CathInfo.com

3. A Mosaic of Sacramental Theology 
Msgr. McCarthy writes: "First of all, Omlor's case for the invalidity of the ICEL 
form of the consecration of the wine does not appear convincing to me. The 
quotations which he produces to support his case are impressive in their own 
right, but they do not prove the invalidity of the 'for all men' translation." And in 
another place he states, "and Omlor quotes an array of authorities who have 
raised doubts about the use of 'for all.' But none of these authorities says 
explicitly that the addition of 'for all' would invalidate the sacrament. This is 
Omlor's own conclusion." 

After the first edition of QTV appeared twenty-two years ago, Father William G. 
Most, (the first person to oppose QTV in public print), posed a similar objection. 
Appendix 3 of the third edition of QTV was devoted to presenting Fr. Most's 
arguments and my replies to them. The following appears on page 1 16 of QTV 
(3rd edition, March 1969): 

Father Most: "His [Omlor's] appeal to St. Thomas and the 
Catechism of the Council of Trent is insufficient by far to prove his 
case. ..Neither one explicitly states the invalidity of the English form 
of consecration. " 

My lengthy reply (pp. 116-11 7) begins thus: "No one could be expected to 
enumerate explicitly all invalid forms, since there is an infinitude of 'invalid forms. 
There is, however, only one valid form for any given sacrament." 

May one reasonably conjecture that nitroglycerine is possibly valid matter for 
Baptism merely because not a single dogmatic theologian has ever explicitly 
ruled it out? 

This argument advanced by both Monsignor McCarthy and Father Most does, 
however, serve admirably as a model; it is the paragon of fuzzy logic. Consider 
this: if "for all" had already been explicitly declared invalid, then the issue would 
have been settled in advance -- case closed ("causa finita est') Under such 
circuмstances I would have had neither the occasion nor the reason to write 
Questioning The Validity., in the first place; consequently, in the second place, 
Father Most and Monsignor McCarthy would not have entered the picture to 
oppose QTV (since it would not have even existed); and, finally, I would not be 
writing this now! Therefore it is entirely illogical to argue against me on the 
grounds that "all men" had not been explicitly ruled invalid. 

Up until 1967 no one had ever attempted any innovation in the form for the Holy 
Eucharist, least of all such a brazen innovation as "for all men so that sins may 
be forgiven." Consequently none of my "array of authorities" would have had the 
occasion to single out explicitly as invalid this particular phraseology. For no one 
would have imagined (and I dare say this would have included Monsignor John 
F. McCarthy prior to 1967) that anyone would ever presume even to suggest 
such a villainous violation of the form of a sacrament as the one of which we are 
speaking. The ICEL subversives were living and breathing testimonials to the 
truth of the sardonic Italian aphorism "Traduttori: Traditori" (Translators : 
Traitors)! 

When the authors of the Roman Catechism taught, "Rightly therefore was it 
done, that it was not said 'for all' ... etc.," they were expounding the theology 
underlying the distinction between sufficiency and efficacy. Now, it would be 
supreme lunacy to suppose the theologians who wrote this profound disquisition 
would have actually deemed to be valid a form that contains the very words, "for 
all," which they had singled out as being contrary to Christ's design in the words 
He spoke when instituting the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper! 

Least of all would those renowned exegetes have considered to be valid a form 
that so evidently violates the fundamental principle of sacramental theology they 
so emphatically taught elsewhere in the same Catechism: "In our sacraments ... 
the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the 
sacrament null." 

Though none of my cited authorities explicitly declared "for all" to be an 
invalidating substitution, all of them implicitly did so. Each of these respected 
authorities has furnished valuable jewels of evidence, theological principles that 
are certain beyond question, all of which if taken as a whole form one 
harmonious mosaic of sacramental theology. I am only the mosaicist. If all these 
brilliant facets are considered in their magnificent totality, the one supporting and 
enhancing the other, and the overall panorama is beheld, then my conclusion 
that the vernacular "Mass" is no Mass at all is the only conclusion that can 
reasonably be reached. Such a scientific approach to philosophy and theology is 
of the essence of Scholasticism. 

"But none of those authorities [cited by Omlor] says explicitly that the addition of 
'for all 1 would invalidate the sacrament. This is Omlor's own conclusion." Here 
we detect two polemical subterfuges: the suppressio veri and the suggestio falsi. 
Suppressio veri (suppression of the truth) is the stating of something that is true 
in itself, while suppressing something that has an essential bearing on the overall 
truth. Thus Monsignor McCarthy correctly says that no authority of mine 
explicitly avers "for all" is invalid, but he suppresses the impact, the dynamic 
force, of the mosaic of their teachings, the formidable ensemble of those 
truths, which implicitly but relentlessly drives towards that conclusion. 

Suggestio falsi is the stating of something that in itself is not false, while 
suggesting to the reader's mind an idea that is false. After referring to the "array 
of authorities" who do not explicitly say "for all" is invalid, Omlor (the amateur) is 
contrasted with them in these words, "This is Omlor's own conclusion." Although 
he does not expressly say so, he falsely suggests my judgment must be wrong 
solely because it is mine.