It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:52 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 Hutton Gibson and the "Una Cum" issue 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Hutton Gibson and the "Una Cum" issue
Dear John,

I have been away from the computer for quite some time, so forgive me if this issue is redundant or if you have previously ended it with certainty as to the dialogue. My good friend Hutton Gibson has issued a response to your treatment on the Una Cum issue in the March Issue of "TWIN" and I was curious if you had by chance read it, and if so perhaps your thoughts on his remarks. God bless,

Tommy Short


Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Hutton Gibson and the "Una Cum" issue
Dear Tommy,

Tommy Short wrote:
My good friend Hutton Gibson has issued a response to your treatment on the Una Cum issue in the March Issue of "TWIN" and I was curious if you had by chance read it, and if so perhaps your thoughts on his remarks.


It is certainly nice to hear from you again, my friend. :)

No, I haven't seen Hutton's latest. He used to send me TWIN but I fell of his list at some point in the last couple of years. Feel free to scan and post his comments.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:31 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Hutton Gibson and the "Una Cum" issue
Thanks John, I have missed your company as well, albeit an online chat. We will share a pint one fine day :)

As you are aware, I am quite happy to call Hoot a friend, but you and I both know his style can be rather blunt, a characteristic that I actually like. That aside, I copy this in its entirety, as I feel I have no right to edit, and many think he has some points to consider. The following is his article; Hutton Gibson writes...

" I have recently seen a loose, overlong treatment of una cum in the Te igitur of the traditional Mass canon by John Lane, who attempted to justify association of the name of an apostate, undeniably heretical usurper (Garrulous Karolus the Koran Kisser) with the papacy. Mr. Lane delves into almost every conceivable aspect of this forbidden phrase.

Among the articles preceeding the Mass text in the traditional Missal, and governing the use thereof, is the section, "Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae" (Rite to be preserved in celebration of Mass). Item VIII, De Canone Missae usque ad Consecrationem (Concerning the Canon of the Mass up to the Consecration) reads in part: "Ubi dicit: una cum famulo tuo Papa Nostro N. exprimit nomen Papae: Sede autem vacante verba praedicta omittuntur." (Where he says: one with Thy servant our Pope NAME he expressed the Pope's name: but when the See is vacant the aforesaid words are omitted.)

Catholicsc have an absolute right to demand that priests adhere to this Missal, which here prescribes that these words una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro (in red) are omitted when there is no pope. [Similarly, the next few words, et Antistite nostro N., must be omitted in the absenceof a genuine local ordinary. We cannot allow ourselves to be united in any way with heretics, schismatics, or wildcats lower than the non-existent pope.]

Since Mr. Lane agrees that the Holy See was vacant at the time he wrote, his entire article is thus shown irrelevant. Furthermore, each issue he raised therein is equally irrelevant, whether or not priest and/or congregation believe or consider the Holy See vacant. He begs question after question. Toward the end he begs us to believe that because he has posed earlier questions he has settled them.

He implies that these words have no effect since the congregation doesn't hear t hem. Ritus Servandus, VIII prescribes: incipit Canonem, secreto dicens: Te igitur ([The priest] begins the Canon, secretly saying: Te igitur), and we never hear another word until Nobis quoque peccatoribus after the Commemoration of the Dead. Would Mr. Lane deny effect to the Consecration because no one hears the words?[/u]

Mr. Lane also assumes that the priest may speak for only himself, and may be excused for an erroneous, unmindful, or habitual variation, but the words themselves of the Te igitur exclude this. "... supplices rogamus ac petimus/b] ... quae tibi offer[b]imus pro Ecclesia tua sancta Catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro, e tc." [we humbly ask and seek .... which we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church: which Thou wilt deign to preserve in epace, guard, unite, and rule throughout t he whole world: one with Thy servant our Pope, etc.] The celebrant does not here pray for a pope; rather he unites himself and all present, and all orthodox keepers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith with apostate heretical usurpers hell-bent on destruction of the Catholic Church.

And this, may we re-emphasize, in violation of the law!

John, any spelling or punctuation errors are mine, as I retyped the article. I look forward to your comments my friend.


Thu May 01, 2008 2:45 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Hutton Gibson and the "Una Cum" issue
Tommy Short wrote:
As you are aware, I am quite happy to call Hoot a friend, but you and I both know his style can be rather blunt, a characteristic that I actually like.

Being familiar with how Hutton deals with opponents, I have feared for many years that he might decide to mention me in TWIN. :)

But now that he does, he treats me very kindly indeed.

Hutton is mistaken on a few points.

Hutton Gibson wrote:
John Lane, who attempted to justify association of the name of an apostate, undeniably heretical usurper (Garrulous Karolus the Koran Kisser) with the papacy.

That is a misconception. The last thing I had in view was justifying the association of John Paul II’s name with the papacy. I introduced my article as follows:

John Lane wrote:
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?
From: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/una_cum.html

I agree that John Paul II’s name (and now Benedict’s) ought not to be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass. I would not mention Benedict’s name if I were a priest. That is not the question at issue. The question at issue is whether a layman who only has available to him the Mass of a priest who does mention the name of the reigning anti-pope, must stay home alone instead of assisting at that Mass.

To provide a parallel case which I think many of those who are interested in this question will easily grasp, suppose that it is Holy Week and the only chapel within reach is one in which the pastor rejects Pope Pius XII’s Holy Week reforms. Are you obliged to stay home alone? Do you necessarily show approval by assisting at these ceremonies? The question is not the lawfulness of the priest’s actions, but rather, what action the layman must take in respect of them, even granting that the priest is acting entirely unlawfully.

Hutton Gibson wrote:
Among the articles preceeding the Mass text in the traditional Missal, and governing the use thereof, is the section, "Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae" (Rite to be preserved in celebration of Mass). Item VIII, De Canone Missae usque ad Consecrationem (Concerning the Canon of the Mass up to the Consecration) reads in part: "Ubi dicit: una cum famulo tuo Papa Nostro N. exprimit nomen Papae: Sede autem vacante verba praedicta omittuntur." (Where he says: one with Thy servant our Pope NAME he expressed the Pope's name: but when the See is vacant the aforesaid words are omitted.)

Catholics have an absolute right to demand that priests adhere to this Missal, which here prescribes that these words una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro (in red) are omitted when there is no pope.

Granted. But what if the priest thinks that there is a pope? He is obeying the law by inserting the name, and would be breaching it if he omitted the name. That much is undeniable.

Now, if the Church had judged the matter, then the priest would omit the name. This much is not undeniable, because you may form the view yourself that all these sedeplenist priests are in bad faith and that they like Benedict as pope and would pertinaciously reject any such judgement of the Church. But I don’t share that view. I think they are good men who have formed a different judgement than me on a lawfully disputed matter.

But in any case, our right is to demand that our priests obey the law of the Church. We have no right to demand that they share our private judgements about contingent matters like this.

Hutton Gibson wrote:
We cannot allow ourselves to be united in any way with heretics, schismatics, or wildcats lower than the non-existent pope.

Granted, but this begs the question. Is the mention of the anti-pope in some way “uniting” the layman in the pew with the anti-pope? If so, where is the proof for this claim? Surely it is not a matter of the term “una cum”? Even Bishop Sanborn grants that this argument fails. It is time it was interred for good, and covered in concrete never to rise ghoul-like from its pit of corruption.

In my article I refuted it as follows. Hutton ignores all of these authorities.
John Lane wrote:
In any case, the una cum clause is an intercessory mention of those with chief responsibility for the welfare of the Church. It is a prayer for those who are mentioned in it.

Pope Benedict XIV explains, “Still in reference to the Latin practice, We will also note that when a bishop is celebrating Mass, he prays for himself as an ‘unworthy servant.’ This practice is in harmony with the words of the apostolic constitutions where the celebrant, after praying for others, prays for himself in these words: ‘We now beseech Thee for a man of no worth, for myself who am offering to Thee’ etc. (Ap. Const., bk. 8, in Cotelerius, Opera Patrum Apostolicorum, vol. 1, p. 407).

“Moreover it should be known that in Rome commemoration is made only of the Roman Pontiff since he is not only Supreme Pontiff, but also the bishop of the city of Rome in particular. When the Pope himself says Mass, he prays for himself in precisely the same way as any bishop prays for himself during Mass. In reply to the bishop of Orense who enquired how the Pope commemorated himself during the celebration of Mass, Innocent III, in a letter not yet published but preserved in the Vatican archives (bk. 9, no. 33) replied as follows: ‘You have also asked to be instructed as to the words used by the Roman Pontiff at the place in the canon of the Mass where a priest of lower rank says together with our Pope, since the Pope is then obviously praying for himself and is subordinate to no bishop. Our reply to your devotedness is this: at that place We say together with me Thy unworthy servant.'”

Gihr teaches the same thing. “The general fruit of the sacrifice falls the more copiously to the share of the individual members of the mystical body of Christ in proportion as they contribute to the common welfare of the Church; hence we have now a special offering and prayer for the pope and for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated.

“Then is added a general intercession for all those persons who not only preserve the true faith in their heart and confess it with their lips, but who, moreover, according to their ability defend and propagate it.

“It is proper that throughout the entire Church the pope should be prayed for and the sacrifice be offered for him, for he is the vicar of Jesus Christ, the infallible teacher and supreme pastor of all the faithful, the head and father of all Christendom.”

Numerous authorities could be quoted on this point – they appear to be unanimous in teaching that the una cum phrase is intercessory – that is, it is a prayer for those named in it.


Hutton Gibson wrote:
Since Mr. Lane agrees that the Holy See was vacant at the time he wrote, his entire article is thus shown irrelevant.

It is unclear what this might mean.

Hutton Gibson wrote:
Furthermore, each issue he raised therein is equally irrelevant, whether or not priest and/or congregation believe or consider the Holy See vacant. He begs question after question. Toward the end he begs us to believe that because he has posed earlier questions he has settled them.

Likewise these points. I have no idea what questions I am supposed to have begged, or what questions I have supposedly raised but not answered. I am more than happy to hear precisely what these are, but I can’t respond to generic claims such as this.

Hutton Gibson wrote:
He implies that these words have no effect since the congregation doesn't hear them.

That is another misconception. My point was as follows:
John Lane wrote:
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.

In other words, if your problem with the mention of the anti-pope is that it is scandalous, then you should be more concerned with much more public statements of adherence to him. The “una cum” in that context is a non-issue.

John Lane wrote:
Mr. Lane also assumes that the priest may speak for only himself,

This is a further misconception. The priest certainly speaks for all of those present. Indeed, he speaks for the entire Church. But he has no power to make his own mistake that of the whole Church, or even of those in the pew.

Hutton Gibson wrote:
The celebrant does not here pray for a pope; rather he unites himself and all present, and all orthodox keepers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith with apostate heretical usurpers hell-bent on destruction of the Catholic Church.

And this, may we re-emphasize, in violation of the law!

And this, may I re-emphasise, is the entire question at issue. Hutton has offered no shred of proof for it, but rather he, er, begs the question…

And furthermore, as we have seen, Hutton goes contrary to Benedict XIV, in Ex quo, who says that the prayer is a prayer for the pope, as does pretty much every other authority I could find. If Hutton has a contrary authority, he should cite it and then explain why he follows it over against those I have quoted.

I hope this assists, my friend. I like Hutton, although I do wish he would mellow a little. Do you think he might slow down after he turns 100? :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 01, 2008 8:34 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Hutton Gibson and the "Una Cum" issue
John,

Thanks so much for the quick reply!

With your permission I might pass it on to Hoot; however, I certainly have no intention in this becoming a war of thoughts betwen two good folks, both practicing Catholics. Hoot will never slow down, he has already moved some 3 times since being in the states, and he continues to publish TWIN, thankfully. I do not like to speak for other people but it seems that he has leaned torwards a home aloner type postion rather then taking his chances with the Sunday priest circuit crowd. As you well know John, I am usually very decisive in my positions, but I have always conceded that this particular issue (una cum) has me a bit twisted so that was actually behind my motive to get your rebuttal. I simply cannot attend a Mass where these grotesque "popes" are mentioned and I have an equal disdain for rubbing elbows with priests who can't see the forest through the trees on this matter; a matter which has visibly destroyed the church and her flock. Probably just my lack of humility and always present false pride.

Tommy


Thu May 01, 2008 12:34 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Hutton Gibson and the "Una Cum" issue
Dear Tommy,

Tommy Short wrote:
With your permission I might pass it on to Hoot;

Go for it.

Tommy Short wrote:
I simply cannot attend a Mass where these grotesque "popes" are mentioned and I have an equal disdain for rubbing elbows with priests who can't see the forest through the trees on this matter; a matter which has visibly destroyed the church and her flock. Probably just my lack of humility and always present false pride.

I understand. I don't have any problem with people who don't wish to assist at such Masses. I've only ever complained about others trying to push their view as though it were the law of the Church, which it isn't.

One of the main objections sedeplenist priests have to the sedevacantist position is that they perceive that it has done untold damage to the unity of Catholics, distracted many from the real battle for the Faith, and scandalised many. When we review the events of '83, despite the fact that the pope issue was not one of the questions at issue, the popular belief is that the sedevacantist view was behind the actions of the Nine. And, indeed, some of the Nine don't appear overly keen to clarify this point, perhaps because they are embarrassed by the letter they sent to Archbishop Lefebvre, which is now known as the Opinionist Manifesto, but in any case the fact remains that the whole gigantic scandal of division, fights over properties, lawsuits, lost vocations, and all the rest of it are perceived to have been fruits of sedevacantism.

While these priests think that sedevacantism = schism from other traditional Catholics, they'll keep clear of it. Ironically, it is the anti-una-cum campaign that is presently the main reinforcement of their view.

In any case, when the shepherd is struck, the flock will scatter. This is inevitable. The crisis in the Church and its causes are serious matters. Serious men will differ over them, and this will have consequences. The trick, it seems to me, is to find a way to be simple and forthright, without condemning others for what amounts to disagreeing with our own private judgement. And if you think that's a difficult assignment, so do I! :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 01, 2008 10:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 84
Location: USA
New post Re: Hutton Gibson and the "Una Cum" issue
John,

As is the norm, I couldn't agree with you more, and I find the charitable outlook spot on. I'll let you know if Hoot has a response.

Tommy


Fri May 02, 2008 2:47 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.