Thursday
December 18, 2008
vol 19, nos. 353

Clarifying the
una cum
Controversy

We can be silent no more concerning a certain silent prayer!

    A subject, that until recently had not been addressed fully in traditional circles, has suddenly become a hot topic, infuriating some, reassuring others. The main point is that though "it" is said silently in the Canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to be silent when one knows what "it" really means is to consent to heresy and be culpable in uniting with an Antichrist as St. John identifies in his epistle. That is not Catholic and, contrary to what some may have conveniently believed to this point in time, we can no longer hide our head in the sand as if we didn't know what is at stake. Below are the rationales for both sides of the una cum controversy and the only syllogism faithful Catholics can arrive at considering the circumstances that one must always be honest with God and oneself. To be in union with a heretic is being dishonest!

      "According to Catholic theology and law, all Catholics are bound to take heretical acts as the act of a heretic until proven otherwise, especially if the one engaging in the heretical acts claims to hold an office of leadership in the Church. Why? Specifically because following a heretic leads to damnation, that is why! A pretty good reason in my opinion. We must flee them, not unite with them as we wonder why they don’t act like Catholics! So hurrah, here I am, God has finally given me the grace to see the light – the root cause of the Great Apostasy prophesized by Christ, His holy Mother Mary and Saint Paul to name a few."

    I believe a majority of the people that read this site are not Indultees or Motu’s or whatever they may now be calling the revised version of the Catholic Mass in the Novus Ordo structures where updated “traditional” Catholicism (read 1962 and later) is begrudgingly tolerated as a very small minority within the new world Church of Novus Ordoism which gratefully encompasses the whole spectrum of all religions within its monstrous bosom having Father Joseph Ratzinger as it’s head. The rest of the readers go to SSPX, Independent, SSPV or CMRI with some going to a mixture of the above.

    It is to all the above and anyone else who cares to look that I write this essay. You'll note this is my first article since last summer. I have taken a back seat to writing for a number of reasons, which include my reading the articles on the Christ or Chaos site and listening to the programs on that site for a small fee which is pure unadulterated Catholicism presented in a thoroughly orthodox and highly captivating way. Dr. Thomas Droleskey goes through the Ten Commandments in a college lecture series style which intellectually Catholicizes all listeners in a most beneficial way. Dr. Droleskey takes as long as he needs to progress through the Commandments without being boring or bounded by time specifications by higher authorities. He starts out with a healthy dose of philosophy as the foundation of all that he is to teach and presents it, as I have a suggested, in a most fascinating way; or in Dr. Droleskey’s words - “The lectures are a review of salvation history (from Genesis to the modern times), explaining that we must live in the shadow of the Holy Cross at all times, that not one aspect of our lives can be lived apart from or in contradiction to the Holy Faith.” In his special lectures on sedevacantism, he compares Catholicism "with its ape, conciliarism."

    It truly is a must for all serious Catholics and I am quite sure his talks would even be of interest to the living orthodox theologians of our day as this comes from a man that lives his faith 24/7 – a Catholic to the core that refuses to compromise even in the slightest degree regardless of the temporal cost to him and his family.

    So my own personal study is reason number one for my not writing as many articles as I have in the past. The other reason would be that I do not find anything that Fr. Joseph Ratzinger says or does to be shocking or even scandalous. I am not outraged or shocked at all by what he does or says. Why should I be?

    He is the chief architect of Vatican 2, the greatest and most prominent living heretic and apostate of our day. Why should I be shocked?

    He esteems the Jewish religion and Jews who are pro-abortion. He assures Barack Hussein Obama of his support. The only thing of interest here is in trying to decipher which one of the two (Obama or Father Joseph Ratzinger) best represents the biblical Antichrist since both are definitely Antichrists according to Saint John the Evangelist in 1 John 2: 18, 22.

    Ratzinger receives false idols with great pleasure and presides over hootenannies with men that are more than half naked prancing about his "altar" in front of a scandalously immodestly dressed crowd of drunken and sober individuals who are so lost when it comes to their salvation of their souls that the depth of their depravity is hard to imagine let alone describe. So Ratzinger does not preach about modesty, or chastity or anything having to do with the Catholic faith. Why should I be shocked?

    Why write about something that quite frankly, does not interest me in the least; or interests me about as much as the latest election did as we had a choice between Lucifer and the devil and I vote for neither. Since when is it a Catholic duty to tolerate and succumb to one “lesser of two evils” after another until all sorts of perversities and murderous evils are a part of our “civil” law regardless of whether the elected willful naturalist presider over these “legal” evils calls himself a Republican or Democrat? Dr. Droleskey provides all the proof of this in his bevy of articles from the past three months at Christorchaos.com.

    I wrote more when what the heads of the conciliar institution did and taught surprised me. I had just found gold . . . hello, these guys are not Catholics and therefore have no legal authority . . . and I wanted to share that very point.

    As some of you know, I also spent some of that time looking into the Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood issue and, Deo gratias, I have had that issue resolved to my complete satisfaction thanks to Griff Ruby's comprehensive and thorough on-going series The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty. Yet there were still two more issues that had not been answered, one way or the other, to my complete satisfaction. One was the “una cum” issue which Fr. Anthony Cekada had addressed in A Grain of Incense and his follow-up summary Should I Assist at a Mass that Names Benedict XVI in the Canon?). The other issue that has concerned me is whether the usurper “popes” and “bishops” actually legally hold office i.e. clog up the spot albeit undoubtedly without any authority legal or otherwise.

    The idea of very slowly and stubbornly coming to one correct conclusion after the other until the scales have all but completely been removed from my eyes, perplexed me. I say that because coming to the full truth is a series of removing the remaining scales and finding there are still a few scales left that prevent me from completely making it without my engaging in further well-intentioned “oopsy-daisies” sounds, just like something the devil would use quite nicely to trap those with even the slightest tinge of spiritual sloth.

    In yours truly you have a man who, by the grace of God, has been pulled from the depths of depravity to finally understand that the root cause of our dilemma is the fact that we have not had a pope for 50 years going to una cum Masses for years and not thinking twice about it. In the middle of my journey to truth I found a place where a very good valid priest who is not fooled one smidgen by Vatican 2 and its resulting "abomination of desolation", offered the true Mass as well. He did so in such an edifying manner from an exterior standpoint, saying it as reverently as it could possibly be offered. Now I happened to find this church before I had been 100% convinced about the fact of Sedevacantism though I became 100% convinced shortly thereafter.

    Though I thought I was on rather safe grounds after having read a logically precise and very well-written detailed article by John Lane that I found rather convincing on how it is not incumbent upon the lay-people to concern themselves with the opinion of the priest offering the Mass on this all important una cum issue.

    I would like to think I was 100% unbiased during this whole ordeal, and I truly believe it is possible that I was. But let’s face it, I had it good at this church as the priest there was very Catholic in his grasp of the evils of Vatican 2 and the errors of the conciliar “popes”; not to mention how refreshing his Masses and the modesty of dress of those in attendance was compared to what I encountered in the most “conservative” and “traditional” places I could find within the all-encompassing body of the Novus Ordo church. And we all know the infinite value of frequenting the Sacraments which is of course the main reason I've always gone to Mass and Confession.

    But the awareness of our popelessness did not prevent the slightest intellectual difficulty of attending una cum Masses initially. In fact when I overheard during daily Mass Father quietly mentioning the “pope’s” name back in October of 2004 I was relieved rather than consternated for at that time I believed sedvacantism was possible though I thought mentioning the name of the possible Pope would be the safest route when not entirely sure either way of his legitimacy. I mean look how far I had made it. I had finally realized that Vatican 2 was a heretical council, which I later came to find could not be formally approved of by a valid pope. I realized that the Novus Ordo, very few possible exceptions granted, is invalid.

    I realized that the new ordination of priests and consecration of bishops was highly doubtful, finally realizing, as I mentioned before, that a valid pope could not formally approve of and or maintain a heretical, unholy and evil council, an evil invalid Mass, highly doubtful Sacraments, heretical canon law, nor could he break the most important Commandment – the First, repeatedly. Of course, the conciliar "popes" have been notorious in breaking this vital Commandment numerous times right before the eyes of the whole world. Each time doing so made it a heretical act, not a slip or mistake but a revelation and clear confirmation of the mind of a manifest heretic.

    According to Catholic theology and law, all Catholics are bound to take heretical acts as the act of a heretic until proven otherwise, especially if the one engaging in the heretical acts claims to hold an office of leadership in the Church. Why? Specifically because following a heretic leads to damnation, that is why! A pretty good reason in my opinion. We must flee them, not unite with them as we wonder why they don’t act like Catholics! So hurrah, here I am, God has finally given me the grace to see the light – the root cause of the Great Apostasy prophesized by Christ, His holy Mother Mary and Saint Paul to name a few.

    Yet, I was still going to Mass in union with this man, this heretical apostate that was the youngest architect of Vatican 2, responsible for the potential damnation of countless souls because of his purported authority which he does not deny having even though he would redefine that authority if it became expedient.

    But I am getting ahead of myself. The arguments for being able to go to a valid true Mass offered by a Traditional Catholic priest are pretty strong and I would like to share them in this essay. Remember, I am posing the arguments for being allowed to attend an una cum Mass as they have been given. These arguments are not necessarily accurate nor are they necessarily properly applied to our situation if they are accurate. With that confusion in mind, I will proceed.

    Not all priests that believe Fr. Ratzinger is the "pope" are outside the Church. Naming him in the Canon in good faith is not such a big concern because it is done so silently. The only Masses which Catholics are forbidden to attend are Masses of non-Catholics, Masses in which the rite itself is unorthodox and the Masses of priests living in open concubinage. Remember we have stated that a priest who believes that Ratzinger is the "pope" is not necessarily a non-Catholic. It is also argued that if the offerer uses the Catholic ritual and is Catholic himself then the Mass is Catholic. Apart from this there is no such thing as a non-Catholic Mass, a non-Catholic offering it or the ritual itself not being Catholic excepted. It is not a schismatic act to accidently adhere to a non-pope as being pope or even to take the “safe” course of naming him in the canon when you are not sure whether or not he is a valid pope and naming him in the canon because there is no mind or will to be in schism. If this Catholic priest, acting in good faith, believes that Ratzinger is the "pope" then he commits no schism as he thinks he is doing precisely the opposite of what could be considered schism in that he is adhering to whom he believes to be Pope rather than purposely cutting himself off from him. Mistakenly mentioning Raztinger is not offensive to God because God is not offended by innocent mistakes as mistakes have no moral character whatsoever. There is no divine law governing whether or not a heretic can be mentioned in the canon or not. We are only praying for the “pope” in the canon, not with him. One can assist at the una cum Mass without formally cooperating in it, i.e. one can “limit oneself to a morally permissible material co-operate”. I will quote directly in whole on this last point, John Lane's post in dark red:

    "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)"[1][50][Bulletin Notre-Dame de la Sainte Esperance, no. 98, July 1994]

    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…”[2][51] [This was an extract from a private letter, which Fr Baker printed in his parish bulletin for October 1983.]

    Anyone reading this who is concerned about the fate of their soul and the souls of others are obligated to read this above article Sedevacantist.com in whole as apart from the direct quotes given I merely tried to sum up the scholarly, Thomastic, logical John Lane’s points and if I misrepresented his thoughts at all this unintended fault will be extenuated by my strongly encouraging the readers of this article to read his piece in full.

    Before I get to the contra arguments presented by Father Cekeda I will share an interesting side note which is that both articles quote Saint Augustine to re-enforce a point they make. John Lane uses the following quote:

    “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.[3][1] [On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 5.]
    And the quote that Father Cekeda uses:
    “Do not allow your tongue to give utterance to what your heart knows is not true.… To say Amen is to subscribe to the truth.” St. Augustine, on the Canon

    Now for a summary of the arguments against attendance at a Mass said in union with a heretic that Father Cekeda makes. The quotes I have taken are from his work titled A Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una cum Masses and are in dark blue.

    Here I will directly quote rather than summarize. I will add that Father Cekeda has a penchant for delivering deliciously informative articles that keep one captivated and amused throughout; and his comrade, His Excellency Bishop Daniel Dolan has that same penchant when it comes to delivering sermons as can be seen in this sermon not related to the topic of this article - 03-21-2008 When To Look And When To Look Away (25 Minutes). When listening to Bishop Dolan’s sermons I get the impression that he practiced the art of sermon delivery from the moment of conception as his delivery of sermons is done about as well as is humanly possible. He lets each point he makes sink in without hesitating for too long a time and he emphasizes certain words in just the right way. He has a gift which I have not seen equaled.

    Now for the quotes:

    However, when we apply the theological meanings given above (1–6) to the phrase: together with Thy servant Benedict our Pope, in the Canon, here is what results:

      • The heretic/false pope Ratzinger is “the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter.”

      • The acknowledgment of the heretic/false pope Ratzinger in the Canon is “the chief and most glorious form of communion” with him, “the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.”

      • The inclusion of the name of the heretic/false pope Ratzinger in the Canon specifies him as “the principle of unity.”

      • Mentioning the name of the heretic/false pope Ratzinger in the Canon is a sign that you “are not separated from communion with the universal church.”

      • The mention of the name of the heretic/false Pope Ratzinger in the Canon “is a proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer.”

      • The heretic/false pope Ratzinger is the “ruling Pontiff, the visible pastor and the authorized intermediary with almighty God for the various members of his flock.”

    A sedevacantist would consider each of these propositions a theological horror or absurdity. Yet these are what results when a priest professes in the Canon that he offers the traditional Mass una cumtogether with Thy servant Benedict, our Pope.

    He then goes on to summarize how we actively participate at the Mass (the preparers of the V2 documents must have overlooked these facts being that they seemed to think that the laity did not actively participate at all in the Mass for 1964 years which led to the “necessity” of updating the rite with an invalid version which Paul VI could then “authoritatively” foist on the whole world as being the “ordinary” means of celebrating the “Mass” while all but abolishing the Mass that Christ gave us; later John Paul 2 would “update” the Rosary (or our Lady’s Psalter, perhaps some future “pope” will add 50 Psalms to the Bible) and improve on the work of the Holy Ghost and our Lady – JP2 could not top Montini’s great blasphemy but he managed to do the next “best” thing) Back to how we do in fact “actively participate” in the Mass that Christ gave us rather than the man, “Paul 6”, who accomplished the worst evil in the history of the world after Judas himself by single-handedly destroying the Catholic Faith to the degree that doing such is possible:

    (1) By receiving Holy Communion during the Mass.

    (2) Serving Mass for the priest at the altar.

    (3) Singing in the choir.

    (4) Singing responses as a member of the congregation at High Mass, or singing hymns during Low Mass, where either practice is the custom.

    (5) Using a Missal to follow and pray privately the prayers of the Mass as the priest recites them at the altar.

    (6) Using a book of meditations or prayers that follows the actions of the Mass.

    (7) Reciting the Rosary, while looking at the sacred actions taking place at the altar.

    (8) Attentively following the actions of the priest at the altar while making the customary external signs of devotion appropriate to each part of the Mass (standing, sitting, kneeling, striking your breast, making Signs of the Cross, looking up at the Sacred Host, folding your hands, etc.)

    (9) Physical presence, accompanied by the intention to assist at Mass and fulfill the Sunday obligation, together with a certain degree of attention during the rite.

    Father goes on to show how active participation equals our approval summarizing thusly:

    So even according to general principles of moral theology and canon law, a sedevacantist who actively assists at a Mass in which the priest employs the phrase together with Thy servant Benedict our Pope in the Canon is presumed to cooperate with and approve of what takes place.

    Next Fr. Cekada goes on to quote numerous theologians on how the laity participating in the Mass join with the action of the celebrant and summarizes their teaching as follows:

    The sedevacantist therefore does indeed manifest consent and moral cooperation with the action of the priest as he offers the sacrifice together with Thy servant Benedict our Pope.

    Further, Father then shows how those in attendance “participate in and ratify” the canon quoting St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Remigius of Auxerre and Pope Pius XII and summarizes the logical conclusion of those results as follows:

    The language of the first prayer of the Canon that the priest at an una cum Mass uses to make the common offering — “which we offer up to Thee… together with Thy servant Benedict, our Pope” — is not such, then, that a sedevacantist can “withhold consent” from it. Together with the priest at the altar, he joins in offering the grain of incense to Ratzinger.

    He goes on to explain the reasons why we cannot participate in union with the non-Catholic, heretic, apostate Father Joseph Ratzinger:

    IN THE TWO previous sections we established that: (1) The various linguistic and theological meanings for the phrase together with Thy servant Benedict, our Pope all place Ratzinger within the Church and explicitly acknowledge him as a true pope, and (2) a layman who assists or actively participates at a Mass in which a priest employs that phrase in the Canon likewise participates in and ratifies the priest’s affirmation that Ratzinger is a true pope.

    He then backs up the above statement with more explanations and a quote from Saint John - ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: Ave. For he that saith unto him: Ave, communicateth with his wicked works.’

    For the sake of brevity I will give the rest of Father’s summary points without comment:

    To participate in this is to ignore St. Augustine’s solemn warning to Catholics about the Canon: “Take pains to answer truthfully, because you are answering in the presence of the action of God. Let it be so, as you say it is.”

    A sedevacantist who actively participates at a Mass in which the heretic Ratzinger is named in the Canon, therefore, acts against the ancient tradition of the Church and puts himself in communion with someone he knows is a heretic.

    Since the naming of Ratzinger is indeed a profession of communion with him, 41 41. See above, section III.B. it is likewise a profession of communion with the ecumenical, One-World church of which he professes to be the head — an institution which a sedevacantist, obviously, repudiates.

    Implicit profession of a false religion:

    Thus, even though he does not intend to deny the faith directly, by his actions the sedevacantist denies it “indirectly and implicitly.”45 45. See Merkelbach 1:712. “indirecte et implicite.”

    Please note that de la Taille explicitly says that naming a heretic in the first prayer of the Canon — the prayer we are discussing — is a violation of Church law. At an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist countenances this violation of Church law.

    By actively assisting at an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist participates in this sin — one made all the worse because it is committed seconds before the Spotless Victim is brought down upon the altar.

    If therefore you actively participate in a Mass at which Ratzinger is named in the Canon, you are united to him as you participate in Sacrifice. It is as if the sly old heretic himself unexpectedly emerged from the sacristy in your local traditionalist chapel to offer Mass for you and to give you Holy Communion.

    By the fact that he assists at an una cum Mass, the sedevacantist recognizes as pope someone he would otherwise say is a usurper.

    In the case at hand, when a sedevacantist who is known as such assists actively at an una cum Mass, those present will assume either that he consents to naming Benedict XVI as a true pope, or that he regards the practice of doing so as morally indifferent. They can then draw the general conclusion that the identity of the Roman Pontiff (Is Ratzinger a true pope or not?) or (in the case of SSPX) actual subjection to him is a matter of no practical consequence to a Catholic. (“Not even a sedevacantist acts as if it meant anything!”) Such, obviously, is an occasion of “spiritual ruin.”

    But in light of all the foregoing, can a priest of the resistance persuasion (SSPX, its affiliates, and various independents) likewise claim to exercise his sacerdotal ministry “in the person of the Church” if he is not in fact subject to the man he regards as the Roman Pontiff?

    Well, no — because once you plug the recognition of someone as pope into the standard principles of moral theology, dogmatic theology and canon law, the una cum Masses of resistance priests all come out as gravely illicit, if not schismatic.

    The appeal to general canonical principles for the legitimate deputation to confer sacraments, then, is closed to the “resistance” priest. Without such deputation, his Mass is gravely illicit — he does not offer it in persona Ecclesiae — and for that reason, a sedevacantist should not actively participate in it.

    The consequences for the sedevacantist who actively participates in una cum Masses offered by priests of the “resistance” persuasion should therefore be clear enough: he not only recognizes a false pope, but he also implicitly consents to the notion that it is permissible to refuse submission to a true pope — the essence of the sin of schism. And for these reasons, a sedevacantist should not assist at it.

    From the perspective of linguistic meaning, putting Ratzinger’s name into the una cum in the Canon affirms not only that he is a true pope, but also that he is a member of the true Church.

    The sedevacantist firmly rejects both propositions, especially because the canonists and theologians cited to support sedevacantism state that the loss of the pontificate in a heretical pope is produced by his loss of membership in the Church.

    The standard theological meanings attached to the una cum produce still more problems for the sedevacantist. These affirm that the heretic/false pope Ratzinger is head of the Church, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, the principle of unity, and our authorized intermediary with Almighty God. The mention of the heretic’s name is “proof of the orthodoxy” of those who offer the Mass, and a sign they “are not separated from communion with the universal Church.”

    Each and every one of those propositions a sedevacantist would consider a theological horror, if not near-blasphemous.

    A sedevacantist who assists at an una cum Mass cannot credibly maintain that he “withholds consent” from the odious phrase. We enumerated at least nine ways in which a Catholic actively participates at a traditional Mass when it is celebrated. Each of these constitutes a true form of active participation, which in turn (according to the theologians we cited) constitutes “cooperation or common action with another in the prayers and functions of worship.”

    Various popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, moreover, taught that the laity who assist actively at Mass, in so doing, manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the sacrifice.

    Finally, in this section we demonstrated that Fathers of the Church, and indeed Pope Pius XII himself in the Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites, even though they do not vocally recite these prayers themselves.

    From this it is clear beyond any doubt that the sedevacantist who actively assists at an una cum Mass consents to and morally cooperates with the action of the priest who proclaims that he offers the sacrifice together with Thy servant Benedict, our Pope — the archheretic and false pope Ratzinger.

    (III) Why You Should Not Participate:

    Having established what the una cum means and how those present participate in its use, we then explained why a sedevacantist who actively participates at an una cum Mass:

    (1) Tells a pernicious lie.

    (2) Professes communion with heretics.

    (3) Recognizes as legitimate the Ecumenical, One-World Church.

    (4) Implicitly professes a false religion.

    (5) Condones a violation of Church law.

    (6) Participates in a sin.

    (7) Offers Mass in union with the heretic/false pope Ratzinger.

    (8) Recognizes the usurper of an ecclesiastical office.

    (9) Offers an occasion for the sin of scandal

    (10) In the case of Masses offered by “resistance” clergy (SSPX, its affiliates and many independent clergy) participates in gravely illicit Masses and condones the sin of schism.

    Now I will state that pitting Father Cekeda’s scholarly article against John Lane’s work did not convince me 100% that Father Cekeda was correct in his final conclusion beyond any doubt, though it sure got me to start considering the possibility, partly because his writing was not a direct refutation of John Lane’s well-thought-out article I suppose. What clinched the “una cum” controversy for me was Bishop Dolan’s sermon given on the Last Sunday of Pentecost this year on November 23. Why Do We Say No To The “Una Cum” Masses. It is only eighteen minutes long and I highly, highly recommend all give a listen to his sound logic.

    At the beginning of this article I gave reasons why I have not been writing lately and if you were paying attention you would have realized that one of the reasons I gave for not writing much lately, because the doings and sayings of Father Joseph Ratzinger do not interest me, was not a good one as not using the gift that God gave me to effectively share facts not commonly known in the conciliar and indult/motu structures nor acknowledged by those in the SSPX and many independent chapels with souls zealous about the faith and who want to do the right thing no matter what that right thing may be would be like burying my treasure instead of returning it with interest.

    With one week to go before Christmas on this day of the Expectation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we should have great expectations that Christ will rescue His Church for He has promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For fifty years Ratzinger's has had his hands on the door of hell's gate but God will not allow him to open it fully no matter how hard the German priest and peritus of Vatican II has tried.

    I pray this day that you will take seriously what Bishop Dolan has said and what Fr. Cekada has written and ask for the grace to clearly see now that we should not celebrate Christ’s Mass in union with a heretic as, at the very least, doing such is inconsistent. To worship at what could objectively be considered a schismatic Mass is like taking the Christ-Child and ripping His body in half and those who know or believe this to be true will be culpable for their actions. I for one will avoid even the mere possibility of being a part of this.

John Gregory


        "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are THE TRUE CHURCH"
        Saint Athanasius, "Apostle of Tradition" AD 373



    Thursday
    December 18, 2008
    vol 19, nos. 353
    Faithful to Tradition