http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htmAPPENDIX 7
A REPLY TO MONSIGNOR BANDAS
Certain errors and misleading statements about the "English Canon question" were made by Msgr. R. G. Bandas in his "Questions And& Answers" column of 'The Wanderer' (Jan. 23, 1969). This Appendix contains comments upon several items which appeared in this column.
Item 1
Monsignor Bandas states: The decree on the new three Canons and Prefaces was issued on May 23rd, 1968, by the Sacred Congregation of Rites ... The decree says that the Holy Father approved the three Canons and permitted them to be published and to be used."
"This revised English Canon as well as the three new Canons have been fully approved by the Holy See; the Latin text is in Notitiae, the official publication of the Commission on the Liturgy (May-June, 1968)."
Comment on Item 1
Some persons, priests and laymen alike, who have read earlier editions of "Questioning The Validity of the Masses using The New, All-English Canon," have said they are quite convinced regarding the factual evidence presented, and that a single obstacle hinders them from being completely convinced that the "English Mass" is invalid. This obstacle is that they have read, or heard, that the Pope has approved it.
From the very outset I have maintained that no bona fide pope could possibly ever approve this mutilated consecration form. This I still maintain despite the above misleading claim of Msgr. Bandas, and despite the miscellaneous similar claims of others. The truth is that the Holy Father has never approved of the phrase, "for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven." Pope Paul, on the contrary, has approved no deviation whatsoever from these words, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins."
Let us now examine Msgr. Bandas' evidence. The decree of May 23, 1968, which he cites, says: "These texts ... the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI has approved and permitted to be published." ("Hos autem textus ... Summus Pontifex Paulus PP. VI approbavit atque evulgari permisit.") Just what are "these texts" which the Holy Father has approved and permitted to be published? "These texts" are printed in the above-mentioned issue of Notitiae, where the decree of approval also appears. "These texts," it must be noted, are printed in Latin, and it goes without saying that the Holy Father's explicit approval pertains only to these Latin texts. His implicit approval would extend to faithful translations of them. Let us see what "these texts" contain.
Four "Eucharistic Prayers" (Canons) have been approved, and their texts appear on pp. 168-179. Atop page 163 we find the heading: Eucharistic Prayer I; and immediately below this heading there is one and only one line which reads simply, "Ut in Missali Romano" - as in the Roman Missal! Will any traditional, orthodox Roman Catholic criticize Pope Paul for approving the centuries-old Roman Missal? So much for the first Canon.
Next we look into the three new Canons - that is, Eucharistic Prayers II, III and IV. In all three cases we seek out this disputed phrase in the consecration form and what do we find? All three times (on pages 169, 172 and 178, respectively) we see printed in large boldface type the words: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Is this not the same ancient form from the Roman Missal which "the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them," to quote Pope Innocent III?
One final question. What about that first English "Canon" that was foisted on English-speaking Catholics in October, 1967, and which is supposed to correspond now to "Eucharistic Prayer I"? Completely aside from the question of validity for a moment, and considering this English "Canon" as a whole from beginning to end, it is evident that these "great translators" couldn't even discover the meaning of "Ut in Missali Romano."
Item 2
Msgr. Bandas says: "The New Testament, as we know, uses the words 'many' and 'all' interchangeably; for example Rom. 5:18,19."
Comment on Item 2
Had Monsignor Bandas qualified this statement with the word sometimes, as St. Augustine correctly does, no one would disagree with him. But his statement, as it stands, implies that this is always or at least usually the case; and it is upon this unwarranted assumption that his "case" heavily relies. In point of fact, the instances when "many" in Holy Scripture means "all" are relatively few, and it is absurd to build a case upon that which is the exception to the rule.
One cannot go through Holy Writ automatically plugging in "all men" whenever the word "many" occurs without frequently obtaining disastrous results. For example, making this particular substitution in the Gospel of St. Luke (13,24) yields: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for all men, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. This is not "good news."
Father William G. Most earlier made the same erroneous claim that Msgr. Bandas makes here; and since on that occasion I made reply at length (refer back to Appendix 3, Reply to Objection A), I will now but summarize.
That the word "many" in the form for consecrating the wine means strictly "many" and is not to be taken here as meaning "all men" is unequivocally maintained and clearly expounded by all the following:
(1) The Catechism of the Council of Trent.
(2) St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 78, Article 4, Reply to Objection 8.
(3) Pope Benedict XIV in "De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio" Book II, Chap. XV, par. 11, where he quotes verbatim the entire Reply of St. Thomas mentioned just above.
(4) St. Alphonsus de Liguori in his treatise on The Holy Eucharist (p. 44 of Grimm's translation), where this brilliant and saintly Doctor of the Church cites both Thomas and Benedict.
These theological giants remain. No one seems able to find four equally compelling sources that maintain the opposite, nay, not even one! To find four equally compelling sources period is quite a task.
Item 3
Monsignor Bandas: "This formula [i.e., the English version of the form for consecrating the wine] is a translation from the Roman Canon except that for the word 'many' it substitutes the term 'all men.'"
Comment on Item 3
By stating that it is a translation "except that," Msgr. Bandas is here admitting that the words "all men" actually are not a translation, but, as he accurately says, a substitution.
Item 4
Monsignor Bandas: "To determine which rendering [i.e., "all men" or "many"] we are to prefer ... "
Comment on Item 4
What we "prefer" is totally irrelevant. What Our Lord said, as recorded in Holy Scripture, is all that is important. That Msgr. Bandas would make such a "Liberal-Modernist-mentality" statement is astonishing. If everyone is allowed to do what he "prefers," A will prefer this, B will prefer that, and C will prefer something else again. Some newbreed priests, I fear, will prefer no consecration form at all.
Item 5
Msgr. Bandas says: "The doctrine that the Blessed Savior offered the Sacrifice on Calvary for all men is clearly the teaching of the New Testament. Thus we read: ... 'He is a propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world' (I John 2:2)."
Comment on Item 5
This is quite true, but just what does it mean? Surely Msgr. Bandas will not hereby help prove his position to anyone who understands the distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy aspects of the Passion, a distinction clarified quite early in this monograph (see pars. 64-69).
Paragraph 64 reads as follows: "It is a truth of our Faith that Christ died for all men without exception. 'And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.' (I John 2,2). Another truth of our Faith is that not all men are saved, but some indeed suffer eternal damnation."
And in par. 69 I have quoted this one, single, elegant sentence from a decree of the Council of Trent (Session VI, Ch. 3) which clearly makes this important distinction: "But, though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death but those only unto whom the merit of his passion is communicated." (Emphasis added.)
Item 6
Monsignor Bandas quotes his adversary: "The Catechism of the Council of Trent ... makes a distinction which it is well to keep in mind: 'Looking to the efficacy of the Passion, we believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men; ...'". (Emphasis added by Msgr. Bandas).
Comment on Item 6
This is inferior merchandise! The passage Msgr. Bandas quotes here is from one of J. Donovan's earliest attempts at translating the Trent Catechism into English, and it contains a glaring fault. In this rendition the idea of efficacy is seemingly made to relate to all men. Of course, this is exactly wrong, for it is the sufficiency aspect of the Passion that encompasses all men, not the efficacy aspect.
It was Donovan's original ill-chosen translation of the Latin word "virtutem" to read "efficacy" that has created a problem here. Apparently Donovan himself soon realized the great confusion this would likely engender (or else someone pointed it out to him), for his later, corrected editions all have the word "virtue" in this place. (See, for example, the edition published by Jas. Duffy & Co., Dublin, 1908. In their translation McHugh and Callan give "value," which perhaps lends even more clarity to the correct meaning of this passage.)
Thus misled (even "trained theologians" sometimes get misled) - and misled, moreover, on a vital distinction! -, Msgr. Bandas even italicizes the bogus word "efficacy" in order to stress his erroneous point. No wonder he then goes on to pen this confused remark: "(T)he words 'all men,' on the other hand, stress the efficacy-aspect [never!] of the Sacrifice of the Cross and [?] its sufficiency to redeem every soul in the whole world."
All the foregoing, however, is not the main criticism I wish to make here, as it is leveled at his ignorance only. Just two sentences beyond the one quoted by Msgr. Bandas, the Trent Catechism goes on to say: "With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did, His Passion bring the fruit of salvation." 2(Emphasis added). Having brought forth the Trent Catechism and having quoted a (defective) passage from it, Monsignor Bandas has undoubtedly led unwary readers to the notion that somehow this Catechism lends weight to his arguments, whereas in truth it explicitly and most thunderously condemns them! This falls short of honest journalism.
Some Concluding Remarks
Those who are attempting to justify this mutilation of the very words of consecration have thus far succeeded only in setting up smokescreens of confusion; they have not faced up squarely to the real issues. Seemingly plausible "evidence" (from scriptural quotations, etc.) is advanced by them, but the true significance of this "evidence" (which eludes them) helps their case not a bit. It was not my original plan to write at such length in this Appendix, but now it even seems necessary to add somewhat more to it in order to explain some elementary but essential distinctions. Because most of this aforesaid confusion has arisen (and more will undoubtedly be created in the future) due to the fact that vital theological distinctions are ignored.
Let us consider some examples of these distinctions, so carelessly disregarded. Redemption is not the same as salvation. Although justification is closely related to the forgiveness of sins, there is yet more to justification. Furthermore, justification and the forgiveness of sins are each completely different from expiation (atonement) and propitiation.
Some of these doctrines encompass all men; that is, they may be said to be related to the sufficiency aspect of Calvary. Others, however, fall under the efficacy aspect in that they pertain only to many and not to all men.
The word redeem means "pay the price for" or "buy back" or "ransom". Very eloquently does St. Peter bring to our minds this idea of paying: "You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver ... but with the precious blood of Christ." (I Pet. 11: 18-19) redemption is absolutely universal: it applies to all men without exception. Every soul in hell now, including those that were there before Calvary, got redeemed on that first Good Friday. Christ's Death was sufficient ransom even for them. The price of His Blood was sufficient and superabundant. "We adore Thee, O Christ, and We bless Thee, because by Thy Holy Cross Thou hast redeemed the world" is to be taken quite literally.
Closely akin to redemption are the concepts: propitiation, atonement (or expiation). Our Lord's propitiatory, expiatory Sacrifice on Calvary was also universal in its scope, for He atoned for all the sins of all men, past, present and future.
All these truths - redemption, expiation, propitiation - relate to the sufficiency aspect; they apply to all men. Thus can we properly understand: "And He is the propitiation for our sins and ... for those of the whole world." (I John 2:2) Likewise the meaning of this passage is quite clear: ... Who gave Himself a redemption for all." (I Tim. 2:6)
Two little side comments are appropriate here. First of all, it is easily seen that nothing startling whatsoever was "proved" by Rev. Wm. G. Most's earlier argument that in the passage from Mark (10,45): " ... He might give His life as a redemption for many" the word many is to be taken as meaning all men. (Refer back to Appendix 3, Objection A.) Inasmuch as redemption does indeed pertain to all men, Fr. Most's assertion is surely acceptable; but, once again, so what is proved?
And the second aside concerns an "argument" presented by Msgr. Bandas in one place in his article. It simply cannot be argued, as does Msgr. Bandas, that since Calvary was for all men [just what does this mean?] and the Mass is the continuation of Calvary [and again what does this mean?], therefore the words "all men" may replace the word "many" in the consecration form! This is a ludicrous oversimplification. Although each and every Mass is the unbloody continuation of Calvary, no single Mass can be equally beneficial to all men. There are some men, in fact, whose names cannot even be mentioned by the celebrant in the "Commemoration of the Living": "Hence were anyone to mention by name an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person (whether a king, or a bishop, or any other), ... he would certainly violate the law of the Church." (De la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, v. II, p. 317). Lastly, most theologians hold that Masses absolutely may not even be said for certain classes of persons, for example, excommunicati vitandi. (De la Taille, op. cit., p. 318).
Now, having mentioned some doctrines that pertain to all men (redemption, expiation, propitiation), let us next consider some that apply only to many. Salvation is not universal; only many and not all men are actually saved. Expressions such as "Christ The Savior of the world" must not be taken literally as though His Passion and Death actually brought salvation to all." "He became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation," we read in Heb. (5,9). Albeit it is God's will that all be saved - "This is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, Who wishes all men to be saved," (I Tim. 2:3-4) -, nevertheless there are some who habitually go against His will, disobey Him, and thus incur for themselves eternal damnation: "Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will; and whom He will, He hardeneth." (Rom. 9:18)
And where does forgiveness of sins fit into this picture? Forgiveness of sins must not be confused with expiation of sins. Although Christ on Calvary expiated all sins of all men, only many sins and many sinners are forgiven. Christ by Ms Passion set up the cause by which all sins can be forgiven or could have been forgiven (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Th., III, Q. 49, Art. 2); but actual forgiveness of all sins, past, present and future, most assuredly was not brought about thereby. Had His Passion accomplished this, then there would be no Hell and no Sacrament of Penance.
Even during His lifetime Jesus forgave the sins of many, but not of all. He forgave Mary Magdalen, but what of Herodias? No evidence at all exists that He forgave the thief crucified at His left, whereas without a doubt He justified St. Dismas at His right. Peter who denied Him was forgiven; but Judas who betrayed Him? In fine, as everyone knows, only those "many" who have contrition for their sins are forgiven.
Those malefactors who have tampered with Our Lord's words have, of course, disdained all these elementary but vital theological distinctions just discussed. They have attempted to wed in one and the same phrase the words "all men" (sufficiency) with the forgiveness of sins doctrine, which in actuality is related only to the aspect of efficacy. The proper, ancient form for consecrating the wine, using Our Lord's own words, refers to the actual forgiveness of sins: "This is ... My Blood ... which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
When the Innovators replaced Christ's word "many" by their own words "all men," they necessarily had to change also the final phrase, unto the forgiveness of sins. For to say that Christ died for all men unto the forgiveness of sins is, in effect, to say that His Passion actually brought about the forgiveness of the sins of all men. And this, of course, clearly is undiluted heresy.
And therefore the entire meaning, or "essential sense," of Christ's own words was changed when the Innovators made their "form" read: "for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven." What is conveyed by these words is the idea of the potential forgiveness of the sins of all men, which idea is opposed to the original meaning Christ clearly intended to convey which is that of the actual forgiveness of the sins of "many."
To illustrate just once more how confused one can get by ignoring these elementary theological distinctions, let us consider one final item from the column of Monsignor Bandas. He presents several examples of Mass prayers which purportedly lend "liturgical" support to his claims in defense of the use of the Words "for all men." One such example of his is: "Lamb of God Who takest away the sins of the world." Now just exactly how this is supposed to constitute "evidence" that "all men" may replace "many" in the consecration form escapes me. These are the words of St. John the Baptist, announcing that Christ is the Sacrificial Lamb Who will redeem the world. The consecration form concerns the forgiveness of the sins of many, while "takest away the sins of the WorId" means expiate the sins of the world. Indeed, the phrase, "Lamb of God who forgivest the sins of the world" could be construed as heresy. And for this very reason it seems a likely candidate for incorporation into future versions of "English masses."
Patrick Henry Omlor
Menlo Park, California
February 11, 1969
Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes
Topic: A REPLY TO MONSIGNOR BANDAS (Read 761 times)