John Lane
Site Admin
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm Posts: 4337
|
 UNA QUICUM? F. X. Lamoureaux
This is the article originally published in Catholic Restoration circa 1993, refuting an article in an earlier issue penned by Fr. Herve Belmont. Fr. Sanborn replied to Lamoureaux, with his article Nomen Religioni Obnoxium. In his article, Fr. Sanborn admitted the truth of the central thesis of Lamoureaux's paper, so evidently it is a convincing refutation.
UNA QUICUM? F. X. Lamoureaux
Perhaps second thoughts are wiser. Eut. Hipp. 436
Father Herve Belmont's article entitled 'Una Cum' and appearing in Father Noel Barbara's journal Fortes in Fide,[1] is, to my knowledge, the first attempt to approach in a scientific manner the dispute that has arisen in 'traditionalist' circles over the insertion of John Paul II's name into the Canon of the Mass. As the nature of the controversy is such that its outcome must needs have practical, and not merely speculative, consequences, no apology surely shall be required if there be undertaken a fresh investigation of the evidence and against this, a weighing of the position on the matter adopted by Fr. Belmont and by those of similar mind.
The conclusions of Fr. Belmont's article may be briefly summarised thus:
(1) In the opening prayer of the Canon the 'una cum' phrase linking the Pope to Holy Church signifies a special and intimate union between the two with regard to the offering of the Mass and 'the reception of the fruits of the Mass'.
(2) If a priest celebrating Mass inserts John Paul II's name into this prayer, he unites himself and his sacrificial action with a man whose claims both to the Papal throne and to orthodoxy are highly dubious, if not altogether void. This is not only schismatic but also tantamount to sacrilege.
Some caution, however, is here called for - Fr. Belmont never outright makes the charge of sacrilege, despite the fact that the earlier part of his essay implicitly suggests it, or at any rate, leaves the impression that it is leading up to it. Others who have been influenced by Fr. Belmont, or who have independently argued in a similar fashion to his, do not mince matters: according to them this is sacrilege. For example, the sixth article of a document issued by the Belgian Sti. Pii V Sodalitas on Dec. 12, 1987 and entitled, `Why the Saint Pius Fraternity of Mgr Lefebvre Should be Rejected', states:
The Fraternity [of St. Pius X] is wrong in obliging its priests to insert JPII's name in the `Te igitur' of the Canon of the Mass, after where it says `una cum' offering the Holy Mass in communion with a heretic is a sacrilege.[2] Father Donald Sanborn agrees. In a speech delivered at Warren, Michigan, on January 21, 1991, he declared:
... I therefore feel that Masses said `una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Ioanne Paulo' (which means, `together with Thy servant our Pope, John Paul', which is to mention him in the Canon) are objectively blasphemous and sacrilegious ... traditional Masses said ... in union with John Paul II `our Pope' are blasphemous and sacrilegious because you are taking the central act of worship of the Catholic Church and offering it in union with this heresiarch ... The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered together with John Paul - that's horrible when you think about it ....[3]
I, however, having myself diligently examined the evidence, have discovered that, far from supporting the main propositions of Fr. Belmont's article, it is destructive of them. Now, as it is defects inherent in that article, not external proof contradicting its contents, that first attract the reader's attention and cause him to lose confidence in the conclusions both of the author and of those who in this matter concur with him, so it will be expedient first of all to consider those defects.
***
On p. 45 of the issue of Fortes in Fide mentioned above, the following, bungling explanation of the word una is proffered:
Grammatically the word una can be a feminine adjective qualifying Ecclesia ...
Una cannot be the adjective because it appears in the relative clause beginning with quam; an adjective in that position cannot qualify the antecedent Ecclesia, but only its relative, with which it must agree. But all acquainted with Latin know the construction una cum to be so common that una ought almost always to be taken for the adverb whenever it occurs in this familiar combination.
Next, let it be observed with how great difficulty Fr. Belmont struggles throughout the entire essay to make a coherent case. The unconvincing piece of hotchpotch which follows may serve to illustrate this:
The meaning of una cum ... is that the Church is one with the Pope in the reception of the fruits of the Mass. It is as a result of this asserted unity that the celebrant is in communion with the Pope and that he prays for him.[4]
Now an assertion is made in the first sentence which clearly the author ought to have vindicated before he proceeded with his argument, but this he did not do. For in the very next sentence we find him making a fresh contention dependent on that which is contended in the preceding sentence. The reader who picks this up is thus not convinced that the ideas expressed in the two sentences are necessarily related, but is left to wonder whether they be of that appearance merely through the author's contrivance. For, in order that a priest be in communion with the Pope, why must there be an assertion of this rather mysterious union between Church and Pope with regard to the `reception of the fruits of the Mass'? Why cannot the mere fact of the celebrant's praying in the Canon for him as being Pope be sufficient for the task, according as schismatics such as the Greek Orthodox take especial care to exclude him from the prayers in their liturgy, and this is sufficient to deny their being in communion with him?
Again, even though the notion contained in the first sentence is unknown to the reader, yet the explanation of it is postponed for one and a half pages, while the author attempts to substantiate it. Obviously this is not a persuasive manner of proceeding with a contention; an author is usually expected to make understood what he is contending before he sets about establishing the truth of it. But here, for what it is worth, is the explanation given:
... the Church is the first beneficiary because she is, one with the Pope, the principal offerer of the Mass ... the Church receives the fruit of the sacrifice in order to be `pacified, protected, unified and governed throughout the world' [italics in the original text]: now this is the true task of the sovereign Pontiff. Thus what the Mass merits (for the Church which offers it), the Pope accomplishes and realizes: this is the essence of the unity between the Mass and the Pope [emphasis added], a unity which is for the sake of the Church. One could say: this unity is itself the Church. [??][5]
It is, then, the burden of proving the existence of this special relationship between Pope and Mass with which Fr. Belmont is now faced. Attempts to rid himself of it are, paltry; no evidence is ever adduced in support of his theory, unless we reckon in this class his own interpretation of the prayer Te igitur, and the following portion of a Tridentine decree cited by him on p. 47:
For, having celebrated the ancient Passover which the multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed in memory of the flight out of Egypt, Jesus Christ instituted the new Pass- over, namely Himself, to be immolated under visible signs by the Church through the priests in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father.[6]
As the reader can see, these words of the Council Fathers mention neither the prayer Te igitur, nor the Pope, and so they can hardly be brought forth as proof of the theory that `the mention of the Pope in the Canon is the affirmation and the most solemn setting into motion of the fundamental unity between the Church, the Pope and the Mass' (p. 48). In fairness to Fr. Belmont, however, it must be admitted that his purpose in quoting the passage from the Council of Trent was to prove his theory only indirectly. This passage, he says, shows that the Church is the principal offerer of the Mass (p. 48): therefore, so too the Pope, because in the Te igitur it is asserted that the Church offers the Mass una cum, that is `one with' the Pope. Truly, then, may the Church and the Pope be said to be in union with one another in `the reception of the fruits of the Mass', because the entity that offers the sacrifice ... receives the fruit thereof' (p. 48).
It would be too lengthy and of too little profit here to review the old dispute (ignored by Fr. Belmont) over the principaliter offerens of the Mass, contested by the Scotists[7] (the Church) and the Thomists[8] (Christ). An admirable account of that dispute in Fr. Clark's Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation[9] may be recommended to those who wish to pursue this matter at length. What is of immediate relevance here, is that Fr. Belmont has misunderstood the Tridentine decree which he adduces in support of his own variant of the Scotist doctrine. Fr. Clark's comments on the same decree reveal how Fr. Belmont's interpretation of it is unbalanced and selective:
From the carefully chosen words of the decree (`He instituted a new Passover, his very self, to be immolated under visible signs by the Church through the ministry of priests' and `He who now offers through the ministry of priests, is the same as he who once offered himself on the cross, the manner of the offering alone being different'), it is seen that the Council's teaching permits both the Thomist doctrine, according to which Christ directly exercises his priestly function in the Mass, and the Scotist explanation, according to which the eternal high priest offers in a more remote manner, by communicating to his Church the power to offer, which she exercises through her ministers.[10]
Thus the Thomist who holds that the priest acts in persona Christi also holds that it is Christ with whom the celebrant unites himself and his sacrificial action; furthermore, that it is incorrect to say that `the Church is ... one with the Pope, the principal offerer of the Mass' (p. 48). It is also incorrect, according to Thomist doctrine, to say that `it is the entity that offers the sacrifice that receives the fruit thereof' (p. 48), for St. Thomas teaches that Christ, being one who knows not sin, has no need of the `fruit' of sacrifice, or as he calls it, `effectus sacerdotii' that is, effect of priesthood, expiation, &c.[11] Of course, the Thomist doctrine is here neither upheld nor rejected, the purpose of referring to that point of view being merely to show that Fr. Belmont's arguments are far from conclusive.
Let us now examine Fr. Belmont's conclusions given on p. 49, which we quote in their entirety for the benefit of the reader:
... a priest cannot and should not name John Paul II in the Canon of the Mass. If he does:
[1] - he is making the most solemn act of allegiance to John Paul II and recognizing his works as those of Jesus Christ.
[2] - he adheres to the rupture of the unity between the Pope and the Mass, a unity which is at the heart of the Church.
[3] - he publicly proclaims his adhesion to a false rule of faith and this in the very act which is the Mystery of the faith.
[4] - or if he thinks that mention of the name of John Paul II is only a word without any importance, a flatus vocis which corresponds to nothing, he profanes by this falsehood that which in the Church is most precious, namely, the Canon of the Mass.
Making sense of these conclusions is no simple task. To begin with, let it be observed that none of them except point [2] has any connexion with what had previously been argued in the essay. Moreover, point [2] is itself dubious, and some of the difficulties involved in accepting it have already been discussed. Point [4] may be dismissed out of hand as being irrelevant: the issue revolves only around the priest who sincerely believes Wojtyla to be Pope and who accordingly inserts his name into the Te igitur. Can the Mass of such a priest be said objectively to be sacrilegious, schismatic, heretical, so that we ought to eschew it at all costs? These, then, are the weaknesses of Fr. Belmont's conclusions, considered without reference to external sources.
***
The last inherent flaw in Fr. Belmont's essay to be examined is the conflicting explanations that he gives of the grammatical function of the phrase una cum in the prayer Te igitur. This must be regarded as a most serious defect, for unless one accurately identifies the exact grammatical function of the phrase, the significance of mentioning the Pope cannot be determined. Fr. Belmont with much inventiveness assigns two functions to the phrase:
(1) He takes the phrase with the verbs petimus, rogamus, and especially offerimus, making the Church the subject of all these verbs; that he does this cannot be contested, for he writes:
... it is the Church (una cum the Pope) which offers the sacrifice."[12]
and then this:
... the Church is the first beneficiary because she is, one with the Pope, the principal offerer of the Mass ...[13]
(2) But he also takes the phrase for a simple coupling device, linking the reference to the Pope to that of the Church in the intercessorial component of the prayer:
We offer the sacrifice ... for the Church ... una cum the Pope, one with the Pope.[14]
... the Mass is offered first of all - in primis - for the Church (una cum the Pope) ... [15]
Two observations may be made on these explanations. First, that they cannot be reconciled, since in order to do so, the phrase must be made to operate twice, which is impossible since it appears only once. If one were to say: `I shall sing a song for Eddy along with Frank', meaning `Frank and I shall sing a song for Eddy', he cannot at the same time mean: `I shall sing a song for Eddy and for Frank too, who is with him'. Second, that the meaning assigned by Fr. Belmont to the phrase (viz., that it is an assertion of the Church's being `one with the Pope in the reception of the fruits of the Mass') cannot be directly derived from either of the explanations, but rather it appears to be an unnecessary expansion of them (but of which let the reader judge for himself).
Now before we go to the authorities to determine the grammatical function and the true meaning of this una cum phrase, we shall do well first to take heed of several facts. One is that Jungmann demonstrated conclusively in his Missarum Sollemnia[16] that the section of the Te igitur prayer beginning with una cum was a later addition, which is of enormous significance, because it shows that no such extravagant notion as that of which Fr. Belmont speaks was `asserted' in the Masses of the Primitive Church. Another point is that Jungmann makes una cum govern not only famulo tuo Papa nostro, but also the parties named after the Pope; or, to put it another way, he does not separate the Pope from the parties named after him,[17] as Father Belmont does here:
It is important to note that the rubrics of the missal prescribe that in case the Chair of Peter should be empty, the phrase una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. should be omitted. Thus the words una cum pertain exclusively [emphasis added] to the Pope and not to the Bishop or to the faithful.'[18] In this disagreement of opinion between Belmont and Jungmann, the latter certainly has the best of it; for it is an unnatural straining of the Latin to make the mentioning of the bishops be governed by pro in the pro Ecclesia tua clause and to disjoin it from the more proximate una cum. Furthermore, it is not difficult to see how the rubrics may have disguised the original nature[19] of the una cum phrase by prescribing its omission together with that of the reference to the Pope, when the Holy See was vacant. In other words, its omission does not necessarily prove that it is to be taken exclusively with the reference to the Pope. For una cum, as we have stated above, was a later addition to the Canon, tacked on, as it were, as if an afterthought, that is, as if to say: `... for the Church, and oh, in particular the following: our Pope so-and-so, our local bishop so- and-so, all the other bishops (and our king/emperor so-and-so)'.[20] This is a natural way of praying, and a natural development in the liturgy. So too would the recognition be natural of the fact that once the reference to the Pope was removed, the parties named after him could easily and neatly (being in the same case) be connected with the pro Ecclesia tua phrase without the intervening (and somewhat superfluous) una cum. It affects the sense little: for there is little difference between saying `for the Church and also in particular, our local bishop and all the other bishops' and saying `for the Church and our local bishop and all the other bishops'.
One piece of extraneous evidence which more or less settles the matter is to be found in the `Exsultet' Praeconium paschale[21] which the deacon sings during the Easter vigil. A portion of that `laus cerei' may be quoted to demonstrate not only that the Pope is not to be made the privileged partner of some mysterious union with the Church by separating the reference to him from the reference to those named after him, but also that Fr. Belmont has in vain read between the lines of the rubrics of the Missal, and has made an unwarranted inference from their prescriptions.
Precamur ergo te, Domine: ut nos famulos tuos, omnemque clerum, et devotissimum populum: una cum beatissimo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N., quiete temporum concessa, in his paschalibus gaudiis, assidua protections regere, gubernare, et conservare digneris ...
The similarity, both in diction and in construction, of this part of the Exsultet and of Te igitur cannot be denied. Yet in the former text it is abundantly manifest that una cum does not `pertain exclusively to the Pope' (when there is no Pope, the deacon sings `una cum Antistite nostro N.'), and reason compels us to infer that the same applies to the `una cum' phrase in the Te igitur.
What, then, is the true meaning of una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro? The learned Fortescue writes in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The priest prays first for the Church, then for the pope, and diocesan ordinary by name ... When the Roman See is vacant, the mention of the Pope is left out ... [22]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:
... the first intercessory prayer petitions God to help the pope, the local bishop and other rulers (cultoribus) of the Church..."[23] A. Croegaert writes:
We then set out in order the intentions for which we are offering the sacrifice; this is the intercession (intercessio) for the Universal Church, the Pope, the Bishop, (the Prince) and all the bishops ... [24]
and:
Una cum: this adverb and preposition do not relate (as some think) to the rather distant verb offerimus, but quite naturally link the reference to the Church to that of the hierarchy... [25]
Jungmann has this to say:
... This [i.e., praying that the Church be pacified, guarded, united and governed] leads on to the mention of those through whom the Spirit of God wills to direct the Church and hold it together as a visible society ... [26]
and:
In the prayer for persons the first to be mentioned is, very fittingly, the Church as a whole, and especially those who have charge of it: the Pope, and the bishop, who are mentioned by name, and then `all those who, believing what is true, foster the Catholic and apostolic faith'; - that is, all the bishops of the world ... [27]
Other authorities[28] say the same. They agree that the purpose of the reference to the Pope (which is not to be separated from the reference to the bishops) is simply to implore God's help for him; it is no different from the intercessory prayer which we say for him in the Good Friday liturgy. Una cum does not suggest any special relationship between the Pope and the Church as far as the offering of the sacrifice of Holy Mass is concerned, but simply indicates the will of the suppliants (supplices) to single out certain members of the Ecclesia sancta catholica for whom help is especially desired.[29]
As the Mass is, therefore, not offered `together with' the Pope, it is manifest that the notion of sacrilege occurring in Masses in which John Paul II's name is uttered must be abandoned. However we must now consider the notion which Fr. Belmont advocated in the first and third of his conclusions, namely, that merely to acknowledge Wojtyla as Pope in the Canon is in itself a schismatic act, rendering illicit the Mass in which it occurs.
The sin of schism, according to St. Thomas,[30] is committed by refusing to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff and to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. We have an example of a schismatic act very pertinent to our investigation in the excision of the reference to the Pope from the Greek liturgy made by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople[31] in defiance of Papal authority which had commanded the reference to be inserted and had expressly warned that failure to comply with this would sever one from the Church.[32]
Anyone, then, who would charge with schism these `traditionalist' priests who insert John Paul II's name into the Canon of the Mass, must make them appear in the same light as Photius, for their alleged offence revolves around the same element of the liturgy as that which Photius tampered with, for which tampering, among other similar acts of disobedience, he was pronounced excommunicate. But this cannot be done. Firstly, Photius did wilfully rebel against legitimate authority, whereas these `traditionalists' rebel against no legitimate authority. Secondly, Photius desired to rupture the unity of the Church, and his omission of the Pope's name betokened this, whereas none, not even those among us most hostile to `traditionalist' priests such as the Lefebvrists who use John Paul II's name, would be mad enough to suggest that they harbour this evil desire. On the contrary, the very fact of their being traditional, of their opposing ecumenism and watered-down Catholicism evinces their desire of preserving the unity of the Church of all ages, so that when they do something inconsistent with this (such as inserting John Paul's name into the Canon) we must conclude that it betokens delusion and inability to reason soundly, rather than schismatic intent.
Again, it is in vain to argue in this fashion: Photius excised the reference to a legitimate pope: these `traditionalist' priests insert a reference to an illegitimate `pope'. The only abuse of the reference to the reigning Pope for which one is reckoned a schismatic is omission: no other abuse is known. The reason for this is that the meaning and the purpose of the reference to the Pope in the prayer Te igitur are so fixed as to allow the celebrant only two choices with regard to its use: either he may insert it and thereby signify the fact of his being in communion with the reigning Pope, or he may omit it, and thereby renounce obedience to that same Pope. There is no third `alternative'. Prayer is to be made for the Pope, and this prayer is only made for him in so far as he is the Pope. If it were otherwise, one might very well be at liberty to pray for `our Pope Karl Marie or `our Pope Little Miss Muffett', or for anyone, or for anything else of one's choosing. But this is absurd, and if anyone were to make such a prayer, we would rightly regard him as either deluded, or mad; so too, when we hear of `traditionalist' priests praying for `our Pope John Paul', we must regard it as an unfortunate, even ghastly, mistake, but not one such as to bring the taint of schism upon those who make it. And in this mistake, the `traditionalist' priests who fall into it are like the clergy who in the Western Schism were deluded by false claims to the Papacy, and not only rejected a legitimate pope, but `acknowledged' a false `pope' - yet they have never been regarded as schismatics, because they acted, as canonists say, `ex ignorantia non affectata' (that is, `out of genuine ignorance'), not out of malice.[33]
To the question whether it be lawful to receive the Blessed Sacrament from `traditional' priests who insert John Paul II's name into the Canon, or to assist at their Mmes, sufficient answer has already been given above. These priests are not schismatics, and therefore their Masses - provided they be valid - are certainly not illicit. But let us, for argument's sake, suppose that there remains a doubt whether or not it be a schismatic act to use John Paul II's name in the Canon - nay, let us even grant, for argument's sake, that it is a schismatic act, and that those who commit this act incur excommunication latae sententiae: is it, in such circumstances, lawful to receive communion from them, or to hear their Masses? Canon Law replies that it is:
1 Excommunicates are some vitandi [to be avoided], others tolerati [tolerated].
2 No one is vitandus, except he be pronounced excommunicate by the Apostolic See, his excommunication be publicly proclaimed, and by decree or sentence it be expressly stated that he is to be avoided. (Can. 2258)[34]
They have, then, what is in moral theology called a `scrupulous conscience', and do wrong, who deprive themselves of the sacraments because of a slight doubt about the legal status of validly ordained priests saying valid Masses when the Law has made a concession on this point `for the benefit of the faithful.'[35] `In order to avoid scandals and numerous perils, and to relieve timorous consciences, We hereby mercifully make the following concession ... :' so begins Martin V's constitution Ad evitanda scandala[36] from which the law cited above derives its origin.[37] In that constitution, published at the Council of Constance in 1418, the Holy Father relaxed the law regarding the reception of the sacraments from excommunicate priests, and he was moved to do so by the bad experiences and enormous deprivations suffered during the Western Schism. Like that terrible event, our own times have seen the rise of a prodigious number of cases of conscience, dilemmas, and uncertainties with which the faithful are faced. But if one of these uncertainties concerns the lawfulness of valid Masses said by priests who, acting in good faith, make the error of inserting John Paul II's name into the Canon, I hope that the arguments that I have employed above shall suffice to persuade the reader of the groundlessness of such doubt, especially if it hinders a Catholic from fulfilling his obligations.
Western Australia Feast of St. John Baptist de la Salle, 1992
Endnotes:
[1] Fortes in Fide: A review of Catholic teaching published four times a year. Publisher: Fr. Noel Barbara, 16 Rue des Oiseaux, B.P. 5901 F-37059 Tours Cedex (France), 4Šme trimestre 1990, No. 7, 44-50.
[2] Sti. Pii V Sodalitas, Plantinkaai, 2; B-2000 Antwerpen, Belgium. Dr. med. Walter V., Baisier Tolstratt 87, rue de Peage; 2000 Antwerpen-Anvers, Belgium.
[3] The speech may be heard on an audio-recording, which if anyone wishes to track down, I suggest he write to the address given on Fr. Sanborn's periodical Catholic Restoration, 1409 West 14 Mile, Suite 300, Madison Heights, Michigan, 48071-1055, U.S.A.
[4] Belmont, 46.
[5] Belmont, 48.
[6] Session XXII, Chapter I, (Denz., no. 938); Belmont immediately falls into error by overlooking Chapter II (Denz., no. 940).
[7] The starting point for the Scotists is Quodlibet XX, in Opera Omnia, (VivŠs edition, Paris 1895), 26, 298-311.
[8] The starting point for Thomists is Summa, III, qu. 82.
[9] Clark, Francis, S.J., (1981, 1st ed. 1960 Devon), 323-341. Among modern attempts to resolve this disagreement we may cite Croegaert, A. (1959) The Mass - A Liturgical Commentary (London, Burns and Oates), 2 Vols. trans. by J. Holland Smith, II, 29-64 (chpts. 4-7).
[10] Clark, 330 ff.
[11] Summa, III, qu. 22, art. 4.
[12] Belmont, 47.
[13] Belmont, 48.
[14] Belmont, 46.
[15] Belmont, 47.
[16] Jungmann, J.A. (1948), Missarum Sollemnia (Vienna) 2 vols., ii 185 ff., English translation by F.A. Brunner, C.Ss.R., (1955), as The Mass of the Roman Rite, 2 vols. (New York), ii 152 ff. Cp. Jungmann, J.A., (1955), Der Gottesdienst der Kirche (Innsbruck), English translation by Clifford Howell, S.J., (1957) as Public Worship (London, Challoner Publications), 129: `The petitions, however, are much more of an innovation', and 130: `It is easy enough to see that the petitions are an insertion ...'; and King, A. A. (1957), Liturgy of the Roman Church, (Bungay, Suffolk, Longmans, Green and Co.), 313. Both Jungmann and King believe that this addition was first adopted throughout the Church early in the 6th C.
[17] Jungmann (1948). ii 196 = Jungmann-Brunner, ii 156: `... the first named cultores are obviously, then, the shepherds of the Church, the bishops. A confirmatory argument to show that they, and not simply the faithful, are meant by the double expression is found in the construction una cum, which would be otherwise meaningless; may God, we say, protect the Church (which is composed of the faithful as a unit), along with the Pope and all those who, as faithful pastors, have a part in her governance ...'
[18] Belmont, 45 f.
[19] This would not be without parallel. For example, the `rubrics for the first time consecrated the view that the normal rite of the Roman Church is the low Mass' (Crichton, J.D., An Historical Sketch of the Roman Liturgy, an essay in Lancelot Sheppard (ed.) (1963) True Worship (London, Darton, Longman and Todd), 75. N.B. I ought to warn the reader that this book is fraught with Modernism and anti-Catholic sentiment - with imprimatur to boot - although it does contain some useful information). Thus the rubrics, by treating the low Mass as the norm, disguise the fact that high Mass was originally (and still is as far as liturgiologists are concerned) the norm, as Fortescue informs us (Catholic Encyclopedia 1907-1912 edition, ix 799 B).
[20] Jungmann (1948), ii 197 ff. = Jungmann-Brunner, ii 158 f. discusses how even secular leaders were included in the Canon along with the Pope and rest of the hierarchy.
[21] The Praeconium paschale imposed by St. Pius V on the Roman Missal is attributed by some to St. Ambrose (d. 397; see New Cath. Encyc., (1967), v 765); King, 195, places it in the 5th C. It must be admitted that it is unclear whether the portion of the Exsultet beginning with `Precamur ergo te ...' was in the original, or was a later addition; at all events it is ancient.
[22] iii, 261-262.
[23] ix 422 (the author of the article is J. H. Miller).
[24] Croegaert, ii 197.
[25] Croegaert, ii 201.
[26] Jungmann (1948), ii 194 = Jungmann-Brunner, ii 154.
[27] Jungmann-Howell, 130.
[28] Cp. Boulet, Denis and B‚raudy, Roger, The Eucharist, in The Church At Prayer series, A.G. Mortimer (ed.), transl. by Miriam Hederman (1971, Shannon, Irish University Press) ii 148 f ; Mgr. Chevrot, Notre Messe, transl. by J. Holland Smith (1958), Our Mass (London, Challoner Publications) 129 f.; Davis, Williams O.S.B., Thomas, O.P, Crehan, S.J., (eds.) (1962), A Catholic Dictionary of Theology, (Edinburgh, Nelson and Sons), i 321; Parsch, Pius, The Liturgy of the Mass, transl. by H. E. Winstone, M.A. (1957, London, Herder), 230 ff.; Lercaro, Giacomo Cardinal (1959), A Small Liturgical Dictionary, (London, Burns, Oates & Washbourn), 58 & 198; King, 311 ff.; etc. Duchesne, L. (1889), Origines du culte chr‚tien, ‚tude sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne, Eng. trans. by M. L. McClure (1902, 5th ed 1931), Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, (London), 179, appears to bc the only dissenter from this view: `... the oblation is thus made by the whole Christian family ...' `Whence it can be seen that he takes `pro' to mean `in the place of'. But Duchesne failed to see the connexion between the general petitions of the Te igitur and the Orationes Sollemnes (cp. n. 29 below) and this counts against his view.
[29] Jungmann (1948), ii 191 f. = Jungmann-Brunner, ii 152 f. draws our attention to the great intercessory prayers of the Good Friday liturgy, the Orationes Sollemnes in which petitions are likewise made `pro Ecclesia, pro beatissimo Papa nostro, and pro omnibus episcopis': Jungmann sees a common origin of the Orationes Sollemnes and of the petitions made immediately before the Memento Domine, and to him the intercessorial character of both sets of petitions is undeniable.
[30] Summa, II-II, qu. 39, art. 1: `... schismatici dicuntur qui subesse renuunt summo Pontifici et qui membris Ecclesiae ei subjectis communicare recusant.' The Code of Canon Law adopts this definition almost verbatim: `... si denique subesse renuit summo Pontifici aut cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.' (Can. 1325, 2)
[31] Instance cited by Croegaert, ii 202.
[32] The instance of Pelagius warning the Tuscan bishops of this is cited by Belmont, 48; Jungmunn (1948), ii 195 = Jungmann-Brunner, ii 155; King, 313.
[33] Cp. Vermeersch, A., S.J., & Creusen, J., S.J., (1936), Epitome Iuris Canonici Cum Commentariis (Mechlin), 5th ed. iii 311, writing on the sins of apostasy, heresy, and schism: `Si quis ex ignorantia etiam graviter culpabili, non tamen affectata, ista peccata committat, immunis est a delicto quod pertinaciam requirit.' [Vermeersch collaborated in the codification of Canon Law (1904-17), and with Creusen wrote the first complete commentary (1918) on Canon Law, which was succeeded by their more definitive Epitome (1921-23).]
[34] 1. Excommunicati alii sunt vitandi, alii tolerati. 2. Nemo est vitandus, nisi fuerit nominatim a Sede Apostolica excommunicatus, excommunicatio fuerit publice denuntiata et in decreto vel sententia expresse dicatur ipsum vitari debere, salvo praescripto. Can. 2343, 1, n. 1.
[35] Cath. Ency., v 681 A.
[36] Mansi, J.D. (1759-98), Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (Florence-Venice); reproduced Graz 1960-61, 27, 1192 f.
[37] See Vermeersch-Creusen, iii 275; also Cath. Ency., v 680 D f.
_________________ In Christ our King.
|