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

QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF

McCARTHY'S CASE

By Patrick Henry Omlor




1. Synopsis of the Monograph:

Questioning The Validity

of the Masses using the New,

All-English Canon

Issue No. 24 of the journal Living Tradition (July 1989) is devoted to a commentary on my monograph, Questioning The Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon, first published in March of 1968. For the sake of brevity it will hereinafter be referred to as simply "QTV". The Editor of Living Tradition is Monsignor John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.; and he is also the author of its featured critique of QTV.

Because some readers of this present booklet may not be familiar with QTV, it is expedient to give here a concise synopsis of its central points. Always we were taught 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." Concerning the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist (the wine consecration at Mass) this same Catechism clearly states: "We are firmly to believe that it consists of the following words: `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.'"

In the English "Mass" (that is, the vernacularized [English] version of the so-called Novus Ordo Missae) this sacramental form is altered substantially, in several ways, but principally by the substitution of the words "for all" in place of "for many." In his Catena Aurea in Quatuor Evangelia (In Matth. Evan., Chap. XXVI, par. 8) St. Thomas Aquinas quotes Remigius of Auxerre as follows: "And it must be noted that He [Our Lord] did not say pro paucis [for a FEW], nor pro omnibus [for ALL], but pro multis [for MANY]; for He had not come to redeem only one nation (race), but MANY from among all the nations."

In explaining why Christ said "for many" instead of "for all" the Catechism of the Council of Trent continues: "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." And so we see that those words "for all," which according to vital principles of sacramental theology are NOT to be used in the form for the consecration of the wine, are in very fact the precise words the ICEL (International Committee on English in the Liturgy) chose to be used in this place!

2. Sufficiency (All Men)

Vs.

Efficacy (Mystical Body)

In his Living Tradition article Monsignor McCarthy summarizes my position thus:

"Let us examine his [Omlor's] argument, which is as follows on page 48 [of QTV]:

`The ancient and proper form for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist uses Christ's own words and conveys the latter truth; namely, that of efficacy. The new `form' uses men's words and conveys the former truth; namely, that of sufficiency. And thus the Innovators, the authors of this change, have destroyed the essential sense of the proper form.'"

There are, of course, other theological principles and salient facts that enter into my treatise. Monsignor McCarthy does acknowledge many of these throughout his article; hence the foregoing brief summary of my case will serve as an adequate starting point for this present discussion. Having quoted the above passage from p. 48 of QTV, Msgr. McCarthy remarks: "For Omlor, sufficiency regards all men, while efficacy regards only the members of the Mystical Body of Christ". I will get back to this puzzling remark a little later.

The distinction between the efficacy aspect and the sufficiency aspect of Christ's Passion and Death is indeed one of the fundamentals in my argumentation against the validity of the ICEL version of the wine consecration, which is presently used in the Novus Ordo "Masses" throughout the English-speaking world.

In the final words of the ancient and proper form ("for you and for many unto the remission of sins") the words "you" and "many" refer to the elect only, those who attain eternal salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this very clearly in Summa Th., III, Q.78, a.3, ad 8; and also in Book IV of Sentences, Dist.8, Q.2, a.2, ad 7. Holding fast to these explanations of the Angelic Doctor, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as the Roman Catechism, expounds the same idea in the following words:

`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. 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.'

The foregoing is a faithful transcription from page 207 of the first translation of the Trent Catechism into the English language, published at London in 1687, under the Catholic King James II. The emphasized words and phrases shown above are as they appear in the original text. In this excerpt just cited the wording "for all" is explicitly singled out as being contrary to the "design of the discourse," that is, contrary to the Mind of Christ when He said, "for many," meaning not all men, but only the elect who are the only ones who actually benefit from the fruits of the Passion, namely, "the Fruit of Salvation."

As will be demonstrated later, the final prepositional phrase, "unto the remission of sins" (in remissionem peccatorum), denotes result or efficacy, inasmuch as with the elect the remission of their sins actually takes place. This concept is quite different from that of purpose or sufficiency, which is what is conveyed by these final words of the despoiled ICEL version: "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven." Coupled with the condemned substitution of "all" for "many" is the additional corruption of meaning in the ICEL's final (mistranslated) words, "so that sins may be forgiven." Such a clause is known grammatically as a clause of purpose (beginning with `so that'); it fails to convey the theologically demanded sense of result or efficacy, as explained by the Roman Catechism, St. Thomas, and other theologians (including saints, popes and doctors of the Church).

In QTV and in subsequent writings I have presented abundant docuмentation from many learned authorities to elucidate the distinction between efficacy (result) and sufficiency (purpose). The following passage (as only one example) illustrates this important idea very well. It is from Treatise on THE HOLY EUCHARIST, by St. Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, a Doctor of the Church whose writings display the most profound learning and piety. The passage is from p. 44 of the translation by Rev. Eugene Grimm, C.Ss.R.

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.

Moreover, I have in one place or another also quoted passages in the same vein from the Roman Catechism, St. Thomas Aquinas, Popes Innocent III and Benedict XIV. Consequently it is puzzling that Monsignor McCarthy would remark that it is "for Omlor" that the distinction between sufficiency and efficacy is a tenet.

Another very important theological principle in my case against the validity of the English "Mass" is that the res sacramenti (a term that theologians use for the principal fruit, "the effect") of the Holy Eucharist ­­ namely, the union of the Mystical Body of Christ ­­ must necessarily be signified in the words of the form for this Sacrament. This point is verified by many weighty theological authorities I have frequently quoted, including Pope Leo XIII who laid down specific criteria for valid sacramental signification (in the Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896). "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 shall be demonstrated later in Section 5.

The words "you" and "many" (not "you" by itself nor "many" by itself, but the two words in conjunction with each other) are said to designate the elect, and they are also said to designate the Mystical Body. There is no ambiguity in this, because in termino they are one and the same thing.

For the sake of clarity, however, it should be remarked that at any given moment on earth the elect and the Mystical Body do not exactly coincide, and this is readily understood by Catholics. For there are always some persons who at one time are not yet in the Church, but who will eventually become incorporated among the fideles through Baptism. Similarly, there are some who once were members of the Mystical Body, the Church, but who will not be counted among the elect. That is, those who become "dead members" through mortal sin and then, tragically, die in that state. Also those who surrender membership in the Mystical Body through heresy, apostasy, schism or excommunication will not be among the elect, though at one time in their lives they were members of the Mystical Body. They will not be counted among the elect, that is, unless they repent and become restored to grace in the bosom of their Holy Mother the Church.

We therefore speak of the elect and the Mystical Body interchangeably in the context of the consecration form, because they come to the same thing in termino: at the end of time they will exactly coincide. The elect are those, and only those, who profit from the efficacy aspect of Our Lord's Passion and Death through the remission of their sins, and who die as living members of the Mystical Body. After the Last Judgment the "finalized" Mystical Body (namely, the Church Triumphant) and "The Elect" will be one and the same thing.

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 116 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. 116-117) 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 nitro-glycerine 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 Jєωels 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' 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.

4. Some Latin, Greek and English Grammar

Monsignor McCarthy writes: "Omlor contends that the Latin preposition in followed by the accusative case means `unto the remission of sins,' and `thus this word unto in itself conveys the sense of effectiveness or efficacy.' But Omlor's explanation is not exact. The Latin preposition in plus the accusative sets up a direction leading to efficacy and can include both the beginning situation of redemption for all and the final situation of salvation for some. Therefore, Omlor's reasoning is not conclusive."

Here, in its entirety, is my par. 71 from QTV: "A first observation is that the word unto ­­ (which in Latin is the preposition `in' followed by a noun in the accusative case) ­­ means to, towards, or leading up to; and thus this word unto in itself conveys the sense of effectiveness or efficacy."

The charge that my "explanation is not exact" is meaningless, for I gave no explanation at all. My paragraph begins, "A first observation is ... etc.," and I concluded this short, one-sentence paragraph with the bare assertion, "this word unto in itself conveys ... etc." It was an ipse dixit on my part, a bold "take it from me" declaration. I gave no reasoning at all to support my assertion, and therefore the remark that my "reasoning is not conclusive" is likewise meaningless. When I wrote that sentence I did not elaborate, for I frankly didn't expect so rudimentary a point to be challenged. As it has now been challenged, I will present some of the grammatical rules and "reasoning" underpinning my assertion. In this section, then, what is to be defended is my ipse dixit that not only do the words "for many" convey the correct restrictive sense of efficacy, but the final phrase, "in remissionem peccatorum," which in English is "unto the remission of sins," in itself also conveys the sense of efficacy or result.

The Latin preposition in with the accusative case is used to denote physical motion, and it is also used in an abstract or conceptual sense. Certain parallels can be drawn between these two usages. Firstly, as regards physical motion the effective reaching of a destination is nearly always indicated. Thus "Caesar in Galliam venit" means that Caesar came into Gaul; he effectively arrived in Gaul.

I said "nearly always" because one finds occasional examples in classical Latin where in with the accusative fails to denote efficacy, as, for instance, in the phrase, "in meridiem fugit" (he fled towards the south), which does not imply an effective arrival at a destination. However it must be noted that to use in with the accusative case in such a manner is to do so "idiomatically or less exactly," according to Allen & Greenough (New Latin Grammar, 1903 edition, p.133, par. 221.12c).

Secondly, and more to our point, are instances in which in with the accusative is used in the conceptual sense, such as in the phrase we are discussing, "in remissionem peccatorum." The analogy between the physical motion usage and the conceptual usage will become apparent, in that the notion of efficacy or result is common to both. Consulting the text An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin (by Rev. H.P.V. Nunn, Cambridge University Press, 1927), we find on page 111 the paragraph 234, under the heading "In With the Accusative," where the author illustrates the "pregnant sense" giving the result of the action of the verb, and also the use "in a predicate" to express result; i.e., efficacy.

It was St. Jerome who gave us the Latin phrase in the Vulgate, "in remissionem peccatorum," the words of Jesus in instituting the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, as recorded in St. Matthew's Gospel (26,28). The Greek text for this phrase is "eis aphesin hamartiòn," using the preposition "eis," which St. Jerome translated into Latin as "in." This in turn was rendered into English as "unto" by Father Gregory Martin, the scholarly linguistics master appointed by the saintly Cardinal William Allen to translate the New Testament at Rheims (1578-82). It is therefore important to discover the meaning contained in the first link of the chain, namely, this Greek preposition "eis."

We may consult An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek by C.F.D. Moule, Cambridge University Press, 1960. On p.70 the author discusses "eis" and its connotation resulting in; and he furnishes several passages from the New Testament to illustrate this point of grammar. One of these examples is from Romans (5,18), which contains two "eis" prepositional phrases: "eis katakrima" and "eis dikaiòsin." Investigating these two phrases proves to be most enlightening.

Romans (5,18) reads thus in St. Jerome's Vulgate: "Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vitae." Thus we find the two "eis" prepositional phrases ("eis katakrima" and "eis dikaiòsin") translated by St. Jerome into two corresponding Latin prepositional phrases; to wit: "in condemnationem" and "in justificationem." These would be rendered literally into English simply by "unto condemnation" and "unto justification."

Nevertheless the translators of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine New Testament (1941) did not limit themselves to the mere phrases "unto condemnation" and "unto justification." Rather, for the sake of even greater clarity, they explicitly spelled out "the result was unto condemnation" and "the result is unto justification." Here is the complete passage:

`Therefore as from the offense of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all men, so from the justice of the one the result is unto justification of life to all men.'

When Father Gregory Martin at Rheims translated Matthew (26,28) into English, he rendered "eis aphesin hamartiòn" or "in remissionem peccatorum" into a corresponding simple prepositional phrase. Of the possible choices of an English preposition (from among to, for, towards, etc.) he selected "unto" ­­ the one that best denotes the required sense of result. The word "unto" (which is now classified by some dictionaries as archaic) is of Middle English origin (circa 1150-1500), and its etymology derives from "up to + to"; hence "sick unto death" means so sick that death results.

The word "unto" can have other entirely different meanings, as in "do unto others." Also "faithful unto death" would not necessarily mean that fidelity results in death (though it could be argued that such was certainly the case with the martyrs).

Exactly the same phrase, in remissionem peccatorum (eis aphesin hamartiòn), is found in the Credo of the Mass: I confess one baptism unto the remission of sins. "For the remission of sins" (as is often found) would seem to indicate purpose only and would thus fail to impart the idea of result or efficacy. "For the remission of sins" is not faithful to the true sense of "eis aphesin hamartiòn" intended by the Fathers at Constantinople, who incorporated this article in the Creed (A.D. 381). I confess one baptism unto the remission of sins, a baptism that results in the remission of sins, a baptism that has efficacy, that does something! Not just a baptism "so that sins may be forgiven," as the ICEL would undoubtedly put it.

What I have been attempting to prove in this section is that in addition to the aspect of efficacy or result being necessarily denoted by the restrictive wording "for many," this same sense of efficacy is also contained in the very words of the final prepositional phrase "unto the remission of sins." This was the ipse dixit in par. 71 of QTV, which was challenged by Msgr. McCarthy.

In my foregoing demonstration I trust I have shown that, purely from the standpoint of Latin, Greek and English grammar, the true meaning of the words of Jesus in the consecration of the wine is contained in these words: This is My Blood which shall be shed for you and for many resulting in (unto) the remission of their sins. This conveys the notion of efficacy, or result, that is insisted upon by the Roman Catechism, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Innocent III and Benedict XIV. The ICEL's "shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven" is so immeasurably different from this correct notion that even a certified clod would be able to detect the discrepancy.

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'. (From QTV, pp. 149-150).

5. Raison d'être of

The Union of the Mystical Body

As has been stated above, the principal fruit or effect of the Holy Eucharist ­­ that is, its res sacramenti ­­ is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ. 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. This truth is closely related to the Church's teaching on the Communion of Saints (which we profess in the Ninth Article of the Apostles' Creed), whereby the different members of the Mystical Body participate in one another's spiritual goods.

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 if sanctifying grace is the raison d'être 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, and through the remission of original sin and actual sin (in the case of adult baptisms) we first become members of the Mystical Body. 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. And a member who has become spiritually dead through mortal sin can be reinstated as a living member only by the remission of sin(s), through what St. Jerome calls "the second plank after shipwreck," namely, the Sacrament of Penance. Concerning the Sacrament of Penance, the Council of Trent teaches:

`Besides, it is clear that this sacrament is in many respects different from Baptism. For apart from the fact that in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it differs very widely, ... the fruit of Baptism is one thing, that of Penance another. For by Baptism we put on Christ (Gal. 3:27) and are made in Him an entirely new creature, receiving a full and complete remission of all sins; to which newness and integrity, however, we are by no means able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance without many tears and labors on our part, divine justice demanding this, so that Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers a laborious kind of Baptism. This sacrament of Penance is for those who have fallen after Baptism necessary for salvation, as Baptism is for those who have not yet been regenerated.'

`If anyone, confounding the sacraments, says that Baptism is itself the sacrament of Penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct, and that Penance therefore is not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck, let him be anathema.'

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.

THEREFORE, inasmuch as this union is the very res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist, which must be signified in the words of the sacramental form, it is likewise evident that 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 these essential words. The words "you" and "many" designate the members; the words, "unto the remission of sins", signify the principle of their unity. O vinculum caritatis!

6. Ambiguity in Sacramental Forms

The dictionary definition of "ambiguous" is: "Capable of being understood in two or more possible senses; equivocal." The seven examples below are all excerpts taken verbatim from Monsignor McCarthy's article. They were selected for presentation because they all contain the inherent assumption or the forthright admission that the ICEL form is ambiguous.

1) The Latin preposition in plus the accusative sets up a direction leading to efficacy and can include both the beginning situation of redemption for all and the final situation of salvation for some.

2) What I do want to point out is that "for all men" does not invalidate the form, if the aspect of efficacy recedes from "for many" to "for you" and the following words "for all" become an expression of the salvific will of Christ towards all men.

3) Was the ICEL translation made and presented in awareness of this contrary theological and doctrinal position? Was due attention paid to the need to keep the form of the sacrament clear and unambiguous ...?

4) And so Omlor is constrained to argue that the addition of the words "and for all men" changes the essential sense of the form from that of efficacy to that of sufficiency. Now, this might be true if the words, "for you" did not precede the words "for all," but, when the words "for you" are retained, the sense of efficacy is already conveyed, so that the succeeding words "and for all" simply express the background of the salvific will of Christ on the Cross. Thus, the sense of efficacy of the form may be weakened and obscured, but it is not destroyed.

5) While this translation does not clearly invalidate the sacrament, as Omlor maintains, it does seem to confuse and obscure its integral form.

6) Note also that the form of the Holy Eucharist both looks to the future and looks to the past ... Similarly, the words of the form for the Holy Eucharist, even as they refer primarily to the efficacious graces that will flow from the Mass, refer also in a secondary sense to all the graces that were to come from the sacrifice on Calvary. To make this secondary sense explicit in a secondary way would not necessarily invalidate the form, but it does effect a partial change of emphasis which does not seem very consistent with the original meaning of the words.

7) Martin Luther contended that, since Christ died once and for all and thereby redeemed all men, there was no need for the Mass. The emphasis upon the salvific will in the words "for all" could suggest a Lutheran misunderstanding of the Mass, and its reduction in the minds of some to a mere communion service.

The foregoing excerpts all reveal that Monsignor McCarthy believes the ICEL form, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," can be understood in two or more possible senses. NOW, A SACRAMENTAL FORM THAT IS AMBIGUOUS IS IPSO FACTO INVALID. "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. Hence the form is expressed in the clearest terms, such as exclude the possibility of doubt." "Moreover, the signification must not be ambiguous, but so far definite as to discriminate the grace effected from graces of a different kind ...," noted Cardinal Vaughan on the same subject.

Here I should make an important clarification. From the above it must not be thought that the form of a sacrament cannot signify more than one thing. The "Respondeo" of St. Thomas in Summa Th., III, Q.78, a.3, explains the various things that are designated or signified in the consecration of the wine by the various parts of the form: "This is the chalice of My Blood," "of the new and eternal testament," "the mystery of faith," "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," etc. (Also, in "Res Sacramenti", an article published in May 1970, as Issue No. 3 of Interdum, I discussed four things that are signified in the form for the Holy Eucharist, namely, transubstantiation, sacrifice, propitiation, and the res sacramenti, which is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ).

When we say an ambiguous sacramental form is ipso facto invalid, we mean that a single word or group of words cannot be understood in more than one way. Thus, for example, were one to claim "This is My Body" refers both to Christ's true body and also to His Mystical Body, he would be asserting that those words are ambiguous. Therefore it is evident that Monsignor McCarthy's opinions that were cited above all presume the ICEL form is ambiguous in the "ipso facto invalid" sense, because they all claim the same phrase, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," is to be understood as meaning more than one thing.

7. Monsignor McCarthy's Case

Msgr. McCarthy observes, "First of all, Omlor's case for the invalidity of the ICEL form for the consecration of the wine does not appear convincing to me," but he does acknowledge elsewhere in his article that I have written a "highly docuмented treatise," that my quoted sources are "impressive in their own right," and that "Omlor quotes an array of authorities," etc.

What do appear convincing to him are his own jerry-built theological theories. In propounding them he appeals to no higher authority. He offers no quotations from any Father or Doctor of the Church, nor does he cite any recognized theologian, or catechism, or dogmatic theology text. Neither does he invoke the Magisterium of the Church through dicta or acta of the Sovereign Pontiffs, ecuмenical councils, etc. Throughout the entire presentation of his case (which begins at the bottom of page 4 of the journal and takes up most of page 5) he quotes one, and only one, supposed authority to support his theories. This authority is, of all people, Omlor! The amateur!

He commences his case thus: "But Our Lord, in the ICEL translation of the form, is referring only to members (present or future) of the Mystical Body where He says `for you.' Therefore, from this aspect, the essential sense of the proper form is preserved. Omlor himself admits this (on page 65 of his treatise), where he says that `even simply the words for you would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical Body.' And therefore, this part of his argument falls."

Great balls o' fire! Never, on page 65 or in any other place have I admitted that the ICEL version preserves the essential sense of the proper form. For that is the very antithesis of my position! Monsignor McCarthy has failed utterly to perceive the context in which I made the remark he cites, the purpose of which was simply to show that all the Scriptural accounts of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist contain words that refer to the Mystical Body. Below is the mere half-sentence he has quoted (the part in bold print), followed by the remainder of my explanation on page 65 of QTV, which clearly shows the overall context:

... even simply the words "for you" would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical Body. And it is important to note well that all Scriptural accounts [Note: these italics are in the original text of QTV] of the institution of the Holy Eucharist contain this signification of the members of the Mystical Body.

Thus Sts. Matthew and Mark record "for many." St. Luke records: "This is my body, which is given for you," and also "This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you." ...

St. Thomas has explained that not all the essential elements of this sacramental form can be found in any single account from the Scriptures: "The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms for the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy: their object was to write the story of Christ." (Summa Th., III, Q.78, a.3, ad 9).

From my comments on p. 65 of QTV it cannot be inferred that the words, "for you," and these words alone, (which appear in St. Luke's Gospel), would suffice to signify the Mystical Body in the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist.

The crux of Msgr. McCarthy's case, upon which his whole argument depends, is that the mere words, "for you," suffice to denote the entire Mystical Body in the ICEL form. And therefore the presence of these two words, "for you," preserves validity, despite the addition of "and for all," and despite the further addition of the clause of purpose, "so that sins may be forgiven." The cornerstone of his case hinges on the great authority Omlor, whom he quotes as saying, "even simply the words `for you' would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical Body."

There is a subtle, yet chasmal, difference between the "for you" in St. Luke's Gospel I cited, standing alone by itself, and these same words "for you" taken from St. Luke and made part of the sacramental form, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins." When incorporated into the sacramental form, these words "for you" do not signify the entire Mystical Body, but only a part thereof. This mysterious signification now contained in the sacramental form is wrought through the incomprehensible design and operation of the Holy Ghost, as is explained by the Roman Catechism in these words:

`But those words which are added, "For you and for many," are taken severally from S. Matthew and S. Luke, which notwithstanding Holy Church, taught by the Spirit of God, has join'd together. ...

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 [i.e., the REMAINDER of the Elect] either Jєωs or Gentiles, to be understood.'

Ergo, Monsignor McCarthy's key assumption, the cornerstone on which his entire case rests, namely, that the mere words "for you" allegedly denote the Mystical Body in toto (thus supposedly preserving the essential sense of the form) is absolutely unsound, as I have just shown, quoting the original 1687 English version of the Roman Catechism.

Furthermore, contrary to Monsignor McCarthy's theory, the simple fact that the words "for you" were retained in the ICEL's form does not and cannot take care of the invalidity problem. These words "for you" in no way nullify or counteract the false signification of the ICEL's additional spurious words, "and for all men." This is an important point, and it seems appropriate to reproduce what I wrote some twenty years ago in the article, "Res Sacramenti".

Since `all men' do not, never have, and never will belong to Christ's Mystical Body, it is evident that these words substituted in the form cannot possibly designate the res sacramenti (the union of the Mystical Body). On the contrary, they contain a false signification; they are in opposition to the special grace of the Eucharist. "For all men" works against the purpose for which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist, namely, the unity of His Mystical Body. As long as these words are present, mutilating the form, the Sacrament and the Mass must, in our opinion, be considered invalid...

In another place Msgr. McCarthy states, "And so Omlor is constrained to argue that the addition of the words `and for all men' changes the essential sense of the form from that of efficacy to that of sufficiency." Not in the derogatory sense that is implied am I constrained to argue thus; but I am constrained in the sense that principles of sacramental theology and simple English rhetoric force me to this conclusion. Examine the ICEL's bogus form. Look at the words themselves, "shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven." Do they denote even a whit of efficacy?

Monsignor McCarthy seemingly does not pay sufficient attention to the overall contexts in which words appear. He claims, "... but, when the words `for you' are retained, the sense of efficacy is already conveyed." Now, to assert, albeit erroneously, that "for you" denotes the entire Mystical Body is one thing. But to claim these words "for you" in themselves denote efficacy is absurd. Even moreso when they are followed by the clause of purpose: "so that sins may be forgiven." His other theory that "the aspect of efficacy recedes from `for many' to `for you'" smacks of semantic sleight of hand.

When reading his many arguments (cited earlier) that presume ambiguity in the ICEL form, I was struck particularly by this one:

"The Latin preposition in plus the accusative case sets up a direction leading to efficacy and can include both the beginning situation of redemption for all and the final situation of salvation for some."

It was déjà-vu!

Back in 1968, Father Most claimed, "One can with equal ease think of the fact that the redemption was sufficient to forgive all sins, or the fact that it actually or efficaciously leads to forgiveness only in some men, in those who accept its fruits."

My reply to this was as follows:

Though it is not the case, let us assume (for argument's sake) that the new "form" actually does convey both sufficiency and efficacy. The "form" would then be automatically wrong, for the proper form should denote efficacy only. In explaining why "all men" should not be used, the Trent Catechism gives this reason: "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." (Emphasis added).

Secondly, if the new "form" does convey these two entirely different concepts, it is, by definition, ambiguous. Hence it cannot be a valid form, which must be definite, as stated above in Reply to Objection C.

But, finally, the new "form" actually denotes sufficiency only (as explained in par. 72 and in pars. 80-82 earlier in this monograph), because the phrase "all men," by its universality, cannot possibly denote "the elect only." (QTV, 3rd edition, pp. 118­119).

The good news is that the ICEL form is not ipso facto invalid owing to some ambiguity, simply because the actual words don't signify more than one thing; they clearly signify sufficiency only. It is solely in the imaginings of Father Most and Monsignor McCarthy that both sufficiency and efficacy are signified. The bad news is that my case for invalidity remains unrefuted.

Another plank in Msgr. McCarthy's case is that "The validity of the ICEL translation is bolstered in the new Sacramentary by the addition of the words in the consecration of the bread, `which will be given up for you.' It is the same `you,' the members of the Mystical Body, that appears again in the consecration of the wine." (He has an idée fixe about those words "for you".)

One dictionary definition of "bolster" is "To support, hold up, or maintain; esp. to support with difficulty or effort." Another dictionary gives: "Support so as to keep from falling." What is unshakeable needs no bolstering. During the long period before the new Sacramentary became finally "approved", with the updated bread consecration form, what was the status of the English "Mass"? Invalid, or doubtfully valid, or merely unbolstered? This plank in the Monsignor's case is so mournfully weak it is beyond bolstering.

First, the words that were added to the bread consecration, "which will be given up for you," do not denote efficacy any more than do the words "for you" in the ICEL wine consecration. The formulae in the various Eastern rite liturgies contain additional words in the consecration of the bread (which, it must be noted, are not necessary for validity), but these additional words denote efficacy. For example, in the Byzantine Rite we find: "This is My Body which is broken for you unto the remission of sins." The ICEL's form does not have "unto the remission of sins," or any other equivalent words which would denote efficacy.

In comparing our Latin Rite with the Eastern rites, however, some caution must be observed. Some elements that are fittingly contained in the Oriental liturgies are not to be found in our Latin Rite. Vice versa, the words, "the Mystery of Faith," (for example), that are part of the Latin Rite formula, do not fittingly appear in any of the Eastern rite liturgies, except those of the Maronites, the Chaldeans, and the Malabarites.

Second, therefore, words to commemorate Our Lord's Passion, such as the ICEL's "which will be given up for you," are not appropriate in the Latin Rite form for the consecration of the bread. The Roman Catechism explains this inaptness in the passage quoted below, which is excerpted from the same 1687 edition, all italics being in the original text. Concerning the wine consecration:

`Wherefore fitly in this place, rather than in the Consecration of the Body, is the Passion of the Lord commemorated in these words `which shall be shed for the remission of sins.' For the Blood being separately consecrated by it self, with relation to the Passion of the Lord, has greater force and power to lay before the eyes of all, both the Death and kind of suffering.'

Third, the words, "This is My Body", and these words alone, suffice for the valid consecration of the bread. After nearly two thousand years the Innovators decide to append "which will be given up for you." This meddling, this pointless innovation, would seem to accomplish nothing. However, whenever seemingly harmless, though also seemingly pointless, things are done by conspirators, there is always purpose behind them. They are called machinations.

8. If At First You Don't Succeed

To date the Innovators have violated the sacred consecration form by means of at least six distinct changes, on three separate occasions. This "trial and error" tinkering would be farcical if it regarded any ordinary matter, instead of the most holy of things, the words of Jesus Christ.

(1) The original despoiled version of 1967 introduced the "for all men so that sins may be forgiven" change, which is the invalidating mutilation of the form we have been discussing in depth.

(2) In the same 1967 version the consecration form for the wine was broken up into two separate sentences; the first sentence ending with the words, "the mystery of faith," and the second beginning with the words, "This blood is to be shed for you and for all men ... etc." As was pointed out as far back as May 1970 in the article Res Sacramenti, this unprecedented innovation in itself is yet another probable source of invalidity. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that all the words following "This is the chalice of My Blood" are determinations of the predicate; that is, they determine the essential signifying elements of the Sacrament by means of the uninterrupted recitation by the priest of the words of Christ. Consequently the discontinuity of the ICEL form, caused by stopping the recitation after several determinations have been expressed (that is, up through the words "the mystery of faith"), and then resuming with a new sentence, interferes with the integrity of the entire expression. In all other sacraments the essential form is expressed in a single statement, wherein all the necessary signifying elements of the sacrament are contained in the one uninterrupted utterance.

(3) In the "New Order" of the Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) that was first promulgated several years later in 1969, the vitiated form comprising the two separate sentences was retained. However, the sentences themselves were changed in wording once again! The first now completely omits the words "the mystery of faith," and ends with the words "new and everlasting convenant." The second sentence was changed from "This blood is to be shed for you and for all men ... etc." to "It will be shed for you and for all men ...etc.". Observe the trivial alterations: "It" instead of "This blood"; "will be shed" instead of "is to be shed." Such seemingly foolish fiddling, apparently just for the sake of fiddling, was really not foolish at all. These changes and the ones mentioned just below in Nos. (4) and (5) all served the very useful purpose of diverting attention away from the real issue, namely, the serious and invalidating change, "for all men so that sins may be forgiven."

(4) In the same Novus Ordo of 1969, the words "the Mystery of Faith" were deleted from the actual consecration form, as was mentioned above, only to reappear afterwards outside the consecration itself, in the form of an acclamation by the priest, to which the congregation replies, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." These three truths have nothing whatsoever to do with the mystery of faith of the Holy Eucharist; to wit, what was formerly wine and still has all the physical and chemical properties of wine is not wine, but It is now the Precious Blood and the Body, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. O res mirabilis! The acclamation, "the mystery of faith," followed by the wholly inappropriate reply by the congregation, suppresses the dogma of the Real Presence and thereby implicitly but in fact denies it. For the true meaning of those words, "Mystery of Faith," in this place, is explained lucidly and succinctly by the Roman Catechism:

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

(5) The appending to the form for the consecration of the bread of the words, "which will be given up for you," (which was already discussed in the previous section) was also a feature of the Novus Ordo.

(6) The reader has perhaps noticed that I have sometimes referred to the "for all men" change, and sometimes simply to "for all." Only a few years ago (1985) the ICEL changed their original "for all men" to "for all." The change was an official and mandatory one. The reason? Because political pressure was exerted by vociferous, left wing, so-called "feminist" creatures! Lest we forget, we are talking about the supposed sacred words of Jesus Christ in the supposed Catholic Mass.

But the sacred words of Christ and the safeguarding of a valid Mass mean absolutely nothing to those vile wreckers. They are like automobile mechanics adjusting a carburetor until the mixture seems right. They treat those sacred words as toys, to be played with, taken apart and experimented upon again and again until they finally come up with something "acceptable," at least for the time being.

9. Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James

In one edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary the first definitions given for "conspiracy" are "Combination of persons for an evil purpose; a plot." In this section I shall show that the invalidating "for all men" vitiation of the Catholic Mass was prearranged and carried out by the perpetrators of what I hereby designate as the `For All Men' International Conspiracy.

As Monsignor McCarthy so capably demonstrated, never was there the slightest explicit approval or "go ahead" officially given, not even by the Vatican II Council of the Robber Church, for anyone to render the Canon of the Mass into the vernacular tongues. Archbishop Robert J. Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, stated at the time: "The ICEL has performed its task so poorly as to raise serious questions as to its competence. Never was there the slightest consultation with the bishops of the English-speaking world; here is a signal instance of bureaucracy inflicting its will by methods which can only be described as high-handed." (Quoted in Twin Circle, June 21, 1970, with my italics added). The Archbishop's first statement is quite incorrect, for the ICEL performed its assigned task magnificently with consummate competence, all according to plan. The conspirators knew exactly what they were doing, their execution of the scheme was deft, and everything went as smoothly as clockwork, at least at first.

These words of Danton come to mind: "In order to overcome them, Messieurs, we need audacity, more audacity, always audacity, and France is saved." Mrs. Nesta Webster described the modus operandi of the conspiratorial French Revolutionists as "effrontery, an insolent contempt for public opinion, the mutual resolution to bring off a coup and brazen out the consequences" (The French Revolution, p. 305).

During 1967-68 vernacularized liturgies started popping up "spontaneously" in a multitude of languages all over the globe, all at about the same time and all, as we have seen, without official approbation. Now, if the phony "translation" of "pro multis" into "for all men" had slipped by only in the English version, then one might possibly have attributed such a blatant blunder to the deplorable ignorance of Latin and sacramental theology that was then prevalent among most bishops of the English-speaking world, whose proficiency in those areas of learning, as is now quite clear, was (and is) somewhat less remarkable than that of, say, the Negrillo pygmies of Central Africa.

However, the bogus words, for all men, did not appear only in the English version. With very few exceptions (e.g., in the Polish, Japanese and Vietnamese translations) the very same falsified words, for all, or for all men also occurred in all those vernacular renditions that popped up so spontaneously. As examples: in Italian, per tutti; in German, für Alle; in Spanish, por todos; in Portuguese, por todos os homens, etc. Departing from the various versions of the French New Testament (Matthew 26,28), which have either pour un grand nombre or pour une multitude (both of which mean literally "for many"), the vernacularized French liturgy has pour la multitude. There is a difference between the correct "une multitude" and "la multitude," for the latter does not mean many, but rather "the masses." It is equivalent literally to the Greek hoi polloi, which has become part of the English language. "La multitude" certainly does not satisfactorily signify the Mystical Body, the "many" that Christ intended.

To anyone who has no inkling that a preconcerted plan of conspirators was afoot this spontaneous incorrect rendering of "pro multis" on a virtually universal basis must seem most astounding, for two reasons. (1) In all those countries and in all those languages the New Testament sources of these words (Matt. 26,28) all have the word which is the equivalent of "many" in English. Moreover, presumably these same equivalents of "many" appeared in the vernacular versions of the wine consecration form in all the laymen's missals that were in use in all those countries. (2) Every schoolboy knows that "pro multis" means "for many"; and "for all" would be "pro omnibus".

Those vernacularized liturgies that started popping up "spontaneously" in 1967-68, in a multitude of languages all over the globe, all at about the same time and all without official approbation, were all produced by various national or international "Committees on the Liturgy," which were the counterparts of the English-speaking ICEL. This orchestrated global operation was directed and controlled by the Vatican's now defunct "Sacred Congregation for the Divine Cult," that nefarious creation of Montini which supplanted the Sacred Congregation of Rites. At the time of the `For All Men' International Conspiracy the Secretary of this "Sacred" Congregation was Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who was later (1972) made an archbishop. He died in 1982 at the age of seventy.

The reader will recall that Bugnini, the ringleader of the conspiracy, was publicly exposed in 1976 as having been secretly a Freemason since April 23, 1963, Code Number 1365­75, and Code Name "BUAN". Pope Leo XIII (encyclical Humanum Genus, 1884) declared Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to be of "the kingdom of Satan"; and eighteen years later in "A Review of His Pontificate" (March 19, 1902), the same Pontiff spoke again of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as "Full of the spirit of Satan." Now I ask, can any person of sound mind conceivably suppose that Annibale Bugnini, that most talented operative of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which is of the "mystical body of Satan," would be taking pains to preserve the validity of the Catholic Mass and would be making sure that the Mystical Body of Christ was being properly signified in the words of the consecration form?

Catholics all over the world ­­ the victims of "audacity, more audacity, always audacity" ­­ were supposed to believe that this ubiquitous occurrence of "all men" resulted from the universally acknowledged fact that "for all men" is indeed correct. As there was supposedly no complicity or connivance between the various national liturgical groups, all those linguistic scholars in different parts of the world worked on their translations all by themselves, totally without any outside influences, and all those experts came up with the very correct translation "for all." Least of all (we must supposedly conclude) would there have been any secret Masonic clique masterminding the whole concerted operation of those various national groups, all acting so absolutely independently and individually, for that would smack of conspiracy!

There are two, and only two, possible explanations of what happened. Either there was a brilliantly executed conspiracy, "the mutual resolution to bring off a coup and brazen out the consequences," or else there was in the years 1967-68 a world-wide, mysterious dearth of schoolboys able to give advice on the correct translation of "pro multis".

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen ­­ Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance ­­ and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, ­­not omitting even scaffolding­­ or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in ­­ in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. (From the speech, "The House Divided Against Itself," delivered at Springfield, Illinois, June 17, 1858, by Abraham Lincoln).

At this point the reader is possibly wondering why the international gangsters were so hellbent on getting "for all" firmly implanted in virtually all the liturgies throughout the world. A little later on I shall elucidate this point.

10. Perversity of Intention

In declaring Anglican Orders to be categorically invalid, Pope Leo XIII (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896) averred that the invalidity arises from two sources, namely, defect of form and defect of intention. Defect of form because the form of words for the Sacrament of Holy Orders that the Protestant Revolutionaries concocted fails to provide the necessary sacramental signification; thus on this count the Anglicans' "sacrament"