|
L e t t e r s
DRESS CODES, SACRAMENTS, AND THE NEW RITES
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 4
 April 1994 
|
|
|
I thank you for the opportunity
to tell you that Spanish and Latin are pronounced very similarly and
the Latin Tridentine Mass is easily understood by Hispanics whereas
the Nervous Ardour in English is not. Nor in Latin is this Ardour
liked by Hispanics.
You want to get them back? Use the money you are spending on the pilgrimage
to the Holy Land to get the faithful to demand the bishops restore
the Tridentine Mass for the Spanish-speaking people.
The Hispanics are leaving the Church for Protestant sects
because Protestant preachers do not allow the female sex to be readers,
lectors, Communion servers etc., and the other aberrations that are
practiced by Modernist priests and bishops. Also, Protestant preachers
require their followers to dress modestly when they attend the worship
service, while "Catholic" priests and bishops are afraid
to offend the rabble by telling them the Vatican Dress Code and enforcing
it.
And what are the Modernist sermons on? Never the gospel or
Catholic teaching but on platitudes, human rights, social activities,
homosexual rights, and God is our Mother; and he does not punish or
she does not punish. And other heresys [sic].
Protestant preachers are eloquent speakers. They know how
to twist the Scripture a thousand different ways to lead their listeners
astray--likewise for unlearned Catholics who do not know what
the Church teaches. And they are not going to find out the truth from
you because you don't know it.
You promote preachers who have recently "converted" and
are now spreading heresy which also helps people leave. As if preaching
is a sacrament. All the power of preaching can do is stir up the air
in front of the preacher's mouth. But the sacraments are denied us
in the new rite. Confession [comes] before reception of [the] Real
Presence and before first communion. Two very important channels of
grace denied to us by Modernists. But where are you on this?
Charles L. Stout
Laurelville, Ohio
Editor's reply:
Although you make some good
points, on some matters you're flat-out incorrect:
1. We aren't spending any money on the pilgrimage
to the Holy Land. Pilgrims who accompany us will pay their own way,
and Catholic Answers staffers who will go to the Holy Land will be
given complimentary tickets by the tour agency. We are providing this
special pilgrimage as a courtesy to our many friends (and hope that
many of them can join us), but not one penny of donated funds will
be used to get out people from LAX to Tel Aviv.
2. Although there is a dress code for St. Peter's
Basilica, it largely isn't enforced (though we agree it should be),
and it doesn't apply to any parish in this country (though maybe it
should). We think Catholics have much to learn from their Protestant
friends about proper Sunday attire.
3. Although, as you say, preaching is not a sacrament,
it is a task to which the Holy Spirit has called certain men. That
some recent converts fall into this category (and here we are using
"preaching" in a broad sense) is a fine thing. If you are
going to slander such people by terming them heretics, at least have
the courtesy to identify the heresies they're supposedly promoting.
In that way they will be able to reformed themselves. Broad charges
do no one any good.
4. The sarcraments are not "denied us in the
new rite," for the simple reason that all the sacrament continue
to exist. The charism of infallibility protects the Church from promoting
invalid sacramental rites.
Catholic Billy Grahams
I am glad to see that someone has finally
realized the serious situation that exists south of the border, for
our Hispanic brothers, and has decided to do something about it. This
is something that should have been done ten or fifteen years ago by
our Catholic bishops.
At that time they supported the very ones who were persecuting
the Church, and condemned those who took up arms in defense of their
country, their faith, their families, and their freedoms. This one
thing, I believe, contributed more to the success of the Fundamentalist
groups than any other factor.
What are needed more than anything else in this hemisphere
are some great Catholic evangelists--gifted orators with the zeal
of the apostles and the knowledge and ability to use the media as
has Billy Graham. Think of the tremendous good that would be accomplished
if we had a few Catholic Billy Grahams.
Picture this scene some time in the future: A world-renowned
Catholic evangelist speaking to a vast audience and Catholic Answers
distributing 100,000 copies of Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth.
Fantasy? I don't think it is. I am sure it could become reality, and
I am praying that it will.
Leo L. Cersovski
Harrisburg, Oregon
Mr. Brewer Returns
As a former Roman Catholic priest,
I am interested in what [Fr.] William G. Most said about 2 Peter 3:16.
It's an old Roman recipe that I used. No one would deny the fact that
there are "some things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other Scriptures,
unto their own destruction." But we must bear in mind two important
things:
1. Peter says "some things"--not all, are hard--not
"impossible" to understand. There are linguistic, grammatical
areas in Holy Writ that are difficult. However, in the basics, when
it come to God's salvific plan for man, it is clear.
2. Let's say there are "difficult" areas of God's
Word. Nowhere does it say that a priest or other religious authority
is to interpret such passages, but does command us to "study
to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).
Shame on the Roman Catholic religion for indicting [sic]
the Scripture to be so complex that it is impossible to correctly
interpret. The trouble is with man who "wrests" the Bible
"to his own destruction."
Bartholomew F. Brewer
Mission to Catholics International
San Diego, California
Sabbath Plus Lord's Day
James Akin's article in the December
1993 issue describing why Christians began to observe the Lord's Day
instead of the sabbath was very informative but did not address two
serious questions.
First, observance of the sabbath, in addition to being part
of the Jewish ritual, was also one of the Ten Commandments. This is
the only one of the ten that Christians have changed. What tells us
that we can do so? Mr. Akin's reference to a gospel passage where
Jesus defended his disciples' plucking grain (Mark 2, also Matt. 12)
really doesn't indicate he'd changed the sabbath observance either
temporarily or permanently. My Confraternity of Christian Doctrine
translation of the New Testament includes a footnote to Matthew 12
which reads, "Jesus does not make use of his sovereign power
to abrogate the sabbath law, but he teaches that it should be interpreted
in a reasonable way."
Paul's comment from Colossians 2 was pretty clear, but it is unique
and doesn't indicate that the old sabbath requirements now apply to
a different day. The conclusion I would draw from Scripture is that
Christians should observe both the sabbath, because it is commanded
in the decalogue, and the Lord's Day, because of the various passages
Mr. Akin cited describing early Christian practice in commemorating
the Resurrection.
My second area of confusion is peculiar to Catholic practice.
Whether measured from dusk to dusk or midnight to midnight, a day,
whether the Lord's Day or the sabbath, has only 24 hours. It is possible,
however, to attend Mass and meet the Church's requirement for Sunday
observation from at least 4:00 Saturday afternoon until 7:00 Sunday
evening. When does the Lord's Day begin and end? How long are we to
avoid servile labor, the other part of the Lord's day command?
As an aside, Mr. Akin wrote, "for those . . . obliged
to work on Sunday, the Church permits attendance at an anticipatory
Mass on Saturday instead." I never heard that fulfillment of
the Lord's Day obligation on Saturday nigh instead of Sunday was strictly
limited to those with serious conflicts and would appreciate some
references for this statement. I feel unprepared to defend Catholic
practice of challenged by a Jew or Seventh-Day Adventist.
A. Jerome McGlynn
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Whose Oracles?
I just received my audio tapes of "The
Bible-Only Debate." In the question and answer period after the
debate, there was a question regarding Romans 3:2, where Paul states
that the oracles of God had been entrusted to the Jews. The Protestants
contend that this applies only to the Old Testament, but I think it
also applies to the New Testament. After all, Jesus was born among
the Jews, preached among the Jews, and all of the apostles were Jews.
In Matthew 15:24 Jesus says, "I was not sent but to the sheep
that are lost of the house of Israel."
When he first sent out the apostles to preach in Matthew 10:5-8, he
said, "Into the way of the Gentiles go ye not, and into the cities
of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the sheep that are
perished of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying, That the
kingdom of heaven is at hand. Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse
the lepers, cast out devils: gratis you have received, gratis give
ye" (Rheims New Testament, 1582).
I believe that these verses clearly indicate that Jesus'
New Testament "oracles" were also being entrusted to the
Jews. Yet the Jews, except his followers, rejected them just as they
had rejected the prophets before him. I would think that this, combined
with the fact that the Jews closed their canon at least 50 years into
the Christian era, would be enough to show that Paul was only referring
to the period of time before Christ established his Church in Romans
3:2.
The fact that they rejected the oracles delivered personally by Jesus
and by his apostles show that they had ceased to be a reliable source
for what the scriptures are. Their rejection of the New Testament
at the Jamnian Synod is further proof of this and shows that we need
to look to the Church for both the Old and New Testament canons.
David W. Cooney
Huntington Beach, California
A Librarian's Delight
I think This Rock should
be placed in every public library. Many who would never subscribe
to a Catholic periodical might pick up This Rock in a library
and read it. I encourage other subscribers to give gift subscriptions
to their local libraries. Also I encourage people to donate good and
uplifting literature, especially books that present what the Church
really teaches, to their town libraries. Could you suggest a few crucial
titles? [Yes--see the catalogue. Editor]
Thank you also for the December 1993 "Fathers Know Best"
on the Filioque clause. I know many Eastern Rite Catholics
who consider themselves to be faithful and loyal Catholics but who
reject the doctrine of the Spirit's procession from the Father and
the Son as a misguided Western theological opinion or even a schism-producing
and corrupting heresy.
Rev. James O'Driscoll
Gloucester, Massachusetts
"Fr. Withit" Right On
The article in the January issue
on liturgical abuses--"Fr. Withit"--was right on
target on what has gone on and is still going on with our Mass during
the past 25 years, starting soon after Vatican II. What you describe
is not uncommon in how pastors, even older ones who should know better,
are doing to the Novus Ordo.
The Tridentine Mass lasted for over 1500 years. The "new"
Mass has been in place for just over one generation and already it
is failing so miserably and so obviously that groups such as CREDO
are (to their credit) desperately trying to patch things up. However,
so many Catholics today want the historical Latin Mass as well as
the old sacraments and the traditional Roman Catechism
in toto. Why? Because over the span of two thousand years
of Catholic history these tenets of our faith have worked and endured
the test of time and spread throughout most of the world.
Can we blame so many Catholics today who simply aren't interested
in "progressive" theology and the new liturgies that fail
miserably in a mere 30 years? Many are disillusioned and, as polls
indicate, are not going to Mass.
Allowing the Mass in the vernacular has spawned the many
"Fr. Withits" in parishes throughout the U.S. Church (or
should I say the "American" Catholic Church as opposed to
the Roman Catholic Church?). It seems that our bishops are powerless
or merely overlook the abuses that have been and still are occurring,
due to the pressure from feminist groups in the "pronoun war,"
further confusing the faithful. This, along with the many defective
catechisms used in Catholic education, results in the youth of the
next generation being woefully ignorant of their faith. This started
a generation ago by the then-youths, who, now as teachers, are imparting
the same defective, ommissive, and deficient teachings.
Joseph V. Jacoby
El Cajon, California
Indian Translations
I received Catholic Answers' material
one month back. These days I am reading it and at the same time I
am translating it into the local language, which I think will be useful
for the people. I do hope and pray so that my works may be fruitful
and I am also requesting you to remember me in your daily prayers.
While thanking, I would like to request you to send your
magazine called This Rock to me. If you could do this favor
to me, I would be very thankful.
Br. Andrew Lalbiakfela
Oriens Theological College
Shillong, India
Misplaced Evangelism?
Why is there such a big focus in This
Rock on non-Catholic Christians? Why not more articles on evangelism
and apologetic dialog with non-Christians? I find ecumenism conspicuously
absent from the pages of This Rock. (Evangelizing
Protestants is not ecumenical.)
Of all Protestant denominations, the Anglican Church is probably closest
to being Catholic in teaching and practice. So why try to convert
them? Why try to convert any Protestants at all? I believe that salvation
comes from God through Jesus Christ and that he is not limited to
working within the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican
II affirmed the sanctity of non-Catholic Christian churches and affirmed
that salvation can be found outside the institutional Church's walls.
I made a list of things which I believe the Catholic Church
does not have a monopoly on, and I'd like to share it with your readers.
They are: salvation, faith, hope, love, joy, grace, spiritual fruits
and gifts, the Word of God, inspired teaching, correct doctrine, intimacy
with God, and sacraments. The list goes on.
If we share these things with our Protestant brothers and sisters
(although sacraments are not fully shared), isn't it a bit absurd
to "evangelize" them? Especially when we consider how many
people in our very neighborhoods don't have any relationship
with the Living God! If a Protestant has access to everything in the
list above (particularly salvation), then let's work on reaching those
who don't believe in Christ and who don't have the things on that
list.
I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the true Church
of the apostles, the Church which Jesus Christ founded. However, despite
their differences with us, I believe that Protestant churches share
(at least partially) in that claim. A person who feels sincerely called
to membership in a non-Catholic church can still be very much in the
will of God, can still be an effective minister of his Word and grace,
and can still find salvation. So I ask you to please turn your attention
towards those who really need to hear your message.
Dan Ward
Clarkson University
Potsdam, New York
Editor's reply:
We admit it. We want to convert Protestants.
We also want to convert everybody else--starting with Catholics
themselves.
You make a good point about trying to reach non-believers
(and we'll try to do more of that), but must it be at the expense
of reaching Protestants? Shouldn't we try to reach both? Shouldn't
we try to reach everybody?
Vatican II taught that only the Catholic Church has
the fullness of Christian truth; other Christian churches share partially
in that truth. Proposition: To present to others, including Christians,
that fullness of truth is an act of charity. Corollary: To refrain
from inviting Protestants into the Church is to act uncharitably toward
them. If it's good that they now have much truth, wouldn't it be better
for them to have the fullness?
At Catholic Answers we maintain that authentic ecumenism
doesn't mean ignoring those who are close to us on the theological
spectrum. It means reaching out to all men.
Militant New Agers
I have just finished Mr. Keating's book and
enjoyed it immensely. I am proud to say I am now a Catholic and stronger
in the faith.
I have met Catholic friends (as well as a few Fundamentalists)
who have fallen into New Age nonsense and irrationality. My own father
is now reading some strange literature from the Worldwide Church of
God (the sect founded by Herbert Armstrong). The Fundamentalist influences
in this environment of the "Bible Belt" are well-known.
I am inundated with the Fundamentalist message and I feel that I must
constantly read material to combat it.
But there is a new problem that I am confronted with: the
equally intolerant voice of militant New Agers who are as aggressive
as Fundamentalists in this area. I find that I can use the same materials
in answering them when I am challenged on my beliefs because they
often use the same tactics and share some similar misguided and misinformed
opinions about European religious history.
Tomas Mac an Chrosain
Dallas, Texas
Coaxing Them Out?
Yes, it's sobering to hear about
the number of Hispanics who are leaving the Church for Protestant
sects, but it's nothing new. I'm 70 now and remember growing up in
Los Angeles, and when I was a kid we'd hear about the Mexicans who
would leave the Catholic Church for the church that would give them
the most--hence Iglesia Batista, Assemblia de Dios, etc.
The Catholic Church has been coaxing Mexicans across the
border for years now and placing them in grave danger of losing their
faith. Does the Church think more of their material well-being than
their keeping their faith? A few years ago some Mexicans were interviewed
on T.V. as to why they left the Catholic Church. Their answer was
that the Catholic Mass wasn't lively enough for them. Even with their
"Mariachi Masses"?
You wrote that they are poor. At St. Kevin's Church in Los
Angeles, Nueva Vida (Spanish version of The Tidings)
is free, but hardly anyone takes one. You ask, "What
better way to [help them] than to help them keep the faith?"
The best way to help them keep the faith is to urge them to stay in
Mexico.
There have been collections for the Far East and other places.
I once suggested that a drive be started to help the poor in Mexico.
The answer was that the Mexican government would be embarrassed by
such a drive because it would infer that the government was not capable
of taking care of its own poor.
Louis M. Hess
Joshua Tree, California
Editor's reply:
We appreciate your solicitude for
the spiritual welfare of Mexican Catholics, but there isn't much evidence
that they learn the faith in Mexico either. Like laity everywhere, they
are largely uncatechized.
Misdirected, Incomplete
On page 42 of the February 1994
issue, This Rock presents a variation of the classic question:
"Is it just or fair for God to condemn eternally to hell a person
who has lived his life in holiness, then commits one mortal sin and
immediately dies?" Satan must chortle with glee every time this
misdirected question and incomplete answer come up for discussion.
Yes, it would indeed be just and fair. But the unvoiced question
that really does all the damage ought to be answered. That question
can be phrased: "Is this example of justice and fairness an accurate
portrayal of the God that Catholics worship?" Of course it isn't!
A discussion of justice and fairness requires that we examine and
understand this theoretical issue. But Catholic truth obliges us to
complete the picture by adding that God's love, mercy, and generosity
assure us that it is extremely implausible that any such situation
would ever occur.
Why implausible but not impossible? Put simply, when the
separate teachings and doctrines of the Catholic faith are seen as
an integral whole, it seems obvious that the love, mercy, and generosity
of God do not allow anyone to die until that person has completed
his period of trial and testing. That completion primarily involves
reaching our own irreformable choice of disposition toward God, whether
friendship or rebellion.
That testing also involves making our personal choices from all the
gradations of holiness or rejection that are possible in our individual
life. We grow to our destiny derived in part from the opportunities
God provided and in part from the culmination of our choices.
So it is theoretically possible that a person who lived a
long and holy life could commit one sin and be irretrievably committed
to rebellion. By that I mean a rebellious commitment such that God's
generosity, mercy, and love can find no way, short of overriding or
forcing the person's free will, that will draw the person back to
friendship.
Thus, a person who commits any sin runs the risk of eternally
being one who "by sin falls away from the divine will as much
as it lies in him, yet falls back into the order of that will when
by its justice he is punished" (Summa Theologiae I:19:6).
Eternal rebellion begets an eternal punishment.
James J. Harris
San Diego, California
Got No Friends, So Bye!
Please take my name off your mailing
list. I have dropped out of Catholicism because the liberals are unholy,
the conservatives are uncharitable, and the rest don't care. And in
my 21 years as a convert to Catholicism, I have never made one close
friend in the Church.
John Swanson
Pasadena, California
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
