither of the involuntary means of leaving the Church is
possible in our days. Hence it
remains to consider the voluntary
means by which one may depart from the Church.
Is
it an act of apostasy to adhere to John Paul II?
Of
the voluntary ways by which one might leave the Church, firstly we consider
apostasy. Apostasy is the total
rejection of the Christian religion.
Nobody has asserted that adherence to John Paul II as pope is in itself
an act of apostasy, and nor could this be maintained
seriously.
Is
it an act of schism to adhere to John Paul II?
What precisely is schism, properly understood? To answer this question we turn to St.
Thomas, who explains schism with his usual marvellous
clarity.
“As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3),
schism takes its name 'from being a scission of minds,' and scission is opposed
to unity. Wherefore the sin of
schism is one that is directly and
essentially opposed to unity.
For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not
constituted by that which is accidental.
Now, in
the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that
which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly
speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that
unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person
to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity
of spirit.
“Accordingly schismatics properly so
called are those who, wilfully and
intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…”[3] (Emphasis
added).
Note that the Angelic Doctor firstly
identifies the principle to be applied: "For in the moral, as in the physical
order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential
is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as
it were, accidental."
Then he highlights the
key element of schism, by which it is differentiated from other sins, viz. the essence of schism is the intent to separate oneself from the
Church. This same
doctrine is taught by St. Augustine, who defines schism as "hatred of the
brethren."
Schism is the crime of
refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal of communion with
those who are subject to him. This
does not mean that any refusal of obedience, or any refusal of communion with
others, constitutes schism, but it must be a refusal to submit to the pope,
as pope, or refusal of communion
with those subject to the pope, because of their submission to him. Cardinal Cajetan comments on St Thomas's
article on schism as follows, "Disobedience, no matter how pertinacious, does
not constitute schism unless it be a rebellion against the office of the pope."[4]
A modern
authority teaches the same thing.
"Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the
reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch
as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if
one resists him as the civil head of a state."[5] This is the common opinion of
theologians and canonists.
The second constituent
of schism is the pertinacious
will to refuse submission or communion. As we have seen, St. Thomas says that
schismatics wilfully refuse
submission to the pope.[6] A man is pertinacious, according to the
canonists, when he is conscious
of the fact that his position conflicts with that of the Church. Thus, the essential components of schism
are the fact of non-submission to the pope, as pope (or non-communion with others who
are subject to him, because of
their subjection to him), and the pertinacious
will.
Schism, of course, like
heresy, may further be divided into formal and material. This distinction belongs properly to
moral theology, in which the virtuousness or sinfulness of acts is
considered. Formal schism is that
schism which is complete (i.e. in which a person refuses subjection to the pope,
as pope, and is conscious of the fact) and in which the culprit is aware of his
obligation to be subject to the
pope. Material schism is complete
but innocent, in that the person concerned is not subject to the pope, and knows
it, but has not realised that he is under a grave obligation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Material schism is impossible for a
Catholic; it is possible for a person raised in a sect who has not yet been
exposed to good arguments in favour of the true
religion.
Now, the traditional
Catholic priests who maintain communion with John Paul II do so precisely to
avoid schism, if we are to
believe their public statements and the other available evidence. It would be impossible to build a case
against them which demonstrated that they intended to submit to a false pope. Therefore the allegation of schism must
vanish as completely baseless.
St.
Antoninus, commenting on the Great Western Schism, sheds much light on the
point. “The question was much
discussed and much was written in defence of one side or the other. For as long as the schism lasted each
obedience had in its favour men who were very learned in scripture and Canon
Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were
illustrious by the gift of miracles.
Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds
of many still in doubt. Doubtless
we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only
one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a
schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary
for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope,
but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who
was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this
matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.”[7]
The French canonist
Bouix has laid down the judgement that in fact the Great Western Schism was not
a true schism at all, precisely because there was no evident schismatic intent
or pertinacity amongst the various men aligned with each claimant. "This dissension was called schism, but
incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but
each obeyed the one he regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely,
but on condition that he was the true pope. Although there were several obediences,
nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called."[8] I think it manifest that the priests of
the SSPX, for example, submit to John Paul II on condition that he is the true
pope. This is clear because, among
other evidence, Archbishop Lefebvre openly admitted that John Paul II’s claim to
the papacy is a doubtful matter that one day will be judged by the
Church.
It has
been objected that in the Great Western Schism all of the papal claimants were
Catholics, whereas in our circumstances the only claimant is a notorious
heretic. Therefore, it is argued,
there can be no excuse for adhering to him.
By
isolating each real similarity and difference between the two cases, we will be
in a position to see what effect each has on the claim that there is a real
analogy.
The first
difference is that in the fifteenth century Catholics were asked to adhere to an
orthodox claimant, while in the second case Catholics are asked to adhere to a
heretic. There is no doubt that, in
isolation, this is a striking difference.
If it were the only difference then we would be faced with one case (the
Great Western Schism) in which the choice was between two Catholics, and another
case in which the alternatives are a Catholic and a public heretic. There can be no dispute that if these
were the two cases being compared, there could be no analogy drawn between them
which would be useful in the question we are
examining.
However,
there is a second difference between the two sets of circumstances. And it is that in the Great Western
Schism Catholics were presented with a choice between two (or three) claimants,
each with numerous orthodox and prudent adherents among the clergy. Whereas in our situation Catholics are
faced with judging between accepting a heretic as pope, or believing that an
unprecedented vacancy of forty years has occurred, unknown by all of the ordinaries (i.e. bishops with
sees) in the world, and by almost all of the clergy. I do not think any reasonable man will
describe the latter choice as so blindingly obvious that anybody who fails to
see it is abandoning either reason or faith.
The similarity between the two sets
of circumstances consists in the fact that a good Catholic was (or is) required
to form a judgement which he was (or is) not necessarily equipped to make. In both cases the choice was (or is)
exceedingly difficult – in fact for many, and probably most, impossible. In more normal times in the Church the
question of who the pope is or isn’t stands as a simple and obvious matter. During the Great Western Schism and
today the question was and is exceedingly difficult. During both sets of circumstances the
ordinary means of identifying the true pope
were (or are) inoperative.
In such a situation it is plainly unreasonable to insist that any man who
has failed to see the truth is therefore a
schismatic
Therefore it is clear that a real
analogy exists between the Great Western Schism and our own circumstances. From the Great Western Schism we learn
that a man may remain a good Catholic, or even be a saint, whilst failing to
reject a false pope, and whilst
rejecting a true pope. Today we are
faced with the lamentable sight of men adhering to a false pope, but who at
least do not reject a true pope.
Heresy, as St. Thomas
teaches, is essentially opposed
to faith.
Heresy is defined as
the pertinacious doubt or denial of a truth which must be believed with divine
and Catholic faith.[9] And all those truths must be believed
with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written word of God or
in tradition and which the Church proposes for acceptance as revealed by God,
either by solemn definition or through her ordinary and universal teaching.[10]
Therefore heresy only
exists where two conditions are fulfilled, viz. pertinacity, and doubt
concerning, or error directly against, divine and Catholic
faith.
St. Thomas explains the
whole matter in his treatment of the question, "Whether it is lawful to have
various contrary opinions of notions?"[11]
in the Summa.
"I answer that, Anything is of faith
in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely
taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the
like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy,
especially if it be held obstinately.
A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a
consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel
was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be
false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of
heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving
consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas
when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences
follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now
considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their
consequences are now more manifest.
"So we must decide that anyone may
entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold
anything at variance with faith. If,
however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or
thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into
heresy."[12]
Now, it follows from the idea that John Paul II is
pope that Holy Church has defected.
The latter heresy is a consequence of the former error. But it is not true to say that the idea
that John Paul II is pope is directly opposed to the faith. And therefore it is not necessarily
heretical. It remains (at the very least) possible that those who
think John Paul II is truly the Vicar of Christ retain their belief that Holy
Church is indefectible. And in fact
traditional Catholics who adhere to John Paul II make it abundantly clear that
they do believe Holy Church to be
indefectible. Furthermore, it is
notorious that traditional Catholics who maintain that John Paul II is pope do
so precisely because they are under the impression that to deny this would
involve implicit denial of the indefectibility of Holy Church, and would thus
sever themselves from her. A more
clearly non-heretical mindset could not be
imagined.
The fact remains that
recognising John Paul II as pope is bound to lead to inconsistency, for no
Catholic could behave towards John Paul II as one should behave towards a
pope. But such inconsistency must
be sheeted home to its true cause, and not made the basis of a charge of
unorthodoxy in itself. The only way
that the latter case could be made is if it could be shown that the cause of the inconsistent position was an
unorthodox belief in itself, or an unorthodox animus in general.[13]
In addition to these arguments,
there is the extrinsic authority of Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Bouix,
and Journet. Each of these has
publicly taught that if a pope were a heretic he would retain the papacy until
and unless “deposed” by an extraordinary Council. And while this doctrine is wrong, and in
fact certainly so, Holy Church has never condemned it, so that it is not
impossible that a good and holy Catholic accept it, if the reasons in its favour
appeal to him. Hence, our
hypothetical priest is able to hold that John Paul II is both a heretic and the
Pope, and himself remain a Catholic.
Therefore there is no basis
whatsoever for maintaining that those traditional Catholics who adhere to John
Paul II are, for that reason, outside the Church. Adherence to John Paul II as pope is
neither an act of apostasy, nor schism, nor heresy. It is a lamentable yet understandable
mistake.
The obvious answer to
this question is that it is an error to think that John Paul II is the
pope.
Errors may be evil in
three ways;
a)
When deliberate, they are
sins.
b)
Even when innocent, they are in themselves evil, as
the intellect is made for truth, so that any positive error is an
evil.
c)
Even innocent errors may have evil consequences, or
they may form the basis of further errors which in turn may have evil
consequences.
Analysing the first
problem, the possibility that sin is involved, we can be morally certain (in at
least most cases) that a traditionalist priest who mentions John Paul II as pope
is innocent in the matter. It is
not within the scope of this article to analyse fully the errors and possible
culpability of such traditionalist priests. Suffice it to say that their open and
vigorous resistance to Vatican II, and to the heresies and errors of John Paul
II, eliminates the possibility that they adhere to him because they favour his
programme of evil. Their publicly
declared reason for adhering to him is that they wish to avoid schism. I am aware that many of those who
publicly adhere to John Paul II are in fact most doubtful that he really is the
pope,[14]
but this doubt does not make their continued adherence to him a sin, for they
also believe that it is not their business publicly to reject a “pope” to whom
the vast majority of Catholics adhere.
In this we see merely an example of the attitude which St. Antoninus has
said is perfectly justified.
“[I]n this matter they may
follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.”
The second problem, the
essentially evil nature of a positive error, might bear on the issue in two
possible ways. The two ways in
which the error of a priest in this matter might affect the faithful are, i) if
they believed it themselves, which will be considered immediately below, or ii)
if they were somehow held responsible for it. And the only way in which the faithful
could conceivably be held responsible for the error of a priest with
whom they associate is if they could be said to co-operate in his error. Suffice it to say at this point that it
is absurd prima facie to say that an avowed sedevacantist who assists at the Mass of a
priest who names John Paul II as pope intends to co-operate with the priest’s
error. The only possibility with
which we may concern ourselves is that the sedevacantist faithful at such a Mass
unwillingly (i.e. merely materially) co-operate with the naming of
John Paul II by the very fact of assisting at such a Mass. This possibility will also be considered
later in this paper (v. infra.
“Does assistance at such a Mass imply co-operation with the naming of John Paul
II as pope?”).
Evil
consequences
The third perspective
from which errors may be considered is that which takes into account their
consequences and fruits, both for the men who hold those errors, and for other
parties who may be affected by them.
Once again, a distinction seems necessary:
a)
A man who errs may act, because of his error, in a
way which causes harm to others.
b)
The fact of the man holding to the error, and
announcing it publicly, may lead others into error
also.
The only evil actions
which might arise directly from thinking John Paul II is pope would appear to be
co-operation with his programme of evil, or acting inconsistently by disobeying
him while claiming to be subject to him.
The first of these is evidently not a problem with traditionalist
priests. They do not co-operate
with his programme - they openly resist it, as has already been said.[15]
The inconsistency
problem is real, at least to some extent.
Clearly it is a problem to live in open rebellion against the pope, and
even more so over a period of decades.
And yet it must be kept in mind that even a pope cannot validly command
what is sinful, so that resisting the pope is not, per se, unorthodox.[16] Indeed, it can be meritorious, as
several historical examples prove (e.g. Pascal II on investitures, and John XXII
on the enjoyment of the beatific vision, by the saints, prior to the General
Judgement). Pope Paul IV, in the
very document most relied upon by sedevacantists, Cum ex apostolatus, [17]
teaches that “the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and
our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and
kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to
have deviated from the Faith.”
The second problem, the
threat that falsehoods pose to others, is much broader than the una cum clause of the Canon of the
Mass. Indeed, the una cum clause becomes much less relevant
in this context, for it is said silently.
Much more significant are the sermons, the printed material, and the
public stance on John Paul II as pope, which all tend to harm the common good in
a most grave matter. Obviously it
is not right to acquiesce in any such assertion that John Paul II is pope,
whether this assertion is within the context of Holy Mass or
not.
The danger that the
errors and inconsistency of these priests poses is that of perversion,
particularly of children. If
nothing is done to correct the notion, children raised in such a climate are
bound to think that open, habitual, resistance to "the pope" is something other
than monstrous. Fortunately,
however, we have abundant evidence that the children of sedevacantists who grow up assisting at
Masses in which John Paul II is named as pope do not, as a rule, end up with faulty ideas
about submission to papal authority.
I regard this as a manifest fact, testified to by numerous clear
examples. In other words, whatever
danger of perversion might exist, it does not, in fact, produce the perversion
feared.[18]
Let us also note the
fact that the priest believes and expresses a falsehood concerning a very grave
matter; but so do most traditionalists, on one matter or another. This is our frame - to err is
human. And particularly so when
there is no habitual jurisdiction or magisterium being exercised which could
settle controversies. That isn't to
say that charity does not dictate efforts to correct errors. It is merely pointing out that error is
very common, particularly today, and that the errors of others are not,
generally, our responsibility.
The government of Holy Church has not
been laid upon our shoulders.
It may be useful to
summarise what has been said in response to the question, What is wrong with
naming John Paul II as pope?:
Obviously it is wrong
to name John Paul II as pope for many reasons, as explained above. Here we consider the narrower question,
what is the effect of naming the heresiarch in the Canon? Various arguments have been advanced
with the intention of proving that a Mass becomes unavailable to Catholics when
open heretics such as John Paul II are named in the
Canon.
One such argument is
that any priest who mentions John Paul II in the Canon is thereby a
non-Catholic, and that Catholics may never assist at the Masses of
non-Catholics.
Another is that such a
Mass is a “non-Catholic Mass” or a “schismatic Mass” by virtue of being offered
in union with a non-Catholic, and that therefore Catholics may not assist at
it.
A third argument is
that such a Mass is illicit, and that therefore the faithful are prohibited from
being present.
Finally, the case has
been put that the presence at such a Mass is an implicit approval and/or
co-operation with the acknowledgement of John Paul II as pope, which for
somebody who rejects him, is a sin.
Worse, it has been claimed that such assistance at Mass is an act of
communion with John Paul II himself, so that anybody who does it with full
knowledge thereby becomes a schismatic.
The theological and
legal authorities of whom I am aware discuss only three classes of Masses that
the faithful are obliged to avoid.
These are the Masses of non-Catholics,[19]
Masses in which the rite itself is unorthodox,[20]
and the Masses of priests living in open concubinage.[21] Therefore, according to the approved
writers of the Catholic Church any “fault” with a priest or a Mass which falls
outside of these three categories does not constitute a reason why the faithful
are prohibited from assisting. And,
as a matter of fact, the Masses we are here considering do not run afoul of any
of these prohibitory reasons.
The notion that the insertion of
John Paul II’s name in the Canon makes the celebrant a non-Catholic, or always
indicates that he is a non-Catholic, has been considered already. The idea that adhering to John Paul II,
or naming him as pope, is unorthodox, is groundless. The status of John Paul II could not
possibly be a matter of faith.
(That the notions that John Paul II is truly pope and has inflicted
heresy on the Church lead to an
heretical conclusion is granted.
But as explained above, heresy involves a direct conflict with a matter of
faith. It is not a matter of faith
that John Paul II is not pope.)
Likewise it is not necessarily an act of schism to adhere to a
non-Catholic. It may merely be a
mistake, and in the cases under consideration that is precisely what it
is.
But even granting, for the sake of
the argument, that such priests were all non-Catholics by virtue of remaining in
communion with John Paul II, it remains for our opponents to demonstrate that
the Masses of such priests would always be forbidden to the faithful. For, surprising as it may seem, in cases
of necessity Holy Church does in fact permit her children to assist at Mass
with, and receive sacraments from, undeclared heretics and schismatics. The origin of this indulgence was in the
aftermath of the Great Western Schism, during which numerous problems arose for
the simple faithful, who could not be sure who were their true pastors, and who
were those that were in rebellion against the authentic Roman Pontiff. Pope Martin V settled such difficulties
for the future with his ground-breaking law, Ad evitanda
scandala.
Ad evitanda
scandala
reads as follows, “To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous
consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ's
faithful that henceforth no one shall be bound to abstain from communion with
anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other
religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe
any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or
censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the
sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or
denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university,
church, community or place.
Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary,
save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has
incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a
cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by
any legal defence. For we will
abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical
sanctions, even though he be not denounced.[22]
Cardinal de Lugo[23]
explains that this certainly applies to undeclared heretics, as follows, “The second chief
doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and
human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate
with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be
contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit
profession of error. But the
question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is
lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be
present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite,
etc.
“But the opposite view [i.e. that
such communication is permitted] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be
illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the
faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical
minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and
Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of
penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said
litterae extravagantes [i.e.
Ad evitanda scandala] in which
communication with excommunicati
tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and
administration of the sacraments.
It must be emphasised
that scandal and danger of perversion are grave matters, and divine
law[24] dictates that both are to be assiduously
avoided. But if they are absent,
then we may assist even at the Mass of an undeclared heretic, as Cardinal de
Lugo explains.
This question is posed
by Fr. Donald Sanborn[25],
and answered in the negative, in his article, Vatican II, The Pope, and The
Mass.
Fr Sanborn explains
that a Mass offered "in union with" a false pope cannot be truly in union with
Christ, and is therefore a "non-Catholic Mass." He further explains that such Masses are
"objectively schismatic" for the same reason.
However the theologians
who discuss the status of Masses concentrate on the status of the offerer of the Mass. If the offerer is Catholic, then the
Mass is a "Catholic Mass," assuming a Catholic ritual is used. If the offerer is not a Catholic, then
his Mass is, like him, "outside the Church" in the sense that it is unavailable
to Catholics. (Although, as we have
seen, Cardinal de Lugo asserts very clearly that in the absence of an alternative the
faithful may assist even at the Mass of a heretic, prior to the judgement of the
Church.) Furthermore, the reason
given by the theologians for this is that to assist at such a Mass would be an
act of communicatio in sacris
with a non-Catholic.
That is, an act of worship in common with a non-Catholic, which of course
relates to the ecclesiastical status of persons, not to “non-Catholic acts of
Catholic persons.”
i.) "Non-Catholic
Masses"?
Fr. Sanborn’s
definition of the term "non-Catholic Mass" is unclear. There are Masses offered by Catholics,
and Masses offered by non-Catholics.
As far as I can discover, there is no such thing as a "non-Catholic Mass"
unless and except if this refers to the Mass of a non-Catholic or a Mass
celebrated according to a corrupted, unorthodox, rite, and neither is the
definition that Fr. Sanborn gives.
Since there is no
suggestion that the rite itself contains something contrary to the faith, the
correct question, according to the principles laid down by the theologians, is,
"Is the Mass of a priest who names John Paul II in the Canon, the Mass of a
Catholic?" There are two ways that
this question could be answered negatively, viz. if the act of naming John Paul II in
the Canon automatically made the priest a non-Catholic, or if the priest already
before offering the Mass were a non-Catholic, due to his adherence to John Paul
II.
The second possibility
has been considered above. Nobody
can rightly be judged a non-Catholic merely for adhering to John Paul II,
especially if he explicitly refuses John Paul II’s heresies. The first possibility, that the naming
of John Paul II in the Canon makes the priest a non-Catholic, is also false, and
for the same reasons.
ii.) "Objectively
schismatic"?
Equally problematical
is Fr. Sanborn's use of the terminology, "objectively schismatic." What does Fr. Sanborn mean
by this term? He does not define
it. The closest he gets is the
following, "If he [the priest]
means well, i.e., he has a good intention and does not know that he is doing
wrong, then he commits no personal sin. But objectively it is a sinful
act." Thus it appears that Fr.
Sanborn is saying that the act of naming John Paul II as pope in the Canon is
the matter of schism. Or perhaps he is arguing that there is
true schism in such an act, but that it is merely material (i.e.
innocent).
However, as Cardinal
Billot explains, in relation to heresy,
"…a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of
the sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the nature of heresy consists in
withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and this does not
take place in the case mentioned [i.e. when a Catholic accidentally adheres to
an heretical proposition], since this is a simple error of fact concerning what
the rule dictates. And therefore there is no scope for heresy, even
materially."[26]
And in speaking of
schism, Billot draws a parallel with heresy. "The second condition required for
adults [to be members of the Church] is that the bond of Catholic communion be
not impeded or dissolved - a breach that can occur in either of two ways. The
first is by the individual's own act, i.e. by schism concerning which the same
judgement applies, in due proportion, as applies to heresy. The second is by
sentence of ecclesiastical authority..."[27]
The same principle
applies, mutatis mutandis, to a
refusal of communion with fellow Catholics. The various splits amongst traditional
Catholics do not constitute true schism precisely because there exists no
mind or will to sever communion with those subject
to the pope, but rather a refusal of communion based on judgements, whether
sound or unsound, that the other group is not truly Catholic or perhaps is
gravely scandalous. In the absence
of a true pope such splits are seemingly inevitable, but they are not
necessarily "schisms."
Thus a man who places
an act which involves one element of the matter of schism, without knowingly
breaking the bond of communion, cannot be described as a "material
schismatic." In the same way we do
not call a man who falls off a cliff a "material
suicide."
Therefore it is clear,
as has already been proved, that adherence to a false pope, even though he is a
public heretic, especially if this adherence is maintained precisely because he is believed to be the true
pope, cannot constitute schism. In
fact, one might say that it is the opposite of schism. Nor can it be said to constitute
so-called material or objective schism, for where there is no pertinacity, there
is no schism at all, either formal or material, as Billot explains. "Objective schism" may or may not be
equivalent to "material schism," but in any case what is clear is that there is no sort of schism at all in the
act of a priest who mentions John Paul II because he mistakenly believes that he
is the pope.
Benedict XIV teaches,
“…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 recognises 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.”[28]
Recalling St. Thomas’s
eternal principle, “…in the moral order, the essential is that which is
intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were,
accidental", we apply it to this
teaching of Benedict XIV. The only
possible conclusion is that when a priest inserts John Paul II’s name in the
Sacred Canon in the mistaken belief that he is the pope, this is “the profession
of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.” To call it, on the contrary, schism, is simply to miss the
point.
iii.) "Offensive to
God"?
It has also been
suggested that the mention of John Paul II as pope, in the Canon of the Mass, is
offensive to God in any case. It is
asserted by Fr. Sanborn that this is a sacrilege, whether the priest sins in
committing it or not, and that therefore the faithful who know better must
refuse to co-operate with it, even materially. (And no proof is offered that the
faithful even materially
cooperate with the naming of John Paul II in the Canon merely by assisting at
such a Mass.)
Against this it must be
asked whether God is offended by innocent mistakes. The mention of John Paul II in the Canon
is either a crime or a mistake.
There is no third possibility.
In relation to schism, I posed the hypothetical case of a man who falls
off a cliff. Is he rightly called a
"material suicide"? Likewise, is
God offended by a man falling off
a cliff? Of course not. Mistakes have no moral character
whatsoever, and cannot offend God.
That is not to say that some morally imputable offence has not been
committed previously, which led to the present innocent error. But our concern is not the complete
analysis of a priest's moral life, and nor should it be. We are concerned strictly with this act
of naming John Paul II in the Canon.
Is this act a
sacrilege? Assuming that the priest
sincerely believes John Paul II to be pope, the answer can only be in the
negative.
Question
Three, c) If John Paul II is named
in the Canon, is the Mass illicit?
The
following discussion is, necessarily, highly technical. The matter discussed involves a
veritable forest of distinctions, each of which is of crucial importance to a
sound understanding of what is involved.
I have aimed chiefly at clarity and
precision.
No one as
far as I am aware has constructed a complete argument which reaches the
conclusion that a Mass in which John Paul II is named as pope would be illicit,
in the sense that the faithful are therefore prohibited from assisting at
it. One example of such a complete
argument would consist of the following elements:
The
argument has been put that since every external heretic is ipso facto excommunicated,[29]
and since excommunicates may not be mentioned in the Canon of Holy Mass,[30]
if this is done then the Mass itself is illicit.[31] Furthermore, it is contended, the
faithful may not assist at such an “illicit Mass” for any reason at
all.
To my
knowledge we have no authoritative indications of what a priest is to do when
his bishop publicly disappears into heresy, and by Canon 188, §4, loses his
office. Obviously if he recognised
that this had occurred, he would omit his (former) bishop’s name from the Canon
of Holy Mass. But would he be
bound to do so? For obvious reasons this quandary
becomes deeper in relation to a so-called pope who is a public heretic. Questions such as these serve to
highlight the unprecedented nature of the crisis facing Holy Church at
present.
Our only
hope of solving such problems is by applying the general principles furnished by
the popes, the theologians, and the Code and its
commentators.
Pope Benedict XIV, in
the bull Ex quo, by which he
promulgated the restored liturgical book for the Greek Catholics, the Euchologion, has expounded many of the
points of which we require knowledge in order to analyse this question. Pope Benedict, employing the work of St.
Robert Bellarmine, firstly explains that there is no divine law governing the question of
whether non-Catholics may be named in the Canon, so that we must consider
instead what the law of the Church is in relation to the
question.
“But among the
Oriental peoples this practice of commemorating the king in the sacred liturgy
is common, as may be seen in the Liturgies of the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians
and Syrians. But if it should be
asked how it can be endured where it is certain that the kings for whom they
pray and whom they commemorate in the liturgy are infidels, Ven. Card.
Bellarmine would reply (as in fact he replied in the chapter quoted above[32])
that it is by no means forbidden by the
nature of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even
for infidels since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men. And of course St. Thomas teaches that
although St. Augustine wrote in his work de
origine Animae that the sacrifice is offered only for those who are
members of Christ, his statement must be understood to include both those who
are already members of Christ and those who are able to become such (in 4. Sentent., dist. 12, quest. 2, art.
2, quest. 2, to the fourth). Therefore, the Cardinal adds that the whole
question should be assessed in terms of what the Church has forbidden: ‘It is
certain from the nature of the object that if the Church has not prohibited it,
it is permissible to offer prayers for those men (i.e., the infidels).’ Although there is such a prohibition
against the excommunicated and so against heretics and schismatics, there is
none against infidels and these are not bound by excommunication. This is enough, he says, to allow
commemoration of them during Mass and even the offering of the sacrifice for
them in accordance with the evident tradition in this matter and with the
apostolic constitution. ‘But
someone may ask whether it is permissible if the king is an infidel as in
Greece, where the Turk is ruler, and as in India, Japan and China where pagans
rule, for priests there to offer prayers expressly for the king. I answer that I consider it permissible
provided that the king is not excommunicated as are heretic kings, but is a
pagan. For this tradition, this
constitution, is apostolic, as I showed just above. To my knowledge there is no
clear prohibition of this by the Church.’"[33]
Divine law, as St. Robert
Bellarmine and Pope Benedict XIV make clear, certainly does not prohibit
non-Catholics to be prayed for by name during Holy Mass. Consequently the entire question must be
discussed in terms of ecclesiastical law.
Perhaps a
solution lies in an examination of the fact that every heretic is ipso facto excommunicated.[34]
The law of
the Church certainly prohibits the public offering of Holy Mass for an
excommunicate. For an excommunicatus vitandus it is permitted to
offer privately only for his conversion; for a toleratus Holy Mass may be offered
privately for any intention at all.[35] However, the distinct question of
whether the law of the Church permits a priest to name an excommunicate in the Canon of Holy
Mass is a matter of controversy. De
la Taille answers in the negative[36]. However he acknowledges that, “there are
not a few teachers who think otherwise…”[37] Likewise Gihr, discussing only the
Memento states that, “Liturgists
usually say that the priest may include in the Memento, not only members of the Church,
but also unbelievers, heretics, schismatics, those who are excommunicated, and
they state in proof of this assertion, that it is only a private prayer of the
celebrant (thus write Gavanti, Merati, Cavalieri, De Herdt and others).” [38] Gihr disagrees with these authors,
stating that the Memento is not
merely a private prayer, but rather a public (i.e. official) prayer of the
Church. In this he agrees with
Pope Benedict
XIV, who taught as follows in Ex
quo, “Moreover heretics
and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law
of Can. de Ligur. 23, quest. 5,
and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But
the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as
can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2,
and chap. Sacris on the sentence
of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion,
still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the
solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass. This fully accords with the
ancient practice, as may be seen in Estius in 4. Sententiar., dist. 12, sec. 15.”[39] This teaching would appear to settle the
matter, covering as it does the entire Canon, not just the Memento.
But even
if we regard the question as settled in our own minds, only a certain law obliges, so that we can only
aver that it would be wrong publicly to offer Holy Mass for a vitandus, or to offer it for some
intention other than his conversion, or publicly to offer it for a toleratus, which is all that the Code
makes clear. As far as naming an excommunicate is concerned, even
if we take the view that this is forbidden, any priest who judged differently
could cite several authorities for his position. Clearly no condemnation of such a priest
would be possible.
In
relation to an excommunicatus
toleratus whose excommunication has been inflicted ipso facto we are faced with yet another
difficulty – viz., at what point
do the obligations in respect of such a person fall upon third parties? In other words, who is obliged to obey
the terms of a censure automatically inflicted upon another party by the law
itself? Canon 2259 sheds some light
on this question.
“Every
excommunicated person is deprived of the right to assist at the divine offices,
but not at the preaching of the word of God. If an excommunicatus toleratus assists
passively, it is not necessary to expel him; a vitandus should be expelled, or, if he
cannot be expelled, the divine service must be stopped, provided it can be done
without grave inconvenience. From active assistance, which entails some
participation in celebrating the divine offices (services), not only an excommunicatus vitandus is to be barred,
but also every excommunicated person whose excommunication was inflicted by a
declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or whose excommunication is otherwise
notorious.”[40]
Within
this canon we see the principles embodied that govern when third parties are
obliged to obey an excommunication.
The excommunication of a vitandus is notorious by a notoriety of
law – all are obliged to obey such an excommunication. A toleratus is to be acted against in
certain circumstances, when his
excommunication is notorious; that is, when the censure he has
incurred is notorious with a notoriety of fact or of
law.
St.
Thomas confirms this understanding.
“Whether
one must avoid excommunicated persons concerning whom experts disagree as to
whether they are in fact excommunicated?
“To
the third question it is proceeded as follows.
“It
seems that those excommunicates should not be avoided concerning whose
excommunication wise men hold conflicting opinions. Because according to the laws a bishop
cannot remove a benefice which he has granted to a cleric without some fault on
the cleric’s part. But the
communion of the faithful is as much due to any of the faithful as a benefice is
due to a cleric to whom a bishop has granted it. So neither is the communion of the
faithful to be withdrawn from anyone without fault. And when it is doubtful whether a cause
is present, the mind of a good man ought to be more prompt to interpret the
facts in the milder direction.
Hence, when it is doubted whether some persons are excommunicated, one
ought rather to take the position that they are not excommunicated, in which
case there is no need to avoid them.
“But
on the other hand, should someone die as a result of having been struck in war
and it is unknown who struck him, on account of this doubt anyone who took part
in the war is considered irregular by the laws. So analogously [“a simili”] it seems that when there is a
doubt as to whether some persons are excommunicated, for greater safety they
ought to be avoided.
“I
reply that doubt as to whether certain persons are excommunicated either
precedes the sentence of the judges or else follows it. If it comes before, for instance when it
has not yet been declared by the consensus of the judges that certain persons
are excommunicated, they are not to be avoided until the matter has been closed
by definitive judgment. For in this
case it is true that we ought to follow the milder interpretation. Hence Deuteronomy 17:8 says: If thou
perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment…and thou
see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary…thou shalt come to the
priests and to the judge…and thou shalt ask of them…and thou shalt do whatsoever
they shall say.”[41]
At this
point let’s apply the principles here exposed to the facts at issue in the
present discussion.
The
mention of the pope and the bishop in the Te
igitur is not, per se,
equivalent to offering Holy Mass for them, insofar as that act is referred to by
the Code, so that even John Paul II’s ipso
facto excommunication is not clear grounds for a claim that naming
him in the Canon is illicit.
It is far
from obvious that it would be contrary to the law of the Church to mention one’s
bishop in the Te igitur, even if
one believed him to be (automatically) excommunicated, but prior to the
judgement of the Church. This is
because only a notorious
excommunication places a burden upon third parties. The judgement of when a particular
excommunication is notorious, or only perhaps public, is one which men may well differ
upon.
Obviously
this consideration applies, a
fortiori, to “the pope,” and even more so when not one ordinary (i.e. bishop with jurisdiction) has
declared him excommunicate.
In other words, John Paul II is certainly an excommunicate, but he is a
toleratus. His excommunication is certainly
notorious by the notoriety of fact.
But this is a matter of prudent judgement, upon which men may
legitimately differ.
The fact
that no (serious) infraction of law is involved in such a case becomes, if
possible, even clearer when the nature of ecclesiastical penal law is
examined. Canon 2195 defines the
concept, crime: “A crime or delict in ecclesiastical law
means an external and morally imputable violation of law to which a canonical
sanction, at least indeterminate, is attached.”[42]
Since
there is no serious suggestion that the average una cum cleric is morally guilty of
wilfully naming a non-Catholic or excommunicate in the Canon, and since even
this is not indisputably against the law, and furthermore since the only law
which might conceivably apply to such a case (c. 2262) has no sanction attached,
there is no way that the act could possibly be criminal.
For all of
these reasons, therefore, it is simply not possible to make a case that there is
some kind of crime involved in
naming John Paul II in the Canon.
Nor, in my opinion, is there any basis for alleging a lesser infraction
of the law. What we are faced with
is a mistake.
Expanding the question
to consider whether the act of recognising John Paul II as pope is, in itself,
an illicit act, the following considerations arise.[44]
If John Paul II had
been judged by Holy Church to be a heretic and no pope, then there would exist a
basis upon which all would be presumed to know that he was to be avoided. Such a public judgement would set up a
universal obligation, in the external forum, for the faithful to refuse
communion with John Paul II. In
brief, such a judgement would involve the declaration that John Paul II is
vitandus. But this has not happened. Hence the obligation to reject John Paul
II, as far as it goes, is a private one, and rests on each individual’s
knowledge and ability. If one is
incapable of seeing that John
Paul II is a heretic, then one is not obliged to avoid him. If one does see that he is a heretic, then one
is obliged to avoid him, at least
in general.
This principle is
clearly enunciated in Cum ex
apostolatus, which grants the faithful the right to refuse communion with a heretic
claiming the papacy, but in no way penalises those who fail to do
so.
The priests with whom
we are concerned have no deliberate will to name a non-Catholic in the
Canon. Their will, clearly
evidenced by public statements, is to name only Catholics. Hence there is no infraction of any law
in their communion with the heretic.
In the absence of any other basis for declaring such Masses illicit, the conclusion is not established. But even if such Masses were illicit, it does not necessarily follow that Catholics may not assist at them. The theologians taught, before the law relating to the matter was changed, that the faithful may assist at the Mass of a priest living in open concubinage, if there is no alternative, and we can be perfectly certain that such a Mass is entirely illicit and in fact sacrilegious.
Question
Three, d) Does assistance at such a Mass imply co-operation with the naming of
John Paul II as pope?
Every argument against
assistance at una cum Masses
assumes that the faithful
co-operate in the error of the priest.
One argument which
makes this assumption is to the effect that the una
cum clause of the Te igitur is an expression of common oblation with whomever is named in
it. Those who argue in this way
explain that the una cum phrase
is a declaration that the Holy Sacrifice is “offered together with Thy servant
N. our pope etc.” Once again, even
if this were true, it has yet to be shown that the faithful present at such
Masses are deemed to be co-operating with whatever commemorations the priest
makes.
In any
case, the una cum clause is an
intercessory mention of those with chief responsibility for the welfare of the
Church. It is a prayer for those who are mentioned in
it.
Pope
Benedict XIV explains, “Still in reference to the Latin
practice, We will also note that when a bishop is celebrating Mass, he prays for
himself as an ‘unworthy servant.’
This practice is in harmony with the words of the apostolic constitutions
where the celebrant, after praying for others, prays for himself in these words:
‘We now beseech Thee for a man of no worth, for myself who am offering to Thee’
etc. (Ap. Const., bk. 8, in
Cotelerius, Opera Patrum
Apostolicorum, vol. 1, p. 407).
“Moreover it should be
known that in Rome commemoration is made only of the Roman Pontiff since he is
not only Supreme Pontiff, but also the bishop of the city of Rome in particular.
When the Pope himself says Mass, he prays for himself in precisely the same way
as any bishop prays for himself during Mass. In reply to the bishop of Orense who
enquired how the Pope commemorated himself during the celebration of Mass,
Innocent III, in a letter not yet published but preserved in the Vatican
archives (bk. 9, no. 33) replied as follows: ‘You have also asked to be
instructed as to the words used by the Roman Pontiff at the place in the canon
of the Mass where a priest of lower rank says together with our Pope, since the Pope is
then obviously praying for himself and is subordinate to no bishop. Our reply to your devotedness is this:
at that place We say together with me Thy
unworthy servant.'”[46]
Gihr teaches the same
thing. “The general fruit of the
sacrifice falls the more copiously to the share of the individual members of the
mystical body of Christ in proportion as they contribute to the common welfare
of the Church; hence we have now a special offering and prayer for the pope and
for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the Mass is
celebrated.
“Then is added a
general intercession for all those persons who not only preserve the true faith
in their heart and confess it with their lips, but who, moreover, according to
their ability defend and propagate it.
“It is proper that
throughout the entire Church the pope should be prayed for and the sacrifice be
offered for him, for he is the vicar of Jesus Christ, the infallible teacher and
supreme pastor of all the faithful, the head and father of all Christendom.”[47]
Numerous
authorities could be quoted on this point[48]
– they appear to be unanimous in teaching that the una cum phrase is intercessory – that is,
it is a prayer for those named in
it.[49]
Obviously it is not
possible to prove a negative, and we must be satisfied to leave it to those who
claim that the faithful co-operate with the commemorations of the priest to
prove their position. In the mean
time, it is significant that even Fr. Hervé Belmont, who wrote the original
una cum article published by Fr.
Barbara in Fortes in Fide, and by
Fr. Sanborn in Catholic
Restoration, holds that one may assist at an una cum Mass when there is no alternative
available. He has publicly given
the following advice:
"...it is quite certain that no
Catholic may formally cooperate with the una cum Johanne-Paulo pronounced by
a priest in the Canon of the Mass. It is impossible for him to unite
himself with such an act which expresses allegiance to a false rule of faith and
sacramental dependence on one who is not the head of the true sacraments of the
Church.
"Is it possible to assist at the
'una cum' Mass without this
impossible (morally speaking) formal co-operation – i.e. is it possible to limit
oneself to a morally permissible material
co-operate?
"We think the answer is 'yes' on the
following conditions:
– refuse interiorly this 'una cum' and protest before God one's
wish to conform oneself to all the exigencies of the Catholic
Faith;
– have a grave (i.e. proportionate)
reason for doing so. It is quite clear that the fear of having to travel
further or of fatigue or the wish to take advantage of more convenient
timetables or of avoiding unwelcome encounters could not be sufficient
reasons. By contrast, the necessity of placing one's children in a school
with sound morals or of not exposing oneself to a dangerous deprivation of the
sacraments might be this grave reason.
"In a word, assistance at the Mass
defiled with the Una cum must not
be voluntary – it must be forced on us. We realise that some will accuse
us of not being rigorous enough on this point, but we fear to incur the reproach
Our Lord addressed to the Pharisees; 'For they bind heavy and insupportable
burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but with a finger of their own they
will not move them'. (Matt, 23:4)"[50]
This remains Fr Belmont's view of
the matter.
Fr. Oswald Baker, one of the
faithful few pre-Vatican II priests who has stood entirely firm against the
changes, has publicly given the following advice on assisting at a Mass
“una cum John-Paul
II”:
“…It is understandable that there is
now some perplexity about attending St Pius X Society Masses. It is of course different from attending
the new ‘Mass’. A priest in the
Conciliar Church shares the erroneous beliefs and obeys the instructions of John
Paul II, leader of a false religion, false because its errors include the tenets
of Vatican II. In practice,
Lefebvre rejects both the commands and heresies of John Paul II, his
acknowledgement of whom can be regarded as a theoretical error of mistaken
identity. Lefebvre is not spurning
the pope or the Pope’s subjects, he is not heretical, for he accepts all
Catholic doctrines, and his Mass and sacraments are undeniably Catholic, despite
his lamentable acceptance of the debated ‘John XXIII reforms’. Given the extreme abnormality of a
situation in which John Paul II is all but universally accepted as Pope, the
faithful who would otherwise be deprived of the life-giving sacraments are in my
view entitled to ignore Lefebvre’s professed allegiance and attend the Masses of
his priests. Lefebvre is not an
agent of John Paul II as a Conciliar ‘priest’ is, and though his
misunderstanding concerning the John Paul and the Conciliar Church may annoy,
depress or even horrify, it does not debar stranded, stricken Catholics from the
ministrations of his priests. I do
of course refuse the use of my altar to any priest who puts John Paul’s name in
the canon, but this is surely not inconsistent. My altar and oratory are private
property, the priest is not in dire need and suffers no deprivation, there are
other altars available (there is a John Paul II church next door), and I must do
what I can to impress on a priest the error of his ways. Similarly a layman too has, opportunity
offering, an obligation to intimate his protest against the insertion of
John-Paul’s name, but having done so he is entitled to assist at a Mass which is
neither heretical nor to my mind schismatic….
“Supporters of the St Pius X Society
are in my view entitled to complete certainty that none of the priests serving
them was ‘ordained’ merely in the disputed new rite, whether vernacular or
Latin. When such certainty is not
assured, about any particular celebrant, the faithful should refuse to attend
his Mass…”[51]
In
favour of assistance.
i.)
The sacraments are necessary for salvation, and
frequent reception of them is not only encouraged, but enjoined by spiritual writers and other
Catholic authorities.
ii.)
Weekly (or more frequent) assistance at sacred
functions is a normal part of Catholic life, and ought to be the experience of
children as they grow.
iii.)
Only the gravest reasons ought to lead Catholics to
break communion with other Catholics.
If such reasons are absent, then communion ought to be maintained and
indeed fostered, for this is "the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace,"
which St. Paul instructs us to keep inviolate. After quoting St. Paul to the effect
that without charity we are nothing, St. Augustine writes, "if within the Church
different men still held different opinions on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then
till some one clear and simple decree should have been passed by an universal
Council, it would have been right for the
charity which seeks for unity to throw a veil over the error of human
infirmity, as it is written 'For charity shall cover the multitude of
sins.' For, seeing that its absence
causes the presence of all other things to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its presence there is
found pardon for the absence of some missing
things."
As far as I can see,
there are no arguments against these points. If there are good reasons not to assist
at such Masses, then these will be independent of the above-listed
principles. In other words, I think
it fair to say that all Catholics will agree with these arguments in favour of
frequent assistance at Holy Mass, and the maintenance of the bond of charity
with fellow Catholics.
Against
assistance.
i.)
It is of crucial importance that no appearance of
support is given to John Paul II's claim, and there may be a danger that by
assisting at Masses celebrated "una
cum John Paul II,” one is seen to treat the matter
lightly.
ii.)
John Paul II is a notorious enemy of the faith. By refusing to assist at una cum Masses one witnesses publicly,
albeit indirectly, to the faith.
iii.)
The SSPX position implies that the Novus Ordo sect is the true Catholic
Church. Catholics must witness
against such a hideous idea.
iv.)
The SSPX priests involve themselves in a manifestly
contradictory position which involves a dilemma, either horn of which amounts to
"material schism." Catholics must
not be seen to be associated with such a scandalous
position.
v.)
There may exist a danger of perversion from bad
sermons, faulty advice in the confessional, and various other means, which ought
to be avoided.
Against these arguments
are the following:
i.)
Any such danger appears very slight, especially in
circumstances where all relevant parties are fully aware of the fact that John
Paul II is categorically rejected, and where there is no alternative source of
the sacraments. It is a well-known
fact that many sedevacantists
assist at una cum Masses around
the world, and I have never heard anybody suggest that these people think it
unimportant whether or not John Paul II is recognised as pope. In other words, if the danger existed,
then it would have produced its proper effect somewhere, but it does not seem to
have done so.
ii.)
There is no obligation on simple laymen to witness in
an extraordinary way against John Paul II's claim to the papacy, and certainly
not at the cost of very grave inconvenience. His possession or non-possession of the
office of pope is not a matter of faith, and cannot oblige beyond simply
refusing to agree with his claim and acting accordingly. The importance of receiving the
sacraments regularly should also be prudently weighed against any such
consideration, as indeed it should be in relation to the whole
matter.
iii.)
The answer to this is the same as the answer to ii.)
above. Also, we should be
absolutely clear that the Church is that body of men who are Catholics. Either the priests of the SSPX are
Catholics or they are not. If they
are, we may not only assist at their Masses, but we ought to do so, all other things being
equal.
iv.)
As has been explained in the body of this article,
either schism exists or it does not.
Material schism is that schism which is, like material heresy, complete
but innocent. Hence neither horn of
the devil's dilemma upon which some would impale the SSPX can be truly described
as schism, either material or formal.
But in any case, what is really being proposed in this argument is that
the faithful are required, or at least advised, to deprive themselves of
necessary sacraments in order to witness against a position which is not
contrary to the faith.
v.)
This danger is far from absent with sedevacantist clergy in many cases,
also. Many serious examples could
be given here.
In addition to what has
already been said in favour of charity and liberty in this matter, there is the
example of the saints.
We possess
one very good parallel for our own situation in the history of the Church. The Bollandists give the story of St. Hypathius, who
did what every sedevacantist
priest does in our days – he cut off communion with a manifestly heretical
prelate (his patriarch, Nestorius) immediately his heresy was manifested,
without waiting for his condemnation by the Church. This, of course, is interesting in
itself. But another factor adds
even greater interest for those of us who are attempting to identify the correct
Catholic response to such a
crisis.
Bishop
Eulalius, St. Hypathius’s ordinary, also rejected Nestorius’s heresy, but he
took the view that until Holy Church condemned and deposed the Patriarch, they
must continue to recognise him by putting his name in the Diptychs. Hypathius’s response to Eulalius was
magnificent. "...I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass because a
heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you will
with me, I am ready to suffer anything, and nothing will make me change my
behaviour."[52]
One could
argue that Bishop Eulalius was weak and pusillanimous, and gave grave scandal by
provisionally remaining in communion with Nestorius. But there has never been any suggestion
that Eulalius himself incurred heresy or schism, even “materially,” or that the
faithful should have shunned their bishop's Masses, in which the Canon contained
the name of Nestorius, as
they shunned the Masses of Nestorius himself. That is surely why St. Hypathius
did not sever himself from Bishop Eulalius, even though he differed with
Eulalius over the canonical status of the heretic Nestorius, and over the
question of whether Nestorius should be named in the
Canon.
So much for the
attitude we ought to have towards priests who differ with us over the status of
John Paul II. Another historical
example shows us that saints were prepared to assist at Masses in which an
excommunicate, and in fact a schismatic, was named in the Canon. During the English Schism, Henry VIII
had blasphemously and heretically declared himself head of the Church in
England. Prior to the direct
judgement of the Church, the situation was somewhat parallel with that now
existing.
Sts. Thomas More and
John Fisher refused to sign the Oath of Supremacy, preferring death to this act
of apostasy, this denial of faith; for, in their clear-sighted view, the Oath
was nothing less. And yet, as Fr.
Thomas Stapleton records, almost all of the London clergy subscribed to the Oath
"without the slightest delay or difficulty."
Some might imagine that
these saints would have considered the clergy who swore to the Oath, heretics,
schismatics, or apostates. But they
took a very different view indeed.
Both refused repeatedly to accuse of sin those who decided to take the
Oath. St. Thomas More, indeed,
seemed hardly able to mention his refusal to submit to Henry as Head of the
Church without also stating his unwillingness to hold any other to the same
standard as himself. For example,
in a letter to his daughter, Margaret, in which he describes the first occasion
on which he was commanded to swear, four times within a few paragraphs he adds
the qualification, "not blaming any other man that had sworn," in those or in
similar words. (How strikingly
different was his attitude to
that of many present-day sedevacantists and others, towards those
who differ with them.)
St. Thomas More
continued to regard the clergy as fellow Catholics, and in fact on the very day
he was summoned to take the Oath, he received the sacraments from a priest who
had himself sworn to it. St. John
Fisher's attitude appears to have been identical. It is worth noting that in the Sarum rite, then in general use in
England, the King is named in the Canon, so that St. Thomas More not only
received the Holy Eucharist from a priest who had sworn the Oath, but assisted
at Mass in which Henry was actually named in the Te igitur.
Another example is
offered by the conduct of St. Vincent Ferrer, who adhered to Benedict XIII
during the Great Western Schism.
St. Vincent preached all over Europe, even on occasion within territories
which were in obedience to Benedict's rival, Gregory XII. And yet despite his constant
preaching of the duties of each state of life, to the common man, the clergy,
and to the nobility and princes, there is no suggestion that he declared against
assisting at Masses offered by those whose obedience differed from his own. His fellow Dominican, St. Antoninus, has
effectively laid down the principle that it was properly a case of respecting
the consciences of those in each "obedience."
Finally, there is the
sterling example of St. Cyprian and the other African bishops during the
"re-baptism" controversy. St.
Cyprian held that it was a matter of apostolic tradition that heretics and
schismatics are incapable of
validly baptising, so that any man returning to the unity of the Church who had
been baptised by such must be re-baptised.
This doctrine was confirmed at a council of eighty bishops, and yet there
were some in Africa who remained unconvinced. St. Cyprian wrote concerning them,
"It remains that we severally declare our
opinion on this subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of
communion if he differ from us. For
no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror,
forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in
the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own
judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge
another."[53]
Thus St.
Cyprian regarded as his fellow Catholics men who were admitting to the Sacred
Mysteries others who the Saint believed had not been validly baptised. A more grave issue is difficult to
conceive, involving as it does the matter of sacrilege against Our Lord's Body
and Blood, and yet even this was not a sufficient reason for St. Cyprian to
sacrifice the bond of communion, for he held that he had no right to judge their
consciences, and they appeared sincere in their belief. Of course, St. Cyprian was wrong about
the doctrine concerned, but this only illustrates more abundantly the wisdom of
his charitable attitude.
The
theologians teach that it is permissible to assist at an illicit and
sacrilegious Mass (i.e. one offered by a priest living in open concubinage!) and
Cardinal de Lugo goes so far as to affirm that we may assist at the Mass of an
un-condemned heretic. Those
who argue that the faithful may only ever assist at Masses which are considered
“pure” in some sense or other have failed to take into account the reasons
underlying this teaching of the theologians. In brief, the approach to this problem
by Catholic teachers is to begin with the strict right which Catholics have to
the sacraments; and the fact that the power to provide these sacraments belongs
absolutely to Holy Church, not to whomever might happen to possess it de facto. Weighed against such considerations, the
crimes and errors of a given cleric can be given their true moment. When there is an alternative source of
the sacraments, heretics and other non-Catholics must be entirely avoided. When there is no other source, such men
may be approached, on condition that scandal and danger of perversion are
prudently considered to be absent.
It remains to add a word regarding
our approach to others who differ with us on the many disputed points exercising
the patience of Catholics in our time.
St. Augustine is most fulsome in his praise for St. Cyprian, not in those
doctrinal points upon which Cyprian was right, but precisely in relation to
Cyprian’s attitude to others who differed with him on a matter not yet judged by
Holy Church, and on which doctrine St. Cyprian was wrong.
Of the great Martyr St. Augustine
says, “putting on the bowels of humility through the moving influence of
[Cyprian’s] discourse, if, in common with the Church at large, I entertain any
doctrine more true than his, I will not
prefer my heart to his, even in the point in which he, though holding
different views, was yet not severed from the Church throughout the world. For in that, when that question was yet
undecided for want of full discussion, though his sentiments differed from those
of many of his colleagues, yet he observed so great moderation, that he would
not mutilate the sacred fellowship of the Church of God by any stain of schism,
a greater strength of excellence appeared in him than would have been shown if,
without that virtue, he had held views on every point not only true, but
coinciding with their own.”[54]
"In things necessary,
unity, in things doubtful, liberty, in all things, charity." St
Augustine.
John
Lane
September 10,
2002
Feast of St. Nicholas of
Tolentino
Bp. Mark
Pivarunas and his brethren, of the C.M.R.I., have provided the following statement in relation to
so-called “una cum” Masses, to be appended to this article.
"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
[1] On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk.
5.
[2] Cf.
CIC
87
[3] S. Th. II-II, Q. 39, Art.
1
[4] Quoted
by Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia
Christi, 4th ed., pp. 289-290.
Emphasis added. All of the
translations of Billot in this article were done by John S.
Daly.
[5]
Szal,
Rev. Ignatius, Communication of Catholics
with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2
[6] S. Th. loc. cit.
[7] St.
Antoninus, pars
3, tit. 22, cap. 2
[8] Quoted
in The Catholic Encyclopedia,
vol. XIII, p. 539.
[9] cf.
CIC 1325
§2
[10] cf.
CIC
1323
[11] The
“notions” are the distinctive marks by which the individual divine persons are
recognised. They result from the
process which theologians call “appropriation,” by which particular acts or
properties of God are “appropriated” to one or other of the individual persons
of the Trinity. Thus we say that
“paternity” is proper to the Father, “filiation” to the Son, and “procession” to
the Holy Ghost.
[12] S. Th. I., Q. 32, Art.
4.
[13] The case
of John Paul II himself, for example, is entirely different. In his case the unorthodox animus is
notorious. He errs directly against
the faith, and not only fails to excuse his numerous scandals against both faith
and charity, but he ignores all criticism, or persecutes those who defend
themselves and others from his depredations.
[14]
Archbishop Lefebvre’s public position on John Paul II was that his papacy was
“doubtful.” The Archbishop’s view
was that Catholics have sufficient basis for their resistance to Vatican II in
the principle, “We must obey God rather than men.” Therefore, he thought, we can let the
question of John Paul II’s legitimacy rest until Holy Church judges the matter,
at some future date.
[15] Of
course, the SSPX clergy do accept some elements of the revolution, such as parts
of the liturgical revolt and the legitimacy of the new “Code” of 1983. The general principle governing their
actions is that they think that must accept what is not directly opposed to
faith or morals, whilst rejecting what is incompatible with true
religion.
[16] This
was, as has been said, Archbishop Lefebvre’s explicit basis for resisting the
Vatican II revolution whilst holding that the “popes” who imposed it were true
Vicars of Christ.
[17] Bull of
Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559, by which it was laid down that any man, even a
layman, may safely reject any papal claimant who was seen to be a heretic, even
if the entire Church adhered to the heretic as
pope.
[18] In any
case, the danger of perversion must be weighed against the gravity of the reason
which is invoked as the sufficient basis for tolerating it. In this matter it is often the case that
the faithful cannot receive sacraments with any regularity unless they assist at
so-called una cum
Masses.
[19] This is
a general law which may suffer exceptions.
[20] Divine
Law prohibits co-operation in false worship.
[21] The law
of the Church in the Middle Ages prohibited the faithful from assisting at such
Masses.
[22] Pope
Martin V, 1418, Fontes I,
45. Translated by John S.
Daly.
[23] Cardinal
John de Lugo S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de
Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio 1. Translated by John S. Daly. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Alphonsus
regarded Cardinal de Lugo as second only to St. Thomas as a theologian. Higher praise could not be imagined, and
this from the saint who himself has serious claim to that exalted position in
the hierarchy of theological doctors.
[24] The
divine law at issue is the command that we avoid heretics. The classic scriptural text cited by the
theologians as proof of it is Titus, 3:10, “A man that is a heretic, after the
first and second admonition, avoid.”
That this applies to uncondemned heretics, and not only to
those judged and excommunicated by Holy Church, is certain. The reason for the requirement that we
avoid heretics is scandal to the faith and danger of
perversion.
[25] Fr.
Donald Sanborn is a priest of the Lefebvre line, who holds the theory of the
late Bishop Guerard des Lauriers to the effect that John Paul II is pope
materially but not formally.
[26] Cardinal
Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 4th
ed., pp.289-290
[27] Billot,
Op. cit., Thesis
XI
[28] Benedict
XIV, Ex quo, March 1st
1756.
[29] CIC
2314
[30]
As
far as I can discover, there is no law in the Code which explicitly prohibits
the naming of excommunicates in
the Canon of Holy Mass. Canon 2262
states that excommunicates do not share in the public prayers of the
Church. On the face of it, this
would seem to imply that they are not to be named in the Canon, but this is not
the common teaching of the liturgists.
More on this below.
[31] The use of the word “illicit” in this context generates difficulties, in that no writer on the question of una cum Masses has provided an unambiguous statement of what the word means. Generally the implication is that an “illicit” Mass is one at which the faithful are forbidden to assist. Which is nothing more than a statement of what is to be proved. An alternative is that what is being claimed is that if a Mass is “illicit” then the faithful are forbidden to assist at it. Which claim, of course, is certainly wrong in its obvious sense, as will be proved below.
[32] Pope Benedict provides the reference,
Controversarium, vol. 3, bk. 6,
de Missae, chap.
6
[33] Benedict
XIV, Ex quo. Benedict provides no further
reference to Bellarmine. It appears
from the context that the quotes are taken just after the passage referenced
above (footnote 31) in Bellarmine’s Controversies.
[34] This excommunication makes the culprit a toleratus [“to be tolerated”]. Canon 2258 lays down that some excommunicated persons are vitandi [“to be shunned”], others tolerati. Nobody is a vitandus, unless (1) he is excommunicated by name by the Apostolic See, (2) the excommunication is publicly proclaimed, and (3) in the decree or sentence it is expressly stated that he must be avoided. The only case in which one becomes an excommunicatus vitandus by the very fact of committing a crime is stated in Canon 2343, § 1, n. 1. Canon 2343 inflicts the penalty of excommunication upon those who lay violent hands on the Roman Pontiff. Canon 2258 is essentially the embodiment in the Code of Pope Martin V’s Ad evitanda scandala, with an additional relaxation of the law in several respects.
[35]
CIC
2262.
[36] Maurice
de la Taille, S.J., The Mystery of Faith,
Bk. II, The Sacrifice of the Church, London, Sheed & Ward, 1950,
p. 317.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Rev. Dr.
Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass, B. Herder, St. Louis and London, 1951, p.
642.
[39] Benedict
XIV, op.
cit.
[40] CIC 2259. Paraphrased by the Rev. Stanislaus
Woywod,
O.F.M., A Practical Commentary on the Code
of Canon Law, Joseph F. Wagner, New York, 1945, vol. II, pp.
439,440.
[41] Quodlibet IV, Art XIV, translated by John
S. Daly.
[42] CIC 2195,
§1
[44] We have
already considered whether it is possible to remain a Catholic whilst
acknowledging John Paul II as pope.
A distinct question is whether acknowledging him is contrary to the law
of Holy Church.
[46] Benedict
XIV, Ex
quo.
[47] Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, op. cit. pp. 638, 639
[48] On this
point see Una Quicum? by F.X.
Lamoureux, Sacerdotium VI, Pars Hiemalis
(1993), pp. 29 ff.
[49] The
entire Mass and therefore every prayer in it is oblatory in a general sense,
because the Mass is “The Clean Oblation.”
But the precise point at issue is whether or not this prayer expresses a
common oblation “with the pope”
or whether it is a prayer offered for
him.
[50] Bulletin
Notre-Dame de la Sainte
Esperance, no. 98, July 1994
[51] This was
an extract from a private letter, which Fr Baker printed in his parish bulletin
for October 1983.
[52] Quoted
by J.S. Daly, Heresy in History,
published on the World Wide Web at www.stthomasaquinas.net
[53] Quoted
by St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the
Donatists.
[54] St.
Augustine, On Baptism, Against the
Donatists, Bk. 5. Emphasis
added.