In his Theological Critique dated 1992 (not confirmed), Brother Alex Bugnolo accepted the challenge and sets out to defend the NOM and prove the charges against it in Fr. Wathen's,
The Great Sacrilege, are false.
He sets out to prove that the promulgation of, and the New "mass" itself, enjoyed the protection by the Church's indefectibility, but in his efforts to prove such a thing and to his credit, he found out otherwise.
Some 6 years after presenting this critique, Brother Alex Bugnolo himself heroically admitted that he was wrong and he retracted his critique, finally admitting that the new mass is not protected by the Church's indefectibility for the reasons he gives in his retraction at the very end of this theological critique of The Great Sacrilege.
A Theological Critique of Rev. James F. Wathen, O.S.J's THE GREAT SACRILEGEBASED ON THE TEACHINGS OF THE SACRED MAGISTERIUM, THE DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH, THE CANONIZED SAINTS,AND OTHER APPROVED PRE-VATICAN II THEOLOGIANS
by Bro. Alexis Bugnolo
DEDICATION
Immaculatae Virgini Mariae, Matri Summi Domini Salvatorisque Iesu Christi, Corredentrici generis humani ut oblationem perpetuam PURPOSE OF THIS ESSAYTo determine precisely whether the charges brought forward by the Rev. James F. Wathen, O.S.J, in his book The Great Sacrilege, against the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Paul VI are true or false.
METHOD OF THIS ESSAYTo compare the principles and conclusions of Fr. Wathen's argument that the Novus Ordo is "The Great Sacrilege" with the theological teachings of the Magisterium, expressed in docuмents published prior to Vatican II, of the Doctors of the Church, of canonized Saints, and other approved pre-Vatican II theologians, in order to determine whether Fr. Wathen's argument proceeds from and is developed in accord with Roman Catholic Dogma and Doctrine, and thus represents or does not represent a conclusion conformable to an objective understanding the perennial Roman Catholic Faith.
For this purpose it is important to remember that Our Holy Catholic Faith is not a philosophy of human making, nor it is a fable or myth to be progressively emended, but it is based on fact, and truth, and miracles worked in fulfillment of prophecies which were themselves not make in darkness or secret but revealed in the open for all to see. As St. Peter the Apostle and first Pope wrote:
"For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ; be we were eyewitnesses of His greatness."Hence the truth of the Catholic Faith is most solidly confirmed by such evidence as would suffice any human court, judging justly. For this reason a right understanding of the Catholic Faith does not depend on human philosophy but rather on the authoritative interpretation of Christ's teaching, even as St. Peter writes:
"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time; but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit."For this reason no explanation or understanding of the Catholic Faith can be considered worthy of acceptance unless it is based on an authoritative interpretation of the deposit of the Faith. St. Thomas Aquinas explains the relationship between authority and Catholic Teaching in this manner:
"This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."
What St. Thomas says here of the right relationship which should be following in discussing Catholic Teaching is directly applicable to the discussions regarding the liturgical reforms undertaken by Pope Paul VI. In as much as Fr. Wathen's Book, The Great Sacrilege, aims at critiquing the new Missal promulgated in 1969 in his capacity as a Roman Catholic and as a Catholic priest, appealing as he does to Roman Catholics, and drawing his argument from Roman Catholic Teaching, this right relationship must be observed, that is, if the discussion is to proceed on Catholic principles and aim at an authentically Catholic understanding of the issues.
For this purpose, then, this Theological Critique of Fr. Wathen's book will of necessity refer and make reference at length to the teachings of Popes, Doctors of the Church, Saints, and other Catholic Theologians of the pre-Vatican II period, who themselves bases their arguments on the same principles. In this manner, whatever is said in criticism of Fr. Wathen's thesis or conclusions, the reader can himself judge in an authentically Catholic manner what a Catholic should think on the matter.
INTRODUCTIONThe Great Sacrilege, is an extended critique of the Novus Ordo Mass. It was published by TAN Book Publishers, of Rockford, Illinois, in 1971 A.D., and was written by the Rev. James F. Wathen, O.S.J. In the section entitled "About the Author," Fr. Wathen is described as a Roman Catholic priest, who studied at St. Maur's Seminar, South Union Kentucky, was ordained in 1958, and who served in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ogdensburg, New York until 1970 (presumably the time of the publication of the book, which has not been updated since), and who is furthermore identified as a "Knight Chaplain of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta." No other substantial information is supplied regarding the author.
According to "The Publisher's Preface," which was written by Mr. Thomas A. Nelson, The Great Sacrilege was the "first full-fledged discussion of the new Mass to appear" after the promulgation of the new Missale Romanum by Pope Paul VI on April 3, 1969. Although Mr. Nelson describes the books as follows:
"This work is not a long ,detailed analysis, though it possesses a good deal of careful study. It is not a scholarly history or exposition of the Mass, though it contains much of these aspects. It is rather a study, on the one hand, of the whole spectrum of the new Mass of the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI, including, what it is, how it was implemented, and wherein it is different from Tradition, plus a reaction, on the other hand, to the various facts and factors regarding the new Mass unearthed in the study."
The publisher continues a little later to state the importance of publishing this book:
"For this book deals with the most important matter on earth, which those outside the Faith will never understand, and which those of us within the Faith must ever remind ourselves about. It deals with the Mass. It deals with an attack upon the Mass. It deals with the only issue which is an issue in the Catholic world today—if we were to make comparisons. And yet the issue has been allowed to remain all to quiet, festering in the heart of the Church, to be sure, but generally ignored and skirted and shoved aside."
FATHER WATHEN'S PURPOSE IN WRITING Is, in the words of the author, "to refute that main argument which was used to seduce and / or to goad priest in to their practical apostasy. which is, that not to accept the "New Mass" at least boarders on heresy, since it is to accuse the Pope of heresy, and thus to deny his Infallibility."
To explain, it should be noted that Fr. Wathen considers that those priests who have abandoned the Traditional Roman Mass in favor of the Novus Ordo as worthy of grave condemnation, for he writes of them on the same page:
" . . . those who have accepted the "New Mass" and discontinued saying the True Mass are breaking the existing laws, as are found in the Code of Canon Law; they are violating their priestly Oath, the Profession of Faith, (not to mention the Oath Against Modernism). It is they who have incurred the anathemas of the Council of Trent and come under the censure of the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum of St. Pius V. And it is they who are playing heretics by their effective denial of all those doctrines of the Faith which are given utterance in the "Tridentine Mass," but which have been deliberately and undeniably deleted in the "new formulation" of the Mass. It is they who, in the "New Mass," are making their own all the heterodox ambiguities with which it abounds. It is they who have accepted the corruptions of the Sacred Canon of the Mass, as well as the very possibly invalidating new version of the Consecration Prayer, introduced entirely gratuitously. ..."
His accusations continue in the next paragraph:
"That so many morally upright anointed men of God—by far the vast majority throughout the world—could have been so easily brought to abandon their Mass, so venerable and so pure, and prostitute their personal faith, was not du to some strange and sinister hypnotic power, nor to their lack of theological knowledge, nor to the dreadful threats of a ruthless government. No. It was due to the Act by which Pope Paul VI introduced the "New Mass" with the "wish" that it be accepted, "as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all."* The bishops, acting through their various national and territorial groupings, in turn, pretended to impose it as a duty of obedience and fidelity."
Considering that the author of The Great Sacrilege opens his book by condemning, in the words of the author, "so many morally upright anointed men of God" of "breaking existing laws" and "violating their priestly Oath, the Profession of Faith (not to mention the Oath Against Modernism)" it behooves every reader to expect that such charges will be as thoroughly substantiated as they are so readily advanced.
Furthermore, that Fr. Wathen attributes the crime of so many priest precisely to their acceptance of disciplinary measure of the Roman Pontiff, is surely, in not an unreasonable manner, considered by any faithful Roman Catholic to be in the very least shocking. The author justifies this approach as not infringing upon Faith in the Roman Catholic Dogma of Papal Infallibility, where he says, "And to challenge the liceity and / or validity and / or the Orthodoxy of the "New Mass" is in no way to question the aforementioned doctrine of Papal Infallibility."
THE DEFINITION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY Since Fr. Wathen opens his discussion this assertions in regard to Papal Infallibility in Chapter II: "PAPAL INFALLIBILITY" it would be good to first review what the Church teaches in this matter. In the Vatican I Docuмent Pastor Aeternus (July 18, 1870 A.D.), one reads:
"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian Faith, to the glory of God Our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic Religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra , that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the Divine Assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: anathema sit."
The Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, writing almost a century before the First Vatican Council, says of Papal Infallibility:
"Indeed the fourth common opinion, to which we subscribe, is, that though the Roman Pontiff, to the extent that he is an individual person or private teacher, can err (just as he is also fallible in questions of mere fact, which depend especially upon the testimonies of men); nevertheless when the Pope speaks as a universal teacher, defining ex cathedra, namely from the supreme power handed to Peter to teach the Church, then we says that he in discerning controversies of faith and morals is entirely infallible. This opinion is favored by the divine St. Thomas, Torquemada, Gotti, Cajetan, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, Bl. Augustino Triumpho, Nicholas of Lyra, St. Francis de Sales, Sondamnus, Thomassino, Ludwig Bail, Duvalius and other innumerable authors, cited by Milante, the Bishop of Stabiae, Alexander VIII, and [which] all the remaining theologians commonly [teach]; as is testified by Cardinals Gotti, Milante, and Troila."
Regarding the Definition of Papal Infallibility it should noted that often it is misunderstood as requiring the Pope to be either seated on the Papal Throne when teaching or that the Pope explicitly cite the fact that he is invoking infallibility or further that the Pope has to be issuing a dogmatic or doctrinal definition. Those who hold this view of Papal Infallibility go on to say that in no other circuмstance is the Pope Infallible. But a closer look at the definition taught by Vatican I, shows that these are misunderstandings. All that is required is that the Pope be teaching in matters of faith or morals in such a manner that he intended to teach a dogma or doctrine which is to be believed by the faithful as pertaining to Catholic Teaching, in that he do this in his capacity as Roman Pontiff, Shepherd of the entire Church. Thus even the homilies of the Pope, if they meet this criterion, are infallible teachings; and not just solemn dogmatic definitions such as those regarding the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
A CRITICISM OF FR. WATHEN'S ARGUMENT Since the relationship between the promulgation of a new Missal for the entire Church and the universal teaching office of the Roman Pontiff is reasonably considered to be in some manner associated, it is clear that the burden of proof regarding Fr. Wathen's assertion, that questioning the liceity and validity and Orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo does not touch up papal infallibility, is with Fr. Wathen.
The reason for this is the following. (1) It is not unreasonable to consider the promulgation of the Missale Romanum as an act of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Paul VI, since this is the expressed intent of his Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969 A.D., which Fr. Wathen includes in Appendix II of his book, recognizing as he does the status of Pope Paul VI as Roman Pontiff, and the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution as a docuмent originating with Pope Paul VI. (2) On account of the close relationship between faith and prayer, enshrined in the Catholic principle lex orandi legem credendi statuit ("the law of praying establishes the law of believing") it is likewise not unreasonable to consider the promulgation of a new Missale Romanum as an exercise, on the part of a Roman Pontiff, of teaching in matters of faith. (3) That it is not unreasonable to consider that the promulgation of the Missale Romanum by Pope Paul the VI was for the entire Roman Church, which morally speaking comprises the whole Catholic Church, on account of the much smaller numbers of Catholics who belong to other liturgical rites. Therefore: it is not unreasonable to consider that the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Paul VI is protected by the charism of infallibility from containing anything formally heretical or erroneous.
A DEFINITION OF HERESYIn this regard it is important to remember the definition of what heresy is. The sin of heresy is according to St. Alphonsus dei Liguori's work on Moral Theology:
"a voluntary and pertinacious error of the intellect against the Faith, in him who has accepted the Faith. Thus commonly Suarez, Becano. — Whence it is patent regarding heresy, just as regarding apostasy, that two things are required: 1. An erroneous judgement, which is [the sin's] quasi-matter. 2. A pertinacious [judgement], which is the quasi-form."
Note that the definition includes two conditions: freedom and pertinacity.
"Furthermore, to err pertinaciously, this is not to hold or favor fiercely or bitingly one's own error; but it is to retain it, after the contrary has been sufficiently proposed: or when one knows the contrary to be held by the rest of Christ's universal Church on Earth, to which one prefers his own judgement: or to be such from vain glory, or lust for contradiction or from any other cause. Thus [teach] Sanchez, Vasquez, Laymann, and others commonly."
From this St. Alphonsus concludes the following:
"1. He is not a heretic who only exteriorly denies the faith, or adores an idol. The reason is, because he does not err. Nor does such a one incur in the forum of conscience the censures brought against heretics, even if in the external forum an external censure is enacted. — Filliuccio.
"2. He is a heretic who regarding any article of the Faith affirmatively doubts, that is, judges [the article] to be doubtful. I said: affirmatively; because merely a negative doubt, that is, suspending [one's] judgement, by itself and simply speaking is not heretical, because it does not involve [a positive] judgement; therefore neither is it erroneous; nevertheless to the extent that he suspends, what he virtually judges, he does not loose certainty regarding the object [of Faith]. — Sà, Azor, Toletus against Sanchez and Malderum." (See what is to be said in Lib. VII, n. 302.)
"3. No one is a heretic, so long as he is prepared to submit his judgement to the Church, or while he does not know that the contrary is held as true by Christ's Church; he will be such if he favors his own opinion bitingly from culpable and crass ignorance. — Laymann.
"4. Nor is one a heretic, who is so disposed, at least habitually, that he would retreat from his error, if he would know it to be contrary to the faith; so only as he never exhibited actual pertinacity. — Laymann and Coninck.
"5. Country folk, or the other more ignorant men, who are regarded heretics in Germany, are nevertheless not pertinacious, [and] can be absolved by their pastors. The reason is, that they are not formal heretics: and they have accepted the Catholic Faith in Baptism, which is not lost, except by erring pertinaciously. — Laymann.
"6. Since heresy and other infidelity is a mortal [sin], they also sin mortally who expose themselves to this danger, whether by conversing, or by listening to choruses, or by reading books; which consequently, if they are dangerous to them, are illicit by natural law: but if danger is absent, the reading of the books of heretics is nevertheless illicit by the positive law of the Church, just as is a formal debate among laymen concerning the Faith. The latter, however, in Germany and other similar places, where Catholics are mixed together with heretics, has been abrogated by custom.
"7. To contract matrimony with a heretical wife, though it be of itself illicit, and is regarded in Spain and Italy as a mortal [sin]; nevertheless it is, because of the authority of weighty theologians (Sanchez, Axor, Reginaldo, Basilius Pontius; see Cardinal Lugo), licit in Germany for a grave reason; however, so long as natural law is not violated, and not only with the danger of one contracting [heresy] removed, but also from the children: whence a date ought to be established concerning them, so that they be educated in a Catholic manner.
"8. That he, who has fallen into heresy, is not bound in confession to explain, what kind of heresy it was, for the reason that all [heresies] are of the same species, so teach Reginaldo, Diana citing others, and Escobar. — Nevertheless others hold the contrary, whom Cardinal de Lugo follows." (See what is to be said in Lib. V, n. 50)
Hence, as regards Fr. Wathen's assertions, unless there is anything in the Novus Ordo that expressly denies some article of the Catholic Faith, the Novus Ordo is not heretical. Similarly the charism of infallibility protects the Pope from what is in theology called error. Error, according to Dr. Ludwig Ott, is that which is opposed to any truth which itself is intrinsically connected with a truth contained in the Deposit of Faith. It differs from heresy in as much as it is not a direct denial of an article of the Faith, but simply a denial of a truth that is intrinsically related to some article of the faith. And hence the acceptance of the Novus Ordo does not involve the sin of error either. If it did the Pope as a universal teacher would have erred; and thus the dogma of Infallibility would be false. If the Novus Ordo does not contain heresy or error, then consequently no priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo nor layman or religious who attends it can be charged with heresy or accepting error.
A CONCLUSION REGARDING THE NEW MISSAL Therefore, in view of the fact that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals when he is acting as a teacher for the entire church, as well as the close relationship between faith and prayer, it is entirely reasonable to presume that there is no way in which a Missale Romanum promulgated by the Roman Pontiff for the entire Church can in any manner contain heresy or error, and thus, to this extent, its acceptance on the part of the faithful cannot be, of itself, a reason for accusing them of the sins of heresy or error.
To be sure Fr. Wathen does not accuse them of being heretics or being guilty of the sin of heresy, but rather he says;
"And it is they who are playing heretics by their effective denial of all those doctrines of the Faith which are given utterance in the "Tridentine Mass," but which have been deliberately and undeniably deleted in the "new formulation" of the Mass. It is they who, in the "New Mass," are making their own all the heterodox ambiguities with which it abounds. It is they who have accepted the corruptions of the Sacred Canon of the Mass, as well as the very possibly invalidating new version of the Consecration Prayer, introduced entirely gratuitously. ..."
Hence to judge rightly of Fr. Wathen's criticism, it is by his own admission not a question of heresy, but of acting like a heretic by accepting a Mass that does not explicitly profess the same Catholic Teaching as the Traditional Roman Mass professes. It should also be remarked that "heterodox ambiguities" is an misnomer. For since heresy by definition is a explicit contradiction of an article of the Faith, ambiguity by its nature can never be formally heretical. It is rather simply in a no-man's land between that which explicitly professes the Faith and that which explicitly denies it. In this category, however, falls most sentences of the English language, and therefore, as it stands, it is an absurd criticism. However, if Fr. Wathen intends to mean by this phrase "ambiguity which has been inserted by heretics" he is bound to demonstrate the heresy and individuals who hold it. Yet the argument advanced in The Great Sacrilege omits this method of proceeding. This can only leave the doubt that the book is polemical in the worse sense of the word.
But this accusation of "playing heretics" is itself vague. If one means that by not using explicitly precise dogmatic or doctrinal phrases in liturgical texts is something that only a heretic would do, and hence by doing such one would be "playing a heretic," then a good deal number of all the Fathers and Popes of the Church would be guilty on this score, for as Pope Paul VI teaches, liturgical rites or rubrics are of themselves not dogmatic nor doctrinal definitions, but admit of a variety of interpretations according to the liturgical year or season. This is clear to anyone who prays the Divine Office, especially should it be clear to someone like Fr. Wathen, who undoubtedly prayed the Divine Office promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, and emended by Ven. Pope Pius XII and John XXIII. In this office, the same psalms are said each week, and thus their significance appears to refer to differing Mysteries of the Faith during the course of the liturgical year. This is the nature of any liturgy which draws heavily on the Psalms or other Scriptural texts. I dare say that there is no book of Moral Theology before or after Vatican II that classifies as a sin "playing the heretic." This theatrical metaphor can be understood as nothing else but the accusation that those who are acting in a given manner are doing so out of a hidden, interior sin of heresy. Such an accusation is indeed grave, since only God can see the heart; and to condemn a man for a sin that only God can see, where there is no conclusive evidence in the external forum, is of itself the sin of judgement which Christ condemns, "Do not judge and you will not be judged; for as you judge so shall you be judged." Such is a mortal sin; and it is a very, very wicked thing to convince others to commit the same sin.
But, recall Fr. Wathen's express purpose, namely "to refute that main argument which was used to seduce and / or to goad priest in to their practical apostasy. which is, that not to accept the "New Mass" at least boarders on heresy, since it is to accuse the Pope of heresy, and thus to deny his Infallibility. One can see that from the definition of heresy given by St. Alphonsus in his Moral Theology, the non-acceptance of the "New Mass" cannot be considered heretical, in as much as non-acceptance of a liturgical rite does not of itself require the denial of any article of the faith. It would, however, if one's non-acceptance proceeded from the denial of some dogma, such as Papal Infallibility or the Indefectibility of the Church. But such heresy of itself would be a different moral act. Are then all those bishops, clergy, and laity who do not accept the Novus Ordo suspect of heresy? Not so. Because in as much as one is always free to consider any disciplinary action of the Roman Pontiff imprudent or perfectible, one is always free not to accept a disciplinary judgement of the Roman Pontiff, if by non-acceptance one signifies simply non-agreement. If by not accepting a disciplinary measure of the Roman Pontiff one signified refusal to obey a legitimate act of the Vicar of Christ, or the fostering of such opposition or disobedience to Him, then that is another thing all together. For to oppose a disciplinary measure enacted by the Roman Pontiff entails, when it regards a legitimate matter, a sin of disobedience to the supreme authority which Christ Jesus Himself established in the Church, namely the Papacy, and apart from this authority, in accord with Pope Benedict VIII's Bull Unam Sanctam, no one can be saved. That Bulls expressly declares in regard to Papal Authority:
"This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., (Mt 16:19). Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth (Gen 1:1). Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Moreover every sin of disobedience is ex suo genere (according to its species) a mortal sin. And certainly it is not unreasonable to presume that the acceptance of the Missale Romanum pertains to obedience to the Roman Pontiff, even if Pope Paul VI, as some interpret his apostolic constitution of 1969 say, he did not impose the Novus Ordo by a precept of obedience upon each and every member of the faithful or clergy, for the very act of promulgating it involves the authority of the Roman Pontiff, which authority is opposed by those who oppose the Novus Ordo. Hence one should be careful in discussions regarding the Novus Ordo, that one does not err in judging, for by such error one may be lead into the grave moral danger of mortal sin.
FR. WATHEN'S CONCEPTION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY Generally speaking Fr. Wathen confirms the dogma of Papal Infallibility. He distinguishes between Papal authority in juridical matters and Papal authority in magisterial matters, to which the charism of Papal Infallibility applies. Nevertheless he obscures the matter when he goes one to say:
"Nor is there anything in Divine Revelation or ecclesiastical law which guarantees that the Pope will never make an unwise law, or repeal a wise one; appoint an inept bishop, or a bad one; impose an unjust interdiction, or refuse to impose a necessary one; teach erroneous notions (even rank heresy) and say and do things which lead to mistaken conclusions, or permit his subordinates to do so."
For in saying this Fr. Wathen himself falls into ambiguity. What he says here is true only within specific conditions, namely, those which do not pertain to the Pope as a universal teacher in faith or morals. Hence as a private theologian the Pope can err. Even St. Alphonsus admits this, when commenting that Pope Adrian VI, before he was pope, while a professor at the University of Louvain, taught that a Pope can in a particular decree or disciplinary measure, which does not pertain to the universal Church, that is to say, when acting as a private theologian, teach heresy, St. Alphonsus himself remarked, "For who will deny, that the Pope as a man, can be obnoxious by his errors?" Therefore the objection raised by Fr. Wathen does not substantiate any accusation made. In as much as by the promulgation of the Missale Romanum of 1970 by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, Pope Paul VI was acting not as a private theologian nor as a local pastor, but as a universal teacher, in which capacity he could not err in faith or morals.
Furthermore, Fr. Wathen's attempt to widen the doubt regarding Papal Infallibility proceeds upon an erroneous assumption. He writes, "The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, by stating in what respect the Pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the Pope is completely fallible." This assumption is as valid as saying that the sentence "God cannot sin in matters of religion" is equivalent to saying "God can sin in all other matters." This assertion of Fr. Wathen's is patently absurd. It is furthermore silly, in as much as it guides a serious discussion of Papal Infallibility vis-à-vis the Novus Ordo, upon such a patently erroneous notion. To repeat, to assert that a thing in a specific case has specific characteristics, is not the same as to assert that at other times it does not have these characteristics. This should be obvious to all. But Fr. Wathen proceeds to further absurdity when he says in the very next sentences:
"And since this papal fallibility is as certain as fact as the holy doctrine which we are here discussing, Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant Pope—for his sins."
First let it be said that the fact that the Pope can err as a private theologian does not share the same mark of certainty as the dogma of Papal Infallibility. For the fact of the Pope's ability to err as a private theologian depends upon human nature, which apart from the Beatific Vision, or a special grace of inspiration, cannot of its nature be infallible. And this fact of human nature is known as certain by human reason, whereas the truth of the dogma of Papal Infallibility is known as certain by Divine Faith. However let us excuse Fr. Wathen for this oratorical exaggeration.
Secondly, what Fr. Wathen says is false, that "no one may every blame another for his sins." It is false because "to blame" is to accuse another of responsibility for a crime. Yet this is what Christ Jesus Himself did in regard to the hypocrites and unbelievers of His own day. And furthermore this is what, by Faith, we know He will do as Judge of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day. Hence this statement of Fr. Wathen is not only false, but blasphemous, for it implies Christ sinned when he condemned the Pharisees. It is also erroneous, since if no one can be blamed for his sin, what reason remains for confession? Or repentance? Or preaching about vices? Or ecclesiastical censures for public crimes? If Fr. Wathen's statement was true the Church Herself over the last 2000 years would be guilty of the greatest injustices in the exercise of her pastoral office. And such a claim would be both false and proximate to heresy, in as much as it would assert the Church to have fallen from Christ in approving such condemnations as a matter of normal ecclesiastical discipline. Finally, it is at the very least inconsistent, and at the most, hypocritical to assert such a statement in a book in which the author himself has just condemned nearly the entire Sacred Hierarchy and the clergy for the sins of sacrilege and fostering heresy.
Since this statement is seemly so blatantly absurd, let the reader assume for now it was a typographical mistake, otherwise there is no moral certainly left to consider as valid any argument Fr. Wathen would advance against the Novus Ordo promulgated by the Pope. There would be no further need even to conclude reading the book, if one accepts this statement of Fr. Wathen, for in denying the duty of superiors in regard to subjects, and inferiors in regard to superiors (in as much as it is necessary to distinguish commands of obedience from commands to sin) to blame others for their sins and crimes, there would seem little point in hearing Fr. Wathen blame Pope Paul VI for promulgating the Novus Ordo, or his brother priests for celebrating it. Let the reader therefore pass this statement over for now.
Continuing in Chapter II, Fr. Wathen quotes Pastor Aeternus, as above and then the Catholic Encyclopedia on the meaning and application of Papal Infallibility. Now in so far as Pope Paul VI in his Allocution of November 19, 1969 A.D. expressly says, "But that is definitely not the case—first of all, because the rite and its related rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate." (This second sentence is omitted by Fr. Wathen, in his quote of the Pope on page 19.) it is true that the promulgation of a liturgical rite does not involve dogmatic definitions which of themselves are irreformable and which bind the conscience of the faithful. Nevertheless as the Pope expressly states at the beginning of this Allocution, namely that the promulgation of the Novus Ordo is a disciplinary measure of the Apostolic see. As a disciplinary measure it binds in conscience. Furthermore, its nature as disciplinary action for the whole Latin Church is evidenced not only from what historically took place, but also from the Notification issued by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on June 14, 1976 A.D., entitled De Missali Romano, and which Pope Paul VI himself referred to in his Consistory Allocution of May 24, 1976 A.D., when he said, "The adoption of the Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful." Hence the precise nature of the disciplinary action appears to be 1) the official promulgation of the new Missal by Pope Paul VI; 2) the official imposition of this new Missal by the national conferences of Catholic Bishops, at the direction of the Apostolic See; 3) abrogation of the privilege to celebrate the Missale Romanum of 1962, granted by Pope St. Pius V's Bull Quo Primum. Thus it is clearly unmistakable that a disciplinary measure is being enacted in the promulgation and imposition of the new Missal in the Roman Rite dioceses throughout the world. Thus as a disciplinary measure, which obliges the conscience of the entire Church, if the new Missal contained heresy or error, then the Pope would be imposing heresy or error upon the entire Church in his capacity as universal teacher. But this possibility of failure is expressly denied by the definition of Papal Infallibility. Hence the new Missal, and any other Missal that any other future Pope would impose upon the entire Church, cannot possibly contain heresy or error.
To summarize the new Missal cannot contain heresy or error either in so far as it was promulgated by the Pope in his capacity as universal teacher-priest, or in so far as it was imposed as a disciplinary measure by the Pope upon the entire Latin Church in his capacity as universal teacher-shepherd.
ST. PIUS V'S QUO PRIMUMIn the third chapter of The Great Sacrilege, Fr. Wathen circles the assertion that no Pope can abrogate the Bull of Pope St. Pius V, which promulgated the Missale Romanum of 1570 A.D., in accord with the directives of the Council of Trent. He concludes by saying:
"Quo Primum takes for granted that neither the Pope nor anyone else may alter the "Missale" radically or replace it completely, for to do such a thing would necessarily violate the Mass itself and contradict all the traditions which gave it its form."
Fr. Wathen's argument here, after affirming that no Pope can bind his successors in a matter that is disciplinary, is that Pope St. Pius V's Bull is not merely disciplinary but contains a doctrinal declaratory character. But this is not to distinguish the doctrinal character from the disciplinary. For in as much as the Mass as a Sacred Reality is authentically embodied in the Missale Romanum of 1570 A.D. the Missal is declared to be free from heresy and error. But such a declaration does not prohibit any other Missal, differing from this one, from being free from heresy and error; for if it did, then the liturgical rites of the Oriental Churches, who are in communion with Rome, e.g. the Ukrainians, the Maronites, the Malabar Church in India, would be thereby condemned as containing heresy or error. If the are other Catholic Rites besides that of the Missale Romanum of 1570 A.D. then what theological reason is there to assume that there cannot be another? None.
Fr. Wathen goes on to say:
"There has never been a time when a Pope or anyone else had the right to design or create a Mass, since the formation of the Mass was the work of the Church over the centuries. A Mass must have evolved from the traditions of the Apostles themselves."
To this remark it must be said (1) that what Fr. Wathen claims, namely "there has never been a time ... to design or create a Mass ...", disregards, does it not, what Christ Himself said to St. Peter, "Whatsoever you bind on Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose upon Earth, will be loosed also in Heaven." Now since it is the Mass, par excellence that unites Earth to Heaven, it is not unreasonable to presume that Christ, in the all encompassing and unlimited bequest of authority to St. Peter and his successors, gave some authority over the liturgy. And authority implies right. (2) There have been many liturgies in the Church ascribed to the work of Saints. There is the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; the Liturgy of St. Basil; the Liturgy of St. James; the Liturgy of St. Mark; the Liturgy of St. Maron, the Liturgy of St. Thomas. If these men did not have the right to do what they did then they sinned grievously and are guilty of sacrilege; but these men are Saints. Therefore it must be presumed that the had the right to do what they did, either by law or the grace of inspiration. And if mere Saints, who were not Popes, had the right by law or grace to change or alter or modify or even originate a liturgical rite, why cannot the Successor of St. Peter do the same? Or is his authority something less? Nay, it is supreme; the very authority of Christ.
This is not to say that the Pope has the same plenitude of authority as Christ or even the Apostles; but it is to say that he does have some authority over the liturgy. And as Fr. Wathen in this passage admits that the liturgy is the work of the Church over the centuries, how can one doubt that the Pope, in having all authority in the Church, has the authority to do what the Church Herself has done? As for Fr. Wathen's statement about the "liturgy evolving," he sounds in this more like the liturgical reformers to whom he seems opposed. For if liturgies evolve then the are not static; and if they are not static then the Missale Romanum of 1570 stands in question, because it has relatively speaking not changed in 400 years. Assuredly, Fr. Wathen claims that this Missal represents the culmination of a process; but this he merely asserts; he gives no proof. Quo Primum does not teach this assertion; and Fr. Wathen quotes no teaching of the Magisterium to affirm his assertion. Moreover, Pope St. Pius V himself, in Quo Primum, abrogates the Missals that prevailed in former times in the Latin Church. Since the authority of each Pope is equal to the next one, it follows that not only does Quo Primum affirm Pope Paul VI's authority to issue a new Missal, but even to abrogate former Missals.
Fr. Wathen disregards all this, and goes on to say that Pope Paul VI is condemned for having promulgated another Missal and abrogated the Missal promulgated by his predecessor, Pope St. Pius V. This is simply absurd. This assertion is also entirely false, since by Fr. Wathen's own admission, "It is true that a Pope may not pass a merely ecclesiastical law which His successors may not abrogate..." Fr. Wathen would be more correct to have written "cannot pass any ecclesiastical law" for in as much as each Pope has equal power, any Pope can unbind what a predecessor has bound, or bind what a predecessor has unbound. Therefore, it is of the very nature of the Roman Pontiff that any disciplinary measure which he enacts can be undone by any one of his successors. If Fr. Wathen's argument was valid, the Missal of Pope Paul VI would itself be unchangeable and incapable of being abrogated, which is a conclusion that assuredly Fr. Wathen would not agree too. It follows then that in as much as Quo Primum is an ecclesiastical law, no Pope is guilty of sin if he should abrogate it. In as much as Quo Primum involves a doctrinal statement on the former Missal, what it implicitly teaches remains true forever; but this teaching involves only the declaration of theological or liturgical correctness of the contents of the former Missal. It does not of itself condemn other Missals. And this lack of condemnation is a crucial flaw of Fr. Wathen's argument. If Pope Paul VI can be blamed for the liturgical renewal, it cannot be strictly speaking because he promulgated a new Missal or abrogated the old, for in the he has the authority of Christ.
Further it should be noted that in arguing in this manner Fr. Wathen come close to embracing the erroneous notion of Papal Authority espoused by the Spirituals in the 14th century. In condemning their errors, Pope John XXII asserted in Quia Quorundam (Nov. 10, 1324 A.D.) that a Pope has the authority to change the legal enactments of his predecessors, even those made in a General Council. This obviously includes the Bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V.
PAPAL AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO THE SACRAMENTSIt will be useful to review here the extent of Papal Authority in regard to the Sacraments. For if the Pope has legitimate authority from Christ to make changes in the Mass and Sacraments of the Church, then those changes cannot be of themselves illegitimate. And in as much as they are not illegitimate, such changes cannot be sacrilegious of themselves. This is on account of the nature of the sin of sacrilege, which in St. Thomas Aquinas words is:
"I answer that, As stated above (81, 5; I-II, 101, 4), a thing is called "sacred" through being deputed to the divine worship. Now just as a thing acquires an aspect of good through being deputed to a good end, so does a thing assume a divine character through being deputed to the divine worship, and thus a certain reverence is due to it, which reverence is referred to God. Therefore whatever pertains to irreverence for sacred things is an injury to God, and comes under the head of sacrilege."
Now according to St. Thomas irreverence is a violation of honor; and honor pertains to the dignity of an individual. Therefore in as much as Christ may have given the Successors of St. Peter authority to make changes in the Mass or the Sacraments, it cannot be said that the use of such authority of itself will dishonor God, since that would be equivalent to saying that Christ Himself authorized His own dishonor. Which is indeed blasphemous. But to certify that the Church and especially the Pope has the authority to change the liturgy, let Pope Pius XII be heard in his Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei:
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about--during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors--that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
Hence it is clear that the Church and especially the Pope have authority to change the Mass. And since the excise of true authority implies no violation of right, the Pope's chage of the Mass or Missal, whether in large or small measure, cannot be a sacrilege. It is very important to note that whereas the Pope has such authority, which renders any change he enacts licit and legitimate; others who make unauthorized changes commit sin and possibly sacrilege.
In this regard it will be well to review what precisely is the sin of sacrilege. Fr. Wathen charges Pope Paul VI for committing the sin of sacrilege by changing the Mass. But that this action of the Roman Pontiff cannot be a sin of sacrilege is easily seen from the nature of the sin of sacrilege. Let us listen to St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, the Doctor of the Church in Moral Theology has to say on sacrilege:
WHAT AND HOW MANY ARE THE SINS OF SACRILEGE?33. — "I respond: Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing, that has been dedicated to divine worship; and it is a mortal sin ex genere suo, if the act is especially repugnant to the sanctity of the thing; but it is not [a mortal sin], if it only is repugnant in a general manner, in that manner in which all mortal sins are repugnant to sanctity, v. gr. of a church, so that [other mortal sins] committed [in a church] are only a venial sin [of sacrilege]."
"[The sin of] sacrilege is, however, threefold: personal, by which a [sacred] person is violated; local, by which a [sacred] place; and real, by which any [sacred] thing is violated. — St. Thomas and other theologians."
34. — The species of sacrilege must be explained in confession; whether it was personal, local, or real. — Viva; and the Salamancans with St. Thomas and common [authors]. ...
35. — "1. A Personal [sin of] sacrilege is the striking of any priest, the hauling of [any cleric] before a civil court; likewise the impure violation of a person, consecrated to God by a vow of chastity: concerning which see below Tract 4, chapter 2, On the Sixth Commandment, doubt 2."
36. —"2. Local sacrilege is every act by which a church is polluted; that is v. gr. homicide, the illicit or notorious spilling of human blood or [impure acts]." {Viva, and Tamburinius with Vasquez, Pontio, Diana, Coninck, Toleto, as quoted in the Salamancans hold it as probable; against the Salamancans with Suarez, Bonacina, Lugo, Palao, etc. and Elbel, who say that is it more probably that even an secret spilling is a sacrilege. See what is to be said concerning the sixth commandment, n. 458, vers. II, Concerning places, etc. —Likewise} "the burial of an excommunicated or non-baptized [person in consecrated ground]. — Likewise, if a certain profane acts are done in a church, even those repugnant to its immunity [as a place of sanctuary]: as business transactions, illicit sɛҳuąƖ relations and defilements, ѕєdιтισns, secular meetings, the stabling of horses, fires, break-ins, thefts. — Likewise, if the matter of the sacred thing or church, is directly converted to profane uses; if a criminal is seized from the church, as from a [place of] asylum; unless, however, if he is a publicly known thief, or a night-time devastator of [agricultural] fields, or has committed an enormous crime with the hope of gaining asylum there. — Moreover, if by theft the things of the church are stolen, or deposited there. Laymann, Bonacina. But if the things stolen were only accidentally
in the church, e.g. the purse of a rich man, that sacrilege has probably not been committed, teach Diana, on the basis of Fagundez and six other authors; against Suarez, Laymann, etc."
37. — Similarly a sacred place is violated, if rallies, the concourse [of crowds], markets, the proceedings of a civil judicial court are held within it, but not by the [noise or crowds] of those watching the piety of ecclesiastical [functions]. Nevertheless sometimes the proceedings of civil judicial courts, or parliaments are licit [in cases of] necessity, e.g. because of the rain, or the head of summer: so long as they are conducted without rucus, and another opportune place is lacking. — Equally some moderate concourse [of people] in church does not seem to be a grave fault, nor [does] private eating, even without necessity, if there scandal and shouting is absent. Thus Viva, on the basis of St. Thomas, with the Salamancans. ...
38. — Sacrilege is [also] the violent extraction of a man from a church, even [a church] that has been interdicted or defiled, even from [the church's] cemetery, entrance hall, cloister, dormitory, adjacent surroundings contiguous to the church; likewise, from homes sealed by the cloister of religious. See the Salalmancans. — Otherwise, besides this case of immunity of violation, to incurr the species [of the sin] of sacrilege, by the name local place there is understood only a church, not other places: since in odious things a strict interpretation must be made, as Elbe with Laymann, Bonacina, etc. note. ...
39. — "3. Real sacrilege is the unworthy handling and administration of the Sacraments: as when they are administered or received in the state of mortal sin.
"Likewise, the profanation of containers or sacred instruments: e.g. if one used a chalice during a party, [or] apply the ornaments of the altar or of priests for profane uses. Understand regarding these things that they are accustomed to be consecrated or at least blessed; for, to employ for weddings, or for [some] common use, a tapestry, candelabra, basin, indeed even a hand-towel etc., which are directly used by the sacred minister, is according to Tamburinius not a sin, unless it is done from some contempt, at least implicit, as when the above said things are thus used at all times and indifferently. And he affirms the same regarding the candles, palm branches, water, incense and similar blessing things: which have been blessed in those lesser blessings, not conducted with such rigor by the Church, as is patent in regard to bread, wood, charcoal, etc. — See Tamburinius.
"Likewise, the violation or unworthy handling of a sacred image or reliquary. — Likewise, an abuse of the Sacred Scriptures, e.g. to establish heresies or wicked things. — Likewise, the theft of the goods of the Church, the suppression of pious endowments, or defrauding the rights of the Church, etc. — See Filliuccio, Reginaldo, Suarez."
The Council of Trent calls it temerity, to twist the words of Sacred Scripture for scurrilous, fabulous, vain, flattering, or detracting [purposes].
[translator: Among other sins of sacrilege mentioned in this lengthy section are: the theft of relics, the violation of a vow of chastity; making of clothing from sacred vestments, etc.]
48. — "4. The sin of sacrilege is also committed, by the sin of omission; e.g. if those things which pertain to the Sacrifice [of the Mass], such as corporals and the like, are very dirty. Bonacina." {Who with Filliuccio, Suarez, Reginaldo, etc., says it is a mortal sin. See Book VI, n. 386}
"5. In confession the species and matter of the sacrilege must be expressed. — The reason is first, because it often has a different [level of] malice, e.g. striking a priest [compared with] sinning with him. The second reason is, because the matter [of the sin] sometimes augments and adds to the malice [of the act]; e.g. if it is against the Eucharist, according to Gordono, it adds another sin against latria.
"However to touch with [one'] bare hand chalices, patens, altars, agnus deis, etc., things anointed with chrism, is not licit to women or laymen." {But it is licit to clerics even of the first tonsure: so says Tamburinius with Suarez. — "Nevertheless it is not a mortal sin so long as it does not pass to contempt, if these were empty. Suarez, Tamburinius. Moreover that [to do so] without cause, is a venial sin, Suarez, Coninck and others teach commonly; though Tamburinius on the basis of Sà, etc., judges the contrary probably." {With Soto and Bartholomeo of Angelo. But Sà as quoted in Tamburinius; and Soto, Henriquez, Sanchez, Fagundez and Tamburinio as quoted in Pasqualigo (and reported by Croix), judges it to be no sin [at all]. For nuns there is truly a[n exemption from] privilege; as the Salamancans [teach]: as when the corporals or purificators are washed by them." {See Book VI, n. 387}
"Moreover, the rest of the things, which do not immediately touch the Eucharist, nor are anointed with chrism, such as altar cloths [mappa], priestly vestments, it is licit to touch all [of these]. Suarez, Laymann, Tamburinius, where on the basis of Palaus, etc., he concedes the same regarding the rest: just as even [those things], such as the enclosed containers [thecis] which they carry on their person; or [which] laymen wear in public processions. Likewise he teaches with Laymann, concerning pyxs or ciboria and blessed lunae, when they no longer contain the Sacred Eucharist. Likewise, concerning corporals, palls and purificators, when they have been washed after their sacred use: on the basis of Layman and Bonacina; indeed even before their being washed: Laymann, Tamburinius."
Thus concludes St. Alphonsus' long tract on the sin of Sacrilege. From which it is very evident that the sin of sacrilege does not include the promulgation of a new Missal by proper ecclesiastical authority. It does not strictly speaking involve even the change of the parts of the Mass, in as much as for there to be the sin of sacrilege it is necessary that contempt be present. For example, it a elderly priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and out of old age forgets to say a sentence in the Confiteor. Since there is no contempt motivating him, there cannot be said to be a violation of a sacred thing, that is, the sin of sacrilege (see what St. Alphonsus says above in n. 39). Generally speaking the more common notion of sacrilege in regard to the Mass is the unworthy celebration of the Sacrifice by a priest who is in the state of mortal sin or who enters this state by committing some illicit act during the Mass, namely, the contemptful omission of some important part of the Mass. But that a sin of sacrilege is committed is certain only to God, who alone can see the contempt in the heart; even those attending the Mass, even if they know the priest well, must always consider the possibility of senility, forgetfulness, stupor, etc. which led the priest to omit words. It is therefore an invalid approach to take the moral situation of an individual priest celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass with contempt and apply this to the promulgation of a New Missal by the Roman Pontiff. He is, first of all, not an individual priest; secondly, he is not offering the Mass, his is rather promulgating a new Missal. The cases are not the same; and to anyone who has a little sense and more so, to an individual who has studied Moral Theology, it is clear that they are two different things.
FR. WATHEN'S CHARGES AGAINST THE NOVUS ORDO MASS
Chapter 4 of Fr. Wathen's book The Great Sacrilege comprises pages 69-133, a substantial part of the book. In this chapter Fr. Wathen addresses his central accusations, namely that the Novus Ordo is not the True Mass. Speaking of the Novus Ordo he says, "Even now, most Catholics are unaware of the immeasurable dissimilarity between the True Mass and its perfidious Plagiarism." He disagrees strongly with Pope Paul VI's statement, which he quotes:
"But, let everyone understand well that nothing has been changed in the essence of our traditional Mass."
The charge then is that the essence of the Mass has changed. Fr. Wathen argues this on the basis of expurgations, mistranslations, the changing of the Canon, the new form of Consecration; doubts concerning the validity and liceity of the Consecration, dishonoring of Mary, archaism, the new rite of peace, the Communion, Ecuмenism, and the language employed in the New Mass.
It must be remembered, however, that the essence of the Mass is one thing, its accidents, proper or otherwise are another. According to St. Thomas, the essence of a thing is that which defines it to be what it is, and not something else. The accidents of a thing are those characteristics which exist only within another and not normally apart from it, and yet which (when proper to it) cannot be removed without destroying the essence of a thing, or on the other hand (when not proper to it) can be removed or changed without destroying the essence of a thing. Therefore, when the essence of a thing is present, its proper accidents are also present, normally speaking. Thus in discussing the Mass one should first understand what parts are essential and what are accidental. This is what St. Alphonsus says in his Moral Theology:
Question 1: In what does the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist? — This is a great question among theologians: for there are very many opinions [on the matter]:
The first opinion says that it consists only in reception [of the Sacrament of the Eucharist]; because in that alone is the destruction or change of the Victim accomplished.
And so hold Pignatelli, and St. Albertus Magnus, Ledesma and others, as quoted in Suarez.
The second opinion says that it consists in the oblation; since a sacrifice is nothing other than an oblation. — Thus [teach] Azor; and Soto and Corvarruvias, as quoted in Dicastilius; and Gorbat, Eckius, etc., as quoted by Croix.
The third opinion teaches more commonly that it consists only in the consecration. And so hold Suarez, Bonet, Tournely's Continuator, Petrocorensis, Holzmann, Roncaglia, Croix; and the Salamancans with Antonio, Lugo, Palao, Vasquez and the others. — The reason, because in the consecration every thing requisite is present for the Sacrifice; namely the oblation, which is already done in the very act [of consecrating], just as Christ not only also at the Last Supper, but on the Cross, not with words but deeds, offered Himself to the Father
Topic: A Theological Critique of The Great Sacrilege (Read 993 times)