http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/fiasco.htm

MONSIGNOR McCARTHY AGAIN! ANOTHER FIASCO!

An essay in two parts by Patrick Henry Omlor, the first part being a presentation of some necessary background on the matters to be discussed, and the second part being an analysis of three recent articles by Monsignor John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.

PART I : THE BACKGROUND

1. The Issue: The Invalidity of the Vernacular "Masses"

Some Historical Data

Origins

The subversive Innovators of the ICEL were the original protagonists, namely, the chief performers who started it all nearly twenty-five years ago, when on October 22, 1967 they introduced in the United States their "All-English Canon," which was purportedly a mere translation from the Latin of the Canon of the ancient Roman Mass. From the very outset there were very many Catholics, clergy and laity alike, who opposed this new and revolutionary "All-English Canon," not only on the grounds that it is a deviation from the traditional Mass, nor merely on the grounds that its English is quite pedestrian, nor on the grounds that the Latin must be preserved, nor because through sheer unbending resistance to change they simply wanted to keep intact that which they had always been accustomed to have. On the contrary, they opposed the subversive Innovators and their many apologists because the English "translation" from the Latin (which is what it was brazenly called) is no translation at all, but rather a mutilation and a falsification of the true words of the Mass, especially the Words of Consecration.

This falsification of the Words of Consecration renders these so-called "Masses" in the vernacular invalid as Masses and hence not true Catholic Masses at all. And this matter of the invalidity of the vernacular liturgies is the issue on which our battle with the protagonists has been waged for nearly a quarter of a century.

«------ »

The following were my very first published words on the "invalidity issue," contained in the Preface (dated March 7, 1968, Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas) to Questioning The Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon:

This little monograph embodies the presentation of a case against the validity of the new "form" presently being used for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. It was on October 22, 1967, that this new "form" originally came into use in the United States, along with the new English Canon of the Mass.

That the arguments presented herein are beyond question or challenge I do not claim. Assuredly they will not be the "last word" on the subject.

"You must not so cling to what we have said," St. Anselm advised his disciple, "as to abide by it obstinately when others with more weighty arguments succeed in overthrowing ours and establishing opinions against them." When more weighty arguments (either for or against mine) are advanced, I will welcome them. And I will take as my own these words of the same great St. Anselm: "If there is anything that calls for correction I do not refuse the correction."

Some Abbreviations

Hereinafter the following abbreviations will be used:

QTV for Questioning The Validity of the Masses using The New, All-English Canon (1968);

QTVMcC for Questioning The Validity of McCarthy's Case, my refutation of Monsignor McCarthy's first attempt to discredit QTV in his journal Living Tradition (July 1989). QTVMcC first appeared in Australia in December 1990 and was reprinted in the United States in early 1991;

TNS for The Necessary Signification in The Sacramental Form of The Holy Eucharist, published in May 1991;

LT-F for the aforesaid first issue of Living Tradition, No. 24 (July 1989);

LT-1 for issue No. 35 (May 1991), Part 1 of the recent trilogy;

LT-2 for issue No. 36 (July 1991), Part 2;

LT-3 for issue No. 39 (January 1992), Part 3.

Each issue of Living Tradition carries the message, "Distributed several times a year to interested members," and there is no mention of price. Hence I am unable to say whether or not any costs are involved in obtaining back copies. I encourage my present readers to procure copies of these four Living Tradition articles, which are devoted to refuting our case which argues that the ICEL product, now known as the Novus Ordo Missae, is not a valid Catholic Mass at all. Write to Rt. Rev. Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D., at the following address:

LIVING TRADITION

Via Concordia, 1

00183 Rome, Italy

Rapid Response

Within a very short period of time after QTV was first released quite a few critical reviews and articles appeared; and what was surprising was that without exception they were "conservative" publications that carried those reviews, all of which were authored by "traditionalist" priests and laymen. (It wasn't until later that the ICEL went on the defense in public print). While many of those critics agreed with the major portions of our argumentation and did not contest our docuмentation, they nevertheless balked at accepting the awesome final line; namely, that the ICEL's product is thoroughly ersatz, no Mass at all.

Father Lawrence Brey and many other sound theologians (e.g., those priests who had letters printed in Homiletic and Pastoral Review and other publications), and also your present writer were kept busy refuting these counter-arguments. So unconvincing were those attempts by our opponents that, by default, our own case was strengthened considerably, at least in the minds of those who were intelligently following the issue. For some of those specious counter-arguments led us to undertake additional research and thus enabled us to bring to light more and more valuable theological, liturgical, and philological evidence in support of our thesis.

The extent of the interest in this invalidity issue at that time and some indication of the considerable number of Catholics who had understood our arguments are revealed in the following account. The Wanderer, one of the oldest and most widely read "conservative" journals, was then conducting a virtual crusade against us, parading one author after the other in a series of adverse articles and editorials. One editorial complained about the amount of correspondence The Wanderer was receiving in support of the invalidity thesis: "This assertion of invalidity unfortunately has gained acceptance among not a few Catholics. (The Wanderer has received several hundred letters in support of this thesis during the past two years.)"

The editorial continued, "It is our hope that Fr. James McInerney's scholarly and precise refutation of the invalidity arguments (see p. 8) will reassure and set at rest the troubled consciences of those who have been disturbed by the unfortunate controversy." The only troubled consciences over the "unfortunate controversy" at that time belonged to the bishops and priests who were using the bogus rite. The final upshot was that Fr. McInerney's scholarly and precise refutation successfully refuted precisely nothing; and it probably triggered off the descent of yet another avalanche of mail onto the desk of the beleaguered Editor.

By late 1969 the "invalidity issue" had aroused a lot of attention, not only in the English-speaking world but also internationally, because the same falsely translated Consecration form, "for you and for all men," occurred in the Spanish, German, Portuguese, Italian, and in fact most of the other vernacularized liturgies which were popping up all over the place. Finally, THE ENEMY entered the picture. Starting with the issue of January 1970, Notitiae, the official organ of the ICEL and its international counterparts, published several defensive pieces, including an article by Max Zerwick, S.J. It was written in Latin, which was a fortunate thing in that most of the English-speaking bishops and priests (whose great proficiency in Latin enabled them to deem the ICEL "translation" just fine and dandy) were thus unable to read it and get brainwashed. Distancing himself from the phony argument that had appeared in the January issue, Zerwick apologized that it should have been advanced "with some reservation" (paulo cautius), meaning in ordinary parlance that, as we all knew, it was absolutely groundless in the first place.

A Recent Letter From Illinois

Over the years Father Brey and I have had many Adversarii. These Adversarii, though always wrong in their analyses and conclusions, nevertheless occasionally expressed their views intelligently, logically (though their basic premises were faulty) and clearly. Since one of these Adversarii was at that time (and still is) a very good friend of Father Brey's, I left it to Fr. Brey to answer him and I stayed right out of it. In order to spare him any possible embarrassment in what I shall say next I will not give his name. A Franciscan scholar, he was the most courteous, the most learned though also the most humble, the most sincere in seeking the truth and the most effective in his argumentation of all the Adversarii. He wrote to me occasionally to thank me for sending him copies of Interdum or to comment on something I had written elsewhere, and his cordial letters always bore the unmistakable stamp of the gentleman.

Having lost contact with him for many years it came as a surprise, a most pleasant one, to receive a letter from him only several months ago (dated Ascension Thursday, May 28, 1992). What did not really surprise me was the theme of his letter. "You will remember that, for a while," he writes, "I was of the opinion that only the initial words of the Consecration formula for the wine, `This is the Chalice of My Blood,' were sufficient for a valid Consecration and a valid Mass. That is what we were taught. But it was not long after those first confused days that it became clear ... that the complete form is very probably necessary for a valid Mass."

"You yourself," he continues, "admitted [he is here referring to what I wrote in the original QTV] ... that you `did not prove' that you were correct in your conclusions. I would now be inclined to say that you did prove your basic thesis, only it was not accepted as proof." ... "[W]hen I thought, like a callow and uninformed seminarian, that just the first words of the wine consecration formula were sufficient for validity ... I never dreamt of making any changes such as `for all men.' By the grace of God, through no merit of my own, I was kept on safe ground."

Thus the words of the erstwhile Prince of the Adversarii!

2. The Case Against The Validity of The Vernacularized "Masses"

It is not possible here to present our complete case with all its evidence, for that has required several books and articles. Because, however, some readers of this present essay may not be familiar with the basics of the issue, in the remainder of this Part I a review of our thesis is laid down. I beg the indulgence of those of my readers who are already well acquainted with the ins and outs of the controversy thus far, and I will assume that I am not overly abusing their patience with such repetition.

Necessity of Using The Proper Form

The validity of any Sacrament depends, among other things, upon the use of the proper words by the person administering the Sacrament. In order to bring about any Sacrament the words prescribed by Christ Himself, as found in Holy Scripture or else handed down by Tradition, or in the case of some Sacraments the words determined by the Church, must be diligently and accurately pronounced. These words are known as the form of the Sacrament. Although the Holy Eucharist is sometimes received outside of Mass (for example, Holy Viaticuм), this Sacrament is confected, or brought about, only by a priest while celebrating Mass. As is the case with all Sacraments, the proper matter and form must be used. The Holy Eucharist is twofold in its matter and form; that is, the matter consists of the two substances, bread and wine, and the form consists of two separate sets of words, one spoken in conjunction with each of the two elements of matter.

Concerning the form for the Holy Eucharist there is a most weighty passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is a section incorporated in the official rubrics accompanying the Roman Missal. In his Bull Quo Primum (1570) Pope St. Pius V ordered that this Missal be used in the Latin Rite "in perpetuity," and the aforementioned De Defectibus... always appears in the introductory pages of legitimate altar missals. These extremely significant words in Part V of De Defectibus are as follows:

`The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely.'

This precept begins by setting forth the consecration form in its entirety. It then warns that if anything (aliquid) in this form just defined should be altered in any way whatsoever involving a change in meaning of the originally specified words, then the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist containing the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ would not be produced, and hence the priest-celebrant would celebrate no Mass at all. De Defectibus does not single out the introductory words of the form for the wine, "This is the chalice of my blood," and state that if only those words are changed in meaning the consecration is invalid, but the prescription clearly states that the entire form must be recited, conveying its correct meaning, in order for the Sacrament and the Mass to be truly valid.

But this necessity of maintaining absolute fidelity to the prescribed form of a Sacrament is not a new idea to the reader, for Catholics were always instructed that the form, the necessary words, for a Sacrament must not be altered, or else the Sacrament is not produced. "In our sacraments," teaches the Catechism of the Council of Trent, "the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null." This same Catechism, in complete agreement with the teaching of De Defectibus, spells out most clearly and forcibly what is the sacramental form for the Consecration of the Wine:

"It must certainly be believed that it consists of the following words: `For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.'"

And this form is "so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null."

The ICEL Form Contains Four Flagrant Deviations

In the "All-English Canon" of October 22, 1967, the ICEL subversives gave the following form for the wine-consecration:

"this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant -- the mystery of faith. This blood is to be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven."

Since this original "translation" of 1967, the ICEL has meddled with it two more times, so that it now reads:

"This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

The foregoing "form" consists of two sentences, with exactly fifteen words in each sentence. In those thirty words the ICEL deviated four times from the established form set forth in De Defectibus, which is the same form, word for word, set down by the Authors of the Roman Catechism, who, moreover, introduced it with the unambiguous prefatorial command: "It must certainly be believed that it consists of the following words."

The four flagrant deviations in the ICEL's "sacramental form" are as follows:

[1] The breaking up of the form into two sentences has serious theological implications (the reader is referred to the commentary on pp. 36-37 of QTVMcC, which treats of this matter).

[2] The omission of the words, "the mystery of faith," the consequences of which omission were discussed at length on pp. 50-64 of TNS.

[3] The changing of "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" to "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

[4] After the first words, "This is the cup of my blood," the word "blood" is then repeated in the phrase "the blood of the new and everlasting covenant ... etc."

Since I have already discussed [1], [2] and [3] elsewhere at some length (and [3] in fact constitutes the focal point of this entire present essay), I shall now explain point [4], a very important point that I have never hitherto brought up and the implications of which are not known to many nowadays.

The Implicit Denial of Transubstantiation and The Real Presence

In the Latin Rite form for the consecration of the wine, all the words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood," -- to wit: "of the new and eternal testament ... which shall be shed for you and for many ... etc." -- I repeat, all, refer to the word "chalice," not to the word "blood." This I shall prove conclusively, not as a result of any perspicacity of my own, but from an impeccable authority whose explanation came to my attention only about two years ago. Before that time this important idea never occurred to me. Hence, in the ICEL's form: "This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant ... etc.," the insertion of the words "the blood" makes the remaining words of the form refer to "blood" rather than to "chalice," thus deviating from the ancient and proper form established in the Latin Rite from apostolic times. Is this an unimportant, perhaps a "casual" deviation? Are there any consequences of real importance attached to this deviation? Before addressing these questions, let us first demonstrate our primary assertion, namely, that the word "chalice" is the antecedent of all that follows, not the word "blood."

The original text of the Rheims New Testament, translated by that most excellent theologian and linguistics scholar, Father Gregory Martin (some scant details about him and also a reproduction of his portrait appear in QTVMcC), is filled throughout with valuable annotations. The reader will not find these in his own copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible, for they were for the most part subsequently omitted by Bishop Richard Challoner in his revised editions (1749 and 1750). It is among these original annotations on Chapter XXII of the Gospel of St. Luke that we find this important explanation:

"Which shall be shed. It is much to be observed that the relative, `which,' in these words is not governed or ruled (as some would perhaps think) by the noun `blood,' but by the word `chalice.' Which is most plain by the Greek. Which taketh away all cavillations and shifts from the Protestants, both against the real presence and the true Sacrificing. For it sheweth evidently, that the blood as the contents of the chalice, or as in the chalice [my emphasis], is shed for us (for so the Greek readeth in the present tense) [i.e., `which is being shed'] and not only as upon the cross [my emphasis]. And therefore as it followeth thereof invincibly, that it is no bare figure, but his blood indeed, so it ensueth necessarily, that it is a Sacrifice, and propitiatory, because the chalice (that is, the Blood contained in the same) is shed for our sins." ...

"And this text proveth all this so plainly that Beza [16th-century Calvinist] turneth himself roundly upon the Holy Evangelist, charging him with solecism or false Greek, or else that the words (which yet he confesseth to be in all copies Greek and Latin) are thrust into the text out of some other place : which he rather standeth upon than that St. Luke should speak incongruously in so plain a matter. And therefore he saith plainly that it cannot be truly said neither of the chalice itself nor of the contents thereof : which is indeed to give the lie to the blessed Evangelist, or to deny this to be Scripture. So clear is the Scripture for us, so miserable flights and shifts is falsehood put unto, God be thanked."

From this clear and conclusive analysis it is seen that not only is it proved that the ICEL form, by making "blood" the antecedent governing "which shall be shed ... etc." instead of "chalice," deviates from the correct form; but also that the false construction thereby placed on the established and proper form would be entirely satisfactory not only to Beza, but to all those present-day Modernists who deny transubstantiation, the Real Presence, and the propitiatory nature of the Mass. By placing this false construction on the very Words of Consecration handed down in our Latin Rite (the reason for the emphasis on the foregoing phrase to be explained anon), and thereby discarding this potent defense of these aforementioned Catholic truths (the Scriptural bulwark in St. Luke's Gospel having confounded Beza and driven him to such absurd arguments) the ICEL "form" is thereby implicitly denying these truths.

Must Be Conformed to the Same Definite Type

Elsewhere I have stressed that the precise form of words used in the Latin Rite is not necessarily required for validity in all (or even any) of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. It was in § 145 of QTV that I first quoted these words (and have continued occasionally to quote them) from the famous Vindication of the Bull `Apostolicae Curae':

"But you are also mistaken in thinking that matters have been left by Our Lord in so much uncertainty, and that there is no one definite form which has prevailed in the Catholic Church both in the East and in the West. If, indeed, you mean merely that no identical form of words has always and everywhere been in use, but that, on the contrary, several different forms of words have been recognized by the Holy See as sufficient, you say what all will admit, and the Bull nowhere denies. ... The Bull, however...is requiring, not that the form should always consist of the same words, but that it should always be conformed to the same definite type."

Counter-Arguments Based On Eastern Rites Prove Nothing

It will be argued that in six of the eight Eastern Rite wine-consecration forms that are currently in use, as well as in many ancient Eastern liturgies no longer in use, we do not find the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood ... etc." at all, but only "This is My Blood ... etc." Moreover, it may also be argued that in only three of these eight current Eastern Rite forms do we find the words, "the mystery of faith." Elsewhere, that is in TNS, I stated at first on page 40: "We do not mean [that all the words in our Latin Rite form] are necessary in an absolutely universal sense (relating to all rites), but in the limited sense, that is, with respect to our own Latin Rite. For what is essential in one of the rites of the Church is not necessarily essential in another rite. This important idea will be developed." On page 50, beginning a new Section, under the heading The Words "The Mystery of Faith," I adverted to this earlier remark and then devoted the next fifteen pages to a comprehensive exposition, proving my assertion, and citing that most learned and perceptive Thomist, Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., as an authoritative source for my arguments. In this present essay I will leave it at that, inviting the interested reader (if he has not already done so) to peruse those aforementioned pages of TNS.

The important point to be noted is that in those Eastern Rites that use the form "This is My Blood ... etc." rather than "This is the Chalice of My Blood ... etc." -- and, moreover, do not have the words "the mystery of faith" in the form -- absolutely nothing has ever been removed nor changed. The Eastern Catholics of these eight rites use those various forms, which are in some cases even worded slightly differently from one another, that were handed down to them from apostolic times by those several Apostles who proselytized in the East.

Whereas other different Apostles, the ones who first brought Catholicism to the West, handed down the form that is used today in the Latin Church (not in the "Novus Ordo" Robber Church, of course, we are speaking of Catholics) and which, in fact, has always been used -- with slight variations, however, occurring in earlier Western liturgies (e.g., Gelasian Missal, Stowe Missal, Missal of Bobbio, Mozarabic rites, etc.). Pope Innocent III made this point clear when he taught authoritatively: "Therefore we believe that the form of words, as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them." Consequently, the vital importance of the following teaching is made manifest: "In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential."

A Theory

Only once in all my writings have I ever advanced a mere theory, thus failing to follow my accustomed manner of dealing only with established theological facts, teachings of the Magisterium of the Church and of great Saints and theologians, etc. It was on pages 60-64 of TNS that I developed this aforesaid theory, referring specifically to the words, "the mystery of faith," which I affirm are words essential for validity in our Latin Rite, despite the fact that those words are absent from the wine-consecration forms in some of the Eastern Rites. However, this necessity for validity is not the theory; that part is fact. The theory concerned why the aforesaid words, "the mystery of faith," were handed down to us by Christ, through His apostles, from the very beginning, as is taught by Pope Innocent III; whereas other apostles, also following the Divine instructions, handed down in the Eastern world consecration forms in which those words are absent. The following excerpts from pp. 57-61 of TNS explain my theory.

"The mystery of faith." In their context in the form of consecration what is the precise meaning or signification of these words? The Roman Catechism teaches:

"for it is call'd the mystery of Faith, because by Faith we perceive Christ's Blood hid under the Species of Wine."

And Pope Innocent III teaches likewise that the significance of these words in the sacramental form lies in the fact that they express the doctrine of the Real Presence:

"Yet `mysterium fidei' is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than what is believed. For the species of the bread and wine is perceived there, but what is believed is the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ and the power of unity and love." ...

For according to the Divine Dispensation, the inscrutable wisdom of which no man can comprehend, and according to what was so evidently willed by Our Lord when He handed these words down to the Apostles to be used among certain peoples of certain traditions and cultures, we must insist with the Angelic Doctor, whose teaching has been so lucidly expounded by Cardinal Capisuccus, that even the words "the mystery of faith" are of the essence of those consecration forms in which they occur. ...

Here is my own theory why in the Divine Dispensation the words, "The Mystery of Faith," were handed down in the Latin Rite and not in the majority of the Eastern rites. Through God's Infinite Wisdom, Providence, design and foreknowledge of all things, it has turned out that only in the Western Church has the doctrine of the Real Presence been assailed. We know this to be true from the striking testimony of history. Berengarius, Tanchelmus of Antwerp, who in the 12th century was resisted and vanquished by St. Norbert, Wyclif, the Sacramentarians, Calvin, Zwingli, the whole host of 16th-century Protestant Revolutionaries, etc. ­­ all these deniers of the Real Presence arose in the West.

With one notable known exception, the doctrine of the Real Presence has never been attacked by heretics in the Eastern churches; on the contrary, it has always been believed and upheld, even by the schismatics since the 11th century and by the early Oriental heretics. "In fact," we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia, "even the Nestorians and Monophysites, who broke away from Rome in the fifth century, have, as is evident from their literature and liturgical books, preserved their faith in the Eucharist as unwaveringly as the Greeks, and this in spite of the dogmatic difficulties which, on account of their denial of the hypostatic union, stood in the way of a clear and correct notion of the Real Presence."

We know from the teaching of Pope Innocent III, which we cited earlier (the letter cuм Marthae Circa), that the words, "The Mystery of Faith," were included in our wine-consecration from the beginning, having been handed down by the Apostles who received them from Our Lord. My aforesaid theory therefore concludes that these words are an essential part of the Latin Rite consecration form, having in God's Providence been placed there as a bulwark in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence, and as a stumbling block and most potent rebuke against those many deniers of this teaching who have sprung up from time to time to attack it, such onslaughts deriving virtually exclusively from the rationalism of the West that has for so long a time infested and infected our Latin Church.

Consequently my theory is now further corroborated by evidence from the continuous, uninterrupted use in the West from apostolic times of the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood ... which shall be shed ...," which words were proved beyond doubt by the annotators of the Rheims New Testament to be words -- like the "mystery of faith" -- that similarly demonstrate undeniably the truth of the doctrines of transubstantiation and the Real Presence, thus confuting the heresies of the Protestants and our present-day Modernists. Therefore the additional inserted words "the blood" in the various lately despoiled vernacularized "Masses" of the West, by destroying this essential (for the Latin Church) emphasis on these aforesaid doctrines, render those "Masses" invalid for the same reason that the expurgation of "the mystery of faith" from the Words of Consecration likewise invalidates them.

The Teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent

When the Authors of the Roman Catechism teach that any deviation from the form of a sacrament, however casual it might be, invalidates the sacrament, they are speaking as Catholic doctors; that is, on truths that apply universally. Hence this teaching regarding the fatal consequences of deviating from established sacramental forms applies not only in our Latin Rite, but, needless to say, to the forms used by the Eastern rites. Thus any deviation from the forms handed down in those rites would similarly invalidate their sacraments. The fact that the precise forms of words differ in the various rites has no bearing whatever on the truth or applicability of what the Catechism has laid down. This important teaching, as it stands, needs no qualification whatsoever. Therefore the argument that Monsignor McCarthy offers (LT-1, p. 11) is totally erroneous and is, moreover, a red herring: "Note that some of these words [i.e., words following `This is the Chalice of My Blood'; e.g., `the mystery of faith'] are not contained in some Eastern-rite liturgies that the Church has always recognized to be valid. Understand that this fact itself greatly qualifies the statement in the Catechism of Trent that `the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null.'"

Sufficiency Aspect vis-à-vis Efficacy Aspect

In order to comprehend clearly that the ICEL's "form" involves a basic change in the theological meaning of the ancient and proper form, it is necessary to consider two distinct aspects of the Passion and Death of Our Divine Lord. The first aspect is that of sufficiency; that is, for what and for whom did Christ's Passion suffice? The second aspect is that of efficacy; that is, for what and for whom is Christ's Passion effective or efficacious?

The distinction between these two aspects was stated in one brief sentence of the Council of Trent: "But, though He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His Passion is communicated." Many theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, the Authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (the Roman Catechism), St. Alphonsus, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Benedict XIV, have expounded this distinction between the sufficiency aspect and the efficacy aspect of Our Lord's Passion and Death; and, it must be noted well, the "sufficiency vs. efficacy" explanations of these above-mentioned theologians (the sources are given in footnotes 19-23) have all been presented in the course of their discourses on the correct theological meaning of the form of words for the wine consecration, which is at the very heart of our discussion. It will suffice here to examine two of these explanations.

First, St, Alphonsus: "The words pro vobis et pro multis (`For you and for many') are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all -- it saves only those who co-operate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV."

Second, the Roman Catechism: "For if we look at the vertue of it, it must be confess'd, that our Savior shed his Blood for the salvation of all men. But if we look at the fruit which men gather from thence, we may easily understand that it comes not to all to advantage, but only to some. When therefore he said, `For you,' he signifi'd either them that were then present, or those whom he had chosen out of the Jєωιѕн people, such as were his Disciples, except Judas, with whom he spake. But when he added, `For many,' he would have the rest that were elected, either Jєωs or Gentiles, to be understood."

Continuing, the Catechism explicitly singles out the ICEL's false substitution "for all" in the wine-consecration form as being contrary to "the design of the discourse"; that is, contrary to the Mind of Christ, when in instituting the Holy Sacrament He expressly said "for many," meaning not all men, but only the members of His Church, the Mystical Body, the elect, who are the only ones who actually benefit ultimately from the "fruits of the Passion," namely, the "Fruit of Salvation":

"Rightly therefore was it done, that it was not said `for all,' seeing that in this place the design of the discourse extends only to the fruits of the Passion, which brought the Fruit of Salvation only to the Elect."

Thus far we have presented our case only by citing authorities, namely, De Defectibus, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, the Roman Catechism, Popes Innocent III and Benedict XIV, and the Council of Trent. We may also include the ecuмenical Council of Florence (1438-1445), which taught:

"But since in the above written decree of the Armenians there was not set forth the form of words, which in the consecration of the body and blood of the Lord the holy Roman Church, confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, has always been accustomed to use, we have deemed that it should be inserted here. In the consecration of the Body the Church uses this form of words: `For this is my body'; and for the consecration of the Blood: `For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.'"

The Significance of the Aforesaid Changes in Theological Meaning

In addition to these arguments from authority it is expedient here to explain briefly why, from the standpoint of sacramental theology, this mutilated ICEL form, "shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," necessarily invalidates the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and, perforce, the "Masses" in which it is used. This is now to be explained in eight steps.

[1] Apostolicae Curae: Pope Leo XIII in his Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896) authoritatively laid down the principle of sacramental theology of which we speak. He taught that in any Sacrament the essential sacramental grace proper to that Sacrament must be explicitly signified in the form of words used in bringing about the Sacrament:

"All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite -- that is to say, in the matter and in the form -- yet it pertains chiefly to the form; since the matter is a part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the form." And also: "That form consequently cannot be apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits what it must essentially signify." (¶ 8).

[2] Grace of the Sacrament: Here the Sovereign Pontiff Leo XIII is teaching infallibly that the forms of the various Sacraments ("it still pertains chiefly to the form") must signify the grace which they effect. That is, the "grace proper" to a Sacrament, which is the sacramental grace of that Sacrament, which is also known as "the effect" of the Sacrament, and, moreover is also known as "the reality" of the Sacrament, which in Latin is the "res sacramenti" or the "res tantum." All these expressions -- grace proper, sacramental grace, the effect, the reality, "res sacramenti", "res tantum" -- mean exactly the same thing. It is this grace that the words of the sacramental form must signify, as Pope Leo XIII so clearly teaches.

[3] Unambiguous signification required: On p. 31 of the aforementioned Vindication of the Bull `Apostolicae Curae' we find the following reinforcement of the teaching that the form of a Sacrament must signify the grace of the Sacrament, which must not be confused with grace in general or other kinds of grace:

"Moreover, the signification must not be ambiguous, but so far definite as to discriminate the grace effected from graces of a different kind; as, for instance, the graces of other Sacraments." And on p. 40: "The definite signification, as has already been explained, must be found in the essential part, in the matter and form morally united together." [Emphasis is in the original text].

[4] The `Grace Proper' of the Holy Eucharist: Now what is this sacramental grace, this grace proper, this effect, this reality, this res sacramenti of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What is this grace that must be so definitely signified in the sacramental form that it must not be confused with graces of a different kind? As is so well known and docuмented so exhaustively, the res sacramenti or grace proper or special sacramental grace of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ. And it is this union of the Mystical Body which must be signified somewhere in the sacramental form, that is, in the Words of Consecration. As is indicated by its title, my latest effort, TNS, is devoted almost entirely to this theme. That the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist is the union of the Mystical Body is acknowledged by all theologians.

[5] The words of the Consecration that signify this: Now where in the Words of Consecration is this reference to the union of the Mystical Body to be found? Is this signification contained in the mere words, "This is My Body; This is the Chalice of My Blood"? These words signify the True Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, which become present through transubstantiation, not the Mystical Body, and to claim otherwise or to claim that both Christ's True Body and His Mystical Body are signified by these words would be heretical. The words which signify the res sacramenti are found in the final phrase of the Consecration of the Wine: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins."

[6] Proof of the foregoing: "For you and for many unto the remission of sins" are the words of the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist that provide this vital signification of the res sacramenti, for the words "you" and "many" are the only words of the form that explicitly designate the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. Moreover, the final phrase, "unto the remission of sins," signifies the union of the members, as will now be shown.

Now, it is through reception of the Holy Eucharist that we, the members of the Mystical Body in the branch known as the Church Militant, become more closely and firmly united to Jesus Christ -- the Head of the Mystical Body -- and also to one another, and also to our fellow-members in the other two branches; viz., the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. The very principle of existence and origin of this aforesaid union is sanctifying grace. Any person living in the state of sanctifying grace is automatically within Christ's Mystical Body.

But since sanctifying grace is the principle of existence and origin of the union of the Mystical Body, which is the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist, it must then be acknowledged that the essential and absolute prerequisite -- the sine qua non -- of this union is the remission of sins. It is by means of the Sacrament of Baptism that we first receive sanctifying grace; thus through the remission of original sin and actual sin (in the case of adult baptisms) we first become members of the Mystical Body, as the bull Exultate Deo of Pope Eugene IV teaches: "Holy Baptism, which is the gateway (janua) to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church." We retain our status as living members of the Mystical Body by remaining in the state of sanctifying grace. A member who has become spiritually dead, through mortal sin, though not severed from the Mystical Body, can be reinstated as a living member and again become a vital part of the union of the Mystical Body only by the remission of his sins, through what St. Jerome calls "the second plank after shipwreck," namely, the Sacrament of Penance.

From all the foregoing it is evident that the remission of sins -- that is, the actual and efficacious remission of sins; or in other words "in remissionem peccatorum" (unto the remission of sins) -- is the necessary prerequisite for: (a) our initial incorporation in the Mystical Body; and (b) the reinstatement as living members, through the Second Plank After Shipwreck, of those who have lost sanctifying grace. Consequently, the remission of sins can be said to cause the union of the members of the Mystical Body. Hence the final phrase of the form for the Consecration of the Wine in its entirety -- to wit: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" -- comprises the essential words signifying the grace of the Sacrament -- to wit: the union of the Mystical Body. The words "you" and "many" designate the members; the words "unto the remission of sins" signify the cause underlying the principle of existence of their unity, without which there is no vital unity, namely, their living in the state of sanctifying grace.

[7] ICEL form signifies falsely: The ICEL's corrupted form, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," by saying "all" fails to designate the members of the Mystical Body since not all men are members of the Mystical Body, but only "many" are members. Moreover, the words, "so that sins may be forgiven," do not signify the efficacious remission of sins, since they do not convey the idea that any sins actually are or have been remitted, but only "may be forgiven."

Three Examples to Illustrate and Prove All the Foregoing Points

Investigating the eight consecration forms currently in use in the Oriental rites reveals that all, without exception, contain the words, "for you and for many" and "unto the remission of sins," thereby having the necessary signification of the union of the Mystical Body. But let me give three illustrations (from among many that could be cited) of ancient liturgies which are no longer in use, which do not contain the precise words, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," but nevertheless have words that are equivalent in meaning and thus "conform to the same definite type."

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of St. Cyril: "This is my blood, which seals the Testament of my death; for it prepares you and the many faithful for eternal life." ("Hic est sanguis meus, qui obsignat Testamentum mortis meae; vos autem, et multos fideles praeparat ad vitam aeternam.") Since this form must be of the same definite type as our Latin Rite form, the words "the many faithful" (multos fideles) demolish the argument advanced by some of our opponents that the words "pro multis" should be interpreted as meaning not just many, but all men. For fideles is a technical term used by the Catholic Church exclusively to denote her members. And it would be absurd to claim that the meaning conveyed by the sacramental form in one liturgy would be different from that of another liturgy. That is, in the present-day vernacularized liturgies "multis" means "all men," but in this ancient liturgy "multos" with "fideles" clearly can mean Catholics only!

Moreover, not only does "you and the many faithful," contain the necessary signification of the members of the Mystical Body, the words, "prepares ... for eternal life," beautifully signify their union, for The Church Triumphant consummates, nay is, this union. It is also seen from this example that the words "unto the remission of sins" are not per se essential words; they are essential only in those rites where they appear and fill the role of signifying the union of the Mystical Body.

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of St. James: "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for the many faithful (pro multis fidelibus effunditur), and is given unto the remission of sins and eternal life."

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of Moses Bar-Cephas: "This is my blood, which is shed and given for you and for those who believe in me, preparing for eternal life all those who receive it." Again a form that conforms to the same definite type, inasmuch as "those who believe in me" surely is equivalent to "many," and cannot conceivably mean "all men."

[8] The grace that must be signified is in the recipient: It may be argued by some that since the words, "This is My Body; This is the Chalice of My Blood," signify the True Body and Blood of Christ, Whose Real Presence is brought about through the Consecration, and since Christ is true God, the Author of all grace, this would suffice to satisfy Pope Leo's teaching that the form must signify the grace of the Sacrament. This argument is fatuous to the extreme, and is on a par with arguing that in the form for Baptism the only essential words are, "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," because these words signify the Holy Trinity, God, and since God is the Author of all grace these words automatically signify the grace of the Sacrament! God is the Author of all grace, but He is not grace; least of all is He the sacramental grace, the res sacramenti, of the Holy Eucharist.

At the Consecration during Holy Mass, when the priest brings about the Real Presence of Our Lord through transubstantiation, not one iota of increase (if we may use that expression) of sanctifying grace nor a scintilla of sacramental grace is thereby automatically conferred on anyone at all. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Author of all grace, becomes sacramentally present -- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity -- but He does not confer grace merely by this sacramental Presence any more than His mere physical presence on the Cross conferred grace on any one. The Source of all grace was there, but none save Dismas and Longinus (to our certain knowledge) benefited by His Divine Presence, co-operating with the actual grace that He (as He, the most loving superabundant Source of grace, is always eager to do for all) gave to them.

It is in the reception of the Holy Sacrament that the res sacramenti, the reality of the sacrament, is conferred (the res sacramenti also can be received, though not fully, through the desire for it, but that topic is outside the scope of our present discussion). But it is also in the reception of the Holy Sacrament that some bring about their eternal damnation.

The following, which a young friend located and passed along to me some time ago, is from "A Treatise on the Holy Eucharist," written by St. Thomas More in the Tower of London in 1534. He entitled it: To receive the blessed body of our Lord sacramentally and virtually both.

"And yet of His high sovereign patience He refuseth not to enter bodily into the vile bodies of those whose filthy minds refuse to receive Him graciously into their souls. But then do such folk receive Him only sacramentally and not virtually [that is, they receive not the effect : the res sacramenti]. That is to wit, they receive His very blessed body into theirs under the sacramental sign, but they receive not the thing of the sacrament, that is to wit, the virtue and effect thereof, that is to say, the grace by which they should be lively members incorporate in Christ's holy mystical body, but instead of that live grace they receive their judgement and their damnation."

END OF PART I : THE BACKGROUND

=================================================================================

PART II : THE FIASCO

1. Some of Monsignor John F. McCarthy's Erroneous Theology

The teachings of Apostolicae Curae and of the "Vindication" specifically and directly referred to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But these principles, especially the vital point of sacramental theology Pope Leo XIII laid down infallibly, which was quoted in step [1] of Part I above, apply to all the Sacraments, which is a fact that has never been challenged, nor can it be challenged. Monsignor McCarthy does not deny that all these teachings do in fact apply to the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. In LT-2 (p. 2) he reproduces accurately the aforementioned principle that was quoted in step [1]. But his understanding of it is absolutely unorthodox, confused and false.

"I understand Pope Leo XIII to mean that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist signifies principally and immediately the grace of the Real Presence and of the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. Consequently, that form cannot be apt or sufficient which omits signifying this. But the res tantum, the producing of sanctifying grace in those rightly disposed to receive it [this is not the res tantum], is secondary and less immediate; it need not for validity be mentioned expressly in the form of consecration."

Later on the same page he attempts to quote St. Thomas to support this, but in these quotations the Angelic Doctor merely says the following: that Christ "bestowed the life of grace upon the world"; Christ "works the life of grace"; "Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace"; "this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist] confers grace". The Monsignor continues (top p. 3): "From this response of St. Thomas we see that the first and principal effect of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is Christ Himself, Who, `by coming sacramentally into man, works the life of grace'."

The Monsignor has thus misinterpreted the words of the Angelic Doctor. For here is what St. Thomas actually says: "The effect of this sacrament [which is the unity of the Mystical Body, as the Angelic Doctor clearly teaches elsewhere] ought to be considered first and principally from what is contained in this sacrament, which is Christ, Who, ... by coming sacramentally into man, works the life of grace" (Summa, III, Q. 79, A. 1). Hence it is clear that St. Thomas does not teach here that "the first and principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is Christ Himself," as the Msgr. so erroneously misreads, but rather that "the effect," the unity of the Mystical Body, is to be considered principally from what is contained in this Sacrament -- to wit: Christ, He Whom all Catholics know to be the Author of all grace ("works the life of grace in man" and "bestowed the life of grace upon the world" and is "the cause of grace"). But to think that He is "the effect" of His Sacrament, namely, the grace of the sacrament, namely, the union the Mystical Body is absurd!

The Monsignor confuses "the effect" (res sacramenti) of the Sacrament with the primary and most awesome effect (i.e., result) of the Consecration; namely the bringing about of the sacramental presence of Christ; and this is to confuse two entirely different applications of the word "effect." Therefore, not only does he make a false appeal to St. Thomas, but he thoroughly misunderstands the nature of sacramental grace and the teaching of Apostolicae Curae; namely, that the sacramental grace (which is created and finite habitual grace) that is conferred on the recipient who is properly disposed spiritually, must be expressed in the Words of Consecration.

2. "Ex ore tuo te convincam!" : "Out of thy own mouth I shall convict thee!"

(First Example and Many More To Come)

LT-2 (p. 3): "Omlor errs where he says that the union of the Mystical Body is `the very effect' of the Sacrament." "This position of Omlor is erroneous Catholic theology. While he thinks that the union of the Mystical Body is `the very effect of the Sacrament,' St. Thomas teaches otherwise." LT-2 (p. 2).

LT-1 (p. 9): "St. Thomas does teach [his emphasis] that `the real effect of the sacrament (res sacramenti)' of the Eucharist (precisely referred to as the res tantum) or `the effect of this sacrament' (III, q. 73, art. 6, corp.) is the `unity of the Mystical Body' (III, q. 73, art. 3, corp.)." ... "Thus we see, from the teaching of St. Thomas, that the res tantum of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is `the unity of the Mystical Body'..."

To borrow the words of Cicero: "Ex ore tuo te convincam!"

3. As Slippery As A Greased Weasel (abbrev. G.W.) : First Example Only

The Monsignor puts words into my mouth, making it appear that I have claimed that the remission of sins is the effect of the Sacrament, something that he knows is not correct and which is even contradicted by the quotation from LT-2 (p. 3) just above. Here are his words (LT-3, p. 4): "It is more than an oversimplification to say that the effect [his emphasis] of a valid consecration is the actual forgiveness of the sins of the elect, as Omlor assumes ..." As though every time a priest consecrates, the sins of the elect are remitted, thus eliminating the necessity for the Sacrament of Penance!

In LT-2 (pp. 3-4) he calls upon St. Thomas to show that the absurd opinion he attributes to me is wrong, which was quite unnecessary, since any Catholic would be able to tell him it is haywire. "Regarding `the very effect' (Omlor, p. 105) of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, [He is here referring to p. 105 of TNS where I repeat that the very effect is the union of the Mystical Body; and, moreover, on that page the word `remission' does not appear and the word `sins' does not appear, though the word `of' does appear quite a few times] St. Thomas ... replies: `The remission of sins is not placed here as the proper effect of this sacrament...'." Which is something we all knew.

Greased Weasel : Q.E.D.

4. The Monsignor Misses the Point (First Example and Many More To Come)

LT-1 (p. 8): Referring to an "Editor's Note" (footnote 23 on p. 31 of QTVMcC) which Father Brey added as a comment to what I had written in the main text, the Msgr. remarks: "In an editor's note it is stated: `The res sacramenti, which is the effect or the grace proper of any given sacrament, must be signified in the words of the sacramental form. This pertains to all sacraments.'" What next appears in Fr. Brey's footnote is a quotation from St. Alphonsus in Latin, and in that quotation what jumps out at the reader are the words in omnibus sacramentis in bold italics, in order to support the sole point Fr. Brey was making, namely, it is not just the Holy Eucharist that has its res sacramenti.

Msgr. McCarthy then inquires: "Where did Omlor and his editor discover this?" Answer No. 1: Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae! Answer No. 2: The one and only point Fr. Brey was making here is that there is a res sacramenti associated with every Sacrament -- a self-evident fact, in that every Sacrament obviously has its own particular grace proper to it. In the supporting quotation from St. Alphonsus, who also pointed this out by means of the words "in all the sacraments," the Latin text presented had these key words "in omnibus sacramentis" in boldface italics. Now either Monsignor McCarthy does not read Latin, or else when these words jumped off the page at him he ducked.

5. St. Thomas Explains That The Entire Form Is Essential For Validity

Among theologians there is an unresolved controversy regarding exactly which words of the wine-consecration form in our Latin Rite are absolutely essential for validity. For some hold that the "short form" (or the "truncated form," as Fr. Lawrence Brey is wont to describe it), namely, the first seven words: "This is the Chalice of My Blood," alone by themselves would suffice for validity. On the opposite side in this controversy are those who deny this aforesaid supposition and claim that the entire form as printed in the Roman Missal and as spelled out in De Defectibus must be recited, for otherwise the Sacrament and the Mass would not be valid.

The view of St. Thomas on the essential words of the wine-consecration form is stated in three different places: (1) Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum; (2) In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6); (3) The Summa Theologica.

[1] In Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum (dist. 8, Q.2, a.2, q.1, ad 3) we read: "And therefore those words which follow [that is, which follow `This is the chalice of My Blood'] are essential to the blood, inasmuch as it is consecrated in this sacrament; and therefore they must be of the substance of the form."

[2] In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6) has the following: "In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are necessary for the form, but the words `This is the chalice of My Blood' only, not the remainder which follows, `of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.' But it would appear that this is erroneous, because all that which follows is a determination of the predicate [the predicate being `This is the chalice of my blood'] : hence those subsequent words also belong to the meaning or signification of the same pronouncement. And because, as has often been said, it is by signifying that the forms of sacraments have their effect, hence all of these words appertain to the effecting power of the form." (Emphasis added).

[3] In Summa Theologica (III, Q. 78, A. 3) St. Thomas again lucidly expounds his view:

"I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of its [i.e, the form's] recitation.

"And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this, which belong to the use of the sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words in the same action of the rite, to wit, holding the chalice in his hands."

In the first of these works just mentioned (Script. Sup. Lib. IV Sent.) St. Thomas says that the entire sacramental form is essential (essentialia) and also in the very same sentence he uses the equivalent phraseology `of the substance' (de substantia) of the form. In the second source cited (In 1 Cor. XI) St. Thomas uses different phraseology, namely, necessary (de necessitate), referring of course to the form in its entirety. Finally, in the Summa he reverts to the word substantia (the substance of the form). And earlier in this very same Summa Theologica St. Thomas actually defines precisely what he means when he says "the substance of a sacramental form." In his section on the Sacraments in General he establishes principles that apply to all the sacraments, each of which he later in the Summa discusses individually:

"Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form should be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words; and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished." [Emphasis added].

Therefore since the Angelic Doctor, in the words cited earlier, has stated that "And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow [i.e., which follow `This is the Chalice of My Blood'] are of the substance of the form...," and furthermore that "if anything that is of the substance of the form would be suppressed...the sacrament would not be accomplished" it is evident that he is in the camp of the "entire form" proponents who insist that the entire form is essential for the validity of the Sacrament.

6. A Bizarre "Psychological" Interpretation

On p. 17 of LT-1 the Monsignor quotes from St. Thomas's In 1 Cor. XI (lect. 6): "the whole [all the words of the form] pertains to the effective force of the form" and interprets it thus: "This is true psychologically, in the sense that there is no psychological break between the two parts as the words are pronounced." Which no doubt, the Msgr. presumably thinks, must be exactly what St. Thomas had in mind. As we have just seen from the text of In 1 Cor. XI (lect. 6) quot