Some quotes to get a better perspective on the “Una Cum” Issue
Audio
discussion about the "una cum" issue, where one may receive
sacraments, refuting radical schismatic views [44 min. audio]
These
points serve to refute the position of those who assert that it would be a
mortal sin or a compromise of the faith to attend any Mass where Benedict XVI
is prayed for as the pope. Some of these
individuals have erred so greatly on this issue, and become so adamant
concerning their false views about which Masses are off-limits (essentially
condemning everyone as a heretic or an apostate who goes to any priest with a
heretical theological position), that they have fallen into schism. As this audio discussion shows, they have
taken a position which would require them to condemn as a liberal heretic the
great and extremely rigorous Pope St. Pius V.
Hence, these points serve as a vindication of the balanced and Catholic
position we have enunciated on the question of where one may receive sacraments
today. We have enunciated our position
here: Where to go to Mass or confession today?. This audio, with the accompanying quotes,
serves a refutation of the radical false traditionalist schismatics.
Let’s
be clear, however: none of this discussion or these quotes is meant to suggest
that it’s acceptable for a priest or bishop to include Antipope Benedict XVI’s
name in the Te Igitur prayer of the
Mass (or the equivalent prayer in an Eastern Rite Liturgy). It is not acceptable for them to do so. Nor is this meant to suggest in any way that
all or most of the traditional Masses where the priest accepts Benedict XVI as
pope should be attended. In our view, only a very limited number of
them may be attended, because few priests would not be notorious heretics, as
our guidelines explain. Rather, this discussion, with the
accompanying quotes, is meant to show how a traditional Catholic can be
justified in receiving Communion from certain priests who celebrate a
traditional Mass and recognize Benedict XVI as the pope. It serves as a defense of the position we have
enunciated. One can be justified in
going to some of these priests, if one doesn’t agree with the priest or support
him and if the priest is not notorious or imposing. This is proven by these points. These points thus serve to completely refute
certain radical false traditionalist schismatics.
POPE ST. PIUS V ON
RE-ADMITTING ENGLISH SCHISMATICS
“When
Cardinal Inquisitor, Pius had granted certain English priests faculties for
re-admitting schismatics into the Catholic Church, the only condition then
having been to refrain from reception of the Protestant eucharist. In 1567, as Pope, he made the further, more
rigorous condition of non-attendance at Protestant services.” (Robin
Anderson, St. Pius V, Tan Books, p.
45.)
The
extremely rigorous and totally Catholic Pope St. Pius V was giving conditions
for re-admitting schismatics in England into the Catholic Church. These schismatics had been compromised with a
new false “Mass” (like the New Mass) and heresies which were comparable in many
ways to what we are dealing with in the Vatican II sect. The quote from The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (below) also proves that
many were receiving traditional sacraments from priests in England who had
compromised. These priests had compromised
more out of cowardice than agreement with the heretical Queen. Thus, they were willing to give sacraments to
traditionalists. So, faced with such an
ecclesiastical situation, which was similar to ours, what did this extremely
rigorous pope require for these converts?
Did he require them to not receive Communion from any such priest who
had compromised or was heretical in some way?
Did he give any such requirement?
No. He told them they must not go
to the Protestant service or receive the invalid Protestant host – period.
POPE ST. GELASIUS
URGING BISHOPS TO REMOVE NAME OF NON-CATHOLIC BISHOP FROM THEIR DIPTYCHS
“The
pope [Gelasius] made every effort to urge the Latin-speaking bishops of Illyria
to erase the hated name of Acacius from their diptychs.” (Leo Donald Davis,
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils,
p. 211.)
As
we can see, it was very important for bishops, etc. to remove the names of
heretics and schismatics from their diptychs (the ancient equivalent of the Te
Igitur prayer). But did Pope St.
Gelasius make any effort to excommunicate all Catholic Christians who continued
to attend Mass in Illyria if their bishops didn’t comply or were slow to comply? There is no evidence of this whatsoever.
“The emperor’s religious policy was,
however, less fortunate. In Egypt, successive patriarchs of
Alexandria to 518 consistently anathematized the Tome of Leo and the Definition
of Chalcedon. At Jerusalem the
patriarch continued to adhere to the Henotikon while the Palestinian monastery
near Gaza headed by Peter of Iberia remained a hotbed of radical
Monophysitism. In Syria, the Patriarch of Antioch, Palladius, was strengthened in his
anti-Chalcedonian position by one of the principal theologians of
Monophysitism, Philoxenus of Mabbough.”
(Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven
Ecumenical Councils, p. 209.)
We
quote this as an example of how common it was in the first millennium for
important Episcopal Chairs to be in the hands of heretics and/or schismatics. Many other quotes could be given. These Episcopal Chairs or Sees would then, at
some point, be restored by occupation by a Catholic bishop. This was a common occurrence. With all of this shifting in and out of
heretics and schismatics, there were probably countless times when priests and
bishops were slow or negligent or delinquent in removing the heretic or
schismatic’s name from the diptychs.
(The diptychs is the place where the name of the bishop and/or bishops
held to be in communion – the proper ecclesiastical authorities – would be
mentioned in the liturgy. It was the
ancient equivalent of the Te igitur prayer.)
Thus,
there were almost certainly countless times where Catholics (who did not agree
with any heresy or schism) were attending Masses where the priest mentioned the
name of one of these heretics. Yet the
popes never decreed – or at the very least did not consistently decree – that
all Catholics must be vigilant in this regard, and never attend any Mass (under
pain of mortal sin) where the priest was failing in his duty to remove the
heretic’s name; nor did the popes excommunicate the laypeople for failing in
any obligation in this regard. The
responsibility fell to the priests and the bishops offering the liturgy.
POPE ST. ANASTASIUS
ON THE ORDINATION OF SCHISMATICS
Pope St. Anastasius II, Exordium Pontificatus mei, 496, The Ordination of Schismatics: “According to the most sacred custom of the
Catholic Church, let the heart of your serenity acknowledge that no share in
the injury from the name of Acacius should attach to any of these whom Acacius
the schismatic bishop has baptized, or to any whom he has ordained priests
or levites according to the canons, lest perchance the grace of the sacrament
seem less powerful when conferred by an unjust [person]… For if the rays of
that visible sun are not stained by contact with any pollution when they pass
over the foulest places, much less is the virtue of him who made that visible
sun fettered by any unworthiness in the minister. Therefore, then, this person has only injured himself by wickedly administering the
good. For the inviolable
sacrament, which was given through him, held the perfection of its virtue for
others.” (Denz. 169)
This
serves to refute the position of certain radical schismatics. Some of these radical false traditionalist
schismatics assert that priests who have been ordained by bishops who were
heretics or schismatics or compromisers or irregular in some way are themselves necessarily and/or
irremediably off-limits and illegal for having come from such bishops. For instance, one schismatic asserted in a
formal “abjuration”: “I reject and
condemn as illegal and schismatic any bishop or priest that was consecrated or
ordained by [etc., therein followed a list of independent bishops]…”
How
different was the view of true Catholic popes from the view of the radical
false traditionalist schismatics? As we
see above, the true Catholic popes were reasonable; they recognized that you
are not injured by the schismatic simply because you have been ordained by him,
unless you have agreed with him or helped him or been obstinately affiliated
with him after becoming aware of what he was involved with against the
Church. The popes rejected the false
mentality of the radical schismatics, according to which schism/heresy spreads
by osmosis and infects you and condemns you even if you don’t agree with it or
haven’t helped it or supported it at all.
THE ANGLICAN SCHISM
PARALLELS THE VATICAN II SCHISM: FR. RISHTON CONFIRMS OUR POSITION
Speaking
of the decrees which were issued by the heretical Queen Elizabeth, which
attempted to force Catholics to conform to a New Mass and heretical teachings,
Fr. Rishton summarizes:
“She [Elizabeth] also compelled the people
to frequent the churches as before, and according to the act, inflicted a fine
of one shilling upon every one who should be absent [from the New Mass] on holy
days. And thus by force or fraud it came
to pass that the largest portion of the Catholics yielded by degrees to their
enemies, and did not refuse from time to time publicly to enter the
schismatical churches and to hear sermons therein, and to receive communion in
those conventicles. At the same time
they had Mass said secretly in their own houses by those very priests who in
church publicly celebrated the spurious liturgy, and sometimes by others who
had not defiled themselves with heresy; yea, and very often in those disastrous
times were on one and the same day partakers of the table of our Lord and of
the table of devils, that is, of the blessed Eucharist and the Calvinistic
supper. Yea, and what is still more
marvelous and more sad, sometimes the
priest saying Mass at home, for the sake of those Catholics whom he knew to be
desirous of them, carried about him Hosts consecrated according to the rite of
the Church, with which he communicated them at the very time in which he was
giving to other Catholics more careless about the faith the bread prepared for
them according to the heretical rite.” (Fr. Edward Rishton, The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism,
orig. published 1585, Tan Books, 1988, p. 267.)
There
are a number of important things to consider in this quote. First, a reader should be struck by how much
this quote resembles the post-Vatican II period with the New Mass and Indult
priests. It could be describing what has
gone on with Indult priests for the past few decades, but it comes from 16th
century Protestant England! The parallel
is amazing. Second, notice that Fr.
Rishton clearly denounces receiving the bread from the New English “Mass”
which had been brought into the churches in England (the Calvinist Supper); he
considers doing so to partake of the table of devils. What he’s describing would be the equivalent
of going to the New Mass today. He
obviously considers going there gravely wrong.
Now
notice that Fr. Rishton indicates that it’s “sad” that some of these
compromising priests were giving to people “more careless about the faith
the bread prepared for them according to the heretical rite” at the
same time these priests were giving Communion to “Catholics… according to the rite of the Church.” Notice
that he indicates that the people who received Communion according to the
traditional rite, but received that Communion from a priest who used both rites
(i.e. a compromising heretic), were more careful about the faith! Think about the significance of this point to
the question we’re discussing. Fr.
Rishton obviously doesn’t condemn these people as heretical for receiving
Communion from a heretic; for he recognized that they didn’t agree with the
heretic or receive the invalid bread which he gave to others.
Remember,
according to certain radical schismatics, the position which we’ve enunciated, that
one may receive sacraments from certain non-sedevacantist priests who hold
heretical views but aren’t notorious or imposing about them (and as long as one
doesn’t support the priest), is mortally sinful and heretical. Did this Catholic priest in the 16th
century (Fr. Rishton) think so?
Obviously not. He went even
further. While he certainly condemned
going to the New English Mass, he
obviously didn’t even consider as heretics people who were receiving sacraments
(in the traditional rite) from priests who also used the heretical rite of
“Mass” and were themselves heretics who compromised with the apostate Queen. Therefore, the radical schismatics, who
condemn our carefully thought out view as heretical, would have to condemn this
famous Catholic missionary priest and author as a “manifest” and “notorious”
heretic. Is that really plausible? Think about it. Is it really likely that this priest was a
heretic? No. Is it likely that his view was a horrible
compromise or a vast departure from what most priests of the time held? No.
This should show us how Catholics of the time viewed such matters. They were reasonable. They recognized distinctions. They recognized the spirit of the law with
regard to such questions. The spirit of
the law always comes into play with how to handle such matters; but not in the
case of dogmas, which must always be adhered to according to the letter.
These
Catholic priests recognized that, in necessities and crises, things may be
done, for the greater benefit of souls and spiritual advantage, that normally
wouldn’t be done, as long as the faith is not compromised. They recognized that to receive a sacrament
from a priest is not to endorse that priest’s personal heresies or his
compromises, unless that priest imposes them upon you or unless you support him
in those heresies or unless he makes his heretical views notorious. These Catholic priests recognized that the
sacraments are powerful; that God wants people to receive them, if they can
receive them in an acceptable way without any denial of the faith. They recognized that those Catholics who were
approaching the compromising priest in that awful period under Elizabeth, would
not have been going to such priests if they had another option. The radical schismatics, who viciously
condemn our view on this matter, better think again; for they are wrong and
headed toward the abyss. This is because
condemning as heretics people who aren’t is schismatic.