|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 9, Number 12
 December 1998 
|
|
|
Does a Botched Mass Count?
Q: Suppose my priest really messes up the Mass, committing liturgical abuses right and left. How do I know when things are so bad that I haven’t fulfilled my Sunday obligation and have to go to another Mass?
A: From a legal perspective, almost any Mass, no matter how badly botched or abused by the celebrant, will satisfy your Sunday obligation. According to Canon 1248 §1, "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."
The legislative history of this canon is particularly informative. Originally, it stated that one’s Sunday obligation was fulfilled by "assistance at a Mass which is legitimately celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite" (italics mine). In the drafting process for the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the word "legitimately" was dropped. The Canon Law Society of America’s commentary on the Code notes that, by removing the term legitimately, "the burden of determining which Mass is legitimately celebrated and which is not is now lifted from the faithful" (Coriden, Green, and Heintschel, eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, 854).
By showing up for Mass on Sunday (or the evening before), you are fulfilling your obligation. If the celebrant fails to fulfill his obligation of celebrating the Mass in a licit manner, that is his responsibility, not yours. You need not go to extra lengths, such as going to an additional Mass, because he is derelict in his duty.
That said, if you know that a Mass is likely to be botched and there is a Mass you can attend just as easily that you think will be celebrated more reverently, it may be better to go to that one instead. You will be less irritated and may derive more benefit. However, that is a matter of foresight and prudence, not legal obligation.
James Akin
Q: Mormons claim that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates that had been hidden away long ago but which Smith now had in his possession. Did anybody ever actually see these plates?
A: If you look inside a Book of Mormon, there are the names of eleven men who are put forward as "witnesses" of the plates, but their testimony is highly suspect, to say the least.
According to the testimony signed by the first three men who allegedly saw the plates—Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris—"an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." This supernatural marvel, they claimed, was shown to them "by the power of God, and not of man."
But these three men were emotionally primed for the part. Joseph Smith related how, upon learning there were to be three witnesses, they importuned him "to inquire of the Lord to know if they might not obtain of him the privilege to be these three special witnesses." Their pleas became so urgent that Smith complied. He received, in answer, a reply from the Lord. "It is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them," Christ told the three (Doctrine & Covenants 17; see also Joseph Smith’s History of the Church 1:51-53). But when they retired to the woods with Smith, nothing happened. So they prayed longer and harder, each crying out in turn for the divine confirmation.
At one point, Martin Harris left the group, believing himself to be the obstacle to the answering of their prayers. Moments later, Smith recorded, a light descended upon him, Cowdery, and Whitmer, and an angel appeared holding the gold plates. A heavenly voice confirmed that Smith’s translation was correct.
With this, Smith went in search of Harris, who asked for Smith’s assistance in prayer. Presently, Smith again had the same vision and Martin himself exclaimed ecstatically, "Mine eyes have beheld, mine eyes have beheld" (History of the Church 1:54-55). The account, written by Smith himself, suggests that this incident was, at most, a psychological or emotional event brought about by fervent wishing and insightful coaching.
If the three witnesses were to verify his work, why didn’t Smith just show them the plates, which he still had in his possession? If I wanted to show you a book I had in my office, would I take you into a field and pray for an angel to bring it there?
For some reason, Smith found it expedient to add eight more testimonies to those of the original three witnesses. Mormon iconography presents these eight men as one group, gathered around a tree stump on which sits the stack of gold plates. However, according to John Whitmer—one of the eight—the plates were "seen" by two separate groups of four men. They did not "see" the plates in one place at one time.
Mormon missionaries will tell you these eight men both saw and handled the plates. In fact, according to Joseph Smith’s brother William, the other witnesses only "hefted" something covered with a sack.
John Whitmer seems to be the only one to give an independent statement that he handled the plates uncovered. Yet he, too, stated that they were shown to him "by a supernatural power" (History of the Church 3:307).
If the plates were physical objects in Smith’s possession, what need was there for heavenly assistance in seeing them? The accounts suggest the plates were seen with nothing more than the eye of the imagination.
Isaiah Bennett
Q: I was told that the Council of Trent and Summa Theologiae specifically include the words "for you and for many" in the formula for consecrating the Eucharist. Since the current rite of Mass says "for you and for all," would this invalidate the consecration?
A: There are several misconceptions here. The words "for you and for many" only appear in translations of the current rite of Mass, not in the original Latin. The current Latin edition has the phrase pro vobis et pro multis, which means "for you and for many" or "for you and for the multitude." The phrase pro vobis et pro multis is the same as it was previously; only the translation is different.
The Council of Trent did not specify the words. It was the so-called Catechism of the Council of Trent (actually written after the Council), or Roman Catechism, which dealt with the specific words of consecration. This work, while esteemed and venerable, is not infallible. No pope or council ever issued a dogmatic definition that the Roman Catechism is without error.
The same goes for Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologiae (III:78:3), Aquinas does include the phrase pro vobis et pro multis in the words of consecration, just as we do today. However, Aquinas is speaking to what the approved formula of consecration was in the Latin Rite and was not addressing other approved formulas of consecration.
Throughout the history of the Church, there have been at least 89 variations of the formula of consecration approved by the Church (see Likoudis and Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, 109). Many of these entirely exclude the phrase in question. For example, the canon of Hippolytus, which dates back to the beginning of the third century, gives the following as the words of consecration for the cup: "And likewise, taking the cup, he said: ‘This is my Blood, which is shed for you. When you do this, make memory of me.’"
More to the point, St. Paul himself omits the phrase and gives the words of consecration as: "In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’" (1 Cor. 11:25).
Ultimately, when a matter has not been settled infallibly, prior writings and writers cannot be used to attack a later practice that has been approved by the Holy See. And the translation of the phrase pro vobis et pro multis as "for you and for all" has been approved. This principle is something that Aquinas specifically endorsed. In his Questiones Quodlibetales, he stated: "We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he [sic] may be in divine Scripture" (IX:8).
John Henry Newman adds: "Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey" (Letters of John Henry Newman, 236).
Jason Evert
Q: Our sister’s marriage recently was declared null. How should we react to that news?
A: Such a question contains many facets that are specific to the concrete circumstances of your sister’s case, but I’ll try to offer some general thoughts.
When one learns that the marriage of a family member or friend has been declared null, one should not look at it as a "victory" in the case of those who wanted the annulment or as a "defeat" for those who might have been opposed. The Church doesn’t look at it that way.
Even though most annulment cases are not filed until one or both parties are thinking about marrying in the Church, an annulment is not a second chance to do something right; it is a recognition that the first time never satisfied the objective requirements of law.
There is nothing satisfying about declaring marriages null. Every annulment, correctly decided, discloses a failure. It documents the frustration of one, and often two, people who tried to do what they thought was right and who might well have wanted to enter the kind of life-long union the Church calls marriage. But for reasons centered in one or both parties, that attempt was null from the outset.
In annulment cases involving Catholics, every declaration of nullity represents the failure to identify factors which could threaten the validity of a marriage and address them adequately in advance, as called for in Canon 1066. Every annulment is another voice calling for higher standards in marriage preparation programs, not lower.
Besides that, what the family and friends of those involved in an annulment case might glean from it (although this is easier to see in cases that go affirmative) is, perhaps, a better appreciation of the factors that can result in matrimonial nullity. Time and again, tribunals receive testimony from family and friends who say that they were privately opposed to the wedding in question, but that they hid their feelings out of some misguided sense of loyalty to the couple. Regrettably, these people did not trust their instincts at a time when it might—just might—have made a difference.
I know it is hard not to feel joy at the announcement of an upcoming wedding in one’s family or circle of friends. But perhaps the hard lessons of annulments will help more people realize that a wedding, even a big church wedding with all the trimmings, is simply not a panacea for the serious problems burdening so many people in modern society.
Edward Peters
Q: My priest said that we shouldn’t be concerned about bringing our separated brethren into the Church since they’re already Christians. Is this true? If so, did this teaching come from Vatican II?
A: Your priest is sadly mistaken. Christ himself compels us to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19–20). Consequently, it will always be the mission of the Church "to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 845). By denying our separated brethren the opportunity to enter the fullness of Christ’s truth, we are actually denying them Christ himself. What your priest told you has never been the teaching of the Church, either before Vatican II or since.
Peggy Frye
|
[TOP]
