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)