Hi Ann –
Thanks for all you do! I have been perplexed over what I might/should be doing at the Te Igitur during the Mass. Over the last few years, when that moment arrives during the Holy Mass, I just omit praying or even thinking of P.F., [the writer is here referring to Antipope Bergoglio] since I agree with you on his ‘lack of position’, shall we say.
So what should I pray for at that moment, if anything? I guess I never thought too hard about it, but it does seem to me now, as in times past, that perhaps there is a prayer that is appropriate in lieu of the name P.B.?
I just thought I would ask what your thoughts are about this, and what you or others do at the Te Igitur, given the seat is vacant.
Sincerely in Christ,
J
Quick review for those who aren’t Latin Mass-goers: All of the various fixed prayers of the Mass are referred to by the first two words of the prayer. So when we’re talking about “the Te Igitur”, we are talking about the first prayer of the Canon of the Mass, immediately after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy…) within which the Pope and the local Bishop are prayed for by name. Here is the text in Latin and English.
Te ígitur, clementíssime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Fílium tuum, Dóminum nostrum, súpplices rogámus, ac pétimus, uti accépta hábeas et benedícas, hæc ✠ dona, hæc ✠ múnera, hæc ✠ sancta sacrifícia illibáta, in primis, quæ tibi offérimus pro Ecclésia tua sancta cathólica: quam pacificáre, custodíre, adunáre et régere dignéris toto orbe terrárum: una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antístite nostro N. et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus.
We therefore, humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ; Thy Son, our Lord, that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to accept and bless these ✠ gifts, these ✠presents, these ✠ holy unspotted Sacrifices, which in the first place we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church to which vouchsafe to grant peace, as also to preserve, unite, and govern it throughout the world, together with Thy servant our Pope, and our Bishop, and all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Before Pope Benedict died these 132 days ago as of this writing, at the Te Igitur and any other mentions of the name of “The Pope”, such as if the “Pro Pontifice” propers were optionally added, or at the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday wherein the Pope is prayed for by name in the second of the nine prayers of the Great Intercessions…
V. Let us pray for our most holy Father Pope N., that our Lord and God, Who chose him to the order of the Episcopate, may keep him in health and safety for His holy Church to govern the holy people of God.
P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
R. Arise.
V. Almighty and everlasting God, by Whose judgement all things are established, mercifully regard our prayers, and in Thy goodness preserve the Bishop chosen for us: that the Christian people who are ruled by Thine authority, may under so great a Pontiff, be increased in the merits of faith. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.
R. Amen.
…I would whisper very quietly at the utterance of ‘Francis’, “He’s not the Pope. Benedict is the Pope. Give it to me.”
Now since Pope Benedict died these 132 days ago, if I am hearing a Mass at which it is either known to me or very likely that ‘Francis’ is mistakenly commemorated, I whisper, “He’s not the Pope. Give it to me.” Because the Te Igitur is for the commemoration of the LIVING Vicar of Christ, and there is no living Pope right now, therefore that clause should be simply omitted, and only the local Bishop is named in the Te Igitur.
What do I mean by, “Give it to me”? I am asking Our Lord to give ME any temporal punishment (such as time in Purgatory) that might be due the priest for his mistaken commemoration of an Antipope. Why do I say “might be due”? Because only Christ can judge the hearts of men, and weigh each man’s conscience, knowledge of the situation, and most importantly it seems to me, the intense fear and coercion that priests are under with regards to the wretched apostate tyrant Bergoglio. Any priest who were to publicly announce that he was morally certain that Bergoglio is an Antipope would probably be the unjustly “canceled” and probably invalidly laicized. But he would be immediately functionally incapable of administering the Sacraments and living his priestly vocation, not to mention jobless, homeless, and stripped of his retirement benefits (we’ll leave the question of ANYONE under the age of 55 getting any retirement benefits for another conversation) and health insurance.
Should a priest be willing to suffer persecution? Of course. But at the same time, you’d have to be a sociopath utterly devoid of human empathy to not appreciate the pressure that priests are under. So if I can appreciate from the comfort of my armchair the pressure they are under, how much more does Our Lord? So, we pray for priests, and even ask to bear some of their burden if it will help. This has the effect of letting Our Lord know that we’re serious – really, really serious – about getting this Antipapacy mess resolved, AND it has the effect of INCREASING filial charity towards priests who are mistaken on the identity of the Vicar of Christ, instead of causing one to descend into resentment and even hatred of them.
Should they know by now, after ten years of near-daily proof that Bergoglio is a raging apostate at total war with Jesus Christ and His Holy Church, observably in violation of the infallibly defined dogma of Papal Infallibility, and thus pointing backwards to February of ARSH 2013 and Pope Benedict’s obviously invalid, substantially erroneous attempt to only partially resign and thus “fundamentally transform the Papacy into a collegial, synodal shared Office”?
Yes. Yes they should. They really, really should. But, how many of us have done things that we SHOULD have known (and deep down maybe DID know) were wrong, but we did them anyway? Probably the best example of this that has touched everyone reading this is entering into a bad marriage. It’s hard these days to not have civil divorce be within one degree of separation of oneself. Bad signs are almost always present before a trainwreck marriage is entered into, to the spouses themselves and outwardly to observers. But the human capacity for denial and self-delusion, especially in the attempt to avoid or delay suffering, or to maintain a false happiness, is gargantuan.
Having said that, let me remind the readership, both lay and clerical, that for a priest, bishop or cardinal to “get right” in terms of the Bergoglian Antipapacy would require about forty-five seconds in the confessional booth, whereas sacramental marriage is indissoluble.
“Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been one week since my last confession. I am a priest. I have come to the realization with moral certainty that I have mistakenly commemorated an Antipope at the Te Igitur and in public speech for the past ten years and failed to commemorate the true Pope for the last decade of his papacy. I was deceived. It was an honest mistake, which I now clearly see and greatly regret. I meant no harm to Our Lord and His Holy Church to whom I am forever espoused and love with all my heart….”
“…Ego te absolvo….”
Done. Finished. Over.
But, I, Ann Barnhardt should have probably done more. I have done a lot, but I could have done, and could still be doing more. This isn’t over. Not by a long shot.
In direct answer to the original question, what to pray at the Te Igitur? In addition to praying for the local ordinary, I always pray the Matthew 17:20 Intention:
That Bergoglio be publicly recognized and removed as Antipope and the whole thing be nullified, that Pope Benedict be publicly recognized as having been the one and only living Pope from April ARSH 2005 until his death and for the Petrine See in se, that Bergoglio repent, revert to Catholicism, die in the state of grace in the fullness of time and someday achieve the Beatific Vision, and for the repose of the soul of Pope Benedict Ratzinger.
Let me leave you with an absolutely outstanding essay that Supernerd sent to me a few months ago. It was written by an SSPXer who has been browbeaten for years from his 1958 Sedevacantist friends for attending Mass in which “Francis” is erroneously commemorated. The 1958 Sedevacantists argue that to even attend such a Mass is to proclaim oneself in union with Bergoglio and his heresies. (As if Our Lord doesn’t know and understand your mind and is confused by your presence at Mass. Facepalm.) But what I’m about to block quote below is a simply masterful logical explanation of the dynamics of the Te Igitur as a whole and how it logically relates to the “una cum”. It is exactly this kind of irrefutable logical COMMON SENSE that makes the world go ’round. THIS thoroughly irrefutable consilience is why “unlettered laynothings” can go toe-to-toe with Ph.Ds, canon lawyers and Cardinal Princes of the Church. If what any such people are saying is internally contradictory, irrational, illogical or simply not observable reality, then they are wrong – period. And not only CAN they be refuted, they MUST be refuted, with credentialism being nothing more than a laughable distraction to be dismissed with a chuckle.
Click over and bookmark this post. I’ll block quote the meat of it so that it cannot be erased.
Assuming, for sake of the argument, that the una cum does what sedevecantists say that it does, who does the paragraph claim to be in union with? “Pope Francis.” But there is no such person. He’s not a pope. His name isn’t Francis. He’s a villainous heretic named Jorge Bergoglio wearing a costume. So, at worst, the paragraph places the Mass in union with a fiction.
If we’re going to precise, strict, and legalistic, we should follow those principals to the extreme – especially if it means doing otherwise causes us to accuse millions of faithful traditional Catholics of being schismatic heretics …. A little restraint is in order.
But, let’s continue to some things that won’t cause people to roll their eyes at me. There are a number of canons that one must employ when discerning the intention and meaning of a writing. Some of these are:
- Ordinary-Meaning Canon: Words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings—unless the context indicates otherwise.
- Fixed-Meaning Canon: Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted.
- Omitted-Case Canon: Nothing is to be added to what the text states or reasonably implies (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est). That is, a matter not covered is to be treated as not covered.
- Negative-Implication Canon: The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
- Unintelligibility Canon: An unintelligible text is inoperative.
- Series-Qualifier Canon: When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series.
- Proviso Canon. A proviso conditions the principal matter that it qualifies—almost always the matter immediately preceding.
- Whole-Text Canon. The text must be construed as a whole.
- Presumption of Consistent Usage: A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text; a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.
- Harmonious-Reading Canon: The provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory.
- Irreconcilability Canon: If a text contains truly irreconcilable provisions at the same level of generality, and they have been simultaneously adopted, neither provision should be given effect.
- Ejusdem Generis Canon. Where general words follow an enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or classspecifically mentioned (ejusdem generis).
- Prefatory-Materials Canon: A preamble, purpose clause, or recital is a permissible indicator of meaning.
- Absurdity Doctrine. A provision may be either disregarded or corrected as an error (when the correction is textually simple) if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve.
Let’s apply each of these to the relevant phrase: “unite, and govern her throughout the world; as also for Thy servant {“Francis”} . . . our Pope, and N . . . our Bishop, AND FOR ALL ORTHODOX BELIEVERS AND ALL WHO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH.”
1. Ordinary-Meaning Canon: Words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings—unless the context indicates otherwise.
Ordinarily, a pope is Catholic. A non Catholic pope is impossible. Consequently, that phrase applies to “all orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith,” including the [Catholic] pope. Nothing in the ordinary meaning implies that it unites one with an anticatholic, apostate, who happens to be an idolatrous antipope.
2. Fixed-Meaning Canon: Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted.
At the time the text was adopted, everybody knew that one must be Catholic to be pope. Furthermore, the authors of the text intended it to apply only to ALL ORTHODOX BELIEVERS AND ALL WHO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH,” which necessarily excludes heretics.
3. Omitted-Case Canon: Nothing is to be added to what the text states or reasonably implies (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est). That is, a matter not covered is to be treated as not covered.
Antipopes and heretics are omitted from the text, but “orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” are specifically included, as the ultimate qualifier. Therefore, we can assume that the text does not intend to unify the Mass to heretics and schismatics.
4. Negative-Implication Canon: The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
The specific expression of “orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” necessarily implies the exclusion of heretics, antipopes, and schismatics.
5. Unintelligibility Canon: An unintelligible text is inoperative.
The notion that the paragraph intends to unite “all orthodox believers who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” with heretics, schismatics, and antipopes is nonsensical. The authors surely did not intend such a perverse result. Forcing that interpretation renders the entire paragraph unintelligible, and therefore inoperative, and not illicit or schismatic.
6. Series-Qualifier Canon: When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series.
The phrase: “thy servant {“Francis”} . . . our Pope, and N . . . our Bishop, AND FOR ALL ORTHODOX BELIEVERS AND ALL WHO PROFESS THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH” is a series that ends with a modifier “who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.” Consequently, that modifier applies to the entire series. In other words, applying Canons 1-6 to the phrase causes the unavoidable conclusion that it a) assumes the “pope” is Catholic, and b) EXCLUDES HIM IF HE’S NOT.
7. Proviso Canon: A proviso conditions the principal matter that it qualifies—almost always the matter immediately preceding.
The application of proviso canon is the same as the series qualifier canon. In other words, “in union with Francis” PROVIDED he is Catholic.
8. Whole-Text Canon. The text must be construed as a whole.
Reviewed as a whole, it is manifestly obvious that the intent of the text is to unite the Mass with “orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” and only “orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.”
9. Presumption of Consistent Usage: A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text; a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.
It is consistently presumed that the pope is Catholic. If he’s not Catholic, he’s not pope, and therefore he’s not in the Canon.
10. Harmonious-Reading Canon: The provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory.
The only way to read the Te Igitur harmoniously is to presume that it naturally excludes non-Catholics and antipopes, for all of the reasons above. Otherwise, the sentence would literally contradict itself.
11. Irreconcilability Canon: If a text contains truly irreconcilable provisions at the same level of generality, and they have been simultaneously adopted, neither provision should be given effect.
If the Te Igitur both united the Mass with a) nonCatholics, schismatics, heretics, and antipopes, while also using the ultimate universal qualifier “and all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith,” then it would be truly irreconcilable and neither provision would be given effect.
12. Ejusdem Generis Canon. Where general words follow an enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons or things of the same general kind or classspecifically mentioned (ejusdem generis).
There is one class of people that is specifically mentioned “orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.” Therefore, those general words only apply to the specific enumeration of the “pope” and “bishop” immediately preceding them, if they are of same kind or class that was specifically mentioned – Catholic.
13. Prefatory-Materials Canon: A preamble, purpose clause, or recital is a permissible indicator of meaning.
The phrase “all orthodox believers and all who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith” is the purpose clause of the paragraph. Consequently, it is a permissible indicator of meaning for the entire paragraph.
14. Absurdity Doctrine: A provision may be either disregarded or corrected as an error (when the correction is textually simple) if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve.
No reasonable Catholic would interpret the Te Igitur as intentionally uniting the Mass and those assisting it with a heretic and/or antipope, because the paragraph is specifically limited to Catholics. In other words, the sedevecantist position on the una cum violates the absurdity doctrine.
I would add in conclusion that an otherwise solid and orthodox priest erroneously uttering the name “Francis” at the Te Igitur is a clear sign that said priest wishes to be in union with the Petrine See, even though he is mistaken in identifying Antipope Bergoglio as the Pope, just as St. Vincent Ferrer’s mistaken utterance of the name of an Antipope for a time was manifestation of his total unity with Rome. Now, if I can understand this precision with regards to the many priests I know and have heard Mass celebrated by, and even call friends, in which I know for a fact that “Francis” is commemorated, and I have zero doubt as to their desire for and unity with Holy Mother Church, how much more can Our Lord comprehend it – He who knows their hearts and minds better than they themselves do?
And so I return to the question of whether I have and will do everything I can to help resolve this horrific situation. Believe me when I say…
I HOPE THIS HELPS.
St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.
St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.
St. Peter, pray for us.
Our Lady of Copacabana, pray for us.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and on your Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
