The Question of Assistance at the Mass of a Priest Who Professes Communion With John Paul II as Pope
“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.[1]
Determining whether or
not to receive the sacraments from any particular traditional priest can be a
fearful challenge. What would
otherwise be a straightforward matter has in the present circumstances become an
apparent labyrinth of difficulties and
contradictions.
Without pretending to
discuss every consideration which conceivably might bear on such a decision,
this paper is an attempt to analyse two key
factors:
It should be borne in
mind that the question, in itself, of whether or not John Paul II is truly the
Vicar of Christ is simply momentous.
Upon it hang the gravest possible theoretical conclusions and practical
consequences. Either that man in
Rome is Christ’s Vicar on earth, or he is not. Every Catholic is gravely obliged either
to submit to his divinely ordained authority as he would to Christ Jesus
Himself, or to reject him outright as a perfidious fraud. Realistically, there is no third
possibility.
Therefore nothing could
be further from my purpose here than to minimise or render unimportant this
crucial question. It is merely that
the full consideration of this matter is outside of the scope of this
article. That is to say that
whatever momentous and lamentable consequences flow from adherence to John Paul
II as Vicar of Christ, the analysis of these consequences are not within the
purpose of this article except insofar as they might bear upon the present
availability of Holy Mass for Catholics.
I propose to consider
two questions which are related to the broad issue of the verbal submission to
John Paul II by many traditional clergy, without exhaustively analysing the
entire problem; these questions are: does adherence to John Paul II, in itself,
place one outside the Church? And,
what is the effect, if any, of the mention of John Paul II’s name in the Canon
of Holy Mass? Various parties who
have expressed opinions on the matter have broken these two essential questions
into a series of sub-questions.
In turn,
this question has been addressed in various ways, as
follows:
a)
May Catholics ever assist at the Masses of
non-Catholics?
b)
Is such a Mass a "Catholic
Mass"?
c)
If John Paul II is named in the Canon, is the Mass
illicit?
d)
Does assistance at such a Mass imply co-operation
with the naming of John Paul II as pope?
By baptism a person
becomes a member and subject of the Church with all the rights and duties of a
Christian, unless, insofar as rights are concerned, there is some obstacle
impeding the bond of communion with the Church, or a censure inflicted by the
Church.[2] That is to say, every baptised person
remains a member of the Church of Jesus Christ unless he departs from her in
some way.
There are only three
ways to leave the Church voluntarily, that is, by heresy, schism,
or apostasy. There are only two
ways one can depart from the Church involuntarily, that is, by laying violent
hands upon the Roman Pontiff or being declared vitandus by Rome. Evidently neither of the involuntary means of leaving the Church is
possible in our days. Hence it
remains to consider the voluntary
means by which one may depart from the Church.
Is
it an act of apostasy to adhere to John Paul II?
Of
the voluntary ways by which one might leave the Church, firstly we consider
apostasy. Apostasy is the total
rejection of the Christian religion.
Nobody has asserted that adherence to John Paul II as pope is in itself
an act of apostasy, and nor could this be maintained
seriously.
Is
it an act of schism to adhere to John Paul II?
What precisely is schism, properly understood? To answer this question we turn to St.
Thomas, who explains schism with his usual marvellous
clarity.
“As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3),
schism takes its name 'from being a scission of minds,' and scission is opposed
to unity. Wherefore the sin of
schism is one that is directly and
essentially opposed to unity.
For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not
constituted by that which is accidental.
Now, in
the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that
which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly
speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that
unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person
to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity
of spirit.
“Accordingly schismatics properly so
called are those who, wilfully and
intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…”[3] (Emphasis
added).
Note that the Angelic Doctor firstly
identifies the principle to be applied: "For in the moral, as in the physical
order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential
is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as
it were, accidental."
Then he highlights the
key element of schism, by which it is differentiated from other sins, viz. the essence of schism is the intent to separate oneself from the
Church. This same
doctrine is taught by St. Augustine, who defines schism as "hatred of the
brethren."
Schism is the crime of
refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the refusal of communion with
those who are subject to him. This
does not mean that any refusal of obedience, or any refusal of communion with
others, constitutes schism, but it must be a refusal to submit to the pope,
as pope, or refusal of communion
with those subject to the pope, because of their submission to him. Cardinal Cajetan comments on St Thomas's
article on schism as follows, "Disobedience, no matter how pertinacious, does
not constitute schism unless it be a rebellion against the office of the pope."[4]
A modern
authority teaches the same thing.
"Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the
reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch
as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if
one resists him as the civil head of a state."[5] This is the common opinion of
theologians and canonists.
The second constituent
of schism is the pertinacious
will to refuse submission or communion. As we have seen, St. Thomas says that
schismatics wilfully refuse
submission to the pope.[6] A man is pertinacious, according to the
canonists, when he is conscious
of the fact that his position conflicts with that of the Church. Thus, the essential components of schism
are the fact of non-submission to the pope, as pope (or non-communion with others who
are subject to him, because of
their subjection to him), and the pertinacious
will.
Schism, of course, like
heresy, may further be divided into formal and material. This distinction belongs properly to
moral theology, in which the virtuousness or sinfulness of acts is
considered. Formal schism is that
schism which is complete (i.e. in which a person refuses subjection to the pope,
as pope, and is conscious of the fact) and in which the culprit is aware of his
obligation to be subject to the
pope. Material schism is complete
but innocent, in that the person concerned is not subject to the pope, and knows
it, but has not realised that he is under a grave obligation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Material schism is impossible for a
Catholic; it is possible for a person raised in a sect who has not yet been
exposed to good arguments in favour of the true
religion.
Now, the traditional
Catholic priests who maintain communion with John Paul II do so precisely to
avoid schism, if we are to
believe their public statements and the other available evidence. It would be impossible to build a case
against them which demonstrated that they intended to submit to a false pope. Therefore the allegation of schism must
vanish as completely baseless.
St.
Antoninus, commenting on the Great Western Schism, sheds much light on the
point. “The question was much
discussed and much was written in defence of one side or the other. For as long as the schism lasted each
obedience had in its favour men who were very learned in scripture and Canon
Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were
illustrious by the gift of miracles.
Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds
of many still in doubt. Doubtless
we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only
one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor. But if it should occur that, by a
schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary
for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope,
but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected. The people are not obliged to know who
was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this
matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.”[7]
The French canonist
Bouix has laid down the judgement that in fact the Great Western Schism was not
a true schism at all, precisely because there was no evident schismatic intent
or pertinacity amongst the various men aligned with each claimant. "This dissension was called schism, but
incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but
each obeyed the one he regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely,
but on condition that he was the true pope. Although there were several obediences,
nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called."[8] I think it manifest that the priests of
the SSPX, for example, submit to John Paul II on condition that he is the true
pope. This is clear because, among
other evidence, Archbishop Lefebvre openly admitted that John Paul II’s claim to
the papacy is a doubtful matter that one day will be judged by the
Church.
It has
been objected that in the Great Western Schism all of the papal claimants were
Catholics, whereas in our circumstances the only claimant is a notorious
heretic. Therefore, it is argued,
there can be no excuse for adhering to him.
By
isolating each real similarity and difference between the two cases, we will be
in a position to see what effect each has on the claim that there is a real
analogy.
The first
difference is that in the fifteenth century Catholics were asked to adhere to an
orthodox claimant, while in the second case Catholics are asked to adhere to a
heretic. There is no doubt that, in
isolation, this is a striking difference.
If it were the only difference then we would be faced with one case (the
Great Western Schism) in which the choice was between two Catholics, and another
case in which the alternatives are a Catholic and a public heretic. There can be no dispute that if these
were the two cases being compared, there could be no analogy drawn between them
which would be useful in the question we are
examining.
However,
there is a second difference between the two sets of circumstances. And it is that in the Great Western
Schism Catholics were presented with a choice between two (or three) claimants,
each with numerous orthodox and prudent adherents among the clergy. Whereas in our situation Catholics are
faced with judging between accepting a heretic as pope, or believing that an
unprecedented vacancy of forty years has occurred, unknown by all of the ordinaries (i.e. bishops with
sees) in the world, and by almost all of the clergy. I do not think any reasonable man will
describe the latter choice as so blindingly obvious that anybody who fails to
see it is abandoning either reason or faith.
The similarity between the two sets
of circumstances consists in the fact that a good Catholic was (or is) required
to form a judgement which he was (or is) not necessarily equipped to make. In both cases the choice was (or is)
exceedingly difficult – in fact for many, and probably most, impossible. In more normal times in the Church the
question of who the pope is or isn’t stands as a simple and obvious matter. During the Great Western Schism and
today the question was and is exceedingly difficult. During both sets of circumstances the
ordinary means of identifying the true pope
were (or are) inoperative.
In such a situation it is plainly unreasonable to insist that any man who
has failed to see the truth is therefore a
schismatic
Therefore it is clear that a real
analogy exists between the Great Western Schism and our own circumstances. From the Great Western Schism we learn
that a man may remain a good Catholic, or even be a saint, whilst failing to
reject a false pope, and whilst
rejecting a true pope. Today we are
faced with the lamentable sight of men adhering to a false pope, but who at
least do not reject a true pope.
Heresy, as St. Thomas
teaches, is essentially opposed
to faith.
Heresy is defined as
the pertinacious doubt or denial of a truth which must be believed with divine
and Catholic faith.[9] And all those truths must be believed
with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written word of God or
in tradition and which the Church proposes for acceptance as revealed by God,
either by solemn definition or through her ordinary and universal teaching.[10]
Therefore heresy only
exists where two conditions are fulfilled, viz. pertinacity, and doubt
concerning, or error directly against, divine and Catholic
faith.
St. Thomas explains the
whole matter in his treatment of the question, "Whether it is lawful to have
various contrary opinions of notions?"[11]
in the Summa.
"I answer that, Anything is of faith
in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely
taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the
like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy,
especially if it be held obstinately.
A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a
consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel
was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be
false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of
heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving
consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas
when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences
follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now
considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their
consequences are now more manifest.
"So we must decide that anyone may
entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold
anything at variance with faith. If,
however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or
thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into
heresy."[12]
Now, it follows from the idea that John Paul II is
pope that Holy Church has defected.
The latter heresy is a consequence of the former error. But it is not true to say that the idea
that John Paul II is pope is directly opposed to the faith. And therefore it is not necessarily
heretical. It remains (at the very least) possible that those who
think John Paul II is truly the Vicar of Christ retain their belief that Holy
Church is indefectible. And in fact
traditional Catholics who adhere to John Paul II make it abundantly clear that
they do believe Holy Church to be
indefectible. Furthermore, it is
notorious that traditional Catholics who maintain that John Paul II is pope do
so precisely because they are under the impression that to deny this would
involve implicit denial of the indefectibility of Holy Church, and would thus
sever themselves from her. A more
clearly non-heretical mindset could not be
imagined.
The fact remains that
recognising John Paul II as pope is bound to lead to inconsistency, for no
Catholic could behave towards John Paul II as one should behave towards a
pope. But such inconsistency must
be sheeted home to its true cause, and not made the basis of a charge of
unorthodoxy in itself. The only way
that the latter case could be made is if it could be shown that the cause of the inconsistent position was an
unorthodox belief in itself, or an unorthodox animus in general.[13]
In addition to these arguments,
there is the extrinsic authority of Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Bouix,
and Journet. Each of these has
publicly taught that if a pope were a heretic he would retain the papacy until
and unless “deposed” by an extraordinary Council. And while this doctrine is wrong, and in
fact certainly so, Holy Church has never condemned it, so that it is not
impossible that a good and holy Catholic accept it, if the reasons in its favour
appeal to him. Hence, our
hypothetical priest is able to hold that John Paul II is both a heretic and the
Pope, and himself remain a Catholic.
Therefore there is no basis
whatsoever for maintaining that those traditional Catholics who adhere to John
Paul II are, for that reason, outside the Church. Adherence to John Paul II as pope is
neither an act of apostasy, nor schism, nor heresy. It is a lamentable yet understandable
mistake.
The obvious answer to
this question is that it is an error to think that John Paul II is the
pope.
Errors may be evil in
three ways;
a)
When deliberate, they are
sins.
b)
Even when innocent, they are in themselves evil, as
the intellect is made for truth, so that any positive error is an
evil.
c)
Even innocent errors may have evil consequences, or
they may form the basis of further errors which in turn may have evil
consequences.
Analysing the first
problem, the possibility that sin is involved, we can be morally certain (in at
least most cases) that a traditionalist priest who mentions John Paul II as pope
is innocent in the matter. It is
not within the scope of this article to analyse fully the errors and possible
culpability of such traditionalist priests. Suffice it to say that their open and
vigorous resistance to Vatican II, and to the heresies and errors of John Paul
II, eliminates the possibility that they adhere to him because they favour his
programme of evil. Their publicly
declared reason for adhering to him is that they wish to avoid schism. I am aware that many of those who
publicly adhere to John Paul II are in fact most doubtful that he really is the
pope,[14]
but this doubt does not make their continued adherence to him a sin, for they
also believe that it is not their business publicly to reject a “pope” to whom
the vast majority of Catholics adhere.
In this we see merely an example of the attitude which St. Antoninus has
said is perfectly justified.
“[I]n this matter they may
follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates.”
The second problem, the
essentially evil nature of a positive error, might bear on the issue in two
possible ways. The two ways in
which the error of a priest in this matter might affect the faithful are, i) if
they believed it themselves, which will be considered immediately below, or ii)
if they were somehow held responsible for it. And the only way in which the faithful
could conceivably be held responsible for the error of a priest with
whom they associate is if they could be said to co-operate in his error. Suffice it to say at this point that it
is absurd prima facie to say that an avowed sedevacantist who assists at the Mass of a
priest who names John Paul II as pope intends to co-operate with the priest’s
error. The only possibility with
which we may concern ourselves is that the sedevacantist faithful at such a Mass
unwillingly (i.e. merely materially) co-operate with the naming of
John Paul II by the very fact of assisting at such a Mass. This possibility will also be considered
later in this paper (v. infra.
“Does assistance at such a Mass imply co-operation with the naming of John Paul
II as pope?”).
Evil
consequences
The third perspective
from which errors may be considered is that which takes into account their
consequences and fruits, both for the men who hold those errors, and for other
parties who may be affected by them.
Once again, a distinction seems necessary:
a)
A man who errs may act, because of his error, in a
way which causes harm to others.
b)
The fact of the man holding to the error, and
announcing it publicly, may lead others into error
also.
The only evil actions
which might arise directly from thinking John Paul II is pope would appear to be
co-operation with his programme of evil, or acting inconsistently by disobeying
him while claiming to be subject to him.
The first of these is evidently not a problem with traditionalist
priests. They do not co-operate
with his programme - they openly resist it, as has already been said.[15]
The inconsistency
problem is real, at least to some extent.
Clearly it is a problem to live in open rebellion against the pope, and
even more so over a period of decades.
And yet it must be kept in mind that even a pope cannot validly command
what is sinful, so that resisting the pope is not, per se, unorthodox.[16] Indeed, it can be meritorious, as
several historical examples prove (e.g. Pascal II on investitures, and John XXII
on the enjoyment of the beatific vision, by the saints, prior to the General
Judgement). Pope Paul IV, in the
very document most relied upon by sedevacantists, Cum ex apostolatus, [17]
teaches that “the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and
our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and
kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to
have deviated from the Faith.”
The second problem, the
threat that falsehoods pose to others, is much broader than the una cum clause of the Canon of the
Mass. Indeed, the una cum clause becomes much less relevant
in this context, for it is said silently.
Much more significant are the sermons, the printed material, and the
public stance on John Paul II as pope, which all tend to harm the common good in
a most grave matter. Obviously it
is not right to acquiesce in any such assertion that John Paul II is pope,
whether this assertion is within the context of Holy Mass or
not.
The danger that the
errors and inconsistency of these priests poses is that of perversion,
particularly of children. If
nothing is done to correct the notion, children raised in such a climate are
bound to think that open, habitual, resistance to "the pope" is something other
than monstrous. Fortunately,
however, we have abundant evidence that the children of sedevacantists who grow up assisting at
Masses in which John Paul II is named as pope do not, as a rule, end up with faulty ideas
about submission to papal authority.
I regard this as a manifest fact, testified to by numerous clear
examples. In other words, whatever
danger of perversion might exist, it does not, in fact, produce the perversion
feared.[18]
Let us also note the
fact that the priest believes and expresses a falsehood concerning a very grave
matter; but so do most traditionalists, on one matter or another. This is our frame - to err is
human. And particularly so when
there is no habitual jurisdiction or magisterium being exercised which could
settle controversies. That isn't to
say that charity does not dictate efforts to correct errors. It is merely pointing out that error is
very common, particularly today, and that the errors of others are not,
generally, our responsibility.
The government of Holy Church has not
been laid upon our shoulders.
It may be useful to
summarise what has been said in response to the question, What is wrong with
naming John Paul II as pope?:
Obviously it is wrong
to name John Paul II as pope for many reasons, as explained above. Here we consider the narrower question,
what is the effect of naming the heresiarch in the Canon? Various arguments have been advanced
with the intention of proving that a Mass becomes unavailable to Catholics when
open heretics such as John Paul II are named in the
Canon.
One such argument is
that any priest who mentions John Paul II in the Canon is thereby a
non-Catholic, and that Catholics may never assist at the Masses of
non-Catholics.
Another is that such a
Mass is a “non-Catholic Mass” or a “schismatic Mass” by virtue of being offered
in union with a non-Catholic, and that therefore Catholics may not assist at
it.
A third argument is
that such a Mass is illicit, and that therefore the faithful are prohibited from
being present.
Finally, the case has
been put that the presence at such a Mass is an implicit approval and/or
co-operation with the acknowledgement of John Paul II as pope, which for
somebody who rejects him, is a sin.
Worse, it has been claimed that such assistance at Mass is an act of
communion with John Paul II himself, so that anybody who does it with full
knowledge thereby becomes a schismatic.
The theological and
legal authorities of whom I am aware discuss only three classes of Masses that
the faithful are obliged to avoid.
These are the Masses of non-Catholics,[19]
Masses in which the rite itself is unorthodox,[20]
and the Masses of priests living in open concubinage.[21] Therefore, according to the approved
writers of the Catholic Church any “fault” with a priest or a Mass which falls
outside of these three categories does not constitute a reason why the faithful
are prohibited from assisting. And,
as a matter of fact, the Masses we are here considering do not run afoul of any
of these prohibitory reasons.
The notion that the insertion of
John Paul II’s name in the Canon makes the celebrant a non-Catholic, or always
indicates that he is a non-Catholic, has been considered already. The idea that adhering to John Paul II,
or naming him as pope, is unorthodox, is groundless. The status of John Paul II could not
possibly be a matter of faith.
(That the notions that John Paul II is truly pope and has inflicted
heresy on the Church lead to an
heretical conclusion is granted.
But as explained above, heresy involves a direct conflict with a matter of
faith. It is not a matter of faith
that John Paul II is not pope.)
Likewise it is not necessarily an act of schism to adhere to a
non-Catholic. It may merely be a
mistake, and in the cases under consideration that is precisely what it
is.
But even granting, for the sake of
the argument, that such priests were all non-Catholics by virtue of remaining in
communion with John Paul II, it remains for our opponents to demonstrate that
the Masses of such priests would always be forbidden to the faithful. For, surprising as it may seem, in cases
of necessity Holy Church does in fact permit her children to assist at Mass
with, and receive sacraments from, undeclared heretics and schismatics. The origin of this indulgence was in the
aftermath of the Great Western Schism, during which numerous problems arose for
the simple faithful, who could not be sure who were their true pastors, and who
were those that were in rebellion against the authentic Roman Pontiff. Pope Martin V settled such difficulties
for the future with his ground-breaking law, Ad evitanda
scandala.
Ad evitanda
scandala
reads as follows, “To avoid scandals and many dangers and relieve timorous
consciences by the tenor of these presents we mercifully grant to all Christ's
faithful that henceforth no one shall be bound to abstain from communion with
anyone in the administration or reception of the sacraments or in any other
religious or non-religious acts whatsoever, nor to avoid anyone nor to observe
any ecclesiastical interdict, on pretext of any ecclesiastical sentence or
censure globally promulgated whether by the law or by an individual; unless the
sentence or censure in question has been specifically and expressly published or
denounced by the judge on or against a definite person, college, university,
church, community or place.
Notwithstanding any apostolic or other constitutions to the contrary,
save the case of someone of whom it shall be known so notoriously that he has
incurred the sentence passed by the canon for laying sacrilegious hands upon a
cleric that the fact cannot be concealed by any tergiversation nor excused by
any legal defence. For we will
abstinence from communion with such a one, in accordance with the canonical
sanctions, even though he be not denounced.[22]
Cardinal de Lugo[23]
explains that this certainly applies to undeclared heretics, as follows, “The second chief
doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and
human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate
with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be
contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit
profession of error. But the
question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is
lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be
present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite,
etc.
“But the opposite view [i.e. that
such communication is permitted] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be
illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the
faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical
minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and
Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of
penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said
litterae extravagantes [i.e.
Ad evitanda scandala] in which
communication with excommunicati
tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and
administration of the sacraments.
It must be emphasised
that scandal and danger of perversion are grave matters, and divine
law[24] dictates that both are to be assiduously
avoided. But if they are absent,
then we may assist even at the Mass of an undeclared heretic, as Cardinal de
Lugo explains.
This question is posed
by Fr. Donald Sanborn[25],
and answered in the negative, in his article, Vatican II, The Pope, and The
Mass.
Fr Sanborn explains
that a Mass offered "in union with" a false pope cannot be truly in union with
Christ, and is therefore a "non-Catholic Mass." He further explains that such Masses are
"objectively schismatic" for the same reason.
However the theologians
who discuss the status of Masses concentrate on the status of the offerer of the Mass. If the offerer is Catholic, then the
Mass is a "Catholic Mass," assuming a Catholic ritual is used. If the offerer is not a Catholic, then
his Mass is, like him, "outside the Church" in the sense that it is unavailable
to Catholics. (Although, as we have
seen, Cardinal de Lugo asserts very clearly that in the absence of an alternative the
faithful may assist even at the Mass of a heretic, prior to the judgement of the
Church.) Furthermore, the reason
given by the theologians for this is that to assist at such a Mass would be an
act of communicatio in sacris
with a non-Catholic.
That is, an act of worship in common with a non-Catholic, which of course
relates to the ecclesiastical status of persons, not to “non-Catholic acts of
Catholic persons.”
i.) "Non-Catholic
Masses"?
Fr. Sanborn’s
definition of the term "non-Catholic Mass" is unclear. There are Masses offered by Catholics,
and Masses offered by non-Catholics.
As far as I can discover, there is no such thing as a "non-Catholic Mass"
unless and except if this refers to the Mass of a non-Catholic or a Mass
celebrated according to a corrupted, unorthodox, rite, and neither is the
definition that Fr. Sanborn gives.
Since there is no
suggestion that the rite itself contains something contrary to the faith, the
correct question, according to the principles laid down by the theologians, is,
"Is the Mass of a priest who names John Paul II in the Canon, the Mass of a
Catholic?" There are two ways that
this question could be answered negatively, viz. if the act of naming John Paul II in
the Canon automatically made the priest a non-Catholic, or if the priest already
before offering the Mass were a non-Catholic, due to his adherence to John Paul
II.
The second possibility
has been considered above. Nobody
can rightly be judged a non-Catholic merely for adhering to John Paul II,
especially if he explicitly refuses John Paul II’s heresies. The first possibility, that the naming
of John Paul II in the Canon makes the priest a non-Catholic, is also false, and
for the same reasons.
ii.) "Objectively
schismatic"?
Equally problematical
is Fr. Sanborn's use of the terminology, "objectively schismatic." What does Fr. Sanborn mean
by this term? He does not define
it. The closest he gets is the
following, "If he [the priest]
means well, i.e., he has a good intention and does not know that he is doing
wrong, then he commits no personal sin. But objectively it is a sinful
act." Thus it appears that Fr.
Sanborn is saying that the act of naming John Paul II as pope in the Canon is
the matter of schism. Or perhaps he is arguing that there is
true schism in such an act, but that it is merely material (i.e.
innocent).
However, as Cardinal
Billot explains, in relation to heresy,
"…a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of
the sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the nature of heresy consists in
withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and this does not
take place in the case mentioned [i.e. when a Catholic accidentally adheres to
an heretical proposition], since this is a simple error of fact concerning what
the rule dictates. And therefore there is no scope for heresy, even
materially."[26]
And in speaking of
schism, Billot draws a parallel with heresy. "The second condition required for
adults [to be members of the Church] is that the bond of Catholic communion be
not impeded or dissolved - a breach that can occur in either of two ways. The
first is by the individual's own act, i.e. by schism concerning which the same
judgement applies, in due proportion, as applies to heresy. The second is by
sentence of ecclesiastical authority..."[27]
The same principle
applies, mutatis mutandis, to a
refusal of communion with fellow Catholics. The various splits amongst traditional
Catholics do not constitute true schism precisely because there exists no
mind or will to sever communion with those subject
to the pope, but rather a refusal of communion based on judgements, whether
sound or unsound, that the other group is not truly Catholic or perhaps is
gravely scandalous. In the absence
of a true pope such splits are seemingly inevitable, but they are not
necessarily "schisms."
Thus a man who places
an act which involves one element of the matter of schism, without knowingly
breaking the bond of communion, cannot be described as a "material
schismatic." In the same way we do
not call a man who falls off a cliff a "material
suicide."
Therefore it is clear,
as has already been proved, that adherence to a false pope, even though he is a
public heretic, especially if this adherence is maintained precisely because he is believed to be the true
pope, cannot constitute schism. In
fact, one might say that it is the opposite of schism. Nor can it be said to constitute
so-called material or objective schism, for where there is no pertinacity, there
is no schism at all, either formal or material, as Billot explains. "Objective schism" may or may not be
equivalent to "material schism," but in any case what is clear is that there is no sort of schism at all in the
act of a priest who mentions John Paul II because he mistakenly believes that he
is the pope.
Benedict XIV teaches,
“…a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the
sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication
which recognises him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the
successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which
firmly espouses Catholic unity.”[28]
Recalling St. Thomas’s
eternal principle, “…in the moral order, the essential is that which is
intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were,
accidental", we apply it to this
teaching of Benedict XIV. The only
possible conclusion is that when a priest inserts John Paul II’s name in the
Sacred Canon in the mistaken belief that he is the pope, this is “the profession
of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.” To call it, on the contrary, schism, is simply to miss the
point.
iii.) "Offensive to
God"?
It has also been
suggested that the mention of John Paul II as pope, in the Canon of the Mass, is
offensive to God in any case. It is
asserted by Fr. Sanborn that this is a sacrilege, whether the priest sins in
committing it or not, and that therefore the faithful who know better must
refuse to co-operate with it, even materially. (And no proof is offered that the
faithful even materially
cooperate with the naming of John Paul II in the Canon merely by assisting at
such a Mass.)
Against this it must be
asked whether God is offended by innocent mistakes. The mention of John Paul II in the Canon
is either a crime or a mistake.
There is no third possibility.
In relation to schism, I posed the hypothetical case of a man who falls
off a cliff. Is he rightly called a
"material suicide"? Likewise, is
God offended by a man falling off
a cliff? Of course not. Mistakes have no moral character
whatsoever, and cannot offend God.
That is not to say that some morally imputable offence has not been
committed previously, which led to the present innocent error. But our concern is not the complete
analysis of a priest's moral life, and nor should it be. We are concerned strictly with this act
of naming John Paul II in the Canon.
Is this act a
sacrilege? Assuming that the priest
sincerely believes John Paul II to be pope, the answer can only be in the
negative.
Question
Three, c) If John Paul II is named
in the Canon, is the Mass illicit?
The
following discussion is, necessarily, highly technical. The matter discussed involves a
veritable forest of distinctions, each of which is of crucial importance to a
sound understanding of what is involved.
I have aimed chiefly at clarity and
precision.
No one as
far as I am aware has constructed a complete argument which reaches the
conclusion that a Mass in which John Paul II is named as pope would be illicit,
in the sense that the faithful are therefore prohibited from assisting at
it. One example of such a complete
argument would consist of the following elements:
The
argument has been put that since every external heretic is ipso facto excommunicated,[29]
and since excommunicates may not be mentioned in the Canon of Holy Mass,[30]
if this is done then the Mass itself is illicit.[31] Furthermore, it is contended, the
faithful may not assist at such an “illicit Mass” for any reason at
all.
To my
knowledge we have no authoritative indications of what a priest is to do when
his bishop publicly disappears into heresy, and by Canon 188, §4, loses his
office. Obviously if he recognised
that this had occurred, he would omit his (former) bishop’s name from the Canon
of Holy Mass. But would he be
bound to do so? For obvious reasons this quandary
becomes deeper in relation to a so-called pope who is a public heretic. Questions such as these serve to
highlight the unprecedented nature of the crisis facing Holy Church at
present.
Our only
hope of solving such problems is by applying the general principles furnished by
the popes, the theologians, and the Code and its
commentators.
Pope Benedict XIV, in
the bull Ex quo, by which he
promulgated the restored liturgical book for the Greek Catholics, the Euchologion, has expounded many of the
points of which we require knowledge in order to analyse this question. Pope Benedict, employing the work of St.
Robert Bellarmine, firstly explains that there is no divine law governing the question of
whether non-Catholics may be named in the Canon, so that we must consider
instead what the law of the Church is in relation to the
question.
“But among the
Oriental peoples this practice of commemorating the king in the sacred liturgy
is common, as may be seen in the Liturgies of the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians
and Syrians. But if it should be
asked how it can be endured where it is certain that the kings for whom they
pray and whom they commemorate in the liturgy are infidels, Ven. Card.
Bellarmine would reply (as in fact he replied in the chapter quoted above[32])
that it is by no means forbidden by the
nature of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even
for infidels since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men. And of course St. Thomas teaches that
although St. Augustine wrote in his work de
origine Animae that the sacrifice is offered only for those who are
members of Christ, his statement must be understood to include both those who
are already members of Christ and those who are able to become such (in 4. Sentent., dist. 12, quest. 2, art.
2, quest. 2, to the fourth). Therefore, the Cardinal adds that the whole
question should be assessed in terms of what the Church has forbidden: ‘It is
certain from the nature of the object that if the Church has not prohibited it,
it is permissible to offer prayers for those men (i.e., the infidels).’ Although there is such a prohibition
against the excommunicated and so against heretics and schismatics, there is
none against infidels and these are not bound by excommunication. This is enough, he says, to allow
commemoration of them during Mass and even the offering of the sacrifice for
them in accordance with the evident tradition in this matter and with the
apostolic constitution. ‘But
someone may ask whether it is permissible if the king is an infidel as in
Greece, where the Turk is ruler, and as in India, Japan and China where pagans
rule, for priests there to offer prayers expressly for the king. I answer that I consider it permissible
provided that the king is not excommunicated as are heretic kings, but is a
pagan. For this tradition, this
constitution, is apostolic, as I showed just above. To my knowledge there is no
clear prohibition of this by the Church.’"[33]
Divine law, as St. Robert
Bellarmine and Pope Benedict XIV make clear, certainly does not prohibit
non-Catholics to be prayed for by name during Holy Mass. Consequently the entire question must be
discussed in terms of ecclesiastical law.
Perhaps a
solution lies in an examination of the fact that every heretic is ipso facto excommunicated.[34]
The law of th