“The Enemy looks much if a soul is gross or delicate, and if it is delicate, he tries to make it more delicate in the extreme, to disturb and embarrass it more. For instance, if he sees that a soul does not consent to either mortal sin or venial or any appearance of deliberate sin, then the enemy, when he cannot make it fall into a thing that appears sin, aims at making it make out sin where there is not sin, as in a word or very small thought.” (St. Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, No. 346)
In the annotation cited above, St. Ignatius is addressing those who tend toward scrupulosity, needlessly convicting themselves of wrongdoing in instances when, in fact, their actions are objectively blameless.
In this post, we will consider similarly delicate souls, persons who – in their sincere quest for sanctity – have come to believe that they see sin where none truly exists, but with one major difference: The persons that I have in mind not only scrupulously torture themselves, they all too frequently disturb the peace of others by broadcasting – and at times insisting upon – their dubious perception of sin.
Specifically, I am speaking here of the so-called “una cum” controversy.
For those unfamiliar, the matter at hand concerns the prayer found at the beginning of the Canon, “Te igitur, clementissime Pater…” (We, therefore, humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father), which eventually states, “…una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.” (together with Thy Servant N., our Pope).
The controversy (such as it is in our day) concerns the opinion – let’s call it the non-una cum position – that it is sinful for the priest to mention the name of Francis in the Canon as “our Pope,” and further, that it is likewise sinful for the faithful to assist at such Masses. These liturgies are colloquially referred to as una cum Masses.
Before we continue, let me be perfectly clear: Among such persons who hold this view are a number of men and women that I admire and respect. Some, I even consider friends. One rightly assumes that their aim is nothing less laudable than seeking to remain faithful, to attain to holiness, and to aid others in doing likewise.
I would ask those readers who hold to the non-una cum position to extend that same presumption of good will to those who (like me) disagree with their assessment. We’ll come back to this momentarily…
So, what specifically do noteworthy proponents of the non-una cum position have to say?
Let’s begin by considering the following from Fr. Nicolás E. Despósito, a priest whose commentary on a variety of topics I genuinely appreciate:
The una cum Mass is so offensive to God that words will never be able to express the gravity and consequences of such a form of worship. It robs God of His glory. I will never understand why so many priests and laypeople fail to see how evil it is to stain the Oblatio Munda with the name of Christ’s principal enemy, offering the holiest Sacrifice “together with” the head of the Freemasonic, communistic, naturalistic, One World religion of the Antichrist. How is that an acceptable sacrifice? How is that worshiping and serving God in truth?
This being Father’s opinion, he advises the faithful:
Avoid the ‘una cum’ Mass. If you don’t have a non-una cum Mass near you, sanctify your Sunday at home.
Fr. Stephen Lefort, a likewise admirable priest, writes:
To claim being “one in faith with” (una cum) Francis is to commit brain damage on yourself. Every time someone professes in their worship of Almighty God that they share the same faith with Francis, they avow themselves to the Father of lies and place a veil over their eyes.
When asked whether one can attend an una cum Mass “in a pinch,” Bishop Donald Sanborn answered:
The answer is no. The reason is obvious: what spoils the una cum Mass is something intrinsic, that is, the fact that the Mass is offered in union with a false pope, which thereby renders the Mass unacceptable to God for the reasons stated above. When any act is intrinsically wrong, it is always forbidden. It admits no exceptions. In fact, we would have to accept death before positing the act. An example is an abortion.
The idea that considerable moral parallels exist between attending an una cum Mass and participation in an abortion is a very serious claim, or perhaps better stated, one taken seriously only with great difficulty. Note that this opinion was expressed, not in the midst of a heated debate, but rather in blog post. I would encourage those interested in exploring the theological arguments that Bishop Sanborn interpreted as supporting his opinion to follow the hyperlink above to learn more.
One might also wish to read what Bishop Sanborn called “the definitive article on the subject,” written by Fr. Cekada.
Here, we will take a more practical (i.e., ordinary layman’s) approach to the matter by asking such questions as:
Do the accusations, warnings, and admonitions against the una cum Mass actually make sense? Are they consonant with what we know and believe about the Sacrifice of the Altar? Are they logically supported by the liturgical text?
Readers will find that, like most efforts to discern Catholic truth, one need not have anything close to a doctorate in sacred theology to arrive at a reasonable level of certainty in the matter. Rather, Catholic common sense alone is largely sufficient.
First, let’s consider the foundational claim upon which all of the above reproaches against the una cum Mass stand, namely, the idea that una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro [Francis, in the present day] is tantamount to a solemn pledge before Almighty God that the priest (and by extension, the faithful who join themselves to his actions) ratifies the various errors and heresies of Jorge Bergoglio.
In other words, let us ask: Is that what is actually taking place by virtue of the phrase una cum?
The answer, it seems to me, is clearly no. Even under ideal circumstances, e.g., such as they were during the reign of Pope Pius X, the context in which the una cum phrase is prayed indicates that it is best understood as part of the Canon’s prayers of intercession, not as a solemn pledge of doctrinal agreement.
For reference, a common English translation of the Te Igitur reads as follows:
Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of Thee and entreat Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord to deem acceptable and bless, these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unspotted oblations. which we offer unto Thee in the first instance for Thy holy and Catholic Church, that Thou wouldst deign to give her peace and protection, to unite and guide her the whole world over; together with Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our bishop, and all true believers, who cherish the catholic and apostolic faith.
NB: “…we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church…” [Emphasis added]
The word “for” plainly indicates that “these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices” are being offered in an intercessory manner, first and foremost, for the benefit of the Church. The intercessory nature of the Te Igitur continues by asking that the sought after benefits be granted to the Pope, the Bishop, and indeed all true believers throughout the world.
OBJECTION: The phrase “together with” indicates that the offering (the Sacrifice of the Altar) is being made with the Pope!
If this is so, are we then to understand that the Holy Sacrifice is being offered in the same way “with” not only those present and assisting, but also “all true believers” throughout the entire world?
I think not. Rather, it is being offered in an intercessory fashion for the benefit of all “who cherish the catholic and apostolic faith,” a phrase that one may consider a sort of disclaimer, one that excludes from the Te Igitur those who do not cherish the catholic and apostolic faith.
Would this necessarily make including the name of Francis contradictory at best?
Absolutely! But let’s stay focused on the question at hand, namely, are the claims made by the proponents of the non-una cum position cited above reasonable?
As the above examination suggests, the basic presumption that the Te Igitur is a pledge that one “shares the same faith with” the pope (in this case, Francis) is not logically supported by the liturgical text itself.
As understood by numerous pre-conciliar theologians – Msgr. Joseph Pohle (1917), Fr. John O’Brien (1879), Fr. Adrian Fortescue (1922) – the Te Igitur is a prayer of intercession, not an oath. For example:
In the first prayer of the Canon the priest prays for the Universal Church at large, and for its visible head upon earth, the Supreme Pontiff, by name; then for the bishop of the diocese in which he is celebrating; and, finally, for all the orthodox upholders of the Catholic Faith. (Fr. John O’Brien, A history of the Mass and its Ceremonies in the Eastern and Western Church, 1879)
For a more in-depth treatment of the intercessory nature of the Te Igitur, please see HERE.
Now that we are clear as to what is actually happening when the priest prays una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro, let’s now consider the laity who are present and assisting at the Mass.
Speaking for myself (and presumably for many others), when following along in my hand missal, joining myself to the prayers of the priest at Holy Mass, I most certainly do not consider (much less mentally mention) the name of the heretic Francis at the una cum. At this point, I typically beg the Lord to grant clarity to all who wish to know the truth. In any case, given that the Canon is prayed silently, I actually have no idea whether or not the priest himself is inserting the name of Francis.
Sure, it may be reasonable to believe in many cases that he is, but I am aware of several priests – including those of the “full communion” kind – who have long ago ceased mentioning his name. I suspect that this practice is far more common than many might imagine.
In any event, are laymen obligated to interview the priest before every Mass, just to make sure that he intends to leave Bergoglio’s stage name out of the Te Igitur? If so, where does the pre-Mass interrogation end? Should we press further, seeking Father’s commitment to doing everything else by the book even when we can’t hear him speak?
If the very idea strikes you as preposterous, good. It should.
Let’s now turn our attention to the priest and his obligations.
NB: It is here that one would do well to extend the presumption of good will, understanding that the priest who does speak the name of Francis in the Canon of the Latin Mass is very likely seeking to remain faithful, doing everything by the book such as he understands it, and trying his best to attain to holiness, just like the most vocal non-una cum proponents.
In other words, it seems more than reasonable to assume that the vast majority (if not totality) of so-called “traditional priests” adamantly reject Bergoglio’s errors, i.e., good luck finding one that would endorse Amoris Laetitia, the Synod on Synodality, or the heretical notion that all religions are a path to God.
I’m certain that practically every reader of this space agrees that the name of Francis has no place in the Canon whatsoever. Clearly, however, it seems that the traditional priest who inserts it must be deeply confused and conflicted, so much so that I do not think it reasonable to state, as some do, that he thus commits a mortal sin.
Bishop Sanborn evidently hasn’t considered that such priests are sincere but confused, rather, he fancies them liars. Writing about the una cum Mass, he states:
It is a lie. To lie in the Canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be pleasing to God.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the una cum priest is, for that reason alone, guilty of mortal sin.
No one with knowledge of sacramental theology would insist that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is therefore rendered invalid or otherwise hopelessly corrupted. Rather, we know very well that a priest in mortal sin – so long as the matter and form are valid and he intends to do what the Church does at Mass – acts in persona Christi to validly consecrate the Blessed Sacrament.
OBJECTION: Yes, but he must do so with and in the Church, or as Bishop Sanborn states, in the person of the Church!
Again, stay focused on the task at hand.
We are evaluating the non-una cum argument that the name of Francis, uttered by a confused priest who is following what the missal requires as best he understands it, is enough to sever the entire liturgy from the Church, thus rendering it what Bishop Sanborn calls false worship that is unacceptable to God.
I, for one, do not think it reasonable to believe that intercession for Francis, our Pope – despite just how utterly detached from reality that is – is capable of doing this when even subjective guilt for mortal sin cannot do so.
As for arguments regarding who and what is in the Church and what it means to be in schism, recognize that there are any number of sincere persons of faith, many of whom appear rather holy, who argue that the majority of so-called “trads” are among the latter!
Needless to say, they most certainly are not schismatic, but the point is that we are living in unprecedented times, amid situations that give rise to difficult questions for which no one has a definitive answer. This much is to be expected given that the Household of God has been bereft of a Holy Father for so long.
This being the case, are we really to believe that Almighty God is so gravely offended by a conflicted priest that He finds the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, confected at an una cum Mass, unacceptable?
After the Consecration, with the Blessed Sacrament – described in the Missal as “a Victim which is pure, a Victim which is holy, a Victim which is spotless, the holy Bread of life eternal, and the Chalice of everlasting Salvation” – before him on the altar, the priest prays to Almighty God:
Deign to look upon them with a favorable and gracious countenance, and to accept them as Thou didst accept the offerings of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which Thy high priest Melchisedech offered up to Thee, a holy Sacrifice, an immaculate Victim.
Can any among us imagine God the Father, looking down upon the Holy Sacrifice of His only begotten Son – there present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – and refusing to accept the Victim immolated for our salvation simply because the priest, like countless others in our day, is unsure of exactly what he should think and is required to do?
I find that idea entirely untenable, to the point where I do not believe that one can reasonably determine that there is anything close to positive doubt as to whether or not God the Father will accept the Sacrifice that is being offered.
That said, I do believe it best to assist at a non-un cum Mass whenever doing so is feasible. I would stop well short of counseling persons to stay at home otherwise.
In conclusion, let me repeat what I previously stated: Those who passionately hold to the non-una cum position and all that it entails give every appearance of being motivated by love of Christ and His Holy Catholic Church. That alone is laudable. What isn’t so praiseworthy is the extent to which some insist upon their opinion, disturbing the peace of other sincere souls along the way.