April 10, 2007
Your open letter to the CMRI religious and myself arrived on Holy Saturday, and I welcome this opportunity to respond to your further defense that the short form (This is My Blood) is sufficient for a valid consecration of the wine at Mass.
I most eagerly welcome this opportunity for several reasons:
a) it gives me the opportunity to identify the problems of your position: not only with your short form opinion, but also your bigger problem that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have gone further than you and have approved Catholics attending “Masses” without even the short form;
b) some of the CMRI Sisters have chosen you as their “theologian” and now seek to recruit others in a defense of the Novus Ordo Mass and the Modern Church;
c) I firmly believe that the Catholic Church, the Immaculate Spouse of Her Divine Savior, remains faithful to Jesus Christ and is not to be confused with the Modern Church of Vatican II, the harlot, which frequently prostitutes itself with other religions in the name of false ecumenism.
Furthermore, I accept your conceding the primary point of my commentary on your first article, namely, that the matter has not been settled. Although I appreciate your honesty, I must, however, reject even your alternative word “endorsed.”
I. In my library, I have an English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent from 1829 by Rev. J. Donovan, Professor of Maynooth College. I would like to quote the pertinent text at length
“The form of the consecration of the wine, the other element of this Sacrament, is for the reasons assigned with regard to the bread, necessary to be accurately known, and clearly understood by the priest It is firmly to be believed that the form of consecrating the chalice is comprehended in these words: ‘This is the Chalice of My Blood of the New and Eternal Testament: the Mystery of Faith: which shall be shed for you, and for many to the remission of sins.’
“The words ‘this is the chalice’ are taken from St. Luke, and are also mentioned by the Apostle. The words that immediately follow, ‘of My Blood, or My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you, and for many to the remission of sins,’ are taken in part from St. Luke, and in part from St. Matthew.
“The form to be used in the consecration of this element, should, confessedly, consist of words signifying that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of Our Lord: this the words already cited clearly declare; and therefore, they alone exclusively constitute the form.
“They also express certain admirable fruits produced by the Blood of Christ, which was shed on Calvary, fruits which belong in a special manner to this Sacrament.”
Consider the first sentence:
“The form of the consecration of the wine, the other element of this Sacrament, is, for the reasons assigned with regard to the bread, necessary to be accurately known, and clearly understood by the priest.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly exhorted priests “to accurately know, and clearly understand the form.” For this reason the very next sentence used the word “comprehended.”
“It is firmly to be believed that the form of consecrating the chalice is comprehended in these words: ‘THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU, AND FOR MANY TO THE REMISSION OF SINS.’”
The word comprehend is defined in philosophy as “a grasp with the mind.” This word perfectly expressed what the previous sentence exhorted priests to do — to accurately know and clearly understand the form of consecration.
Furthermore, you need to consider the one sentence which you have overlooked in your translation of the Catechism. It is the sentence which follows the quote below:
“The form to be used in the consecration of this element, should, confessedly, consist of words signifying that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of Our Lord: this the words already cited clearly declare; and therefore, they alone exclusively constitute the form.”
The particular sentence you overlooked is the very next sentence after the above quote:
“They also express certain admirable fruits produced by the Blood of Christ.”
“Exprimunt autem praeterea quosdam effusi sanguinis in passione Domini admirabiles fructus...”
The two key words are “they” and “also.”
The word “they" refers to the sentence immediately preceding it. “They" refers to "the words to be used in the form”; “the words already cited”; “they alone exclusively constitute the form.”
The word “also” clearly states that the words used in the form of the consecration express the “certain admirable fruits.” Now the short form (This is My Blood) of itself does not convey the "certain admirable fruits." This sentence completely undermines your short form opinion.
This is further strengthened by the text of the Tridentine Catechism which identifies the particular words which express the fruit of the Passion:
“With great propriety therefore were the words for all omitted, because here the fruit of the Passion is alone spoken of and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. This the words of the Apostle declare, when he says, that Christ was offered once to take away the sins of many.”
Clearly then the words “pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” express the is fruit of the Passion, and the short form (this is My Blood) by itself cannot be what is referred to in the text:
“They also express certain admirable fruits produced by the Blood of Christ.”
II. St. Pius V, by whose authority the Catechism of the Council of Trent was published, ordered Cardinal Cajetan to erase from his Commentary the short form opinion that you hold.
In the book The Holy Eucharist by St. Alphonsus Liguori, the Redemptorist priest who edited the English translation of this book has an interesting footnote:
“De Miss. Sacr. 1.2, c. 15. - Benedict XIV. Here observes that St. Thomas (P. 3, q. 18, a. 3) seems to favor the opinion of those who make the essential form of the consecration of the chalice consists in all the words that the priest pronounces as far as Haec quotiescumque, because the words that follow, Hic est nim calix sanguinis mei, are determinationes praedicati, that is to say, sanguinis Christi, and are consequently, belonging ad integritatem ejusdem locutionis, are de substantia formae. ST. PIUS V CAUSED THE CONTRARY OPINION TO BE ERASED FROM THE COMMENTARY OF CAJETAN.”
(For the sake of those not familiar with Latin, the above text declares that the words which follow “For this is the chalice of My Blood” are the determinations of the predicate and are of the substance of the form.)
If your opinion that the short form was endorsed by the Catechism of the Council of Trent (the publication which St. Pius V authorized) were true, then why would this same Pope cause this very opinion to be erased from Cajetan’s commentary?
III. The Roman Missal of St. Pius V has the De Defectibus decree which clearly states:
“Thus the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are the following: 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.”
Your reference to “the cart and the horse” and “the horse out of the barn” really does not answer why the De Defectibus decree had not been reconciled for over 400 years with what you claim the Catechism endorsed — your short form opinion.
The only real discrepancy is between De Defectibus decree in the Missal of St. Pius V your misunderstanding of the Latin text of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
IV. I am glad that you raised the issue of Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Pope Pius XII taught:
“...In the course of centuries the Church did not and could not substitute other sacraments in place of those instituted by Christ our Lord. The reason is that the seven sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, as the Council of Trent teaches, and the Church has no authority over the "substance of the sacraments," that is, over the elements that Christ our Lord Himself, according to the testimony of the sources of divine revelation, determined should be kept in the sacramental sign...”
And why is this significant? The Catechism of the Council of Trent gave “the testimony of the sources of divine revelation” from which the words of consecration of the wine came. The Catechism of the Council of Trent stated:
“The words ‘this is the chalice’ are taken from St. Luke and are also mentioned by the Apostle. The words that immediately follow, ‘of My blood, or My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins’ are taken in part from St. Luke and in part from St. Matthew.”
Now both the Latin and Eastern Rites use in the consecration of the wine "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" and this has been done universally in the Catholic Church for nearly 2000 years.
What Paul VI did by authorizing the “for all” is that he not only contradicted the Tridentine Catechism (“with great propriety therefore were the words 'for all' not used...”) but also he had the audacity to change the very words that Christ Himself used at the First Mass.
As Pope Pius XII taught:
“The Church has no authority over the substance of the sacraments, that is over the elements which Christ Himself, according to the testimony of the sources of divine revelation, determined should be kept in the sacramental sign...”
The words “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” were not established by the Church but were given to us by Our Lord Himself as is clear from Sacred Scripture and explicitly referenced by the Tridentine Catechism.
Further on in Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII made it clear:
“What the Church itself has established it also has the power to change and abrogate.”
Paul VI’s change of the form of consecration was not a matter established by the Church, but were the very words of Christ Himself!
And while we are on this subject of changing what Christ established, Paul VI’s successor, John Paul II approved of kasava root for the bread and rice wine for the wine at Mass! He approved invalid matter for the Eucharist! Furthermore, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have approved of Catholics attending the “Mass” of the Assyrian Church of the East which has no consecration! Any seminarian with the most basic training knows the matter and the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. John Paul II and Benedict XVI’s approval of the “Mass” of the Assyrian Church of the East goes beyond your short form opinion and claims that not even the words “This is My Blood” are necessary. So there goes your short form opinion because the magisterium of your Church has spoken!
As for the decision of Paul VI to authorize the change in the form of the consecration of the wine, it is important to consider the Novus Ordo Mass in its entirety. Is it not preposterous:
a) that Paul VI had six Protestant theologians assisting on the commission to change the Mass;
b) that in the General Instruction to the New Mass (#7), the Mass was defined with Luther’s definition (“the Mass is the assembly of the people of God with the priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord... ‘where two or three are gathered in My Name...’”);
c) that all references to a sacrifice to atone for sins have been deleted in the New Mass.
d) that Paul VI decreed in Latin the words “pro multis” while he approved the various vernacular translations with “for all.” (Jesus Christ said in Aramaic “for many” and the Latin Rite and Eastern Rites of the Church for nearly 2000 years have said “for many”)?
In conclusion, I think you need to concede in your second article a new correction. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have officially endorsed that not even the short form, “This is My Blood,” is necessary.
It is truly incomprehensible how anyone could excuse the Vatican II Church in light of such blatant errors. The New Code of Canon Law, 1983, allows Communion to non-Catholics without their reconciliation to the Church. Several years later, John Paul II extended this sacrilege to include “a Eucharistic sharing” at mixed marriages between a Catholic and a non-Catholic. The Vatican II Church reeks of false ecumenism!
Although I enjoy discussions in theology and have spoken in the past to Vatican II theologians and canon lawyers, it really detracts from my pastoral work. In the past, Brian Kasbar wrote a 20-some page article on the issue of jurisdiction. I responded with a 5-page refutation, to which he wrote one hundred twenty-some page treatise. It’s simply a waste of my time — time that keeps me away from many pastoral responsibilities.
Be assured of my prayers.
Sincerely in Christ,
Most Rev. Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI