[Rorate editor - Just to be clear: Rorate's editoral position is that Francis is indeed the Pope -- his election was obviously valid, as Don Pietro Leone explained in Part I - and a new one will be elected by an upcoming conclave. NC]
Is Pope Francis Pope
&
If not, what then?
by Don Pietro Leone
Part
II *
IF
NOT WHAT THEN?
A. “Una cum”
Introduction
In
the first article of this series we evaluated the arguments that Pope Francis
is not the Pope. We have found them unconvincing, and have tried to explain
that we have no competence to decide the issue one way or the other. In the
present article we address the second question of the title: “If not, what
then?” asking ourselves what the consequences are if he is not the Pope.
The
general consequences are that if he is not the Pope, then all the measures he
has taken as Pope are invalid. We limit ourselves to the following examples:
- - St. Irenaeus is not a
Doctor of the Church;
- - The indulgence for the Holy
Souls has not been extended to the whole year;
- - The validity of the
confessions made with priests of the Society of St. Pius X has not been
guaranteed;
- - The Bishops he has approved
are not authentic Bishops[1];
- - The next conclave (if all
proceeds in the normal way) will not have the authority to elect a new Pope,
since the majority of the Cardinals are of his creation; which also entails in
fact that:
- - There is no such thing as
the Church, since it is a dogma that the Church is indefectible, that will
exist till the end of time.
If
he is not the Pope, what are the consequences for the faithful? We have seen
two reactions on the part of the faithful who do not believe that he is Pope.
The first is not to attend a Mass in which his name is mentioned in the text
beginning: ‘Una cum’ (together with);
the second reaction is to enter into schism, which we will assess in the third
and last article.
1. ‘Una Cum’
This
thesis may be expressed in terms of the following argument:
a)
that Pope Francis is not
the Pope;
b) that if the celebrant
mentions his name in the Canon, he thereby unites himself (in the sense of
establishing some sort of union) with Pope Francis;
c)
that this union will have a
detrimental effect on the celebrant and on those attending the Mass;
d)
that the celebrant should
consequently not mention the Pope’s name in the Holy Mass and the faithful
should only attend liturgical functions offered by such a celebrant.
Having
already examined claim (a) in the previous article, we proceed to examine
claims (b), (c), and (d).
b) That if the Celebrant mentions the name of Pope
Francis in the Canon, he thereby unites himself to him.
To
evaluate this claim, we must first study the relevant text of the Canon. Here
we read: ‘In the first place we offer… [these gifts] to Thee for Thy Holy
Catholic Church… together with (Una cum)
Thy servant, our Pope N….’ We see straightaway that the union in question is
not between the celebrant and the Pope but between the Church and the Pope. It
is true that the celebrant professes that the person he names is ‘our Pope’,
but in so doing, his motive need be no more than the opinion that:
- - The Prelate Francis is the
Pope, or that
-
- In the absence of certainty, he does not
presume to disobey the Mass rubric and
not pray for a Pope at all
These
are of course the two valid options.
To
be precise, just by praying: ‘together with Thy servant our Pope Francis’ he is
not establishing any special union with Pope Francis. If Francis is the Pope,
then the celebrant, and all the faithful likewise, are already united to him,
as members to the Head of the Church; if Francis is not the Pope, then none of them are united to him, and the fact
that the celebrant has mentioned his name in good Faith on the assumption that
he is the Pope (or lacking the
certainty that he is not the Pope),
does not of itself establish any union with him either.
In
short, the celebrant, saying una cum,
does not unite himself to the Pope:
- either verbally (as una cum does not express union between
him and the Pope, but between the Church and the Pope);
- or sacramentally (simply by
celebrating the Mass while believing him to be Pope);
- or doctrinally (accepting any heresies that he may have committed);
- or morally (approving any sins that he
may have committed).
It
is true that if the prelate known as ‘Pope Francis’ had been declared by the
Church to be a heretic, and if the celebrant who knew that fact mentioned him
in the Canon, he would be thereby committing a sin, and at the same time making
an act of apostasy from the Church, as would any of the faithful who attended
with the intention of uniting themselves to that same prelate. In such a case
there would indeed be an act of union that was at the same time verbal,
sacramental, doctrinal, and moral. However that is not the case of Pope
Francis, who we do not, and cannot, know to be a heretic, because the Church
has not declared him to be so, and indeed cannot do so during his lifetime. It
follows that it is not a sin nor an act of apostasy to mention his name in the
Canon: but rather the only reasonable thing to do, as we already have said.
c c) That this union will have a
detrimental effect on the celebrant and on those present at the Mass.
Now
there can be no detrimental effects on him nor on the faithful present if the
celebrant mentions the Pope’s name in good faith, and this for two reasons:
first, because only sinful acts can open the door to diabolical influence;
second, because if mentioning the Pope’s name harmed those present, almost all
the celebrants in the world would be in ignorance about this, and only an élite possesses the arcane knowledge
which could preserve it from harm. This corresponds, however, to Gnosticism,
and not to the Catholic Faith, which by its very definition (kath’holon) is universal and for
every-one.
Let
us look in detail at claim (c), as propounded by Signor Minutella, the
excommunicated priest with a large following in Italy. He claims that if the
celebrant says the words Una cum
(together with) and then mentions Pope Francis, the following consequences
accrue:
i) The Holy Mass is invalid,
ii) The communion unites the
communicant not with Christ but Satan,
iii) The faithful are separated
from Christ;
iv) They are united to the false
“Bergoglian Church”.
In
reply:
i) Holy Mass is valid if the
celebrant is validly ordained and says the
words of consecration over the bread and wine with the right intention;
ii) The only type of communion that
can be called 'unholy' is that of a communicant in mortal sin, which is not the
question here;
iii) A Catholic separates himself
from Christ only through mortal sin, such as through a formal act of heresy,
schism, or apostasy. But no mortal sin has been demonstrated in the case under
consideration.
iv)
The false “Bergoglian church”, according to Signor Minutella, consists of the
entire modernist hierarchy. This, however, is not true. There are not two
churches, but only One: the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to which
all the baptized, who have not formally separated themselves from it through
apostasy, heresy, or schism, belong.
The
“two churches”, that Saints and mystics have also seen in visions, are not two
distinct churches in a precise theological sense, but rather only in an
analogical sense, as two visible bodies of men representing two radically
different versions of Catholicism. Modernists do not form a separate church,
but are partly members of the Catholic Church and, if formally separated from
it, partly outside the Catholic Church.
Ignoring
various even more extravagant positions held by Signor Minutella, we note that
the views of his that we have here outlined lack psychological balance and
theological seriousness: they demonize the Church and the Pope of to-day in a
similar way that Martin Luther demonized them wholesale.
d) That the celebrant should not mention the Pope’s
name in the Holy Mass and the faithful should only attend liturgical functions
offered by such a celebrant.
In
reply, quite apart from the arguments that we have given in the first article
that Pope Francis is the Pope, and
the fact that no-one has the competence to deny it, it is rash for a celebrant,
on the basis of his personal opinion, to subtract himself from the authority of
a presumed Pope and of the rubrics of the Mass.
As
for the faithful, on the basis of what we have seen above, there is no reason
for them to attend such Holy Masses. Indeed, it is dangerous to attend a Mass:
i)
where they would run the risk of creating a sect;
ii)
where they would run the risk of falling into schism over time, given
that the next conclaves, as we have noted above, would probably consist of
Cardinals created by Pope Francis, and therefore (according to their logic)
invalidly created, and for that reason incapable of electing a future Pope;
iii) where attendance is illicit - if
the celebrant is excommunicated.
We add, however, that since there are objective doubts regarding the
validity of Pope Francis' papacy, the faithful who only attend Holy Masses
where his name is not mentioned, do not
automatically fall into schism and mortal sin.
Conclusion to Articles I and II
Let
us sum up
1. The Basic Principles of a Catholic
Vision on the questions at issue,
2. The Basic Principles of Dissenters.
1. The Basic Principles of a Catholic Vision
The basic principles of the Catholic vision
of anything are objective and supernatural: in the questions at issue they are
the Catholic doctrines we presented above, namely:
As to the validity of the Papacy of Pope Francis:
i)
The Church Herself establishes what constitutes heresy (with the censure
Anathema sit),
ii)
The Church Herself establishes the conditions for a valid election,
iii) The Church Herself establishes the
conditions for a valid demission;
iv) The Church Herself determines who is
Pope, (as at the election of Pope John XXIII).
As to potential damage resulting from a Mass in
union with Pope Francis:
i) The Church Herself establishes what words celebrant should say during the Mass,
ii)
The Church Herself establishes the validity of the Holy Mass,
iii)
The Church Herself establishes the effects of the Holy Mass,
iv)
The Church Herself determines what separates us from Christ (namely the
mortal sin of the individual).
As to the validity of the Papacy of Pope Francis it
follows that:
i)
We do not have the absolute objective certainty that Pope Francis is not
Pope; on the contrary
ii)
It is probable that he is; so
iii) It is reasonable for the celebrant
to mention his name during the celebration;
iv) If he mentions it in good faith,
this will not have negative effects on him or the people present;
vi) There is no reason for the faithful
to attend Holy Masses celebrated in other ways;
vii) It is on the contrary imprudent
and dangerous to do so.
2. The Basic Principles of the Dissenters
If
Catholic principles are objective and supernatural, the principles of the
Dissenters are subjective and natural, consisting principally of emotions,
sentiments, locutions, and rationalist arguments.
In
the light of Catholic principles we may object to the Dissenters as follows:
- - it is not for the
individual to establish heresy,
- - nor the validity of the
Pope,
- - nor the rubrics or the
validity of the Holy Mass,
- - nor the conditions
necessary for Holy Communion,
- - nor the conditions for
union with Christ,
- - nor for mortal sin,
- - nor for the Catholicity of
any given priest or member of the faithful.
If
we ask ourselves the motives for Dissent, we can reply that over the last two
generations the faithful have had to suffer greatly for want of sound doctrine,
sound liturgy, and sound spirituality. This has had three relevant consequences
for the subject of our essay:
1)The faithful have been
roused to righteous indignation and have acquired a heightened awareness of the
evils perpetrated by the Hierarchy in recent years.
a a) But this anger must be
channeled in the right direction:
- - not towards attacks against
every-one who does not share their own view, like the “una cum” theorists who,
having taken the liberty of opining that he is not the Pope, do not grant a priest or a layman the liberty to
opine that he is the Pope;
- - not towards extreme and
dangerous positions, the position, for example, of ‘not wanting to have
anything to do with “Bergoglio” ’ - such were in fact the words blithely
addressed to his congregation by a priest follower of Signor Minutella the
other day.
b) There is the undeniable
possibility that the prelate Francis may be Pope, and if he is, then not
mentioning him in the Canon of the Mass will not separate ourselves from him:
only schism or heresy will have that effect.
c c)The position shows a lack
of the Catholic piety due to the Pope. It should be remembered that even Our
Blessed Lord Himself accorded due honour and due obedience to the authority of
the unjust High Priest when the latter adjured Him to reveal His identity (Mt
27. 63-4).
This
inappropriate attitude towards the Pope is like that of a person who finds his
father abhorrent and wants to disown him: but he cannot disown him, the man
remains his father even if he is abhorrent. Furthermore, he has the duty to
honour him by the Fourth Commandment, which indeed applies also to our Church
Superiors.
2) The faithful have started to think for
themselves.
This
is good in itself, but it can lead to pride, making them believe that they can
arrive at the truth of such matters through reason alone, but reason alone does
not necessarily attain truth. Let us recall the era of the presumed Pope John
XXIII, the era of the "three popes", when it was impossible to know
who the right one was.
In the present-day climate of militant individualism, pride leads to a blindness towards, and a rejection of, lawful authority. ‘Are you with Bergoglio?’ we are asked, as if that denoted our commitment to some political cause and agenda, like ‘Are you with Trump?’ They do not realise that it is not an ideological matter but one of objective Truth and authority: he is either the Pope or he is not; if he is, then I am with him and so are they. And whether he is or he is not, is a question for the Church to decide. If you start to explain this to them, their eyes glaze over: they have made their decisions, their subjective reality is clear and that is the end of it, indeed they seem to think that it is enough not to say his name in the Canon to separate oneself from him.
3) The faithful have been drawn towards private
revelations.
The
faithful have been drawn to private revelations: mystical phenomena, visions,
and locutions, but mystical phenomena do not enjoy infallibility, and can all
be imitated by the devil, as we remarked in the first article, and as has
happened in the past, to the confusion even of the elect.
*
In short, we must rely on the
objective and not the subjective, on the supernatural and not the natural: on
the perennial teaching and practice of the Church, not on rationalist books
written by journalists, on emotions, sentiments, and revelations of any kind -
as even Signor Minutella himself claims to enjoy. We must be calm, humble,
vigilant, and sober, praying for the good of the presumed Pope, and that
Almighty God may deign to heal the wounds of His Holy and Immaculate Church quam primum.
Amen.
[1 A priest acquaintance of the author has now refused to acknowledge that his new Italian diocesan Bishop is authentic and as a result does not obey him.
* Part 1 of this essay can be found here: RORATE CÆLI: Don Pietro Leone: Is Pope Francis Pope, and If Not, What Then?
