A Reply from Upstairs
Dear St. Athanasius: We thought about you recently while reading the article by Fr. Ray Ryland (May 1995) on the heavenly reward awaiting persons who’ve never professed the Catholic faith. We had always understood that the Creed named for you, beginning and ending with “This is the Catholic faith: which unless every man faithfully and firmly believe, he cannot be saved,” meant that the Catholic faith was necessary for salvation for everyone. Could you, dear Saint, help us reconcile your Creed with Fr. Ryland’s ideas?
Our main questions is, why does your Creed fail to mention the exceptions? Not just your Creed, but also the Council of Florence in which Pope Eugene IV repeats your Creed (Denz. 695)? And the Council of Trent in its profession of faith (Denz. 1000), and elsewhere (Denz. 787,799801)? And other solemn statements, including Vatican I (Denz. 1793), Pope Benedict XIV (Denz. 1473), Ven. Pope Pius IX (Denz. 1645)? And Scripture (Heb. 11:6, Mark 16:16), and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church? Why is it that none of these provides for salvation without the faith?
O good Saint, were you ignorant of exceptions to the rule of faith? Were you surprised to see some Arians in heaven whom you failed to convert? Why did the exceptions go unmentioned for nearly 2,000 years, while today it is considered erroneous not to mention the exceptions? It is fortunate that you died back then, for your faith would not be considered Catholic today.
Saint Athanasius, pray for us!
Gerald & Amy Benitz
North Chelmsford, Massachusetts
Editor’s reply: Dear Mr. & Mrs. Benitz: In response to their invocations, I frequently drop in on my friends at Catholic Answers. They have given me your letter and asked me to respond. Fr. Ryland agreed to be my secretary as I dictated my reply.
I love the Creed named for me, but cannot claim authorship. In fact it is not a creed but a hymn, the greatest of all hymns to the Blessed Trinity, composed long after my adventurous years on earth. I regret that (as you would say) today it is seldom used and even hardly known.
I commend your zeal for authentic Catholic faith. You need have no anxiety about the apparent “exceptions” you found in Fr. Ryland’s article. Those “exceptions” reflect the fact that the Church’s understanding of the gospel is continually developing and deepening. In the few centuries (again, as you would say) between the Incarnation and my own earthly life, the Church’s faith developed in many ways. Since (your term) I went to our eternal home that development has continued. It will continue until the end of time.
In what he wrote about who can be saved, Fr. Ryland simply stated the understanding into which the Holy Spirit has led the Catholic Church in your time. Don’t take his word for it. Read for yourself in the Church’ documents: the Decree on Ecumenism, the Constitution on the Church. Use your new catechism Read sections 846-848, 817-819, and 836-845.
Please waste no sympathy on me. Be assured that the teaching I defended on earth is held as truly “Catholic” both by the Church on earth and by the heavenly hosts. But the formulation of the faith which the pope and we upheld was not, and could not be, the final word. Development goes on. Our Lord’s promise to send the Spirit to lead his Church into all truth is unfailing.
Forever your intercessor in Christ,
Athanasius
Once Bishop of Alexandria
Reprise on Holding Hands
In response to the letter of Mr. William D. Zimsen from Bremerton, Washington on the February 1995 issue, regarding the holding of hands while reciting the Our Father during the celebration of the Mass, I would like to say that this is one more example of the abuses which are so prevalent in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass nowadays. It seems that anyone can eliminate, change or add anything in the liturgy because it looks good, sounds nice, or makes a lot of sense. They tend to rationalize that it is a minor thing and people will really appreciate it; it brings us closer together and God will be so pleased when he sees how we love one another. Minor things grow into more and bigger things, and the longer they are practiced the more difficult it becomes to get back on track where we belong. Eventually they become permanent.
Those who know and understand the Mass do not appreciate it and become very uncomfortable, but do not voice their objections because they are immediately branded as ignorant, uncooperative, uncaring, unloving, and God will condemn them forever. Many who go along with these abuses do so because they think it is the right thing to do since everyone does it, not realizing that everyone is wrong.
The holding of hands when reciting the Our Father, or at any other times during the Sacrifice of the Mass is inappropriate and unauthorized in the United States. It may very well be authorized in other parts of the world. At the Masses that I have attended from New York to California where the holding of hands is practiced, people go up and down the pews, across aisles, and reach across pews to hold someone’s hand, sometimes not just any hand but a favorite one. At times even the celebrant comes down from the altar and joins in. This occurs more often during weekday Masses when the attendance is not large. This not only delays and interferes with the celebration of the Mass, but it detracts from the solemnity and the beauty which the liturgy deserves.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the most important event in the entire universe, now and for all time to come. Where else and in what other way can Our Lord reveal himself to us more completely and more beautifully than on the altar during the divine sacrifice of Calvary. Our Church recognizes this and designs the liturgy of the Mass to arouse our love for God, to strengthen our faith, and to increase our devotion. She has given us the rubrics of the Mass and the instructions in the sacramentary to guide us through these sacred mysteries and admonishes us to adhere to them precisely and faithfully. Every word and every action by all present, especially the celebrant, has a specific meaning for all and conveys a message to all.
On December 14, 1992, while speaking to a group of bishops from northwestern Germany, the Holy Father told them, “It is your task to watch over the worthy celebration of the liturgy in your communities. No one, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority, (Sacrosanctum Concilium 22), not even with intentions of making it more appropriate to the socio-political situation of the community assembled for worship. In the celebration of the sacred mysteries a person must ultimately discover God, not himself. ”
Do we need further proof or assurance that the holding of hands is not appropriate during Mass? To those who still maintain that it brings people closer together and demonstrates a community in closer unity, let me say that their presence at Mass demonstrates and completes the community’s unity.
The holding of hands during any other function, religious or secular, is a beautiful and meaningful gesture among people, and I am sure God is pleased.
Bonnie Espinoza
Sierra Vista, Arizona
Reprising the Reprise
I have read with interest the exchange of letters in recent issues regarding holding hands during the Our Father at Mass. It seems to me that most have missed the main point. Since the rubrics of the Roman Missal do not indicate that this should be done, that means that no one should be doing this at Mass. Those who think that they can improve on the liturgy by their own additions need to be reminded that the Mass is the Church’s public worship; it isn’t private prayer, and it isn’t a psychology session. The Vatican has repeatedly reminded everyone that not even a priest has the authority to change the liturgy on his own initiative.
I am not foolish enough to believe that the above is an entirely modern phenomenon. Augustine had to remind worshipers in his day that the account of the martyrdom of Felicitas, Perpetua, and their companions wasn’t to be read at Mass as if it were on the same level as Scripture. He meant no disrespect to those who were devoted to those martyrs; he simply meant that a private devotion couldn’t and shouldn’t be placed on the same level as public worship. I realize the analogy stretches a little, but the principle is the same: People who enjoy holding hands during prayer shouldn’t victimize those worshipers who are obeying the Church.
Marie Wolf
Prosser, Washington
And a Third Time
Recently you printed letters [October 1994, February 1995] on the pros and cons for holding hands while saying the Lord’s Prayer during Mass.
The first letter writer, whose name was withheld, believed holding hands was started by the female Wicca movement. I don’t know, but if Donna Steichen’s book, Ungodly Rage, is accurate, it could be possible.
The second writer, William D. Zimsen, sees no harm in holding hands. He portrays himself as a modern, broadminded, progressive type person, having faith in whatever is in vogue with the majority.
The reason I don’t hold hands while saying the Our Father can be summed up with just one word. The word is “distraction.” Holding hands is now and has always been a form of communication between people. Holding your wife’s or girlfriend’s hand is a way of showing love for another person without words. Holding the hands of someone in grief or pain lets that person feel our concern for them.
The question is, should we hold hands while saying the Lord’s Prayer? Shouldn’t our attention be totally on the Creator and not on his creatures? Should we say those holy words to the Father while our attention is divided between him and ourselves?
The Church in all its wisdom sets aside a time, after the Lord’s Prayer, for the people to communicate. The feel of another person’s hand, the show of a warm smile, and the spoken words “Peace be with you.” And peace be with your two letter writers.
Donald Moore
Aberdeen, Washington
Wanna Apologize?
Attention Northern Virginia apologists! Here is your chance to talk your talk in an orthodox RCIA program. Choose your topic from an established syllabus, cover the required material, and the rest is up to you. We do it all, and it is all founded upon Scripture, Tradition, and the natural law. What better way to gain apologetics experience than evangelizing those who are seeking the truths of the Catholic Faith? Interested?
Call me at (703) 830-3103.
Joe Strada
Fairfax, Virginia
WWW
I just found your home page on the World Wide Web. Wow, am I impressed. Thanks for this service and the articles from your magazine. I’m going to subscribe!
The more I develop my relationship with Christ, the more I seem to be asked to defend my Catholic faith and beliefs. Constantly, on a daily basis, I am asked questions and challenged as to what we believe as Catholics and why we believe it, this will surely be a blessing to me in making sure that I am well prepared to offer a good answer.
Mike
MicahVA@aol.com
Hmmm
Anti-Catholic Protestants attacking the Immaculate Conception of our Lady frequently argue that if Mary had to be sinless so Jesus could be sinless, then her mother would have had to be sinless so she could be sinless, and her grandmother would have had to be sinless so her mother could be sinless, and so on back to Eve, whom we know was not sinless. I have replied that Jesus was sinless because he was God incarnate. God preserved Mary from original sin, not because it was necessary but because it was fitting.
Therefore, I was surprised by a passage in Fr. Ray Ryland’s article “Evangelicals Who Journey East” in the April issue. Referring to a former Evangelical who became Eastern Orthodox and accepted many Marian doctrines he once rejected, he says, “But he draws the line at the Immaculate Conception — too Roman. Apparently he believes the Virgin was not preserved from the stain of original sin, yet he declares that she gave her flesh to the Son of God, who was without sin. He gives no hint as to how this could have been. Perhaps he would call it a ‘mystery,’ using a doctrinal fail-safe frequently found in Eastern theological writing.”
On the face of it, Fr. Ryland seems to be presupposing the premise that Fundamentalists falsely ascribe to the Catholic Church.
Martin W. Helgesen
Malverne, New York
Court of Final Appeal
Many times on the Bible Answer Man radio program Hank Hanegraaff makes the statement that the Bible alone is the final court of arbitration for Christians. But this belief has only produced an unending multitude of divisions within Protestantism, has made each believer’s private interpretation of Scripture his final authority, and has sadly proclaimed disunity in Christ to an unbelieving world.
Our Lord himself said to those he had placed in authority, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). In her teaching authority the Church speaks for Christ both through written and oral tradition. “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15).
I wonder if what Hank really means is that the Bible alone as interpreted by Hank Hanegraaff is the final court of arbitration for Christians. After all, all Protestant denominations make the same claim for themselves, but they cannot agree on what the Bible actually teaches.
Our Lord said to Simon Peter, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19).
The Catholic Church, founded by our Lord Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, is the divinely-instituted final court of arbitration for Christians, possessing the fullness of “the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones” (Jude 3).
Ron Nibby
Peabody, Massachusetts
Going Orthodox
I was extremely disappointed with “Evangelicals Who Journey East” in the April 1995 issue. As one who is taking a close look at Orthodoxy and feels a strong attraction toward it, but is looking for good, legitimate reasons to reject it, the cover story left me feeling that such reasons may not exit.
Peter Gillquist believes he and his colleagues were free spirits when they began their search for “the New Testament Church.” They were “committed to uphold nobody’s party line” and were “unattached to any established Church.” He is wrong. The pilgrims had no denominational affiliation, but they were committed (evidently unconsciously) to upholding the Protestant “party line.”
Making an assertion about anyone’s unconscious motives strikes me as incompatible with accepted standards of logical thinking and argumentation.
The Orthodox objections to the filioque and papal supremacy (including a pope’s unilateral change to the Creed) are mentioned. These are two issues for which I am seeking a Catholic response, and I was eagerly reading for one.
To Gillquist’s reminiscence-“I said to my cohorts, ‘The East is right in resisting papal excesses, and they’re right in rejecting the filioque clause.’ And I drew a deep, new breath: ‘I guess that makes us . . .Orthodox.’ “-I found an ad hominem retort: “The breath was not deep. And it certainly was not new” because “They may have recognized their conclusion only then, but they had drawn it long before they began their journey.” The specific issues are never addressed.
I did find several pages later a promise that “Fr. Ryland will examine Orthodoxy’s opposition to papal supremacy, the controversy over the filioque clause,” but this promise should have been placed in the story, not buried elsewhere. The story itself leaves the impression that there is no answer to these issues. Is there? I desperately want to learn it
T. Ross Valentine
Plana, Illinois
Editor’s reply: Fr. Ryland is writing a series on Orthodoxy. It is not reasonable to expect a single article to be a precis of the whole discussion. “Evangelicals Who Journey East” was an introductory article about certain converts and what prompted their conversions.
Fr. Ryland’s evaluation of Peter Gillquist’s conversion was a judgment on reasons proffered by Gillquist. If a man writes about what moves him to conversion, reviewers are free to comment. This doesn’t constitute ad hominem writing.
The series on Orthodoxy will cover the filioque, papal supremacy, and much more. If you can’t wait, try reading Fr. Aidan Nichols’ Rome and the Eastern Churches, which is a fine introduction to the issues