|
L e t t e r s
Our Beloved Roman Canon
|
This Rock
Volume 17, Number 3
 March 2006 
|
|
|
I was disappointed with "The Unfinished Business of Vatican II" (December 2005). I found some of Marcellino D’Ambrosio’s "things that worked" to be poorly chosen. He praises the "restoration" of concelebration and the associated emphasis on the liturgy as a "communal" rather than a merely "personal" act. Unfortunately, this emphasis is at best a mixed blessing, since the Holy Mass is fundamentally a personal act, namely an act whereby the person of Jesus Christ offers himself to the Father on our behalf. And the overemphasis of the communal aspect of the Mass has led to disastrous liturgical developments and almost non-existent catechesis regarding the Church’s eucharistic doctrines.
D’Ambrosio also blithely extols the so-called restoration of the Eucharistic Prayer as an audible prayer. If this is a positive development, the dogmatic Council of Trent certainly disagrees. It solemnly decreed: If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned. Let him be anathema (canon IX, session 22). Would this indicate that supporting the elimination of this "low tone" is a position that is contrary to the infallible declarations of Trent? The same bullet point indicates that the Eucharistic Prayer "used to be whispered and called ‘the Secret.’" Rather, in the 1962 Missal, "the Secret" is one of the proper prayers, usually one or two sentences, and is not even a part of the Roman Canon, being placed even before the Preface. Perhaps D’Ambrosio needs to better familiarize himself with the missal of Pope St. Pius V before he celebrates its demise.
The last bullet point praises the "introduction of several eucharistic prayers in addition to our beloved Roman Canon." Is D’Ambrosio implying that there is something insufficient about the Roman Canon, which has been prayed in the Roman rite with little modification for 1,500 years? Does he imply that the venerable canon is somehow lacking and should be replaced in certain instances? Again, the Council of Trent disagrees:The Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer (canon IV, session 22). The Council also solemnly decreed that:If anyone saith, that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema (canon VI, session 22). So why exactly is it a "solid liturgical achievement" to introduce new Eucharistic Prayers, which rapidly replaced "our beloved Roman Canon" in the vast majority of Sunday Masses? The author gives no support for this notion; he merely states it as settled fact, despite the observation that the new Eucharistic Prayers are blander, shorter, and much more theologically vague than the ancient canon.
I thank This Rock for its tireless defense of orthodoxy, but I would expect a more careful analysis of this sensitive issue.
Robert Keim
San Diego, California
Marcellino D'Ambrosio replies:
Trent’s anathema in canon 9, session 22, does not affirm that parts of the canon must be or are best said in a low tone. It does not say that a low tone is necessary for the validity of the sacrament nor does it bind future popes and councils to preserve the recitation of the canon in a low tone. It simply condemns those who exalt themselves over Tradition and the magisterium and make themselves arbiters of the liturgy.
And yes, Trent affirms the purity and doctrinal veracity of the Roman Canon. It does not define the superiority of the Roman Canon over other Eucharistic Prayers, many of which had long been approved for use in various rites of the Catholic Church. In fact, Trent upheld any Western rite or missal older than 200 years, including the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and other rites. All of these rites had their own Eucharistic Prayers.
The prayers of the liturgy are a vehicle of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and it is precisely for this reason that the missal of Pope Paul VI restores the ancient practice of praying the canon in an audible voice: to bring more emphasis to the centrality of this great prayer of thanksgiving and allow the people to be more effectively nourished by the doctrinal teaching that it contains. To give us several Eucharistic Prayers in addition to the Roman Canon does not imply that the Roman Canon contains error any more than the use of Matthew, Mark, and Luke implies that John’s Gospel is doctrinally inaccurate. The use of multiple Gospels and canons is a testimony to the fact that no one set of human words, however beautiful—or even inspired—can ever convey the fullness of the mystery of Christ. Multiple canons and Gospels are a way to give us some depth perception or stereoscopic vision of this reality whose richness far surpasses words.
I am not in favor of relegating Eucharistic Prayer I to oblivion, as has sadly happened in many parishes. In the Byzantine liturgy, different liturgies (St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil) are mandated for different seasons or feasts, so it is apparently impossible for a priest to deprive his parishioners of important elements of the liturgical tradition based on his own personal preferences. Perhaps further changes in liturgical regulations will mandate the use of Eucharistic Prayer I for certain feasts or seasons. In the meantime, I think it would be proper to approach our pastors with respect, let them know how much the Roman Canon means to us, and request that it be used in some regular fashion.
Bad Directions
Why are so many Catholics turning to people such as Rick Warren for "spiritual nourishment" ("Wrong Turn," December 2005)? Even in our own little country of New Zealand, new pastors and churches pop up at regular intervals. What Warren is preaching sounds very much like Nicky Gumbel of Holy Trinity (Church of England) in London and his "Alpha Course," which has been going since 1990 and is now preached about in many countries. One English commentator who did one of these courses, because it had been given the go ahead by some Catholic parishes, made this comment: "Catholics beware."
The Church’s main concerns lie with the Alpha Course’s treatment of the sacraments and its promotion of a Church united by spirit rather than shared faith. It teaches that revelation is based on the Bible alone. Gumbel reduces church to "simply a gathering of Christians who get together to worship God, hear what God is saying to them, and make friends." Catholicism is presented as just one of many denominations in a "universal church."
I was absolutely gobsmacked when I read that Warren believes there is no such thing as Christian music, that it is only the words that make it sacred, while the tune is not important. I had just returned from Holy Hour, where our rendering of "Sweet Sacrament Divine" said it all.
Trevor Collins
Northland, New Zealand
More Is Better
I just saw your new look (there was a copy of this month’s This Rock at the adoration chapel today), and I think the magazine looks fantastic. I love the new logo and the wonderful artwork—I’m a big fan of medieval Christian art, and more is better as far as I’m concerned! And the articles I’ve read so far keep up the fine quality I’m used to.
Anyhow, thanks so much for the great job you do. I love reading This Rock!
Diana Parker
Stow, Ohio
Looking East
I have been a subscriber to This Rock for about a year. The impact of this magazine is phenomenal.
I wanted to say I love the new look of the layout. I love the touch of art and the new departments, especially "Truth Be Told." I also commend Carl Olson’s piece "The Rite Not to Be Roman" in the January issue. I love learning about our Eastern Catholic traditions, and I find it a valuable testimony in apologetics, especially because so many of our separated brethren in the West have never even heard of—or thought of—what Eastern Christians believe, let alone know the rich history of the Eastern Churches. They are varied in disciplines but united in doctrine. Totally Catholic.
Anthony De Marie Gutierrez
Lamesa, Texas
Mensa Chapter?
I’ve been a subscriber to This Rock for years now, and I have never been more pleased. It seems fuller. I especially like the "Up a Notch" section. I fear this may be cut if you get too many grumblers saying, "It makes my head hurt," but please don’t lose it! (Of course, only geniuses read This Rock, so maybe my fears are without merit.)
Thank you for all of your work, and may the Lord continue to bless your ministry.
Justin West
via the Internet
How to Evangelize Muslims
In the January 2006 issue of This Rock, Avery Cardinal Dulles’s What We Can Learn from the Twelfth Century does not mention how unsuccessful the apologists were in converting Muslims to Christianity. Hilaire Belloc, in The Great Heresies, does mention the lack of success, citing these reasons: (1) The Qur’an is the foundation and starting point for Muslim reasoning; (2) the Qur’an states that the Bible, as we have it, has been distorted and is, therefore, unacceptable as a witness; and (3) from early childhood, every Muslim recites, five times per day, the Shahadah, that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. This means that philosophical arguments that do not accept the Qur’an as their basis are rejected without consideration. Historical arguments that use the Bible are similarly rejected.
Muslims are people of the Qur’an, much as Evangelical Christians are people of the Bible. Because the Qur’an is the basis of Islam, including its philosophy, we could discuss with them how the Qur’an came to be the basis. They believe that an angel gave the book to Mohammed while he was alone in the desert, who then dictated it to a secretary. They claim that they know the Qur’an is the word of God because people remembered it perfectly, it has been unchanged for so many years, and it uplifts their spirits when they read it. The Qur’an itself says that miracles are not necessary to prove a divine connection. Mormons use similar arguments for the origin and holiness of the Book of Mormon.
We might discuss with Muslims that the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Old Testament has been unchanged for more years than has the Qur’an and that the Latin Vulgate has also been mostly unchanged for 200 years more than the Qur’an has. Although the Qur’an speaks of God as an all-merciful judge, we can discuss with Muslims that our Catholic faith has for almost 2,000 years spoken of God as an all-loving Father, whereas God’s love is nowhere to be found in the Qur’an.
Reversing the effect of 30,000 or more recitations of the Shahadah is a difficult task. Only a few of my Muslim friends agreed to do as little as read the Bible.
Frank Duff, the founder of the Legion of Mary, suggests that the conversion of Muslims will come through the Blessed Mother. The Qur’an has an entire chapter praising her. The Muslims hold her in great esteem as the mother of Jesus, but they have no devotion to her and no commemorations of her. In fact, Muslims have no devotion to anyone other than Allah. Intercessory prayers to the Blessed Mother are our best avenue. Our discussions may provide a seed.
Frederick A. Costello
Oak Hill, Virginia
Editor’s reply:
Thank you for your insights. I should note that the article in question is a very short selection from the weighty and comprehensive A History of Apologetics. Readers who wish to know more may want to read the book in its entirety.
One More for Your List
Thomas Woods’s article ("Don’t Know Much about History," January 2006) was terrific. I thought of one more "forgotten fact" for his list (he may already know this): Gregor Mendel, who discovered the first laws of heredity and laid the foundation for modern genetic research, was an Augustinian monk.
Patricia Kolesar
Bethesda, Maryland
Don't Know Much about Quotes
The quote that Thomas Woods begins his January 2006 article with ("the problem . . . isn’t so much what people don’t know; it’s what people think they know that just ain’t so") has been variously attributed to Mark Twain, Josh Billings, and Satchel Paige. But this is the first time I have ever seen it attributed to Will Rogers.
And, of course, the title of the article ("Don’t Know Much about History") really deserves a little accreditory nod toward Sam Cooke, who recorded the memorable love song containing those lyrics.
Now that I got that off my chest, I’m settling in to read what promises to be a great article! Thanks.
Name withheld
via the Internet
Editor’s reply:
Regarding the "just ain’t so" quote, it seems most widely attributed to Rogers. Surely none of our readers missed the allusion to Sam Cooke, but I hereby officially nod.
Father Figures
"‘Fatherly’ Wisdom" by Tim Staples in the January 2006 issue addressed criticism of the Catholic practice of calling priests "father." I suggest a different way to look at the issue.
What great benefit do we obtain by doing something Jesus apparently forbids? Staples provides some biblical examples showing the practice is not always wrong, and it is certainly reasonable that we should speak to and of our ministers with respect, but what is the point of calling them "father"? Saying "father" instead of "pastor," "reverend," "brother," or another respectful title may put off a fair-minded Protestant who would otherwise consider converting to the Church. Our historical use of the term father may not be wrong, but it is mistaken.
Jerome McGlynn
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Tim Staples replies:
Our use of the term father is appropriate because a ministerial priest is more than just a pastor, reverend, or brother. A ministerial priest has what could be termed a nuptial relationship with the Church. Acting in persona Christi, he is the bridegroom in a holy union who "begets" children just as Paul "fathered" the Corinthians: "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15). This title is a profound reminder of the truth that the people of God are a true family. Just as spouses are true parents in that they "share in the creative power and fatherhood of God" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2367), the priest shares in a unique way in the birthing of every Christian who truly becomes "a new creation" in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
As I demonstrated in my article, Jesus never condemned the use of this title. To compromise its use because of a misunderstanding among some Christian and quasi-Christian sects would be, in my judgment, a mistake. Calling priests "father" has both catechetical and apologetic value. Not just Catholics but Orthodox and even Episcopalians will tell you that this title catechizes a sacramental view of New Covenant ministry, while it also boldly declares to the world that which distinguishes us from the rest of those who name the name of Christ.
Angels and Pinheads
James Kidd’s article "Five Ways or Five Proofs?" (January 2006) reminds me of a college-class saying: "Philosophers like to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
Yet, fifty plus years ago, smack-dab in the middle of a retreat at my Catholic girls’ high school, it was five proofs/ways (probably St. Thomas’s) from a book, perhaps by Frank Sheed, that saved my wandering soul. The truth be told, in a moment of frightening doubt, I couldn’t remember them exactly. I said to myself, "It’s now or never. I need to know if God is really real."
I needed to know, on the spot, that the book’s "proofs," although hazy in my mind, were valid. How? By recalling the author’s intensity and love that flowed through his writing. He so believed what he was saying that I believed it. So I said to God, "Okay, I believe you exist. As for the rest—that is, your Son Jesus and the Catholic Church—I’ll deal with that later."
Apparently, "proving God" is still important. That being the case, I hope readers realize that whether there are five or 500 ways, there will never be the all-perfect rational proof. What is essential is that the soul is touched with the power to say yes. It’s not always our elegant brains that convert. Sometimes belief in God comes from a loving smile or a kind touch of the hand. Or in my case, knowing that someone loved God so much that he expended huge effort writing about his existence. My soul knew that this author knew God. And I figured that someday I could really get to know God personally and lots more about his Son and his Church, because I, too, knew God existed.
Yes, cradle Catholics have periods of doubt, and not only when they are young. Satan keeps trying to distract us. Personally, I keep the number five handy when doubts creep in. It’s shorthand for the years-ago yes to the existence of God even though the proofs are now forgotten—until the article.
At the end of the day, it is reasonable to assume that flawed proofs have, at times, led people to God. It isn’t always necessary to give the correct number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Mary Helen Klinge-Drucker
Freeport, Illinois
Style over Substance?
I hope This Rock isn’t adopting the modern view that style is more important than substance. I mean that in the same issue that premiered a style makeover also appeared the dreadful article about Aquinas’s five proofs (James Kidd, "Five Ways or Five Proofs?", January 2006).
There is too much wrong with the article to address in a pithy letter, but most of the mischief seems to come from the notion that proofs based ultimately on observation are invalid. This is just wrong. Juries routinely send people to death row based on indirect observation and empirical evidence. Rockets, the design and trajectory of which are based on laws and data that come from observation, can pass the orbit of Pluto and still work.
Fr. Michael Moore
Exeter, California
James Kidd replies:
I did not say that "proofs based ultimately on observation are invalid"; I said that they rest on an assumption that cannot be proved beyond all possible doubt. Nonetheless, we cannot function on a day-to-day basis without assuming the validity of our sense perception. But this reliance doesn’t guarantee that our sense perception is valid; it just means that we accept it on faith—as we do many other things in life. "Proofs" based on observations are not necessarily invalid, but they’re not airtight the way mathematical proofs are. This is further evidence that the five ways were not intended to be proofs.
Travel Advisory
The January This Rock Quick Questions contains an item about a Mass in a small town in Mexico being offered by a female. Your answer said that it was likely a Communion service rather than a Mass.
A childhood friend (who had twelve years of Catholic education) recently told me that she has married a Catholic priest. They live in Mexico and have started a seminary and retreat house. This priest is now an "archbishop" in their own "catholic" church, and my friend reports that she is not only an ordained priest but a bishop! They have been ordaining women all over the globe, and my friend proudly tells me there are over 3,000 "independent catholic churches" in the U.S. that claim to be Catholic.
I shudder to think how many people are being taken in by "independent catholic" churches (isn’t that an oxymoron?) and led astray. I think you need to warn your readers that there may be many churches calling themselves Catholic that are actually in schism. Particularly when traveling, they should look for Mass times and locations from what they trust to be a truly Catholic source and not one in name only.
Louise Springer
Menasha, Wisconsin
|
