Una nueva divinidad: la necesidad

Salomón sacrificando a los ídolos por Jacques Stella (1647).

Habría que estar sordo y ciego para ignorar la existencia de una campaña activa —hecha de escritos y de videos ampliamente difundidos— destinada a justificar las consagraciones episcopales que la Fraternidad San Pío X se apresta a perpetrar, o mejor dicho, a perpetuar. 

La palabra, que regresa en cada frase o en cada fase de la exposición, suena como una palabra mágica ante la cual toda inteligencia debe inclinarse y dejar de funcionar: la necesidad. Como esta palabra es objeto de fervientes incantaciones (favorecidas por lo difuso de sus contornos), y como la ley divina mejor establecida debe ceder ante su presencia, se puede con pleno derecho calificar aquello que esta palabra designa como una divinidad, uno de esos ídolos a los que el propio Salomón, a pesar de su profunda sabiduría inicial, terminó por rendir un culto mortífero.

Un listillo ha querido mimar a esta divinidad, calificándola de "estado de necesidad no desmentido". Tal vez ha querido dar consistencia a lo que ella carece cruelmente; tal vez ha querido extraviar al observador casual para cegarlo mejor. Sea como fuere, ante la ausencia de mención de alguna fuente de la cual pudiera provenir una impugnación, este calificativo no es más que un paño caliente.

Antes de abordar la naturaleza y las consecuencias de la necesidad, es saludable remitirse a la Sagrada Escritura, al único pasaje (que yo sepa) donde se relata cómo la necesidad, sirviendo de pretexto para la usurpación de un oficio divino, es una calamidad. Se trata del pecado de Saúl y de su subsecuente caída.

I Reg. xiii, 5-14 Los filisteos se juntaron también para pelear contra Israel; tenían treinta mil carros, seis mil caballos y una cantidad de soldados de a pie tan numerosa como la arena que está a la orilla del mar. Y vinieron a acampar en Micmas, al oriente de Bet-avén. Los israelitas, viendo que estaban en un aprieto (porque el pueblo estaba todo abatido), fueron a esconderse en las cavernas, en los lugares más secretos, en las rocas, en las grutas y en las cisternas. Los otros hebreos pasaron el Jordán y vinieron a la tierra de Gad y de Galaad. Saúl estaba todavía en Gilgal; pero todo el pueblo que lo seguía estaba lleno de terror. Esperó siete días, según el tiempo que Samuel había señalado. Sin embargo, Samuel no venía a Gilgal; y poco a poco todo el pueblo abandonaba al rey.

Saúl dijo entonces: "Traedme el holocausto y los sacrificios pacíficos". Y ofreció el holocausto. Cuando terminaba de ofrecer el holocausto, llegó Samuel. Y Saúl salió a su encuentro para saludarle. Samuel de dijo: "¿Qué has hecho?" Saúl le respondió: "Viendo que el pueblo me dejaba uno tras otro, que tú no habías venido en el día que habías dicho, y que los filisteos se habían juntado en Micmas, me dije a mí mismo: Los filisteos van a venir a atacarme a Gilgal, y yo no he aplacado aún al Señor. Viéndome, pues, obligado por esta necesidad, ofrecí el holocausto".

Samuel dijo a Saúl: "Stulte egisti," has actuado locamente, y no has observado las órdenes que el Señor tu Dios te había dado. Si no hubieras cometido esta falta, el Señor habría afianzado ahora para siempre tu reino sobre Israel; pero tu reino no subsistirá en el futuro. El Señor se ha buscado un hombre según su corazón, y le ha mandado ser el jefe de su pueblo, porque tú no has observado lo que Él te ordenó.

La caída de Saúl fue espantosa. Él, que había comenzado como un joven dotado de todas las cualidades y elegido por Dios para reinar con esplendor sobre Israel, terminó su vida con un verdadero suicidio en forma de eutanasia reclamada y exigida.

Se dice necesario aquello que no puede no ser. Necesario se opone entonces a contingente, que designa aquello que puede (o habría podido) no ser.

Solo Dios es absolutamente necesario, necesario en Sí mismo: Dios no puede no existir (lo que la razón puede demostrar); no puede no ser trino, un solo Dios en tres personas (lo que la razón no puede conocer ni demostrar, y que no nos es conocido sino por la Revelación divina y la fe). Esta necesidad absoluta de Dios es una necessitas in substantia.

Las otras necesidades son necesidades relativas:

• O bien para ser tal cosa: necessitas ad substantiam. Así, para ser un triángulo, es necesario que una figura geométrica tenga tres lados y no más.

• O bien para alcanzar tal fin: necessitas ad finem. Así, para ir al Cielo, es necesario estar en estado de gracia en el instante de la muerte.

Cuando se habla de una acción humana, se distingue en la práctica la necesidad de coacción —necessitas coactionis— y la necesidad de fin —necessitas finis (v. g. Ia-IIae, q. i, a. 6, ad 3).

La necesidad no podría por sí misma justificar la transgresión de una ley divina: no solo la de una ley inscrita en la naturaleza de las cosas (natural o sobrenatural), sino también la de una ley simplemente positiva, dependiente de la sola voluntad de Dios, y por tanto contingente. De ello da testimonio la asombrosa historia de Uza (II Reg. vi, 5-8):

Mientras tanto, David y todo Israel bailaban ante el Señor con toda clase de instrumentos de música: arpas, liras, panderos, sistros y címbalos. Pero cuando llegaron a la era de Nacón, Uza extendió la mano hacia el arca de Dios y la sostuvo, porque los bueyes tropezaban y la habían hecho inclinar. Entonces la ira del Señor se encendió contra Uza, y lo hirió de muerte allí mismo a causa de su osadía; y Uza cayó muerto en el sitio, delante del arca de Dios. David se entristeció de que el Señor hubiera herido a Uza; y aquel lugar fue llamado: la Herida de Uza, nombre que conserva todavía hoy.

Una analogía es invocada aquí o allá a título de argumento, la cual es, sin embargo, inepta para conducir a una conclusión: Cuando los bomberos intervienen para apagar un incendio o salvar heridos, pueden eximirse de las normas de prioridad y de los límites de velocidad: la necesidad los dispensa de ello. "Ipsa necessitas dispensationem habet annexam", añaden algunos pasándose por listos citando a Santo Tomás de Aquino (Ia-IIae, q. xcvi, a. 6), no obstante omitiendo cuidadosamente precisar que el artículo citado trata de la ley humana, y que no se puede, por tanto, aplicarse a la ley divina. Y aun así, no toda ley humana admite la dispensa: los bomberos no pueden meterse en la autopista en sentido contrario.

Pero, más aún que de necesidad, se nos habla de "estado de necesidad", sin definirlo con precisión alguna. Esta noción es mucho más maleable que la de necesidad a secas, y poco apta para ocupar un lugar en un razonamiento riguroso: de ahí su éxito.

Ciertamente, no se puede negar que hay una necesidad flagrante en los miembros de la Santa Iglesia en materia de conocimiento de la santa doctrina y en materia de acceso a los sacramentos. No se puede negar que hay urgencia porque la vida es corta y las almas, al tiempo que avanzan hacia la eternidad, deben cada día perseverar y crecer en la gracia de Dios. Este estado de necesidad que se invoca está, por tanto, hecho de necesidad y de urgencia.

Pero por apremiante que sea, no puede hacer que se ignoren o se desprecien necesidades más verdaderas y urgencias más fundamentales. Lo más necesario para cada hombre que vive en este mundo es pertenecer a la Santa Iglesia Católica, porque no hay salvación fuera de ella. El pertenecer a ella, y la fidelidad que ello debe suscitar, exige no restar nada a la integridad de la fe y no atentar en nada contra la unidad de esta Iglesia.

La Iglesia Católica, Cuerpo Místico de Jesucristo, recibió y recibe en cada instante de su fundador una constitución inmutable, colocada por encima de las leyes, algunas de las cuales (únicamente las leyes positivas) están sin embargo influenciadas en su aplicación por la contingencia en la que transcurre su vida. 

Jesucristo reclama para Sí mismo esta Constitución: "Tú eres Pedro y sobre esta piedra edificaré Mi Iglesia"; la reclama como inmutable e indefectible: "Y las puertas del Infierno no prevalecerán contra ella"; la reclama como siendo Su obra de cada instante: "He aquí que Yo estoy con vosotros todos los días"; la reclama como fundada sobre Pedro, único soporte del orden jerárquico que es el cumplimiento de su unidad a través de todos los tiempos y en el instante presente.

La intangibilidad de la Constitución de la Santa Iglesia es una enseñanza recurrente —puesto que es capital— del magisterio pontificio. Respetarla es necesario, imperativo y saludable. Cada uno debe regular su vida según esta Constitución de la Iglesia que no está en el poder de ningún hombre cambiar (León XIII, Sapientiae christianae, 10 de enero de 1890).

"Lo que exponen las encíclicas de los Pontífices Romanos sobre el carácter y la Constitución de la Iglesia es, de manera habitual y deliberada, descuidado por algunos con el fin muy preciso de hacer prevalecer una noción vaga que nos dicen extraída de los antiguos Padres y sobre todo de los griegos. A decir de ellos, los Pontífices, en efecto, jamás tendrían la intención de pronunciarse sobre las cuestiones debatidas entre teólogos; por lo tanto, se impone a todos el deber de regresar a las fuentes primitivas y también de explicar las constituciones y decretos más recientes del magisterio según los textos de los antiguos" (Pío XII, Humani generis, 12 de agosto de 1950).

"También descartarán esta manera peligrosa de expresarse que daría lugar a opiniones erróneas y a esperanzas falaces que nunca podrán realizarse, diciendo por ejemplo que la enseñanza de los soberanos Pontífices, en las encíclicas sobre el retorno de los disidentes a la Iglesia, sobre la Constitución de la Iglesia, sobre el Cuerpo Místico de Cristo, no debe ser tan tomada en consideración puesto que no todo es de fe —o lo que es peor aún— que en las materias dogmáticas, incluso la Iglesia Católica no posee la plenitud de Cristo, sino que puede ser perfeccionada por las otras iglesias. (...)

La doctrina católica debe, por consiguiente, ser propuesta y expuesta total e íntegramente; no hay que pasar bajo silencio o velar con términos ambiguos lo que la verdad católica enseña sobre la verdadera naturaleza y las etapas de la justificación, sobre la Constitución de la Iglesia, sobre la primacía de jurisdicción del Pontífice Romano, sobre la única verdadera unión por el retorno de los cristianos a la única verdadera Iglesia de Cristo. Se les podrá sin duda decir que al regresar a la Iglesia no perderán nada del bien que, por la gracia de Dios, se ha realizado en ellos hasta el presente, pero que por su retorno este bien será solamente completado y llevado a su perfección. Se evitará, sin embargo, hablar sobre este punto de una manera tal que, al regresar a la Iglesia, imaginen aportar a esta un elemento esencial que le habría faltado hasta aquí. Hay que decirles estas cosas claramente y sin ambigüedad, primero porque buscan la verdad, y luego porque fuera de la verdad nunca podrá haber una unión verdadera" (Instrucción del Santo Oficio [Pío XII], 20 de diciembre de 1949).

Ninguna circunstancia, ningún estado de necesidad puede prevalecer contra esta Constitución propiamente divina. Y como, según enseña el Papa León XIII, "el orden episcopal forma parte necesariamente de la constitución íntima de la Iglesia" (Satis cognitum, 29 de junio de 1896, § 25), toda usurpación de una consagración episcopal es "un atentado contra la unidad de la Iglesia" (cf. Pío XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, 29 de junio de 1958, § 25). Dicho de otro modo, en el principio mismo y cualesquiera que sean las circunstancias, la ausencia de mandato produce en la Iglesia los mismos efectos que el cisma.

A menos que se profese implícitamente que la necesidad es una especie de divinidad, y que el estado de necesidad que de ella emana suplanta la Constitución de la Iglesia Católica y amordaza a Jesucristo, el Verbo Eterno de Dios, nada justifica la usurpación del episcopado.

Y por lo demás, al alegar un estado de necesidad para recurrir a obispos cuyo episcopado es cismático, ¿qué se procura en definitiva?

¿La perennidad de la Iglesia? Semejante obra está totalmente fuera del alcance de los hombres; es una obra propiamente divina prometida por Jesús Cristo y divinamente garantizada. En la vida cristiana, esta es la cosa por la que menos debemos preocuparnos.

¿El bien de las almas? Hay ahí una buena dosis de ilusión. "Es evidente", dice Pío XII, "que no se provee en absoluto a las necesidades espirituales de los fieles violando las leyes de la Iglesia" (Ad Apostolorum Principis, 29 de junio de 1958, § 31).

¿Una ilusión cuyos efectos desastrosos terminarán por dominar? Esto es de temer encarecidamente, aunque sea porque se vería uno en la necesidad de consentir una ocultación o una distorsión de todo un sector de la doctrina de la fe.

Junio de 2026. Suplemento al n.° 434 del boletín Notre-Dame de la Sainte-Espérance.

3, allée de la Solitude, 33490 Saint-Maixant.

Redacción: P. Hervé Belmont

(Este trabajo ha sido traducido del francés original y publicado con el generoso permiso de su autor, el Padre Hervé Belmont. - Nota de Non Excidet)

A new divinity: Necessity

Salomon making sacrifice to idols by Jacques Stella (1647).

One would have to be deaf and blind to ignore the existence of an active campaign—composed of widely distributed writings and videos—intended to justify the episcopal consecrations that the Society of Saint Pius X is preparing to perpetrate, or rather, to perpetuate. 

The word, which recurs in every sentence or at every phase of the presentation, sounds like a magic word before which all intelligence must bow and cease to function: necessity. As this word is the object of fervent incantations (favored by the blurriness of its outlines), and as the most established divine law must yield in its presence, one can rightfully qualify what the word designates as a divinity, one of those idols to which Solomon himself, despite his profound initial wisdom, ended up paying a deadly cult.

A clever individual wanted to pamper this divinity, qualifying it as an "uncontradicted state of necessity." Perhaps he wanted to give substance to something that cruelly lacked it; perhaps he wants to mislead the bystander to better blind them. Still, in the absence of any mention of a source where a contradiction could come from, this qualifier is nothing but a fig leaf.

Before looking into the nature and consequences of necessity, it is salutary to refer to Holy Scripture, in the only passage (to my knowledge) where it recounts how necessity, serving as a pretext for the usurpation of a divine office, is a calamity. It concerns the sin of Saul and his consequent downfall.

I Reg. xiii, 5-14 The Philistins assembled also to fight against Israel; they had thirty thousand chariots, six thousand horses, and a multitude of foot soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. And they came up and encamped at Michmash, east of Bethaven. The Israelites, seeing that they were in a strait (for the people were distressed), went to hide in caves, in secret places, in rocks, in tombs, and in cisterns. The other Hebrews crossed the Jordan, and came to the land of Gad and Gilead. Saul was still at Gilgal; but all the people who followed him were in terror. He waited seven days, according to the time set by Samuel. However, Samuel did not come to Gilgal; and little by little, the people were slipping away from the king.

Saul therefore said: "Bring me the burnt offering and the peace offerings." And he offered the burnt offering. As he was finishing offering the burnt offering, Samuel arrived. And Saul went out to meet him to greet him. Samuel said to him: "What have you done?" Saul replied: "Seeing that the people were leaving me one after another, that you had not come on the day you said, and that the Philistines were assembled at Michmash, I said to myself: The Philistines are going to come down and attack me at Gilgal, and I have not yet appeased the Lord. Being therefore constrained by this necessity, I offered the burnt offering."

Samuel said to Saul: "Stulte egisti," you have acted foolishly, and you have not observed the commandments that the Lord your God had given you. If you had not committed this fault, the Lord would have now established your reign over Israel forever; but your reign shall not continue hereafter. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and he has commanded him to be leader of his people, because you have not observed what he commanded you.

The downfall of Saul was terrifying. He, who had begun as a young man endowed with all qualities and chosen by God to reign with brilliance over Israel, ended his life in a true suicide in the form of a requested and demanded euthanasia.

What is said to be necessary is that which cannot not be. Necessary is therefore opposed to contingent, which designates that which can (or could have) not be.

God alone is absolutely necessary, necessary in Himself: God cannot not exist (which reason can demonstrate); He cannot not be Triune, one single God in three persons (which reason can neither know nor demonstrate, and which is known to us only through divine Revelation and faith). This absolute necessity of God is a necessity in substantia.

Other necessities are relative necessities:

• Either to be such a thing: necessity ad substantiam. Thus, to be a triangle, it is necessary for a geometric figure to have three sides and no more.

• Or to reach such an end: necessity ad finem. Thus, to go to Heaven, it is necessary to be in a state of grace at the moment of death.

When speaking of human action, a distinction is made in practice between the necessity of constraint—necessitas coactionis—and the necessity of end—necessitas finis (cf. Ia-IIae, q. i, a. 6, ad 3).

Necessity cannot by itself justify the transgression of a divine law: not only that of a law inscribed in the nature of things (natural or supernatural), but also that of a simply positive law, dependent solely on the will of God, and therefore contingent. Witness the astonishing story of Uzzah (II Reg. vi, 5-8):

However, David and all Israel played before the Lord on all kinds of musical instruments: the harp, the lyre, the tambourine, the sistrums, and the cymbals. But when they came to the threshing floor of Nachon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, because the oxen stumbled and made it tilt. Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and He struck him dead there because of his rashness; and Uzzah died there beside the ark of God. David was afflicted because the Lord had struck Uzzah; and that place was called: the Breach of Uzzah, a name it keeps to this day.

An analogy is invoked here or there as an argument, which is, however, unfit to draw a conclusion: When firefighters intervene to put out a fire or save the injured, they can free themselves from priority rules and speed limits: necessity dispenses them from them. "Ipsa necessitas dispensationem habet annexam," it is added to sound learned, quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas (Ia-IIae, q. xcvi, a. 6), while carefully omitting to specify that the cited article deals with human law, and that it cannot therefore be applied to divine law. And even then, not every human law tolerates a dispensation; firefighters cannot drive down the highway in the wrong direction.

But even more than necessity, we are told of a "state of necessity," without it being defined with any precision. This notion is much more malleable than that of necessity plain and simple, and poorly suited to take a place in a rigorous reasoning in its stead.

Certainly, one cannot deny that there is a gaping need among the members of the Holy Church regarding knowledge of holy doctrine and regarding access to the sacraments. One cannot deny that there is an urgency because life is short and souls, while advancing toward eternity, must every day persevere and grow in the grace of God. This state of necessity that is invoked is therefore made of need and urgency.

But as pressing as it may be, it cannot cause one to ignore or despise truer needs and more fundamental urgencies. The most necessary thing for every man living in this world is to belong to the Holy Catholic Church, for there is no salvation outside of her. This belonging, and the fidelity it must inspire, requires that nothing be subtracted from the integrity of the faith and that no attempt be made against the unity of this Church.

The Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, received and receives at every moment from its founder an immutable constitution, placed above laws, some of which (solely among positive laws) are nonetheless influenced in their application by the contingency in which its life moves. Jesus Christ claims this Constitution for Himself: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church"; He claims it as immutable and indefectible: "And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it"; He claims it as being His work at every instant: "Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age"; He claims it as being founded on Peter, the sole support of the hierarchical order which is the fulfillment of its unity across all times and in the present moment.

The intangibility of the Constitution of the Holy Church is a recurrent teaching—because it is paramount—of the pontifical magisterium. Respecting it is necessary, imperative, and salutary. Everyone must regulate their life according to this Constitution of the Church, which is in the power of no man to change (Leo XIII, Sapientiae christianae, January 10, 1890).

What the encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs expose regarding the character and the Constitution of the Church is, habitually and deliberately, neglected by some with the very precise goal of making a vague notion prevail, which they tell us is drawn from the ancient Fathers and especially from the Greeks.

"To hear them, the Pontiffs, in fact, would never intend to pronounce on questions debated among theologians; thus the duty arises for all to return to the primitive sources and also to explain the more recent constitutions and decrees of the magisterium according to the texts of the ancients" (Pius XII, Humani generis, August 12, 1950).

"They will also dismiss this dangerous manner of expressing themselves which would give rise to erroneous opinions and fallacious hopes that can never be realized, by saying, for example, that the teaching of the Supreme Pontiffs, in the encyclicals on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the Constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, must not be taken so much into consideration since not everything is of faith—or what is even worse—that in dogmatic matters, even the Catholic Church does not possess the fullness of Christ, but that she can be perfected by the other churches.

Catholic doctrine must consequently be proposed and exposed totally and integrally; one must not pass over in silence or veil in ambiguous terms what Catholic truth teaches about the true nature and stages of justification, about the Constitution of the Church, about the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, about the only true union through the return of Christians to the one true Church of Christ. They can certainly be told that by returning to the Church they will lose nothing of the good which, by the grace of God, is realized in them until now, but that by their return this good will only be completed and brought to its perfection. One will however avoid speaking on this point in such a way that, by returning to the Church, they imagine they are bringing to it an essential element that it would have lacked until now. These things must be told to them clearly and without ambiguity, first because they seek the truth, and secondly because outside of the truth there can never be a true union" (Instruction of the Holy Office [Pius XII], December 20, 1949).

No circumstance, no state of necessity can prevail against this properly divine Constitution. And since, as Pope Leo XIII teaches, "the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the intimate constitution of the Church" (Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896, § 25), any usurpation of an episcopal consecration is "an attack against the unity of the Church" (cf. Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958, § 25). In other words, in the very principle and whatever the circumstances, the absence of a mandate produces the same effects in the Church as schism.

Unless one implicitly professes that necessity is a kind of divinity, and that the state of necessity emanating from it supplants the Constitution of the Catholic Church and gags Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of God, nothing justifies the usurpation of the episcopate.

And besides, by alleging a state of necessity to resort to bishops whose episcopate is schismatic, what does one ultimately procure?

The perpetuity of the Church? Such a work is totally beyond the reach of men; it is a properly divine work promised by Jesus Christ and divinely guaranteed. In the Christian life, it is the thing about which one should worry the least.

The good of souls? There is a good deal of illusion there. "It is obvious," says Pius XII, "that the spiritual needs of the faithful are not provided for at all by violating the laws of the Church" (Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958, § 31).

An illusion whose disastrous effects will end up dominating? It is greatly to be feared, if only because one puts oneself in the necessity of consenting to an occultation or a distortion of a whole section of the doctrine of faith.

June 2026.

Supplement to No. 434 of the bulletin Notre-Dame de la Sainte-Espérance.

3, allée de la Solitude, 33490 Saint-Maixant.

Editorial staff: Abbé Hervé Belmont

(This work has been translated from the original French version and published with permission kindly granted by its author, Fr. Hervé Belmont - Non Excidet's note)

The stake of the "una cum"

By Fr. Hervé Belmont

1

IN THE CANON of the Holy Mass, at the first prayer Te Igitur, the celebrating priest, speaking of the Sacrifice whose offering is underway, pronounces the following words:

in primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antístite nostro N. et ómnibus orthodóxis...

The letter N. signifies nomen and therefore indicates that it must be replaced by the name of the Sovereign Pontiff, and then by that of the diocesan bishop (1):

The Ritus servandus in celebratione Missæ placed at the beginning of the Roman Missal specifies (VIII, 2): «Ubi dicit: una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro N., exprimit nomen Papæ: Sede autem vacante verba prædicta omittuntur.»

In the event of a vacancy of the Holy See, the preceding words (which are, obviously, the six words that the Ritus servandus has printed in red) must be omitted: part of these removed words is therefore the phrase una cum. This means that una cum relates solely to the name of the Pope, and does not refer to the local bishop, nor possibly to the King, nor to the others (bishops) of sound doctrine and Catholic unity.

There is nothing surprising about this, since it is the Church militant in all its extension that is in question in this place (...cathólica... toto orbe terrárum...).

UNA CUM, therefore, means una cum the Sovereign Pontiff.

2

SINCE ANTIQUITY, the mention of the Pope in the diptychs has been considered as pertaining to the unity of the Church and conditioning membership in the Church; we are in the theological order here (and not merely moral or, even less, administrative). This mention is not a simple prayer intention; it entails an allegiance and a certain cooperation on the part of those attending.

When, in the year 449, the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus dared to suppress the name of Pope Saint Leo from the diptychs of the Mass, his audacity provoked general reprobation.

Nicephorus relates that in the 5th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius (†489) excluded the name of Pope Felix II (†492) from the diptychs. Immediately, the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus addressed the Pope to explain the resistance he had offered to this instigator of schism. Later, when the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius caused the dissension of the Greek Church (858), the names of the Popes were erased from the schismatic liturgy.

In the West, the Council of Vaison (529), assembled by Saint Caesarius of Arles, prescribed that the name of the Pope presiding over the Apostolic See be cited at Mass: «Et hoc nobis justum visum est ut nomen domini Papæ quicumque Sedi apostolicæ præfuerit in nostris ecclesiis recitetur» (canon 4). And it seemed just to us that the name of the Lord Pope, whoever shall be at the head of the apostolic see, be recited in our churches.

Pope Pelagius II (579-590) teaches that omitting the name of the Pope in the Canon of the Mass amounts to separating oneself from the universal Church.

There is therefore no doubt: this is a grave matter with consequences of importance that cannot be brushed aside with a wave of the hand.

3

FOR THE CELEBRATING PRIEST, the una cum Papa nostro is the edification and the expression of communion with the Sovereign Pontiff. And it is not a matter of just any communion, but of the deepest communion.

Here is the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV:

"The commemoration of the Roman Pontiff during the Mass, as well as the prayers made for him during the Sacrifice, are in testimony and in reality a certain sign by which one declares to recognize this same Pontiff as Head of the Church, Vicar of Jesus Christ, and successor of Saint Peter; thus is made a profession of mind and heart firmly adhering to Catholic unity; as Christian Lupus also rightly indicates, writing on the Councils (volume IV, Brussels edition, p. 422): This commemoration is the highest and most honored form of communion" — Letter Ex quo primum tempore, March 1, 1756, § 12. Benedicti Papæ XIV Bullarium, Malines 1827, volume IV, vol. II, p. 299.

This efficient declaration of communion is not made for the benefit of just any member of the Church; it is addressed to the one recognized as the Sovereign Pontiff holding the place of Jesus Christ, as the living rule of faith, as the holder of sovereign and immediate jurisdiction over each Catholic, as the reference for the unity of the Church. It is therefore a communion of allegiance and subordination: a communion of intelligence and purpose.

4

FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, the expression una cum receives a new gravity. This is because, as it has been well noted, these two words and what they command (the mention of the Pope) relate directly to the Holy Church. It is she who, in the sacrifice, is united to the one named. Now, the Church is doubly involved in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

A. She is involved as beneficiary

This is what the prayer of the Te Igitur expresses. The Mass vivifies the Church: it pacifies, guards, unifies, and leads her; the Mass does all this so that the Church may be one, and because the Church is one with the Sovereign Pontiff named here; the Mass does it in its union and through its union with the visible head of the Church, vicar of Jesus Christ and sovereign of its members.

The unity of the Church is the proper and primary end of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. This is the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas: "The grace produced by this sacrament is the unity of the Mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation" [Summa Theologiae, III, q. LXXIII, a. 3].

This is also the doctrine of the Council of Trent:

"[In instituting the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Jesus Christ] wished it to be the pledge of our future glory and eternal happiness, and at the same time a symbol of that unique Body of which He is Himself the head and to which He wished us, as His members, to be attached by the closest bonds of faith, hope, and charity, so that we might all profess the same thing and that there be no schisms among us" (Session XIII, De Eucharistia, c. 2, Denzinger 875).

B. She is involved as the one offering

The presence and primacy of the Church as beneficiary of the offering of the Mass have a scope expounded to us by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, III, q. XLVIII, a. 3) by adopting a text from Saint Augustine:

"The sole, unique, and true mediator [Jesus Christ] who reconciles us with God through the sacrifice of peace had to remain one with Him to whom He offered this sacrifice, make those for whom He offered it one in Himself (unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat), be the one and the same who offered, and what He offered."

Those for whom Jesus Christ offers His Sacrifice, benefiting from the sanctifying virtue of the sacrifice, are made one with the sacrificer in the very act of the offering. That is why the Council of Trent affirms that it is the Church that offers the Holy Mass: "God, Our Lord [...] instituted a new Passover where He Himself would be immolated by the Church, through the priests (ab Ecclesia, per sacerdotes) under visible signs" (Sess. XXII, c. 1).

Not only is the Pope associated as head with the being of the Church, but he is also associated with the end of the sacrifice (which is the unity of the Church) and also with the very offering of the sacrifice, which is offered by the Church, says the Council of Trent. It is difficult to make that more intimate, more engaging.

5

THE CANON OF THE MASS is immaculate: such is the teaching of the Council of Trent in its XXII session, reinforced by a canon rejecting those who profess the contrary.

"The Catholic Church instituted, many centuries ago, the holy Canon, so pure from all error that there is nothing in it which does not greatly breathe holiness and piety and raise to God the minds of those who offer it" — Denzinger 942.

"If anyone says that the Canon of the Mass contains errors and that it must be abrogated: let him be anathema" — Denzinger 953.

To mix the name of Jorge-Bergoglio-Francis-I into it, is this not to belie in a solemn act this solemn teaching of the Council of Trent?

Does the heir and aggravator of Vatican II, assuming and extending the vast destruction of the theological faith accomplished there, have his place at the heart of the Mysterium fidei?

Is it possible to pledge allegiance to him in an active manner that participates in sacramental efficacy—when it proves necessary to withdraw from his jurisdiction (from his government) if one wishes to preserve the faith and save one's soul?

Does not the name of a prophet of ecumenism, who favors dissensions in the faith and aims to dissolve the unity of the Church, defile so holy an action whose end is precisely the unity of the Church?

Can he who is mired in a "sacramental system" inspired by Protestantism, whose crown jewel (!) is the "Mass of Luther", be named as the head and identifier of the Catholic Church which offers the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

To pose these questions is to answer them. If, as we have seen, it is difficult to make anything more intimate and engaging than the union of the Church and the Pope in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it would be difficult to make anything more impious and outrageous for the Church of Jesus Christ than to name a false pope, a false rule of faith, and, what is worse, the rule of a false faith.

Note well that there is no question here of the knowledge, virtue, or zeal of the one who occupies the Apostolic See. If grave deficiencies in these matters have harmful consequences for the good of the Church, they are by no means incompatible either with apostolic authority or with mention in the Canon of the Mass.

We find ourselves, since the disastrous proclamations and reforms of Vatican II, in the presence of fundamental, official, permanent deficiencies: they concern the rule of faith, the sacramental order, the offering of the Sacrifice, the unity of the Church. They concern simultaneously the Mass and the Church, which, Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, is constituted by faith and the sacraments of faith (III, q. LIV, a. 2, ad 3).

It is therefore not out of a light heart nor in a spirit of opposition to the unity of the Church that one refuses to name Jorge-Bergoglio-Francis-I at the Te Igitur: it is in testimony to the Catholic faith, it is by reason of a requirement of the doctrine and unity of the Church. For to name him there necessarily implies—under pain of denying the most certain doctrine—receiving his teaching without fiction, submitting to his government without evasion, giving and receiving the sacraments under his aegis... but then one falls into other errors, separating oneself from the unity of the Church by another path.

6

FOR THE ATTENDING FAITHFUL, the problem also arises. They are members of the Church, baptized and confirmed, deputed to offer with the priest by virtue of their sacramental character, which is "a participation in the priesthood of Christ, derived from Christ Himself" (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. LXIII, a. 5, c). Already Saint Peter said: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood" (I Pet. II, 9).

The priest alone offers sacramentally, but the faithful unite themselves to Jesus Christ in this same sacrifice, to offer the sacrifice of the Church.

"This oblation which comes from the consecration is a certain affirmation (testificatio) that the whole Church consents (consentiat), agrees in the oblation made by Christ, and that she offers it together with Him" — Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missa, II, c. 4, cited by Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.

Although the faithful do not themselves pronounce this una cum so wounding to the holiness of the Mass, they are nevertheless associated with it. By their presence, by their action, they bring a cooperation to the meum ac vestrum sacrificium that the priest celebrates at the altar. To discern the morality of this presence, one must refer to the principles governing cooperation in evil.

All formal cooperation is to be rejected without hesitation. He who deliberately chooses to attend an una cum Mass formally cooperates in the grave distortion it entails with regard to the holiness of the Mass, with regard to the unity of the faith and of the Church. And one chooses every time one could do otherwise, even if it required a notable effort (distance, schedule, etc.).

It is also impossible to provide immediate material cooperation, such as performing the office of deacon or subdeacon.

Proximate or remote material cooperation is also forbidden, unless one has a grave reason to override it: unless, therefore, one cannot do otherwise. This grave reason must be proportionate; scandal must be prevented, and one must fight the bad effects within oneself, for one must not deceive oneself: even indirect and detested allegiance to Francis Bergoglio, to which one becomes accustomed, leaves deep traces in the soul and in the integrity of the Catholic faith, despite oneself. Furthermore, if one ever attends a "distorted" Mass, one must interiorly protest against the distortion to avoid formal cooperation.

The more proximate and habitual the cooperation, the graver the reason must be. There may be differences of assessment in this matter, and each person must decide before God for himself and for those for whom he bears responsibility, with great purity of intention and enlightened faith.

The more cooperation risks being proximate and habitual, the more one must seek to escape it. The more cooperation is proximate and habitual, the more one must detest it interiorly, and on occasion bear exterior witness to this disagreement. The more cooperation is proximate and habitual, the more one must then do everything possible not to get used to it (for habit modifies judgment), and the more one must instruct oneself so as not to be carried away into the false doctrines underlying the una cum Francisco.

7

THE STAKE OF THE una cum also consist in this: the mention of Francis Bergoglio in the Canon of the Holy Mass is an evil, but it is far from being the only existing or possible evil; one has not resolved everything once it has been omitted. It would be a grave illusion to imagine that from then on one could exempt oneself from the observation of justice and charity toward one's neighbor, from prudence and firmness in the accomplishment of good, from the fight against sin and against the occasion of sin.

It would be, again and always, a mortal illusion to believe oneself dispensed from the love of truth; from the study of Catholic doctrine in all its fullness; from the acquisition and maintenance of the natural rectitude of the intellect, of the soundness of judgment; from duties toward the common good of the city and the different societies to which one belongs.

Worse still would be to find in the refusal of the una cum a pretext for resorting directly or indirectly to episcopal consecrations without an apostolic mandate, or to what flows from them: this would be claiming to fight evil with evil, it would be wishing to avoid a deep wound to the unity of the Church by resorting to an assault against the unity of the Church (and, in this case, by an action more abundantly and more directly condemned by the divine authority of the Holy Church).

Let us leave to Jesus Christ what is the object of a solemn promise on His part, and which is therefore of His exclusive competence: the perpetuation of His Church militant until His return in glory. In the meantime, "Let men so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful" I Cor. IV, 1-2.

Footnote:

(1) The object of the present study is limited to the mention of the Sovereign Pontiff in the Canon of the Mass. It must nevertheless be noted in passing that the bishop named in the Canon can only be the Ordinary of the place: even religious exempt from his jurisdiction are bound to it. To imagine that one can name a bishop who has no regular jurisdiction in the place where one celebrates, a bishop of convenience, denotes some ignorance of what the Church is.

(This work has been translated from the original French version and published with permission kindly granted by its author, Fr. Hervé Belmont - Non Excidet's note)