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.

And the extract from Nomen Religioni Obnoxium in which Fr. Sanborn concedes the main point.

Irrelevant, yet an interesting piece of information, I suppose.