The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

Una cum (famulo tuo Papa nostro) Benedicto ?

August 10th, 2006

Sanborn's latest: "Woe to you una cums...mortal sins galore !"

A few weeks ago we obliquely referenced the never-ending series of "Catechisms on the Changes" issuing from the pen of Donald Sanborn. The latest diatribe: "woe to those who say Mass in union with Pope Benedict XVI and even greater woe to those who assist at such Masses !"

Two interjections:

1/ Since these questions and answers are nothing more than gratuitous assertions (and unsubstantiated ones at that) the Latin axiom is very apposite here: quod gratis affirmatur gratis negatur (what is freely asserted - i.e. without evidence or proof - is freely denied - meaning I am free to disregard what you cannot prove without evidence as is clearly the case with these "Catechisms").

2/ Why the need for a "Catechism" in the first place ? Two possible answers:

(1) To tell people what they do not know (yet every sede knows all about these re-hashed "arguments" so this cannot be the answer)

(2) The sedes are losing the "faith" - i.e. they're beginning to believe that Benedict XVI is the Pope. This is a more plausible argument especially when one considers the sheer "idiocy" of the sede logic - "no pope since 1958 !!!" Really ???? If the sedes need to be "catechized" because they are losing the sede "faith" then this is a very hopeful sign - may there be many more "catechisms" ! (We'll continue exploding them for you here !!!! - A number of people have told me how helpful they have found these "sede updates" in clarifying their own thought and helping them convert other sedes to the Catholic reality that we will always have a Pope.)

Fr Dominique Boulet dealt with the issue of sedevacantism in a newsletter for the Canadian district of the Society of St Pius X here some years ago. I consider the article a "must-read" for those (like St. Anselm) who have fides quaerens intellectum (Faith seeking understanding.) - definitely not for those whose minds are irremediably closed to any genuine theological speculation.

Unlike Sanborn, Fr. Boulet correctly understands the treatise written by St. Robert Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice. He cites the relevant quotation:

2.1. Five opinions according to St. Robert Bellarmine:

2.2. Value of St. Robert Bellarmine's opinions:

1st Opinion: "God would never allow a pope to fall into heresy" The defenders of such opinion argue that Our Lord would never allow a pope to fall into heresy. For Cardinal Billot, the hypothetical possibility of a pope falling into heresy would never come to reality, according to the promise of Our Lord: "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (Luke XXII, 31-32). For Billot, this promise should apply not only to St. Peter, but also to all his successors, as it was always understood by Tradition. Against that opinion, we have the case of Pope Honorius (625-638), who was condemned in 680, by the 3rd Council of Constantinople on account of his letters to Patriarch Sergius, which favored the Monothelite heresy5. Let me quote from that Council: "Having found that (Honorius' letters) are in complete disagreement with the apostolic dogmas and the definitions of the holy councils, and of all the approved Fathers; and that, on the contrary, they lead to the false doctrines of the heretics, we absolutely reject and condemn them as being poisonous to the souls… We also state that Honorius, formerly pope of the elder Rome, had been also rejected from the God's Holy Catholic Church and is being anathemized, on account of the writings he sent to Sergius, where he adopted his ideas in everything, and reaffirmed his impious principles." Let us note that such condemnation happened 42 years after the death of Honorius. Also, no matter what kind of judgment can be passed on Pope Honorius, it is a matter of fact that we have an official pontifical document which admits that a pope could possibly fall into heresy. Such document is from Pope Adrian II, more than 200 years after the death of Honorius: "After his death, Honorius was anathemized by the Eastern Church; but we should not forget that he was accused of heresy, the only crime that would make lawful the resistance of inferiors to the orders of their superiors, and the refusal of their malicious doctrines." As we see, St. Robert Bellarmine's 1st Opinion has reasons in favor and against it. Thus we can say that this 1st opinion is only probable.

2nd Opinion: "As he falls into heresy, even only internal, the Pope would ipso facto lose his pontificate". Such opinion is now abandoned by theologians. Because the Church is Visible, it is necessary that its government be visible, and not depends on internal acts.

3rd Opinion: "Even if he falls into notorious heresy, the pope will never lose his pontificate." Xavier de Silveira comments: "among the 136 authors we have consulted (for the book LNM), Bouix is the only one to defend such opinion"6 We could say like St. Robert Bellarmine that such opinion is very improbable, because it goes against the unanimous consent of the Tradition of the Church.

4th Opinion: "The heretical pope would lose effectively his pontificate only upon an official declaration of heresy." It is clear that such declaration cannot be judicial one, for the pope doesn't have any superior on earth, capable to judge him. It would be only a non-judicial act by which Jesus-Christ would Himself dismiss the pope. Even though such opinion is defended by serious theologians, like Cajetan and Suarez, it is not admitted by St. Robert Bellarmine. I can see two dangers that can rise from such opinion - to fall into the heresy of Conciliarism, which was condemned by the Church - or at least, to fall into subjectivism. What can tell us, for sure, that a declaration of heresy coming from a group of bishops is not an attempt to make an act of deposition?

5th Opinion: "If he was to fall into a manifest heresy, the pope would ipso facto lose his pontificate". Some authors say that the pope would lose his pontificate ipso facto at the very moment when his heresy becomes external; some others maintain that the heretical pope would lose his pontificate only when his heresy becomes notorious and publicly spread. Among the 5 opinions studied by St. Robert Bellarmine, this 5th opinion appears to be the most probable.

Notice the word Bellarmine uses consistently to describe the degree of theological assent required for each position upon which he elaborates: OPINION. Therein lies the classic sedevacantist error in their thesis which briefly stated is as follows:

A heretic cannot be head of the Church,
but Benedict XVI is a heretic, (long list of quotations taken out of context etc)
therefore he cannot be a true Pope.

The problem is manifold:

1/ It's their word against yours.

2/ It's their personal opinion.

3/ Sedevacantists usually acknowledge they cannot bind you in conscience to their OPINION but...

4/ They turn round and completely invent mortal sins of their own choosing: viz. It is a mortal sin to assist at a Mass in union with a false Pope.

5/ The position that Benedict XVI is not the Pope has not been declared by any canonical authority other than the world of subjective imagination in which these people live.

As a matter of fact, the refusal to mention the Sovereign Pontiff has ever been considered a schismatic act in itself, putting the celebrant of the Mass outside the Church (according to Pope Pelagius I as we shall shortly see). Hence the reverse mortal sin is true: It is a mortal sin to assist at a Mass that is not offered in union with a true Pope and if done on a regular basis arguably renders those assisting at such Masses schismatic. That Sanborn now holds the position he does is one thing, but has he always held that position ? Absolutely not. In fact, according to a story that was related to me by one of his former seminarians, he admitted that for the first year of his priesthood he celebrated Mass in union with Pope Paul VI before deciding that this man was not the Pope. If the story is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) some obvious questions spring to mind: are we to believe that each Mass he offered was a mortal sin then or are they now since they are not offered in union with he whom the vast majority of the Catholic world holds to be the true Successor of St. Peter ?

In any case an interesting extended quotation from Cardinal Schuster from his voluminous work: The Sacramentary. Some years ago (the self-described) "possibly the world's most traditional bishop", Daniel Dolan, came to Spring Hill to re-evangelize me in the Gospel according to sedevacantism. He left the following extract with me (in French) hoping I would get the message that offering Mass in union with Pope John Paul II was schismatic and heretical. In fact it back-fired, and the good Cardinal merely confirmed me in the practice, especially the line that is highlighted in red below:

We come now to the mention of the Pope: Una cum famulo tuo papa... That the Pope in his Western Patriarchate was usually mentioned by name in the Mass is beyond doubt, but the question turns upon the original place assigned to this commemoration in the Roman Canon. This extract from Pelagius I (555-60), addressed to the schismatic bishops of Tuscia2 should be noted: Quomodo vos ab universi orbis communione separatos esse non creditis, si mei inter sacra mysteria, secundum consuetudinem, nominis memoriam reticetis. The commemoration of the Pope in the Mass is also mentioned in the Acts of the Roman Council assembled under Pope Symmachus (498-514); and in the discourse held by Ennodius on this occasion he thus questions the Fathers of the Council: Deinde pro quaestionum tormentis venerabilem Laurentium (of Milan) et Petrum (of Ravenna) episcopos a communione Papae se suspendisse replicatis . . . ullone ergo tempore, dum celebrarentur ab his sacra Missarum a nominis ejus commemoratione cessatum est ? Unquam pro desideriis vestris sine ritu catholico et cano more, semiplenas nominatim antistites hostias obtulerunt.

St Leo I alludes in like manner to the custom of calling to mind in the Mass the most eminent bishops with whom he was in communion: De nominibus autem Dioscori, Juvenalis et Eustathii ad sacrum altare recitandis . . . iniquum nimis est atque incongruum eos . . . sanctorum nominibus sine discretione misceri. There is a parallel to this in the letter of the Egyptian bishop to Anatolius of Constantinople: Etiam in venerabili diptycho, in quo Piae memoriae transitum ad coelos abeuntium episcoporum vocabula continentur, quae tempore sanctorum Mysteriorum secundum sanctas regulas releguntur, suum posuit (Timothy of Alexandria) et Dioscori nomen.

Another quotation from St Gregory, bearing on the same custom, must not be omitted: Quod autem . . . fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum ]ohannem Ravennatis Ecclesiae inter missarum solemnia nominetis, requirenda vobis consuetudo antiqua est...Sollicite perquirere studui si idem Johannes . . . vos ad altare nominet, quod minime dicunt fieri. Et si ille vestri nominis memoriam non facit, quae necessitas cogat ignoro, ut vos illius faciatis.

The chief point arrived at from an examination of these authorities is the particular meaning given to the commemoration of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, corresponding importance in due proportion being attached outside Rome to the mentioning by name of the other bishops with whom each prelate maintained special relations. This commemoration of the Pope was quite distinct from the diptychs-recited by the deacon-of those who made the offerings, since it was pronounced by the celebrant himself before commending to God the offerings of the people. Pelagius I said that to omit it would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church, while according to Ennodius of Pavia it would render the sacrifice mutilated and incomplete. All this leads us to the conclusion that the actual position allotted to the mention of the Pope in the Canon is indeed the original and primitive one, since it exactly agrees with the evidence furnished by ancient writers. The words would run thus, Quam tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua, etc. . . . toto orbe terrarum una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N., but without the words et omnibus orthodoxis, etc., which represent a later addition found only in one set of manuscripts.

Liber Sacramentorum Vol 1, Ildefonso Card. Schuster, London, 1924, pp 272 & 73

So the failure (according to Pope Pelagius I) to mention the name of the Sovereign Pontiff in the canon of the Mass "would be equivalent to declaring oneself outside the Church" - serious business indeed (for priest and laity alike) !

+TF