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

THE NECESSARY SIGNIFICATION

IN THE SACRAMENTAL FORM

OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST


By Patrick Henry Omlor



PART I : THE BACKGROUND


1. The Long-standing Dispute

A dispute going back at least as far as the 13th century regarding exactly which of the words in the Consecration of the Wine printed in the Roman Missal are absolutely required for the validity of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and, perforce, for the validity of the Mass itself, has never been settled definitively by the Church. This unresolved issue we call "the short form versus the entire form" controversy.

The defenders of the "short form" position hold that these words alone by themselves, "This is the chalice of My blood," or else "This is My blood" (which are the first few words of the sacramental form in many of the Oriental liturgies) suffice for the valid consecration of the Precious Blood. They claim that the remaining words of the sacramental form, namely, "of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins," although being a part of the form handed down in the Latin Rite, are nevertheless not necessary for validity. The defenders of the "entire form" position deny the foregoing supposition, asserting that (with the exception of the word "enim"), all the words of the sacramental form for the wine-consecration, exactly as laid down in bold print in Missale Romanum, are absolutely necessary for bringing about the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and therefore essential for the celebration of a valid Mass.

A most weighty authority supporting the "entire form" adherents is a preceptive passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is 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. This salient passage from Part V of De Defectibus reads thus:

The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc est enim corpus meum. And: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. 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 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, "This is the chalice of my blood," and state that if only those words are changed in meaning the consecration is invalid. It therefore is evident that this official injunction in Missale Romanum supports the "entire form" position and implicitly denies the claim of the "short form" apologists.

As it would appear that De Defectibus is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, its authority is on a level well above that of the speculative opinions advanced by various theologians. Although one cannot claim the passage cited from De Defectibus is a definition by the Church on this matter, nevertheless it is certain from it that the "Mind of the Church" is that the entire form must be treated as though it is all essential, inasmuch as the penalty of mortal sin attaches to anyone who would dare to add something to the form, even though the addition would not nullify or interfere with the meaning of anything contained in the given proper form.

A thorough and unbiased discussion of the "short form versus entire form" controversy is presented by Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Catholic University, Washington, D.C., in his work Tractatus Dogmaticus DE EUCHARISTIA, Tom. I De Sacramento, Bruce, Milwaukee, 1947. His airing of the controversy is on pp. 150-161, being Article 10 entitled "Whether Among the Words of Our Lord in the Latin Form of Consecration Only These Pertain to the Essence of the Sacramental Form: 'This Is My Body, This Is My Blood'." The author begins with a section entitled Status Quaestionis, which includes this sound admonition: "By no means must this controversy be deemed to be an idle one, but rather it must be diligently attended to by the theologian 'lest most shameful sins be committed by consecrating priests through ignorance of the form,' as the Catechism of the Council of Trent warns (Part II, Chap. 4, Q. 19)."

Doronzo next discusses Pars Negativa (the negative position which denies the short form is sufficient for validity) and the Pars Affirmativa, (which affirms that the short form, "This is My Blood," suffices for validity). Many theologians are cited on both sides, and the various arguments of each are presented along with the counter-arguments by the opposing side. On page 161 Doronzo summarizes his exposition as follows:

"Having considered all these foregoing arguments, WE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION: The authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St. Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [which denies that the short form suffices] is the more probable. However, since in the opinion of so many theologians, especially 'Thomists,' the mind of St. Thomas, which the authors of the Catechism [of the Council of Trent] evidently intend to follow, is not clearly evident, we do not venture to deem one of the opinions more probable than the other, but we judge both to be equally probable."

When a theological opinion is said to be probable, it must not be thought that this means "probable" in the ordinary sense of the word; that is, more than likely to be true. A theologically probable opinion is simply one that has sound reasons behind it and is espoused by theologians of high repute, but which lacks theological certainty and cannot be claimed to be certain. This explains why commentators (e.g., St. Alphonsus, Doronzo, etc.) are able to state that two diametrically opposed opinions are "equally probable," meaning not that both are equally likely to be true, but only that both have sound theological foundations and numerous reputable theologians as adherents.

2. No Longer A Purely Theoretical Controversy

Until the late 1960's the controversy we have been discussing, although extremely important and demanding diligent attention (as Doronzo wisely observed in the passage cited earlier), was nevertheless of academic or theoretical interest only, because in practice all Latin Rite priests knew -- and should still know -- that the entire wine-consecration form exactly as laid down in the Roman Missal of Pope St. Pius V must be used without any alteration. To fail to do so would be mortally sinful. Moreover such a failure to use the prescribed form in its entirety would probably result (if we realistically acknowledge the considered probability of a very sound theological opinion) in failing to consecrate the Holy Eucharist and consequently invalidating the "Mass" supposedly being celebrated.

But around 1967-68 this controversy became overnight a most serious one and no longer a matter of academic interest only, due to the introduction of the vernacularized liturgies in almost every country in the world. Practically all of these new "Masses" in those various and multitudinous vernacular tongues suffered a change of wording in the sacramental form for the wine-consecration -- a change involving a mutilation of meaning. In most of the vernacularized versions the concluding words of the form, "pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum," were not translated correctly from the canonized Latin text. The correct and literal translation into English is: "shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." Instead it was rendered as "shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven."

This innovation is more than just a mistranslation. It is a forgery, a falsification of the words spoken by Our Lord, as recorded in Holy Scripture, when He instituted the Sacrament of the Altar at the Last Supper. Much higher stakes now came into play surrounding the controversy about whether or not these words, correctly translated, are part of the form essential for validity. The matter ceased to be of "academic interest" only. Because there and then we became confronted with a deliberate and premeditated change in meaning of the established and proper form of the Sacrament -- a change occurring in those words which many esteemed and reputable theologians over the centuries capably argued are necessary for the validity of the Mass. Yes, infinitely greater stakes! The continued widespread existence of the Holy Mass in the western Latin Rite became jeopardized.

However, after the question was publicly raised concerning the possible invalidity of "Masses" using the all-English Canon (which was introduced in the United States on October 22, 1967) -- the case being based on its aforesaid vitiated wine-consecration form containing the falsified "for you and for all men, etc." and the implications thereof--, many writers, chiefly "conservatives" and "traditionalists," chose straightaway to defend vehemently the validity of the English "Masses" using this despoiled "consecration form." Most of these Adversarii resorted to the argument that it is the common opinion among present-day theologians that the mere words, "This is the chalice of My blood," are the only words of the form that are absolutely essential for the validity of the Sacrament.

In other words the "short form" position, a mere theological opinion, which Doronzo had termed the "Pars Affirmativa" on the centuries-old controversy, was assumed to be automatically correct, veritably an infallible dogma. Since the falsified words, "for all men so that sins may be forgiven," occur in the concluding part of the form, which (so they allege) is a nonessential part anyway, such a change from the proper and certainly valid "for many unto the remission of sins" could not possibly affect the validity. So goes the argument of the Adversarii.

An important point I would stress now is that the controversy concerning exactly which words of the wine-consecration are absolutely essential for validity clearly cannot be settled definitively simply by appealing to the authority of this or that theologian. If it is ever to be settled at all, nothing short of a definition by the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church (not The Robber Church) will suffice.

3. A Digression : The Robber Catechism

There are many other introductory "background" points that need to be covered. We must furnish some concrete examples that reveal the calibre of scholarship of the Adversarii. However, this present section comprises a brief digression from our main theme, in order to examine yet one more desperate effort by The Robber Church (whose miscreants are not to be confused with our sincere but lamentably ignorant and, therefore, reckless Adversarii). That it would happen was almost predictable with certainty and, yes, eventually The Robber Church did make its belated attempt to torpedo one of the most authoritative and devastating bulwarks of our invalidity thesis, namely, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as the Roman Catechism.

A new English "translation" of the Roman Catechism appeared in 1984, which date is quite appropriate inasmuch as parts of this opus are written in Orwellian "Newspeak". In the first place, there was no genuine need at all for a new translation, because those many earlier editions translated by Dr. Jeremy Donovan and the later version by the Dominican scholars John McHugh and Charles Callan (not to mention the first English translation printed at London in 1687) all are first-rate, very clearly expressed in elegant English prose and, with a very few notable exceptions in several places, entirely faithful to the Latin text.

Nevertheless The Robber Church, for unmistakable reasons my present readers will easily discern, did find it necessary to retranslate -- rather rewrite -- certain parts. The new work is entitled simply (and erroneously) The Roman Catechism; and it is subtitled, "Translated and Annotated in Accord with Vatican II and Post-Conciliar Docuмents and the New Code of Canon Law". Published by St. Paul Editions, Boston, the "translators" are Robert I. Bradley, S.J., and Msgr. Eugene Kevane. A laudatory "Presentation" written by Cardinal Oddi graces its introductory pages.

Let us examine a few excerpts from this 1984 "Orwellian" edition of the Roman Catechism.

The earlier translators McHugh & Callan render quite correctly and fluently the following passage from Part II, Chap. I, Q. XVII: "In this the Sacraments of the New Law excel those of the Old that, as far as we know, there was no definite form of administering the latter, and hence they were very uncertain and obscure. In our Sacraments, on the contrary, the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the Sacrament null, ..." (Emphasis added).

Here is the Robbers' Newspeak version of this text: "In this regard the sacraments of the New Law far excell [sic] those of the Old. There was, as far as we know, no definite form for administering the sacraments of the Old Testament; and because of this they remained very uncertain and obscure. Under the New Law, however, the verbal form is so important ["praescriptam" means prescribed, or "definite" as McHugh & Callan render it; not "important"] that its omission -- even if accidental -- renders the sacrament null." (Emphasis added).

The Roman Catechism was not written for kindergartners. Imagine its erudite 16th-century authors supposedly informing parish priests (for whom the Catechism was primarily written) that in effectuating a sacrament the sacramental form is not to be omitted! (The Latin 'ab ea discedatur' means 'departed from' or 'deviated from,' as McHugh & Callan correctly so translate). The phrase, "even if accidental," makes it sound even more ridiculous, as though any sane priest would accidentally omit the entire form. What comes through here is that all those Robber Church priests -- correction: "Presidents of the Assembly of the People of God" -- had better not forget to say something!

Now there is a certain passage in the Roman Catechism that most convincingly damns the purported authenticity of the phony "for all men" mutilation and annihilates all claims for its validity. It is that well known passage that explicitly condemns the wording, "for all men," as being destructive of the correct theological meaning in this place in the sacramental form, and therefore categorically unacceptable. The slightly different renderings of this passage by Donovan and by McHugh & Callan are both quite competently penned and, of course, representative of the correct meaning of the original Latin text. However, what is reproduced below is the equally excellent version that appears on page 207 of the very first English translation of the Catechism, published at London in 1687, under the Catholic King James II.

'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 Robber Catechism's version of the above-cited passage reads thus: "When, therefore, he said, 'for you,' he meant those only who were present at the Supper except Judas; or he may also have meant all the disciples whom he had chosen along with the Twelve. And when he added, 'for many,' he was including all the other elect from among the Jєωs and the Gentiles until the end of time. The alternative expression, 'for all,' was properly omitted, because here it is only the fruit of the Passion which is spoken of; and for the elect only does the Passion bear the fruit of salvation."

Observe how they euphemistically term the wording for all an "alternative expression," one that was simply "properly omitted," rather than one expressly rejected by Our Lord. Rightly therefore did Jesus not say 'for all'! is what the Catechism states. Do Catholics speak about possible alternatives for Divinely spoken words? Furthermore "for all" was not, in point of fact, "omitted" at all, because it was never there in the first place.

And lo! We even find a footnote subjoined to this carnage wreaked upon the Roman Catechism. Verily the pièce de résistance:

"This disjunction in meaning between 'many' and 'all,' although valid on the terms of the theological distinction made in the text, is unnecessary on purely philological and historical terms."

[Unnecessary? It is absolutely necessary to make the clear distinction between 'many' and 'all.' 'Disjunction' is their slippery word that avoids saying that these two words 'many' and 'all' are directly related correspondingly to the two different ideas in the "theological distinction' to which they refer. 'All' is wrong not only on 'philological and historical terms,' but also, more importantly, theologically; and finally, most importantly, because it is not what Our Lord said].

Continuing, then, with the footnote:

"The 'polloi' of the original New Testament text means both 'many' and 'all' interchangeably. Taken as an exact equivalent of that Greek word, the Latin 'multi' can -- and should -- convey both senses. And therefore both equivalents in English, 'many' and 'all,' are justified."

Apparently these new Robbers have now abandoned the original ploy, which was to try to justify the bogus 'for all' on the basis of an ambiguity or peculiarity allegedly inherent in the Aramaic language. With good reason do they abandon it, for when that deceitful manoeuvre by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) came to light, it was exposed as the colossal fraud that it most plainly and assuredly is. This new generation of Robbers now tries to justify the bogus words "for all" by alleging a supposed peculiarity in the Greek language, which is a complete turnabout, as we shall now see.

In the course of their prevaricating "explanation" of the phony Aramaic language business, the ICEL Robbers did manage to admit (and in this they were correct) that in the Greek as well as in the Latin the word in question does in fact mean "many" rather than "all". Moreover, to substantiate this they even quoted their guru, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, who stated quite clearly and correctly: "While 'many' in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to 'all', and therefore has the exclusive sense ('many, but not all') ... etc."

But now we find these erudite translators of the 1984 "Roman Catechism" (so-called) forswearing the true doctrine of their ICEL forebears (on one of the few occasions those chronic crooks were actually truthful), by now turning around 180 degrees and claiming that the Greek word 'polloi' means "both [their emphasis] 'many' and 'all' interchangeably" and therefore "the Latin 'multi' can -- and should -- convey both senses." "And," in conclusion, "therefore both equivalents in English, 'many' and 'all,' [which are not equivalents at all, but contrary concepts] are justified"! Those pesky Robbers -- foiled earlier and proved to be liars on the "Aramaic hoax," and now again foiled on the "Greek hoax," this time in advance by the 1968 testimony of the ICEL itself. We eagerly await the next installment.

4. Cajetan and De Lugo

Said Doronzo: "The Negative Position [i.e., the 'entire form' position] is taught by the majority of theologians and Thomists up to the Council of Trent, and afterwards by very many ('a pluribus'), Thomists as well as non-Thomists." Moreover the Salmanticenses remarked, "All the earlier Thomists up to Cajetan, who rejected it, taught the same [i.e., the 'entire form' position] unanimously."

«------ »

Apparently therefore it was Cajetan, Tommaso De Vio Gaetani, baptized Giacomo (1469-1534), a Dominican cardinal, who was the first "Thomist" to oppose the mind of St. Thomas on this matter. Cajetan had been called a "lamp of the Church" by Pope Clement VII, and it was said that he could quote almost the entire Summa of St. Thomas from memory. Now, in his commentaries on the Summa, Cajetan contradicted the teaching of the Angelic Doctor by emphatically declaring that for the consecration of the Precious Blood nothing more is required than these four words: "This is my blood." ("Inveniemus non esse necessaria ad consecrationem sanguinis nisi quatuor verba haec, 'Hic est sanguis meus'.") Continuing with excessive self-assurance, he asserted: "Although Scotus and many others doubt this is true, it seems to me that there is no basis for doubting it to be probable; but it must be considered as beyond question, as I have said." (Emphasis added).

This opinion of Cajetan's appeared in the edition of his "Commentaries" published at Venice in 1533. But subsequently the Sovereign Pontiff St. Pius V, also a Dominican, proved to be one of those who certainly did not consider Cajetan's opinion to be "beyond question," for when he authorized Cajetan's commentaries to be published in a Roman edition in 1570 he also explicitly commanded this particular opinion to be expurgated! As Cardinal Capisuccus notes, "They are in error who try to maintain that this was expurgated only because Cajetan downgraded St. Thomas's opinion too much. For Cajetan here does not merely downgrade the opinion of St. Thomas; he departs from it. Just as he departs from him on other matters, but those other divergences were not ordered to be dropped from the Roman edition. It is evident that Pope Pius V did not agree with this opinion of Cajetan [the one which he expunged]."

«------ »

John De Lugo (1583-1660), the noted Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, and an adamant "short form" promoter, once claimed to have come across some previously used Maronite Catholic liturgies that employed only the words "This is My Blood" as the complete form for the wine-consecration. He argued that the very existence of such liturgies proves beyond doubt that the "short form" opinion is not just probable, but certain. In a word, he claimed in effect that by his discovery of those "short form" liturgies the controversy now had been settled once and for all.

Even today some persons still cite the De Lugo "findings" as "proof" that the short form, 'This is My blood,' is sufficient for validity. Such persons are apparently unaware that De Lugo's evidence is now of historical interest only as a noble but futile effort, for even in his own day it was weighed and analyzed and thoroughly rejected by many of his contemporaries. Perhaps the best and most thoroughly devastating rebuttal was made by the renowned 17th-century Thomists of Salamanca, Spain, that group of learned Discalced Carmelites known as the Salmanticenses, who showed that the De Lugo findings consisted of either spurious liturgies or liturgies used by schismatics and/or heretics, which fact automatically disqualifies them as credible evidence.

Every person who thinks he knows something about the "pro multis" invalidity issue and the "short form versus entire form" controversy should at least realize that De Lugo surely did not settle and could not possibly have settled the matter once and for all; for if he had, then recent experts, such as Doronzo in 1947, would not have still been writing on this issue as an open question.

Now a quite remarkable aspect of the Salmanticenses' writings is that although they poured forth from the pens of many different Carmelite Thomists over a period of nearly a century, they do not contain a single self-contradiction.

Back in 1976, Father Lawrence S. Brey translated the Salmanticenses' entire disputation against De Lugo, which comprises sections 30-32 of Disp. IX, dub. 3 of Cursus Theologicus, Vol. XVIII, 'De Eucharistiae Sacramento,' from the edition published at Paris, 1882. This translation, the first (and only) ever made into English, was published in The Remnant, issue of July 31, 1976, pages 8-12, under the title, "The Salmanticenses' Response To De Lugo On The Form Of Consecration Of The Wine". No scholar or even casual student of the "pro multis" invalidity issue should fail to read and thoroughly digest this most comprehensive and brilliant polemical treatise, so capably and faithfully translated by our intrepid and illustrious Father Lawrence S. Brey.

5. Our Temerarious Adversarii

Very many great theologians, including Saints, Popes and Doctors of the Church, have claimed that the words "This is (the chalice of) My blood," alone by themselves, are not sufficient for the validity of the wine-consecration, but that the entire form including "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" is absolutely essential.

Among these "Pars Negativa" exponents we may include St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Antoninus, Pope St. Pius V, Pope Innocent III, the authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., those brilliant Thomists, the renowned Discalced Carmelites of Salamanca known as the Salmanticenses, Herveus, Capreolus, Sylvester, Tabiena, Armilla, Peter de Soto, Viguerius, Bartholomeus Spina, Arauxo, Marcus Huertos, John Nicolai, Gonet, John Vincent Asturicensis, John Gonzalez, N. Franciscus, Thomas Argentina, Richardus, N. Philippus, N. Cornejo, John Gerson, Aegidius Columna, Andrew Victorellus, Lorca, Thomas Hurtado, Pasqualigo, Petrus de Palude, Henry Henriquez, S.J., Francis Amicus, S.J., John of Freiburg, Jacobus de Graffiis, O.S.B., F. Macedo, O.M., and Père Maurice de la Taille, S.J.

THEREFORE, the entire form is absolutely necessary for validity, and the words "This is My blood" alone do not suffice. This is proved conclusively by the authority of the theologians just named.

The claim in the last sentence of the above paragraph is absurd! It does not in the least represent my view, nor that of anyone I know. Although the comprehensive list of authorities I presented is quite accurate, everyone must realize by now that even if I had cited 10,000 theologians, that would still not settle the issue definitively. Because the one and only ultimate verdict, namely, "Roma locuta est; Causa finita est," remains lacking. This matter can be conclusively resolved only by our Holy Mother the Church. The Adversarii (many of whom have "settled" the matter for their readers so self-confidently and so facilely) would do well to keep this fact in mind.

«----- »

One of the early Adversarii, Father Daniel Lyons, S.J., was able to settle the matter conclusively for the readers of Twin Circle (Jan. 4, 1970). He wrote: "The translation of the consecration of the Precious Blood as 'all men' is perfectly valid. The matter has been checked out theologically. ... One good source is an old but very scholarly manual of Dogmatic Theology, more rigorous than many modern treatises. ... Fr. Tanquerey says that for validity...these words are sufficient: 'Hoc est corpus meum. Hic est calix sanguinis mei'." So! We can all rest easily now; there is no problem; Tanquerey has spoken. And Father Lyons has ratified!

To attempt thus to settle that centuries-old controversy by appealing to a single theologian bespeaks a deplorable and culpable ignorance and an incredible temerity. Moreover Fr. Lyons's alleged "facts" are even in error. Here is what Tanquerey actually says in his Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae: "It is certain (Certum est) that for the valid consecration of the bread the words of Christ are required: 'This is my body'; and for the consecration of the wine the words: 'This is the chalice of my blood'; or 'This is my blood'."

What Tanquerey is saying here is that it is certain that at least those words are essential, not that they alone suffice. Which is evident from what he says next: "There is a dispute as to whether the words: 'of the new and eternal testament...etc.' are required for a valid consecration. Many of the Thomists say that they are required because...etc. Other theologians say that they are not required because...etc."

And again Tanquerey: "For the valid consecration of the blood of Christ; the words 'this is the chalice of my blood' or 'this is my blood' are required; rather, with much probability they are sufficient. In practice, however, the form, as it is in the Missal, must always be pronounced; for when validity is at stake, the safer opinion must be followed."

«------ »

Writing in The Remnant (15 Feb. 1971), the late Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand gave his readers this simplistic soporific: "since a great many theologians (among them the Franciscan Duns Scotus) had stated that the strictly essential words for the validity of the Consecration are, 'This is My Body' and 'This is My Blood,' we need not worry about the validity." So! Now we have Scotus and von Hildebrand finally deciding the matter. All our worries are over. For the Adversarii it is all such a simple matter!

Scotus? John Duns Scotus, the Franciscans' eminent "Subtle Doctor"?? Quite to the contrary, Scotus did not advance the "short form" theory. In fact, one of the noted "short form" exponents, the redoubtable Suarez (disp. 60, sect. 1, n. 3), in referring to the contrary doctrine of St. Thomas that the entire form is necessary, admitted: "This teaching [i.e., that the short form does not suffice] is very probable and of great authority [i.e., St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism, et al.] and Scotus himself did not venture to contradict it, but left it as a doubtful matter." The reason Suarez remarks that "Scotus himself" did not dare to contradict St. Thomas on this matter is that Scotus was notorious for so very frequently impugning the Angelic Doctor, choosing exactly the opposite opinion.

«------ »

Most of the reputable theologians of the past who advanced the "short form" opinion were honest enough and careful enough to point out that their opinion is only "probable," and that the opposite view has great weight. Thus, for example, Suarez, who held the "short form" position, conceded that the "entire form" opinion contrary to his is very probable and of great authority ("Haec opinio est valde probabilis, et magnae auctoritatis").

But some of our present-day Adversarii adopt a completely different attitude, as is indicated in the examples just given. Now that the matter has become one of clear and present danger -- that is, now that we are faced with a "consecration form" (so-called) that actually contains a mutilation in the mooted final words--, they vehemently insist on its validity, superficially and temerariously citing as "conclusive proof" speculative opinions of a few theologians of far lesser authority than St. Thomas, who moreover (as we have seen) do not even hold those opinions our pitiable Adversarii so ignorantly ascribe to them!

«------ »

I have in my files a four-page docuмent entitled, "Two Letters of Father Forrest Concerning The English Mass". It contains excerpts from some personal correspondence of the late Father Michael D. Forrest, M.S.C., to a Mr. Chester D. Mann of Tustin, California. Here are several of Fr. Forrest's statements:

(1) "As to the All-English Canon now used in this country ... However, defective and bad as the translation of the Canon is, I emphatically defend that it does not invalidate the Mass."

(2) "The entire valid form of consecration is simply: 'This is My Body; this is My Blood,' or 'this is the chalice (cup) of My Blood'." (Underscoring in Fr. Forrest's original letter).

(3) "No, Chester, you can be sure that Mass celebrated according to the new badly worded Canon is VALID." (Emphasis is Fr. Forrest's).

(4) "However, this is my definite view: It is morally certain [my emphasis] that the only essential [Fr. Forrest's underscoring] form of consecration are the words: Hoc est corpus meum; hic est sanguis meus."

(5) "When I was teaching theology (long ago in Australia), I had at my disposal a magnificent library. I treasured two large, pig-skin covered volumes of Cardinal John de Lugo ... (who) stoutly defended that the only essential form of consecration of the wine is HIC EST SANGUIS MEUS, and he appealed prolifically in abundant quotations to numerous Liturgies [many of which were proved conclusively by the Salmanticenses to be either spurious or those of schismatics, as we have noted], showing that these were the only consecrating words COMMON TO ALL LITURGIES."

Father Forrest claimed the view that the short form "This is My Blood" suffices for validity to be a morally certain view. Father Felix Cappello, S.J., earlier made the same rash asseveration. Now "morally certain" certainly sounds terribly definite. To many readers those words "morally certain" must surely convey a sense of finality. If they can be "morally certain" there is no invalidity problem with the English "Mass," then the matter is no doubt more or less settled in their minds. This is certainly morally dangerous. If trusted advisors (who are so positive in asserting their opinions) are in fact fatally wrong on the "invalidity issue," -- as we believe they are -- then they are leading many Catholics to accept a "Mass" that is very possibly an idolatrous performance, and therefore imperilling to their eternal salvation.

What exactly does the phrase "morally certain" mean? Well, it is defined in Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged). The first part of the definition is: "Supported by the evidence of reason or probability." If we consider only that part of the definition, then it can with equal justification be said that the view that the entire consecration form is essential is also morally certain.

The second part of the definition of "morally certain" is: "founded on experience of the ordinary course of things." Here the claim that the short form opinion is "morally certain" disintegrates, while the moral certainty of the entire form position would be thoroughly vindicated. For if we base the verdict on experience, all experience shows that there is not a single example of an unquestionably valid liturgy that uses or has ever used only the mere words "This is My Blood." (From the foregoing demonstration it must not be inferred that I am now being so bold as to claim our opinion to be morally certain, I hasten to add.)

Cappello had written, "Whatever may be the opinion of the Holy Doctor [St. Thomas] and of other theologians, the opposite opinion is common and morally certain." To conclude this discussion on "morally certain," I would point out that the fair-minded Doronzo, a man of apparent equanimity, quotes those words of Cappello with displeasure and upbraids him for writing far too frivolously ("nimis leviter scribit") on so important a matter.

6. The Mind of St. Thomas

Albeit the matter concerning which words of the wine-consecration form are essential cannot be settled conclusively by any theologian, nevertheless one cannot minimize the importance of the opinion of St. Thomas. He is and always has been the one central figure, not only in this dispute, but in all theological questions. To begin to appreciate the unique role of the Angelic Doctor in the affairs of the Church one should read Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Aeterni Patris. In that docuмent we find, among others, the following exceptional tributes to the Angelic Doctor:

'The ecuмenical councils have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers.'

'But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.'

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 not said correctly, 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 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 under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands."

7. Our Wishful Thinking Adversarii

There are three types of Adversarii. First, we have those who are able to read and who honestly concede that they have the Angelic Doctor against them. All of the earlier theologians who espoused the "short form" theory up through the time of Cajetan, and including Cajetan himself, fell into this category. Earlier we quoted the words of Suarez, who affirmed that the opinion of St. Thomas, though opposed to his own, "is very probable and of great authority, and Scotus himself did not venture to contradict it, but left it as a doubtful matter." Most of our present-day Adversarii are of this first type.

The second class of Adversarii includes those who claim it is not clear what the Angelic Doctor really taught, or that he wrote ambiguously, or that he contradicted himself, or that he was unsure of himself. Or that he changed his mind from one of his writings to the next! That ludicrous claim was actually made by Billuart, who for so doing was derisively accused by Doronzo of "flying to the extreme." To all those confused Adversarii of this class we reply in the words of Capisuccus to De Lugo: "The opinion of St. Thomas is not difficult if it is properly understood."

These first two categories do not at present capture our attention. With the first group we have no quarrel: we see eye to eye with them, at least regarding what it was that St. Thomas actually held. To the second group I say merely that what confuses me is that anyone could be so confused as to think the Angelic Doctor was confused.

About four centuries ago there was a certain argument of the "short form" apologists making the rounds, and occasionally (but fortunately not very often) some of the present-day Adversarii haul it out and attempt to expound it, at least to the degree they are able to understand it. St. Alphonsus does not think much of this particular argument, remarking that how such a theory squares with the mind of St. Thomas is not at all apparent. That remark is a polite understatement. For the argument to which we are here referring is that St. Thomas indeed supports the "short form" position! Which is surely a quaint theory, and one which therefore brings us to the third class, namely, the Adversarii Cogitationis Cupidae.

Before examining this painfully tortuous argument of those wishful thinkers, let us in anticipation of it recall a few facts that have already been presented. In the first work of St. Thomas that we considered (Script. Sup. Lib. IV Sent.) he says that the entire sacramental form is essential (essentialia) and also in the very same sentence he uses the 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).

«------ »

Now sometime after the Council of Trent, certain "short form" exponents devised the theory that St. Thomas in the Summa did not mean by the word 'substantia' what everyone up to that time had always thought he meant, namely, a term synonymous with 'essentia' or with 'necessitas'. They claimed that by substance he did not mean necessary for validity, but only necessary for the integrity or completeness of the form. From the Angelic Doctor's statement that the words following 'This is the chalice of my blood' are "determinations of the predicate," they erroneously inferred that he meant those additional words of the form are necessary only to express the properties of the blood; that is to say, to make the form one single complete utterance that neatly links together all these (supposedly unnecessary) determinations of the predicate. That is the argument in a nutshell.

After this bit of seeming sophistry had surfaced, many sound theologians, including Capisuccus and the Salmanticenses, painstakingly and methodically refuted it point by point, as does Doronzo (all of these commentators exhibiting a laudable patience in the face of foolishness, it would seem).

The first thing that comes to mind that would seem to torpedo this argument is that it was not advanced until about three hundred years after the death of St. Thomas. As we saw earlier, the Salmanticenses mentioned that all the earlier Thomists, unanimously, up to Cajetan taught that the entire form is necessary. And as we read in de la Taille, St. Pius V ordered the expunging of Cajetan's contrary opinion "as being opposed to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor," which is exactly what Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus said in the passage quoted earlier (see text associated with footnote 30). It would seem that the contemporaries of St. Thomas and those who followed soon thereafter -- not only those who agreed with him, but also those who opposed his view -- must be considered more reliable interpreters of the mind of St. Thomas than those who came upon the scene much later, coming as they did after the fashion of innovators, entertaining such entirely revolutionary (and patently unsound) theories.

The second thing that comes to mind is that those wishful thinking bearers of novelties were evidently employing what Mgr. Pierre Batiffol has called la méthode régressive:

"This is a cuмbrous and uncomfortable method. The theory comes first, and then the evidence. Sometimes it refuses to go in; and there is nothing for it but to show that the author says the opposite elsewhere, and is therefore inconsistent, or else to prove that the passage or the whole work is not genuine."

Finally what comes to mind is the fact that in the very same Summa Theologica where this supposed difficult or problematical word "substance" (substantia) is used, St. Thomas actually defines what he means by substance. In his section on the sacraments in general he establishes principles that are to apply to all the sacraments individually when he will be discussing them later in the work. Ergo, in his Summa Th., (III, Q. 60, A. 8) he avers:

"Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form would be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words; and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished." ("Manifestum est quod si diminuatur aliquid eorum, quae sunt de substantia formae sacramentalis, tollitur debitus sensus verborum: et ideo non perficitur sacramentum."). -- [Emphasis added].

On p. 151 of his classic work Doronzo adverts to this claim of certain Pars Affirmativa ("short form") advocates that St. Thomas allegedly supports their position, and comments dryly, "so they say" (ut dicunt). Later (on p. 153) he writes: "Furthermore a special probability is given to the negative [entire form] opinion by the authority of Pope Innocent III, the more obvious interpretation [emphasis added] of the words of St. Thomas, and the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of the Roman Missal."

Here is Emmanuel Doronzo's full elucidation of the "substance as opposed to essence" theory:

"There is no use objecting that the holy Doctor does not teach that all these words are of the essence of the form, but only 'of the substance of the form'; as though the words 'This is My blood' are of the substance as an essential part, and the other words are of the substance as an integral part ...

[To support and to bring out even more clearly what Doronzo is saying here, we interrupt his exposition and interpolate this cogent clarification by Cardinal Capisuccus from p. 214 of his work that was cited earlier (footnote 29). "And then the reasoning of St. Thomas holds," says Capisuccus, "because inasmuch as all those words are determinations of the predicate, the predicate being the Blood of Christ itself, they all belong to the same identical theme and the utterance of it ... Therefore some of the words of the entire form may not be dropped in such a way as to imply that some of these words concur to confect the Blood of Christ while certain others would not concur in confecting the Blood of Christ. For this would be the same as saying that the very same cause applied to bring about a given effect partly concurs to bring about that effect and partly does not do so, which involves a contradiction."]

We proceed with Doronzo's exposition:

"For although the expression 'to be of the substance of the form' may be interpreted [by some] in the alleged double sense, nevertheless they are not thus meant here by St. Thomas. For in Q. 60, Art. 8, in handing down the general doctrine on the sacraments (which he intends to apply in this place), he says: 'Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form would be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words; and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished.' ...

"From all this we gather that for St. Thomas these four expressions have the same meaning (a) to have reference not to the use of the sacrament, but to the sacrament itself; (b) to be of the substance of the form; (c) to be of the necessity of the form; (d) to be that by which the sacrament is performed or accomplished. ...

"Besides, St. Thomas does not say that these words pertain 'to the integrity of the form,' but rather 'to the integrity of the recitation of the form,' which is itself the very substance or essence of the form."

Although I have the greatest admiration for the Reverend Doctor Emmanuel Doronzo, I do have one criticism of him: he is far too benevolent. Let us recall his "concluding remarks" that were quoted much earlier. After affirming that he is strongly moved to judge the "entire form" position as being the more probable (because of the authority of St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism), he then awards "equal probability" to the opposite opinion solely because it is the view of some benighted persons that the mind of St. Thomas is not clearly evident! This, mind you, after his own devastating rebuttal of those confused individuals (which we have seen just above), in which he himself brilliantly demonstrates what is clearly the mind of St. Thomas!

8. What Is Meant By "The Entire Form"

Up till now we have been frequently using the expression, "the entire form." It is essential to understand exactly what we mean when we say the entire form is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament, and, perforce, for the validity of the Mass. We do not mean 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.

First, let us examine the entire form, as translated literally from the Latin of the Roman Missal:

"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."

To begin with, the word 'for' ('enim') is considered by no one to be an essential part of the form. However, St. Thomas does mention that this word "is set in the form according to the custom of the Roman Church, which derived it from Peter the Apostle." Nevertheless it is "not part of the form." (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, A. 2, ad 5). Elsewhere (in Q. 60, A. 8) he states that one who would omit this word, 'for,' would perhaps in so doing sin from negligence or contempt.

It is erroneously believed by some that transubstantiation is the only thing that is necessary to be signified in the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist. This mistaken belief leads to the false theory that "This is My blood" is sufficient for the sacramental form. On the contrary, there are in fact four things that must be signifed, namely: (1) transubstantiation; (2) propitiation; (3) sacrifice; (4) the effect of the Sacrament (called its "Res Sacramenti"), which is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ.

(1) Transubstantiation. As is evident, transubstantiation is clearly denoted by the first words of the form, "This is the chalice of My blood." It is denoted, but it does not yet occur once these words have been uttered, for the essential additional determinations of this statement have not yet been expressed.

Just as the washing away of sin and the imprinting of the indelible sacramental character of Baptism do not occur just as soon as the words, "I baptize thee," have been uttered (as all will admit), but these effects await the completion of the sacramental form with those necessary additional words, "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." So the words "I baptize thee," as is easily seen, are not true as soon as they are pronounced, because the recipient in very fact at that moment is not baptized. Similarly the words, "This is My Blood," are not true until the recitation of the entire form has been completed.

(2) Propitiation. With Christ's propitiatory sacrifice on Calvary the Old Law was permanently abrogated, as is so beautifully expressed by the words of St. Thomas in the "Tantum Ergo" : "Et antiquum docuмentum novo cedat ritui." The sacrifices of the Old Law, though pleasing to God, were not true sacrifices of propitiation -- that is, truly expiatory or atoning in nature -- for, it goes without saying, the blood of animals has no power to expiate sins. The Passion and Death of the Man-God, the True Unique Atonement for the sins of man by the Son of God made man, was required.

Hence we see this necessary concept of propitiation is denoted in the sacramental form by the words, "of the new and eternal testament," meaning that the Blood of Christ is that of God's new testament with man, in contradistinction to the impotent blood of animals as shed under the the Old Law. As we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "As may be gathered from the words of consecration of the Chalice, Christ established the New Testament in His Blood, just as the Old Testament had been established in the typical blood of animals (cf. Ex., xxiv, 8; Heb., ix, 11 sqq.)."

(3) Sacrifice. The Holy Eucharist is both Sacrament and Sacrifice. As Maurice de la Taille points out, had Christ so willed it, He could have left us the Sacrament of His Body and Blood completely apart from His Sacrifice on Calvary, simply by giving his priests the power of transubstantiating. However, He in fact did will to leave us this Holy Sacrament in the context of His Sacrifice on the Cross. None of the words of the sacramental form considered thus far bring out the idea of sacrifice. Because the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," denote only transubstantiation; and the words, "of the new and eternal testament" denote only propitiation. Therefore we see that the words "which shall be shed" are the necessary words that fulfill the role of signifying the shedding of Christ's blood; i.e., sacrifice.

(4) The Union of the Mystical Body. This is "the effect" of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which was defined as such by the Council of Florence in these words: "The effect of this sacrament, which is brought about in the soul of him who receives it worthily, is to unite him to Christ. And since through this grace [the grace proper of the sacrament] a man becomes incorporated into Christ and is united with His members...".

As is so well known, a sacrament must signify what it effects, especially its chief effect (the effect). Consequently it is evident that this principal effect, the Res Sacramenti or the "grace proper" of the Sacrament, which is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ, must necessarily be signified in the sacramental form. The words, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," provide this essential signification in the sacramental form.

«------ »

These four things must be expressed, and they are in fact expressed, in the sacramental wine-consecration forms of the various liturgies presently used in all those diverse Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, although the precise wordings in all these various forms are not all identically the same. The forms used in these eight Oriental rites can be found in Eastern Catholic Worship, by Donald Attwater, The Devin-Adair Co., New York, 1945, on pages 35, 58-59, 85, 107, 126-127, 151, 175-176 and 202.

Moreover, we always find these same four things signified in all the ancient rites that we know for certain were valid (which excludes, of course, those used by known heretical or schismatic sects, and also excluding those patently invalid forms once used by the Ethiopians, and also excluding those of doubtful authenticity, such as that form found in the "Canons of Hippolytus," of which there is no evidence whatever that it was ever actually used, except perhaps in Ethiopia). On pages 730-750 of Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie one can find the texts (in Latin) of some eighty-five of these ancient forms, many of which, as we have said, are categorically invalid or of very doubtful validity. Nevertheless, even most of those forms used by the various schismatical Syrian sects do in fact contain these four essential signifying elements.

«------ »

As alluded to earlier, when we speak of the entire form being necessary for validity, we do not mean that the form of words, exactly as laid down in the Roman Missal, must be used verbatim. This point is so obvious from an examination of the various Oriental liturgies that it hardly needs mentioning. An historical example, however, will be useful to illustrate how this fundamental fact can be misunderstood. After Pope Leo XIII had declared Anglican Orders to be categorically invalid because of a defective form of words (via his Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896), the Anglican Hierarchy argued that there are Oriental liturgies which Rome has always acknowledged to be valid, but which do not employ the exact sacramental form of words for Holy Orders as is used in the Latin Rite.

This objection was answered by the Catholic Bishops of England in the famous Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae':

"But you are also mistaken in thinking that matters have been left by Our Lord in such 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 ... 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." (Emphasis in the original text).

Now according to de la Taille some of those who opposed the opinion of St. Thomas labored under a similar misunderstanding, thinking that the Angelic Doctor was insisting that the exact entire form of words used in the Latin Rite is required for validity in an absolute sense, that is to say, universally in all rites. "Suarez, however," writes de la Taille, "interpreted the mind of the holy Doctor too narrowly, as though St. Thomas meant that the actual words used by the Roman Church are necessary in their actual grammatical tenor, and not merely in this or some other form equivalent in sense. Scotus, however, noted well that equivalence of sense would suffice (4, D. 8, 2; cf. Reportata 4, D. 8, 2)."

Other opponents, in order to "exculpate" the Angelic Doctor for having "erred," alleged that he was ignorant of the Greek liturgies (the expression "Greek liturgies" is a generic term that includes the various Oriental liturgies), and that if he had been familiar with them he would not have held his view that the entire form is required. To that theory the Salmanticenses replied that it deserves not to be attacked but to be laughed at (non impugnationem sed risum meretur), going on to point out that the Holy Doctor was not ignorant of those Greek liturgies and rites, for he wrote a most brilliant minor work against their errors. (Tum quia S. Doctor non ignoravit Graecorum Liturgias, et ritus, qui luculentissimum opusculum scripsit contra illorum errores).

«------ »

The following is taken from a letter I received, dated April 23, 1990. It is from one of the seasoned Adversarii of about twenty years' standing, who also happens to be an American priest of the Society of St. Pius X.

"It seems to me that your basic error is that you treat the opinions of St. Thomas as if they were dogmas. We know that St. Thomas was wrong in some of his opinions, notably about the Immaculate Conception. So why could he not be wrong in other areas? Did St. Thomas have the same detailed knowledge of Scripture -- and of the Hebrew and Greek languages used in it -- that scholars have today? There has been no progress at all in the past seven centuries? ... And, since it is known that St. Thomas was not at all familiar with Greek or Hebrew, we can hardly expect him to have the depth of reference on this point that modern scholars have."

The widely circulated claim (which I regard as nothing more than a canard) of the Angelic Doctor's supposed ignorance of Greek is based primarily, if not solely, on the fact that he at one time persuaded a Belgian Dominican, William of Moerbeke, who was one of the foremost Greek scholars of his time, to undertake a complete translation of the works of Aristotle into Latin. Which, of course, in itself proves nothing. What should most logically be inferred is simply that St. Thomas committed this laborious task to a specialist who would be able to do the job more speedily and efficiently. The episode furnishes no real evidence whatever that St. Thomas was "not at all familiar with Greek."

Now I, appearing on the scene seven centuries later, am no more able to prove that St. Thomas knew Greek than others (for example, my correspondent) removed equally far away in time, can prove that he did not. No biographies of the Holy Doctor comment with certainty or give any conclusive proof on this particular issue one way or the other. Our Adversarius, this priest of the Society of St. Pius X, who apparently prefers the "depth of reference" of the "modern scholars" to that of St. Thomas, asks: "Did St. Thomas have the same detailed knowledge of Scripture ... that scholars have today?" We shall let his own St. Pius X reply:

"To hear them [the Modernists] talk about their works on the Sacred Books...one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture; whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, and in sanctity, have sifted them;