Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
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