This Rock Insults Converts?
I would like to use the words of Fr. Ray Ryland in his article “RCIA: Initiation into what? And why?” in the February 2000 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review to respond to James Akin’s article on “Baptism of Desire” (“Chapter & Verse,” February 2000).
Fr. Ryland talks about a desire on the part of some in the Church “to avoid any appearance, any perception, any anything of ‘triumphalism,’” and goes on to say that such people “apparently do not know that many . . . converts are suffering and will continue to suffer for years to come.” He is speaking particularly of clergy converts, but some of what he says is true of all converts, as I know from personal experience (as I’m sure do many of you): “Harassment and even rejection by non-Catholic family and friends; . . . actual breakup of families in some cases; . . . starting a new life in a new ethos; . . . coming from warm church communities into unfriendly, lackluster Catholic parishes.” He goes on to say we “treat them as though we were ashamed of receiving them into the Church. And after all they have suffered and will suffer by their following God’s leading into the Church. This is an insult to them, however much unintended.”
Fr. Ryland says further, “If one is to become truly Catholic and fully enter into the Church’s life, he must come for one reason. He must be convinced that what the Catholic Church teaches about herself is true. He must be convinced that she is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, entrusted with his authority to speak in his name. He must be convinced that she always lives under the direction, humanly speaking, of Christ’s vicar, the successor of Peter.” Converts, Fr. Ryland says, “have a right to hear this fact affirmed and join in that affirmation. They have earned that right by the great sacrifices they are making.”
Your magazine and one or two others I read keep resurrecting the “Feeneyite” controversy, as if the Fenneyites were some kind of threat. I assume it is because their belief in “no salvation outside the Church” conflicts with the desire to “avoid any appearance of triumphalism.” Such a desire is an insult to converts, as Fr. Ryland says, and also undercuts the fine apologetics that you do.
If “full incorporation” into the Church is not normatively necessary for salvation, why should anyone convert and suffer in the ways that Fr. Ryland describes? An if it is normatively necessary, why devote any attention to the rare and unlikely exception?
Elaine H. Olden
Littleton, Massachusetts
Fr. Ryland responds: Ms. Olden obviously understands what many of our converts have to undergo when they come home to Christ’s one Church. However, she seems to misunderstand why the Catholic Church (and therefore This Rock) reject the error Fr. Feeney spread before he was finally reconciled to the Church. There is no connection between Fr. Feeney’s heresy and mistaken efforts to avoid any “appearance” of “triumphalism.” The irony and tragedy of Fr. Feeney’s opinion was simply this: In the face of generous efforts on the part of his bishop and the Vatican to bring him to his doctrinal senses, he so persisted in teaching one cannot be saved outside the communion of the Catholic Church, that he finally put himself outside that communion. His basic error was insisting that the grace of God cannot work outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. Everything the Church has ever taught on this subject contradicts Fr. Feeney’s error. Mr. Akin’s article accurately and clearly—as always—stated the Church’s teaching. That teaching has nothing to do with what some of us regard as misguided efforts to play down the Church’s uniqueness to avoid appearance of an old bugaboo, “triumphalism.” I thank Ms. Olden for her letter, which shows the need for clarification of a matter that may have confused other readers.
Wacky Libs Smarter than Wacky Trads
I agree with Mr. Petek that these radical traditionalists are “wacky,” and one should not be deceived in following them (“Do-It-Yourself Popes,” March 2000). My comments are not a defense of their actions. However, in my opinion, the Church appears much more tolerant of the “wacky” groups of the liberal variety (dissenters, deconstructionists of Church architecture, liturgical abusers, etc.).
The wacky liberals are much smarter than the radical traditionalists. They are too subtle to openly replace the true pope with a false pope. They really don’t mind having a pope as long as they don’t have to listen to him, and everyone can secretly be his own pope and do what he wants anyway.
Mr. Petek says the number of Catholics deceived by the radical traditionalists is “mercifully small.” This makes them less dangerous than the wacky liberals, whose number appears to be much larger and much more influential.
In his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II requested that bishops give “wide and generous application” to the traditional Latin Mass. While many bishops have done so, many have not. In places where these “rightful.aspirations” of the laity have been denied, doesn’t this denial provide fertile soil for the radical traditionalist groups, especially if at the same time the wacky liberals are allowed to proceed with their agendas? And aren’t the bishops who deny the indult for celebration of the traditional Latin Mass being disobedient to the pope?
Ralph Melchert
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Everything Else Must Have Been Okay
In your February 2000 issue, the article “How to Read Scripture Like Jesus and the Apostles” by Steven Kellmeyer spent most of its time talking about the author’s own speculations on the spiritual meanings of various texts. It would have been of much more apologetic benefit to the reader to spend time with examples of the apostles exploring the spiritual meanings of texts.
Further, the glib dismissal of the use of study tools such as dictionaries, grammars, and the like—on the grounds that Jesus and the apostles didn’t use them—lacks credibility. Jesus and the apostles were native speakers of the biblical languages. We’re not.
Ultimately, one has to wonder when the article repeatedly refers to “the four-fold sense” of Scripture. This is simply not Catholic language. There are four senses (plural) of Scripture, but not a four-fold sense (singular).
In the March issue, the article “The Consistency of Catholicism” by Dwight Longenecker contains a major flaw in logic. The article argues that one’s view of the Incarnation should be consistent with one’s understanding of the Real Presence and of the way Christ is present in his Church. It also argues that only the Catholic Church has such a consistent view. But this is wrong on both counts.
The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist in a real, true, substantial manner such that only appearances of bread and wine remain. That’s transubstantiation.
The Church does not teach that the Incarnate Christ or the Church is transubstantiated. Jesus is not really, truly, and substantially God with only the apprearances of humanity remaining. That’s the heresy of docetism. The Church teaches that Christ is consubstantial—both fully God and fully man.
Neither is Christ present in his Church in such a way that he is really, truly, and substantially present with only the apperances of individual church members remaining. As Pius XII made clear in Mystici Corporis (1943), Christ is present in his Body, the Church.
Speaking of Mystici Corporis, you seem to have run afoul of it in another article. The “Classic Apologetics” piece in the February issue was by Robert Hugh Benson and titled &Christ in the Chruch.” The piece, which orignially appeared in 1911, pushes the metaphor of the Body of Christ beyond its limits, comparing individual Christians to cells that lose themselves in the organic whole of the body. This analogy, perhaps spurred by the scientific advances of the last part of the ninteenth century, was common in the years before Mystici Corporis. But is is precisely one of the positions that the pope is concerned to reject in that encyclical, pointing out that there are significant differences between physical bodies and the Mystical Body—one of them being that the individual members of the Mystical Body do not lose their individual identity and orientation the way the members of physical bodies do.
Peter W. Trang
Via the Internet
Inappropriate Potato Head
I am not sure the Mr. Potato Head dressed as a pope that appeared on the cover of the March 2000 issue of This Rock magazine was entirely appropriate.
After reading the article, I understand the point of the picture. However, I am afraid that there are too many non-Catholics who would be willing to take the image at face value.
On a more positive note, I really appreciate the “Catholic Answers Live” radio program and This Rock magazine. My sincere thanks for the role your organization played in helping me build a deeper understanding of our faith.
Kim White
Highland, Illinois
The Author Constructed a Straw Man
I take exception with the author of an article on traditionalists and those Catholics who oppose Vatican II innovations to church liturgy (Michael Petek, “Do-It-Yourself Popes,” March 2000). The author constructed a straw man out of obscure and fragmented traditionalist sects such as sedevacantists, implying that anyone who has misgivings about the Novus Ordo Mass can be similarly discounted. In reality, the majority of traditionalists are in union with the Magisterium, and this is the crux of an irony.
My wife and I, with our three young children (thusfar), are traditionalists who attend a Novus Ordo Mass reverently celebrated by a devout priest. We would prefer to attend a licit Tridentine Mass, but there is none within 60 miles of our home, thanks to this 1,000-year-old Mass being suppressed by the chanceries of two dioceses, one we live in and the other in which we attend Mass.
So we attend the Novus Ordo Mass, where the very words of the consecration, the very words of Christ, have been scandalously changed in the Novus Ordo from, “This my blood that will be shed for you and for many” to “This is my blood that will be shed for you and for all,” implying that “all” will be saved. With this Pelagian mentality transmitted to the laity, it is no surprise that my family gave our church the only birth in 1998, whereas there were four burials. The rebellion by over 90 percent of Novus-Ordo Catholics to Church teachings on contraception cannot be more evident.
Two weeks ago our priest made yet another appeal for vocations as he explained why our parish will be canceling another Sunday Mass because of the ostensible priest shortage.
As a child of Vatican II, born in 1964, I am convinced that the Novus Ordo Mass has been detrimental to the Church. Here is the irony: It will be traditionalists, with their burgeoning, fervent, and well-catechized families, who will give us our future bishops, priests, sisters, and brothers. It will be upon them that we can rebuild the Church in America.
Erik C. Rivers
Via the Internet
Editor’s reply: It is our editorial policy to use the term “radical traditionalists” to refer to groups such as sedevacantists—who are not in communion with the Holy See—in order to differentiate them from “traditionalists,” who are. There is nothing pejorative about the latter term, which we use typically to refer to Catholics who have an attachment to the Tridentine liturgy and/or a pre-Vatican II ethos. (In fact, we have here on staff individuals who describe themselves in this way.) Your charge of a straw man is unfounded, since the article is consistent in this usage of the terms, and doesn’t “imply” anything beyond that.
As for your argument regarding the translation of the words of consecration, again you assume it is “implying” something it is not. The Latin phrase rendered “for all” is pro multis, which would more literally be translated “for the multitudes” or “for many.” I can do no better on this subject than to quote James Akin’s book, Mass Confusion:
“According to exegetes, the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”: the many for whom Christ died is without limit. . . . [I]t is theologically true that Christ shed his blood for all men (1 Tim. 4:10, 1 John 2:2). The claim that he shed his blood only for the elect or only for the faithful was condemned during the Jansenist controversy (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum 1096, 1294). In biblical idiom, the term ‘many’ is often used as a synonym for ‘all.’ For example, when Paul says that ‘by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience many were made sinners’ (Rom 5:19), he means that all men were made sinners.
“The liceity of the translation ‘for all’ is not in question because it is part of a Church-approved text of the Mass.”
Finally, concerning your point about traditionalist families being the future of the Church in this country—you just may be right.
They Grow the Young Ones Smart in Sri Lanka
Most see Catholic apologetics as Catholic responses to common questions people ask us about our faith. There are plenty of fine arguments that can be used in theological debates with our brothers and sisters. However, I’ve found that apologetics is most useful for casting out the seeds of doubt that the devil plants in me at times. Often he tries to turn me against the Church, but the Holy Spirit definitely has worked through articles in your magazine to explain many things to me and to strengthen my faith.
I am convinced that the evil one wants to keep the great treasures of the Catholic Church hidden from us. Praise God for This Rock and all sound Catholic apologetics for showing us the beauty of our Church! As perhaps one of your younger readers (I’m sixteen), I thank you all sincerely for rendering such a wonderful service to Catholics and others around the globe.
Marissa Johnpillai
Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka
Towering Edifice of Logic
An interesting juxtaposition occurred to me as I read and compared two articles in the March 2000 This Rock.
First, Stephen N. Filippo’s article, “Sacred Scripture Depends on Sacred Tradition,” points out that Protestants, in not reading Matthew 16:18–19, are rejecting what they claim to propose: that they accept sacred Scripture.
A similar Protestant inconsistency comes to mind in reading Terry J. Svik’s article on infant baptism, “The Promise Is to You and Your Children.” In saying that one must be of the age of reason to be baptized, Fundamentalists deny what they claim to teach—that only God’s grace can “save” us, and no work of our own can assure our redemption. By requiring “public proclamation of one’s belief in Jesus Christ and the gospel,” they put the redemption of baptism as subsequent to a human work—they deny, in fact, the “redeemed by grace alone” credo they claim to teach!
As a convert, as I learn I marvel at the monumental and towering edifice of logic that is our faith and our tradition. Faith and reason, as the Pope’s latest encyclical letter says, go hand in hand. It is interesting how often the voices of unreason assume the guise of logic and reason. No wonder apologetics is a difficult undertaking: Getting people to face their own illogic, and to do it in genuine love without offending, is a challenge. We must constantly pray for our own guidance in humility if we are to truly succeed as evangelists and apologists.
Brian Diehm
Lake Oswego, Oregon
I Now Question the Orthodoxy of Your Magazine
Regarding the use of lowercase pronouns when referring to God, I side with readers who maintain that the use of uppercase is an appropriate sign of reverence.
Most of us attempting to deepen our faith see the dumbing-down of reverence to our Lord. The use of lowercase letters is an example. Since uppercase letters were the standard several years ago, it is obvious that somewhere along the way some liberals in the Church decided to “improve” the situation. This same “improvement” has brought us to the point where people don’t care what they wear to Mass anymore, irreverently receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, and leave before Mass is finished. Showing our Lord reverence in the written word has apparently become too difficult even when it comes to a simple sign of respect through a capital letters.
This sad trend will probably continue, but I am very disappointed that This Rock opts to promote the lower standard, given the wonderful opportunity to reverse the trend of irreverence. The January 2000 issue was my first as a new subscriber to magazine. I now question the orthodoxy of your magazine and must treat future installments from a different, less trusting viewpoint, or cancel my subscription.
Thomas C. Chandler
Florissant, Missouri
Not Apostate Heathens
I was sorry to see that you had received so little support for the use of capitalized pronouns when they refer to God (“Letters,” February 2000). It seems like such a small gesture of respect that often serves to make the meaning of a sentence clearer and perhaps contributes to the awareness that God isn’t just one of the gang.
Lower-case pronouns with God as the antecedent contribute to the secularization of the sacred (with an effect similar to the abandonment of religious garb by nuns, though much milder, of course.) It doesn’t mean you are apostate heathens or that your publication isn’t wonderful.
Most of the religion texts that I have seen that are used by Catholic schools and CCD programs use the lower-case pronouns. They also use “B.C.E.” (Before Common Era) and “C.E.” (Common Era) instead of “B.C.” (Before Christ) and “A.D”. (Annos Domini or Year of the Lord) with their dates. I’m sure This Rock isn’t going to sink to that, but it seems to me to be all of the same cloth.
Rita Redding Hejkal
Omaha, Nebraska