|
L e t t e r s
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 5
 May 1994 
|
|
|
The many fine points made by Fr.
Nicholas Halligan in his article, "To Be or Not to Be a Sacrament"
[January 1994] should not be allowed to obscure the genuine issues
he either eludes or avoids altogether.
"The Church did not institute the sacraments . . . she
has not the arbitrary disposition of them. The Church merely administers
them on behalf of Jesus Christ." True. But the real issue is
whether the content of what is being administered has been
altered. If the Church "has not the arbitrary disposition"
of the sacraments, neither does the pope. And yet what else was the
Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI?
Fr. Halligan seems to think the New Mass did nothing but make the
public prayer of the Church "more understandable and
thus more spiritually fruitful." But the question in dispute
is precisely whether it teaches the same doctrine as the traditional
Latin Mass. (The term "Tridentine" Mass is a polemical misnomer.
The traditional Latin Mass predates Trent by a thousand years and
more. It is incontestably the oldest rite of Mass in Christendom,
as scholars of all religious backgrounds agree.)
The point is not whether the New Mass is understandable,
but what it gives an understanding of; not whether it is fruitful,
but whether its fruits are authentically Catholic. It is not principally
a matter of the language of offering, but of the doctrine offered.
The Maronite, Byzantine, Mozarabic and traditional Latin liturgies
all express and enact the same truths. But does the New Mass?
If you compare the text of the traditional Latin Mass to that of the
Novus Ordo, it is not hard to conclude that the latter is a "grave
break with tradition," and a "striking departure from the
Catholic theology of the Mass." Those phrases come from an evaluation
of the New Mass done 25 years ago by 40 Roman theologians under the
aegis of the emeritus-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith. Their charges were summarily dismissed (often in cheap
personal attacks); their theological objections were never answered.
Many of these theological problems require no great acumen
to see. Among the most blatant are: changing the consecration (which
requires a sacrificial and sacramental act) to a narrative of institution
(which requires no such thing), and altering Our Lord's words about
his blood being shed "for you and for many" to
"for you and for all." Few things in logic or common
sense are clearer than the fact that the words "many" and
"all" do not mean the same thing.
The reason for this mistranslation or subterfuge? To make the New
Mass correspond to fashionable theological speculation about the ultimate
salvation of all. Our Lord was speaking of the effects
of his sacrifice and indicating some would refuse them, a doctrine
considered punishing, judgmental, and definitely not nice. Accordingly,
the revisers would have us believe he was referring to the motivation
for his act, and, since the text is against them, they change
it. Apparently they know what the Lord meant better than he did.
At this point, one might well cite the very canon Fr. Halligan quotes,
Denzinger 2101, against him: If it is "never
permissible to follow a probable opinion or course of action with
regard to the validity of any sacrament, especially the Eucharist,
when a safer opinion or procedure is available which insures the validity,"
then these changes, which at the very least cause doubt, should lead
us to prefer the traditional Latin Mass, about the validity of which
there is no doubt whatever.
Nor can the New Mass plausibly claim to be a revision of
the traditional Latin rite, unless one is so loose in one's terminology
as also to consider a stick figure a "revision" of the Venus
de Milo. Again, compare the text of the traditional Roman Canon to
the New Mass's First Eucharistic Prayer. The latter is manifestly
not a translation, even a grossly incompetent translation, of the
former; nor can it be a revised equivalent: The two differ in theological
content far too widely for that to be plausible. Rather it seems that
Msgr. Klaus Gamber is correct: The New Mass is not a revision but
a new creation. Again we come back to the question of fact. Is it
an orthodox or a heterodox rite and how is one to tell?--questions
which Fr. Halligan needs straightforwardly to discuss, not assume
what he is obliged to prove.
Further, Fr. Halligan's bland assurances that the Church
makes available the traditional Mass to those wish it are belied by
the shabby, even grotesque campaign of the vast majority of American
bishops to stymie such efforts and vilify those who make them, even
though they be in accord with John Paul II's stated wish that the
traditional Mass be accessible "widely and generously."
Similar problems arise in the article's presentation of marriage.
The psychological impediments to sacramental marriage listed in the
article are so broad, murky, and subjective that no marriage could
escape being nullified at any time by a party who wants out, the process
speeded by diocesan marriage tribunals which issue [annulments] like
ecclesiastical Pez dispensers.
When annulments go from a few hundred in 1968 (years after the Vatican
Council, be it noted) to some 48,000 in 1988, one is left with the
impression that either vast numbers of adult human beings have, uniquely
in our history, suddenly become hopeless moral imbeciles incapable
of giving valid consent or that a new, heterodox doctrine of marriage
is now being taught. Fr. Halligan does little to dispel that conclusion.
The new rules turn those who, from religious obedience, made
truly heroic sacrifices to honor their vows to difficult or invalid
spouses into deluded fools who wasted their lives and missed their
chance for self-fulfillment, for most likely their decades-long liaison
was no true marriage at all. The modern history of the word "annulment"
could only be written by Humpty-Dumpty, who made words mean whatever
he wanted them to mean at the moment.
The question on your magazine's [cover], "Are the sacraments
you receive valid?", remains unanswered. If the indispensable
minimum for a "yes" remains proper matter, form, and intention
to do what the Church has ever done and taught, then my difficulties,
nay anguish, intensify, for what I see around me looks very like the
abandonment or perversion of the Catholic faith.
Fr. Halligan quotes Paul VI: "Anyone who takes advantage of the
reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending
ecclesial sense." I submit that being affronted by people's bad
manners, which is all that statement boils down to, is far less than
the uncompromising defense of true Catholic doctrine required of holders
of the Petrine office.
Finally, I should note that I am not connected with any schismatic
organization, nor am I even a member of a traditionalist parish. I'm
just a disheartened layman at long last fed up with the nonsense,
distortions, half-truths, and outright lies dished up by various ecclesiastical
authorities for the past 25 years in a vain effort to prove that "X"
is the same as "not X."
P. M. Aliazzi
Cleveland, Ohio
Editor's reply:
1. Although major elements of it come down to us from
the earliest centuries, the Tridentine rite is not in its entirety
"the oldest rite of Mass in Christendom." The Divine Liturgy
of St. John Chrysostom, for example, which is used in Eastern rites,
is older.
2. The consecration was not changed to a mere "narrative
of institution (which requires no [sacrifice])." If that had
happened, the Novus Ordo would contain no sacrifice at all--an
untenable proposition.
3. The dispute about translating pro multis
as "for all" or "for many," while interesting
liturgically and linguistically, has nothing to do with the validity
of the Mass, and Fr. Halligan was writing about validity.
4. He was not writing about which rite, old or the
new, is the preferable for doctrinal instruction, spirituality, or
aesthetics. He was discussing what it takes for the Mass, in any rite,
to be valid, and he should not be faulted for not discussing something
outside the scope of his article.
5. The vast expansion in the number of annulments--most
of them in the United States--leaves one with questions, I grant
you that, but I don't think one is forced into the either/or dilemma
that you propose.
Rare, Really Rare
First we again want to tell you how much
we value your work. We use your literature to help teach uninformed
Catholics (which, unfortunately, are almost all of them) as well as
to answer non-Catholics. Your reliable and down-to-earth explanations
are truly valued. We pray for your continued success.
Second, we have a concern about the article, "To
Be or Not to Be a Sacrament," in the January 1994 issue of This
Rock. Fr. Halligan states that a "grave personality disorder"
which may surface from its latent state long after the date of the
marriage vows can render a marriage invalid or, in his words, "may
cause a sacramental marriage unable to come into existence at the
moment the vows are pronounced."
We wish that Fr. Halligan had emphasized the extreme
rarity of such latent "grave personality disorders."
We fear some might read the article and see this as a loop-hole which
justifies the annulment of their marriage--all they have to do
is claim their spouse had a latent personality disorder when they
were married.
Even if a spouse becomes mentally ill, there are no grounds
for an annulment. We promise before God, "for better or for worse,
in sickness and in health. . . ." Our Holy Father has on several
occasions criticized the American Church's widespread granting of
annulments. Let's make sure that we do nothing to assist this travesty.
John and Mary Charlesworth
Napa, California
No Organized Outreach
I'm trying to give one of these
books [Where We Got the Bible] and Pillar of Fire, Pillar
of Truth to every (ex-)Catholic inmate that I find in the 33rd
Street jail. We are losing many Catholics in our jails; most of the
chaplains are not Catholic, and they greet every new inmate at orientation,
when it's easiest for the men and women to "come to the Lord."
They give them King James Bibles, come one-on-one, and tell them all
they need is the Bible. We have no priest assigned to go to the institutions,
no prison ministry, so we are fighting a losing battle. Sure wish
your organization was closer to help.
Joe Basile
Orlando, Florida
Vexed Vet
I am 69 years old and a very fortunate
man in many respects. I am a combat vet of World War II (a gunner
on a B-17). I survived a terrible crash in the North Sea and am one
of eight out of ten who were saved. By God's grace and the AA program
I have had 30+ years of fairly serene and maturing sobriety.
However, as a struggling Catholic I am very dejected, and
at times if it weren't for the power of my devotion to the rosary
and the intercessions of various saints, I would give up the struggle.
I liked what the Catholic faith was when I was a young boy. I long
for the Old Mass where we men learned our Latin and were proud to
be altar boys.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm proud to be Catholic, but I am
confused. Years back, black was black and white was white. Now there
is a gray area. Years back, nuns were nuns and great teachers. Priests
were who they were supposed to be.
Yes, I am a sinner, and, yes, I falter along the way. But in the past
it seemed we had things to keep us going and coming back. I hope I
haven't bored you with this and I am convinced if I live long enough,
there will be a turnaround.
Donald T. Gervais
Merrill, Wisconsin
Another View on CRI
I read the letter from Steven McCoy
in the February 1994 issue concerning how he was being drawn to Catholicism
by CRI. I applaud CRI for standing up for what they call the "essentials
of the Christian faith," which are really just the parts of the
Catholic creeds they accept. There is a double standard, however,
in that the things most Protestants agree on, but Catholics do not,
are "problematic" or "confused." But the things
most Protestants disagree on are within "the pale of
orthodoxy." Their definition of orthodoxy seems to change.
CRI is not immune to misquoting Scripture to make its points.
Almost daily radio host Ron Rhodes says the Bible mentions salvation
by "faith alone" over 200 times, when really it mentions
it once--in the negative. Hank Hanegraaff constantly quotes Paul
as saying, "to be absent from the body is to be present with
the Lord." I bet the souls in hell wish that were true! History
is not safe with the "Bible Answer Man" either. I am sure
they know that the Council of Trent added no books to the Bible.
In a way CRI is just perpetuating its ministry. If they would
only admit that they didn't get their doctrines from the "Bible
alone," we wouldn't have all the David Koreshes and Jim Joneses.
Sola scriptura is the problem. Anyone can pick up a Bible,
quote a verse out of context, and come up with a doctrine no Christian
has believed in the 1960+ years of Christianity. Catholic countries
certainly don't have the problem with the weird new religions that
America does, so they don't need a CRI.
Mike Pallas
Anaheim, California
Shocked, I Say! Shocked!
I just received my first issue and was a
little shocked at first. What I seemed to be seeing upon first glance
was a stance that was not only pro-Catholic, but as anti-Protestant
as most hard-core Fundamentalists are anti-Catholic. What is this?
Most Protestants are people with strong faith and should be commended
as such. I am not saying that they are right; I believe in the truth
of the Catholic Church, but they are, on the whole, good people, and
we could learn a lot from them. Without their pressure we probably
wouldn't be so devoted. We might still be selling indulgences if Luther
hadn't done something about it (not that I think the Reformation was
a good idea).
Anyway, my point is that such an attitude is only a catalyst
for bigotry. There is a man in my parish, who, because of such an
anti-Protestant attitude, refuses to join hands with the rest of the
congregation during the Lord's Prayer. Why? Because that's the
way Protestants used to pray: holding hands. This is a destructive
attitude, and I know most people new to apologetics would find this
as shocking as I did.
Aside from the above complaint, I thoroughly enjoyed my first
issue. I read the whole thing the day I got it. It was incredibly
informative and helpful. Oh, by the way, what's with all the yellow
pages references and the Latin phrases?
Marc Archambault
Dauphin, Manitoba
Editor's reply:
1. Sorry, we meant of course to refer repeatedly to
the white pages.
2. In theological discussions, whether among Catholics
alone or between Catholics and Protestants, some topics are routinely
referred to in Latin terms, such as sola scriptura. We think
Catholics should get used to discussing their faith on a mature level
and with the correct terminology. You don't need to know Latin to
be able to wield a few of these terms.
3. I too don't hold hands during the Our Father, but
not because some Protestants hold hands while they pray. My reasons
are that (a) the rubrics don't provide for it; (b) it is not a traditional
posture of prayer for Catholics; (c) as Thomas Day writes in Where
Have You Gone Michelangelo?, holding hands is precisely the wrong
thing to do at that time because it undercuts the symbolism of
the sign of peace, which follows immediately; (d) in our culture holding
hands is not a sign of greeting between strangers (the sign for this
is a handshake).
On this last point, let me give an example. If my
wife and I met a couple on the street, and if these folks weren't
already close friends, we'd say hello and shake their hands. We wouldn't
hold their hands, just as we wouldn't hug them. Either of
the latter would be considered an invasion of "private space"
and might even have unsavory connotations.
Holy Land? Holy Smokes!
I can't see anyone contributing to the economy
of that diabolical state of Israel. Their ethnic cleansing has been
going on since 1948. The Jews have been Christianity's greatest adversary
since they killed their Messiah. Your presence abets the economy of
those who wouldn't hesitate to spit on your religious symbols.
Anonymous
Redding, California
Editor's reply:
We'll send you a postcard from Jerusalem: "Having
a great time. Glad you're not here."
Let's Party, Apostles!
Hey brothers, keep speaking the
truth and defending the Bride (Catholic Church) of Christ. Your jokes
and puns are in good taste; we have to be able to laugh in this field
of apologetics. Some of your dissenters forget that Jesus was not
a Puritan. On the contrary, Jesus was a sociable, festive, party-oriented
person. Jesus knew when to be serious about religion as when he threw
the merchants out of the Temple by force.
I believe your apostolate is even-tempered and well-balanced. You're
humorous when humor is appropriate and serious when orthodoxy is at
stake. Regardless of who opposes your apostolate, I believe the triune
God of this universe looks upon your apostolate with favor!
Jesus O. Romero
Lakeview Terrace, California
|
