An essay in two parts by Patrick Henry Omlor, the first part being a presentation of some necessary background on the matters to be discussed, and the second part being an analysis of three recent articles by Monsignor John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.

The subversive Innovators of the ICEL were the original protagonists, namely, the chief performers who started it all nearly twenty-five years ago, when on October 22, 1967 they introduced in the United States their "All-English Canon," which was purportedly a mere translation from the Latin of the Canon of the ancient Roman Mass. From the very outset there were very many Catholics, clergy and laity alike, who opposed this new and revolutionary "All-English Canon," not only on the grounds that it is a deviation from the traditional Mass, nor merely on the grounds that its English is quite pedestrian, nor on the grounds that the Latin must be preserved, nor because through sheer unbending resistance to change they simply wanted to keep intact that which they had always been accustomed to have. On the contrary, they opposed the subversive Innovators and their many apologists because the English "translation" from the Latin (which is what it was brazenly called) is no translation at all, but rather a mutilation and a falsification of the true words of the Mass, especially the Words of Consecration.

This falsification of the Words of Consecration renders these so-called "Masses" in the vernacular invalid as Masses and hence not true Catholic Masses at all. And this matter of the invalidity of the vernacular liturgies is the issue on which our battle with the protagonists has been waged for nearly a quarter of a century.

The following were my very first published words on the "invalidity issue," contained in the Preface (dated March 7, 1968, Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas) to Questioning The Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon:

This little monograph embodies the presentation of a case against the validity of the new "form" presently being used for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. It was on October 22, 1967, that this new "form" originally came into use in the United States, along with the new English Canon of the Mass.

That the arguments presented herein are beyond question or challenge I do not claim. Assuredly they will not be the "last word" on the subject.

"You must not so cling to what we have said," St. Anselm advised his disciple, "as to abide by it obstinately when others with more weighty arguments succeed in overthrowing ours and establishing opinions against them." When more weighty arguments (either for or against mine) are advanced, I will welcome them. And I will take as my own these words of the same great St. Anselm: "If there is anything that calls for correction I do not refuse the correction."

Hereinafter the following abbreviations will be used:

QTV for Questioning The Validity of the Masses using The New, All-English Canon (1968);

QTVMcC for Questioning The Validity of McCarthy's Case, my refutation of Monsignor McCarthy's first attempt to discredit QTV in his journal Living Tradition (July 1989). QTVMcC first appeared in Australia in December 1990 and was reprinted in the United States in early 1991;

TNS for The Necessary Signification in The Sacramental Form of The Holy Eucharist, published in May 1991;

LT-F for the aforesaid first issue of Living Tradition, No. 24 (July 1989);

LT-1 for issue No. 35 (May 1991), Part 1 of the recent trilogy;

LT-2 for issue No. 36 (July 1991), Part 2;

LT-3 for issue No. 39 (January 1992), Part 3.

Each issue of Living Tradition carries the message, "Distributed several times a year to interested members," and there is no mention of price. Hence I am unable to say whether or not any costs are involved in obtaining back copies. I encourage my present readers to procure copies of these four Living Tradition articles, which are devoted to refuting our case which argues that the ICEL product, now known as the Novus Ordo Missae, is not a valid Catholic Mass at all. Write to Rt. Rev. Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D., at the following address:

Within a very short period of time after QTV was first released quite a few critical reviews and articles appeared; and what was surprising was that without exception they were "conservative" publications that carried those reviews, all of which were authored by "traditionalist" priests and laymen. (It wasn't until later that the ICEL went on the defense in public print). While many of those critics agreed with the major portions of our argumentation and did not contest our documentation, they nevertheless balked at accepting the awesome final line; namely, that the ICEL's product is thoroughly ersatz, no Mass at all.

Father Lawrence Brey and many other sound theologians (e.g., those priests who had letters printed in Homiletic and Pastoral Review and other publications), and also your present writer were kept busy refuting these counter-arguments. So unconvincing were those attempts by our opponents that, by default, our own case was strengthened considerably, at least in the minds of those who were intelligently following the issue. For some of those specious counter-arguments led us to undertake additional research and thus enabled us to bring to light more and more valuable theological, liturgical, and philological evidence in support of our thesis.

The extent of the interest in this invalidity issue at that time and some indication of the considerable number of Catholics who had understood our arguments are revealed in the following account. The Wanderer, one of the oldest and most widely read "conservative" journals, was then conducting a virtual crusade against us, parading one author after the other in a series of adverse articles and editorials. One editorial complained about the amount of correspondence The Wanderer was receiving in support of the invalidity thesis: "This assertion of invalidity unfortunately has gained acceptance among not a few Catholics. (The Wanderer has received several hundred letters in support of this thesis during the past two years.)"

The editorial continued, "It is our hope that Fr. James McInerney's scholarly and precise refutation of the invalidity arguments (see p. 8) will reassure and set at rest the troubled consciences of those who have been disturbed by the unfortunate controversy." The only troubled consciences over the "unfortunate controversy" at that time belonged to the bishops and priests who were using the bogus rite. The final upshot was that Fr. McInerney's scholarly and precise refutation successfully refuted precisely nothing; and it probably triggered off the descent of yet another avalanche of mail onto the desk of the beleaguered Editor.

By late 1969 the "invalidity issue" had aroused a lot of attention, not only in the English-speaking world but also internationally, because the same falsely translated Consecration form, "for you and for all men," occurred in the Spanish, German, Portuguese, Italian, and in fact most of the other vernacularized liturgies which were popping up all over the place. Finally, THE ENEMY entered the picture. Starting with the issue of January 1970, Notitiae, the official organ of the ICEL and its international counterparts, published several defensive pieces, including an article by Max Zerwick, S.J. It was written in Latin, which was a fortunate thing in that most of the English-speaking bishops and priests (whose great proficiency in Latin enabled them to deem the ICEL "translation" just fine and dandy) were thus unable to read it and get brainwashed. Distancing himself from the phony argument that had appeared in the January issue, Zerwick apologized that it should have been advanced "with some reservation" (paulo cautius), meaning in ordinary parlance that, as we all knew, it was absolutely groundless in the first place.

Over the years Father Brey and I have had many Adversarii. These Adversarii, though always wrong in their analyses and conclusions, nevertheless occasionally expressed their views intelligently, logically (though their basic premises were faulty) and clearly. Since one of these Adversarii was at that time (and still is) a very good friend of Father Brey's, I left it to Fr. Brey to answer him and I stayed right out of it. In order to spare him any possible embarrassment in what I shall say next I will not give his name. A Franciscan scholar, he was the most courteous, the most learned though also the most humble, the most sincere in seeking the truth and the most effective in his argumentation of all the Adversarii. He wrote to me occasionally to thank me for sending him copies of Interdum or to comment on something I had written elsewhere, and his cordial letters always bore the unmistakable stamp of the gentleman.

Having lost contact with him for many years it came as a surprise, a most pleasant one, to receive a letter from him only several months ago (dated Ascension Thursday, May 28, 1992). What did not really surprise me was the theme of his letter. "You will remember that, for a while," he writes, "I was of the opinion that only the initial words of the Consecration formula for the wine, `This is the Chalice of My Blood,' were sufficient for a valid Consecration and a valid Mass. That is what we were taught. But it was not long after those first confused days that it became clear ... that the complete form is very probably necessary for a valid Mass."

"You yourself," he continues, "admitted [he is here referring to what I wrote in the original QTV] ... that you `did not prove' that you were correct in your conclusions. I would now be inclined to say that you did prove your basic thesis, only it was not accepted as proof." ... "[W]hen I thought, like a callow and uninformed seminarian, that just the first words of the wine consecration formula were sufficient for validity ... I never dreamt of making any changes such as `for all men.' By the grace of God, through no merit of my own, I was kept on safe ground."

Thus the words of the erstwhile Prince of the Adversarii!

It is not possible here to present our complete case with all its evidence, for that has required several books and articles. Because, however, some readers of this present essay may not be familiar with the basics of the issue, in the remainder of this Part I a review of our thesis is laid down. I beg the indulgence of those of my readers who are already well acquainted with the ins and outs of the controversy thus far, and I will assume that I am not overly abusing their patience with such repetition.

The validity of any Sacrament depends, among other things, upon the use of the proper words by the person administering the Sacrament. In order to bring about any Sacrament the words prescribed by Christ Himself, as found in Holy Scripture or else handed down by Tradition, or in the case of some Sacraments the words determined by the Church, must be diligently and accurately pronounced. These words are known as the form of the Sacrament. Although the Holy Eucharist is sometimes received outside of Mass (for example, Holy Viaticum), this Sacrament is confected, or brought about, only by a priest while celebrating Mass. As is the case with all Sacraments, the proper matter and form must be used. The Holy Eucharist is twofold in its matter and form; that is, the matter consists of the two substances, bread and wine, and the form consists of two separate sets of words, one spoken in conjunction with each of the two elements of matter.

Concerning the form for the Holy Eucharist there is a most weighty passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is a section 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. These extremely significant words in Part V of De Defectibus are as follows:

`The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: 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. 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 most 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 for the wine, "This is the chalice of my blood," and state that if only those words are changed in meaning the consecration is invalid, but the prescription clearly states that the entire form must be recited, conveying its correct meaning, in order for the Sacrament and the Mass to be truly valid.

But this necessity of maintaining absolute fidelity to the prescribed form of a Sacrament is not a new idea to the reader, for Catholics were always instructed that the form, the necessary words, for a Sacrament must not be altered, or else the Sacrament is not produced. "In our sacraments," teaches the Catechism of the Council of Trent, "the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null." This same Catechism, in complete agreement with the teaching of De Defectibus, spells out most clearly and forcibly what is the sacramental form for the Consecration of the Wine:

"It must certainly be believed that it consists of the following words: `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.'"

And this form is "so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null."

In the "All-English Canon" of October 22, 1967, the ICEL subversives gave the following form for the wine-consecration:

"this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant -- the mystery of faith. This blood is to be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven."

Since this original "translation" of 1967, the ICEL has meddled with it two more times, so that it now reads:

"This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

The foregoing "form" consists of two sentences, with exactly fifteen words in each sentence. In those thirty words the ICEL deviated four times from the established form set forth in De Defectibus, which is the same form, word for word, set down by the Authors of the Roman Catechism, who, moreover, introduced it with the unambiguous prefatorial command: "It must certainly be believed that it consists of the following words."

The four flagrant deviations in the ICEL's "sacramental form" are as follows:

[1] The breaking up of the form into two sentences has serious theological implications (the reader is referred to the commentary on pp. 36-37 of QTVMcC, which treats of this matter).

[2] The omission of the words, "the mystery of faith," the consequences of which omission were discussed at length on pp. 50-64 of TNS.

[3] The changing of "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" to "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

[4] After the first words, "This is the cup of my blood," the word "blood" is then repeated in the phrase "the blood of the new and everlasting covenant ... etc."

Since I have already discussed [1], [2] and [3] elsewhere at some length (and [3] in fact constitutes the focal point of this entire present essay), I shall now explain point [4], a very important point that I have never hitherto brought up and the implications of which are not known to many nowadays.

In the Latin Rite form for the consecration of the wine, all the words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood," -- to wit: "of the new and eternal testament ... which shall be shed for you and for many ... etc." -- I repeat, all, refer to the word "chalice," not to the word "blood." This I shall prove conclusively, not as a result of any perspicacity of my own, but from an impeccable authority whose explanation came to my attention only about two years ago. Before that time this important idea never occurred to me. Hence, in the ICEL's form: "This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant ... etc.," the insertion of the words "the blood" makes the remaining words of the form refer to "blood" rather than to "chalice," thus deviating from the ancient and proper form established in the Latin Rite from apostolic times. Is this an unimportant, perhaps a "casual" deviation? Are there any consequences of real importance attached to this deviation? Before addressing these questions, let us first demonstrate our primary assertion, namely, that the word "chalice" is the antecedent of all that follows, not the word "blood."

The original text of the Rheims New Testament, translated by that most excellent theologian and linguistics scholar, Father Gregory Martin (some scant details about him and also a reproduction of his portrait appear in QTVMcC), is filled throughout with valuable annotations. The reader will not find these in his own copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible, for they were for the most part subsequently omitted by Bishop Richard Challoner in his revised editions (1749 and 1750). It is among these original annotations on Chapter XXII of the Gospel of St. Luke that we find this important explanation:

"Which shall be shed. It is much to be observed that the relative, `which,' in these words is not governed or ruled (as some would perhaps think) by the noun `blood,' but by the word `chalice.' Which is most plain by the Greek. Which taketh away all cavillations and shifts from the Protestants, both against the real presence and the true Sacrificing. For it sheweth evidently, that the blood as the contents of the chalice, or as in the chalice [my emphasis], is shed for us (for so the Greek readeth in the present tense) [i.e., `which is being shed'] and not only as upon the cross [my emphasis]. And therefore as it followeth thereof invincibly, that it is no bare figure, but his blood indeed, so it ensueth necessarily, that it is a Sacrifice, and propitiatory, because the chalice (that is, the Blood contained in the same) is shed for our sins." ...

"And this text proveth all this so plainly that Beza [16th-century Calvinist] turneth himself roundly upon the Holy Evangelist, charging him with solecism or false Greek, or else that the words (which yet he confesseth to be in all copies Greek and Latin) are thrust into the text out of some other place : which he rather standeth upon than that St. Luke should speak incongruously in so plain a matter. And therefore he saith plainly that it cannot be truly said neither of the chalice itself nor of the contents thereof : which is indeed to give the lie to the blessed Evangelist, or to deny this to be Scripture. So clear is the Scripture for us, so miserable flights and shifts is falsehood put unto, God be thanked."

From this clear and conclusive analysis it is seen that not only is it proved that the ICEL form, by making "blood" the antecedent governing "which shall be shed ... etc." instead of "chalice," deviates from the correct form; but also that the false construction thereby placed on the established and proper form would be entirely satisfactory not only to Beza, but to all those present-day Modernists who deny transubstantiation, the Real Presence, and the propitiatory nature of the Mass. By placing this false construction on the very Words of Consecration handed down in our Latin Rite (the reason for the emphasis on the foregoing phrase to be explained anon), and thereby discarding this potent defense of these aforementioned Catholic truths (the Scriptural bulwark in St. Luke's Gospel having confounded Beza and driven him to such absurd arguments) the ICEL "form" is thereby implicitly denying these truths.

Elsewhere I have stressed that the precise form of words used in the Latin Rite is not necessarily required for validity in all (or even any) of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. It was in § 145 of QTV that I first quoted these words (and have continued occasionally to quote them) from the famous Vindication of the Bull `Apostolicae Curae':

"But you are also mistaken in thinking that matters have been left by Our Lord in so much 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, but that, on the contrary, several different forms of words have been recognized by the Holy See as sufficient, 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."

It will be argued that in six of the eight Eastern Rite wine-consecration forms that are currently in use, as well as in many ancient Eastern liturgies no longer in use, we do not find the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood ... etc." at all, but only "This is My Blood ... etc." Moreover, it may also be argued that in only three of these eight current Eastern Rite forms do we find the words, "the mystery of faith." Elsewhere, that is in TNS, I stated at first on page 40: "We do not mean [that all the words in our Latin Rite form] are 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." On page 50, beginning a new Section, under the heading The Words "The Mystery of Faith," I adverted to this earlier remark and then devoted the next fifteen pages to a comprehensive exposition, proving my assertion, and citing that most learned and perceptive Thomist, Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., as an authoritative source for my arguments. In this present essay I will leave it at that, inviting the interested reader (if he has not already done so) to peruse those aforementioned pages of TNS.

The important point to be noted is that in those Eastern Rites that use the form "This is My Blood ... etc." rather than "This is the Chalice of My Blood ... etc." -- and, moreover, do not have the words "the mystery of faith" in the form -- absolutely nothing has ever been removed nor changed. The Eastern Catholics of these eight rites use those various forms, which are in some cases even worded slightly differently from one another, that were handed down to them from apostolic times by those several Apostles who proselytized in the East.

Whereas other different Apostles, the ones who first brought Catholicism to the West, handed down the form that is used today in the Latin Church (not in the "Novus Ordo" Robber Church, of course, we are speaking of Catholics) and which, in fact, has always been used -- with slight variations, however, occurring in earlier Western liturgies (e.g., Gelasian Missal, Stowe Missal, Missal of Bobbio, Mozarabic rites, etc.). Pope Innocent III made this point clear when he taught authoritatively: "Therefore we believe that the form of words, as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them." Consequently, the vital importance of the following teaching is made manifest: "In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential."

Only once in all my writings have I ever advanced a mere theory, thus failing to follow my accustomed manner of dealing only with established theological facts, teachings of the Magisterium of the Church and of great Saints and theologians, etc. It was on pages 60-64 of TNS that I developed this aforesaid theory, referring specifically to the words, "the mystery of faith," which I affirm are words essential for validity in our Latin Rite, despite the fact that those words are absent from the wine-consecration forms in some of the Eastern Rites. However, this necessity for validity is not the theory; that part is fact. The theory concerned why the aforesaid words, "the mystery of faith," were handed down to us by Christ, through His apostles, from the very beginning, as is taught by Pope Innocent III; whereas other apostles, also following the Divine instructions, handed down in the Eastern world consecration forms in which those words are absent. The following excerpts from pp. 57-61 of TNS explain my theory.

"The mystery of faith." In their context in the form of consecration what is the precise meaning or signification of these words? The Roman Catechism teaches:

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

And Pope Innocent III teaches likewise that the significance of these words in the sacramental form lies in the fact that they express the doctrine of the Real Presence:

"Yet `mysterium fidei' is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than what is believed. For the species of the bread and wine is perceived there, but what is believed is the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ and the power of unity and love." ...

For according to the Divine Dispensation, the inscrutable wisdom of which no man can comprehend, and according to what was so evidently willed by Our Lord when He handed these words down to the Apostles to be used among certain peoples of certain traditions and cultures, we must insist with the Angelic Doctor, whose teaching has been so lucidly expounded by Cardinal Capisuccus, that even the words "the mystery of faith" are of the essence of those consecration forms in which they occur. ...

Here is my own theory why in the Divine Dispensation the words, "The Mystery of Faith," were handed down in the Latin Rite and not in the majority of the Eastern rites. Through God's Infinite Wisdom, Providence, design and foreknowledge of all things, it has turned out that only in the Western Church has the doctrine of the Real Presence been assailed. We know this to be true from the striking testimony of history. Berengarius, Tanchelmus of Antwerp, who in the 12th century was resisted and vanquished by St. Norbert, Wyclif, the Sacramentarians, Calvin, Zwingli, the whole host of 16th-century Protestant Revolutionaries, etc. ­­ all these deniers of the Real Presence arose in the West.

With one notable known exception, the doctrine of the Real Presence has never been attacked by heretics in the Eastern churches; on the contrary, it has always been believed and upheld, even by the schismatics since the 11th century and by the early Oriental heretics. "In fact," we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia, "even the Nestorians and Monophysites, who broke away from Rome in the fifth century, have, as is evident from their literature and liturgical books, preserved their faith in the Eucharist as unwaveringly as the Greeks, and this in spite of the dogmatic difficulties which, on account of their denial of the hypostatic union, stood in the way of a clear and correct notion of the Real Presence."

We know from the teaching of Pope Innocent III, which we cited earlier (the letter Cum Marthae Circa), that the words, "The Mystery of Faith," were included in our wine-consecration from the beginning, having been handed down by the Apostles who received them from Our Lord. My aforesaid theory therefore concludes that these words are an essential part of the Latin Rite consecration form, having in God's Providence been placed there as a bulwark in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence, and as a stumbling block and most potent rebuke against those many deniers of this teaching who have sprung up from time to time to attack it, such onslaughts deriving virtually exclusively from the rationalism of the West that has for so long a time infested and infected our Latin Church.

Consequently my theory is now further corroborated by evidence from the continuous, uninterrupted use in the West from apostolic times of the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood ... which shall be shed ...," which words were proved beyond doubt by the annotators of the Rheims New Testament to be words -- like the "mystery of faith" -- that similarly demonstrate undeniably the truth of the doctrines of transubstantiation and the Real Presence, thus confuting the heresies of the Protestants and our present-day Modernists. Therefore the additional inserted words "the blood" in the various lately despoiled vernacularized "Masses" of the West, by destroying this essential (for the Latin Church) emphasis on these aforesaid doctrines, render those "Masses" invalid for the same reason that the expurgation of "the mystery of faith" from the Words of Consecration likewise invalidates them.

When the Authors of the Roman Catechism teach that any deviation from the form of a sacrament, however casual it might be, invalidates the sacrament, they are speaking as Catholic doctors; that is, on truths that apply universally. Hence this teaching regarding the fatal consequences of deviating from established sacramental forms applies not only in our Latin Rite, but, needless to say, to the forms used by the Eastern rites. Thus any deviation from the forms handed down in those rites would similarly invalidate their sacraments. The fact that the precise forms of words differ in the various rites has no bearing whatever on the truth or applicability of what the Catechism has laid down. This important teaching, as it stands, needs no qualification whatsoever. Therefore the argument that Monsignor McCarthy offers (LT-1, p. 11) is totally erroneous and is, moreover, a red herring: "Note that some of these words [i.e., words following `This is the Chalice of My Blood'; e.g., `the mystery of faith'] are not contained in some Eastern-rite liturgies that the Church has always recognized to be valid. Understand that this fact itself greatly qualifies the statement in the Catechism of Trent that `the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null.'"

In order to comprehend clearly that the ICEL's "form" involves a basic change in the theological meaning of the ancient and proper form, it is necessary to consider two distinct aspects of the Passion and Death of Our Divine Lord. The first aspect is that of sufficiency; that is, for what and for whom did Christ's Passion suffice? The second aspect is that of efficacy; that is, for what and for whom is Christ's Passion effective or efficacious?

The distinction between these two aspects was stated in one brief sentence of the Council of Trent: "But, though He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His Passion is communicated." Many theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, the Authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (the Roman Catechism), St. Alphonsus, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Benedict XIV, have expounded this distinction between the sufficiency aspect and the efficacy aspect of Our Lord's Passion and Death; and, it must be noted well, the "sufficiency vs. efficacy" explanations of these above-mentioned theologians (the sources are given in footnotes 19-23) have all been presented in the course of their discourses on the correct theological meaning of the form of words for the wine consecration, which is at the very heart of our discussion. It will suffice here to examine two of these explanations.

First, St, Alphonsus: "The words pro vobis et pro multis (`For you and for many') are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all -- it saves only those who co-operate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV."

Second, the Roman Catechism: "For if we look at the vertue of it, it must be confess'd, that our Savior shed his Blood for the salvation of all men. But if we look at the fruit which men gather from thence, we may easily understand that it comes not to all to advantage, but only to some. When therefore he said, `For you,' he signifi'd either them that were then present, or those whom he had chosen out of the Jewish 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 Jews or Gentiles, to be understood."

Continuing, the Catechism explicitly singles out the ICEL's false substitution "for all" in the wine-consecration form as being contrary to "the design of the discourse"; that is, contrary to the Mind of Christ, when in instituting the Holy Sacrament He expressly said "for many," meaning not all men, but only the members of His Church, the Mystical Body, the elect, who are the only ones who actually benefit ultimately from the "fruits of the Passion," namely, the "Fruit of Salvation":

"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."

Thus far we have presented our case only by citing authorities, namely, De Defectibus, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, the Roman Catechism, Popes Innocent III and Benedict XIV, and the Council of Trent. We may also include the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1445), which taught:

"But since in the above written decree of the Armenians there was not set forth the form of words, which in the consecration of the body and blood of the Lord the holy Roman Church, confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, has always been accustomed to use, we have deemed that it should be inserted here. In the consecration of the Body the Church uses this form of words: `For this is my body'; and for the consecration of the Blood: `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.'"

In addition to these arguments from authority it is expedient here to explain briefly why, from the standpoint of sacramental theology, this mutilated ICEL form, "shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," necessarily invalidates the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and, perforce, the "Masses" in which it is used. This is now to be explained in eight steps.

[1] Apostolicae Curae: Pope Leo XIII in his Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896) authoritatively laid down the principle of sacramental theology of which we speak. He taught that in any Sacrament the essential sacramental grace proper to that Sacrament must be explicitly signified in the form of words used in bringing about the Sacrament:

"All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite -- that is to say, in the matter and in the form -- yet it pertains chiefly to the form; since the matter is a part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the form." And also: "That form consequently cannot be apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits what it must essentially signify." (¶ 8).

[2] Grace of the Sacrament: Here the Sovereign Pontiff Leo XIII is teaching infallibly that the forms of the various Sacraments ("it still pertains chiefly to the form") must signify the grace which they effect. That is, the "grace proper" to a Sacrament, which is the sacramental grace of that Sacrament, which is also known as "the effect" of the Sacrament, and, moreover is also known as "the reality" of the Sacrament, which in Latin is the "res sacramenti" or the "res tantum." All these expressions -- grace proper, sacramental grace, the effect, the reality, "res sacramenti", "res tantum" -- mean exactly the same thing. It is this grace that the words of the sacramental form must signify, as Pope Leo XIII so clearly teaches.

[3] Unambiguous signification required: On p. 31 of the aforementioned Vindication of the Bull `Apostolicae Curae' we find the following reinforcement of the teaching that the form of a Sacrament must signify the grace of the Sacrament, which must not be confused with grace in general or other kinds of grace:

"Moreover, the signification must not be ambiguous, but so far definite as to discriminate the grace effected from graces of a different kind; as, for instance, the graces of other Sacraments." And on p. 40: "The definite signification, as has already been explained, must be found in the essential part, in the matter and form morally united together." [Emphasis is in the original text].

[4] The `Grace Proper' of the Holy Eucharist: Now what is this sacramental grace, this grace proper, this effect, this reality, this res sacramenti of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What is this grace that must be so definitely signified in the sacramental form that it must not be confused with graces of a different kind? As is so well known and documented so exhaustively, the res sacramenti or grace proper or special sacramental grace of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ. And it is this union of the Mystical Body which must be signified somewhere in the sacramental form, that is, in the Words of Consecration. As is indicated by its title, my latest effort, TNS, is devoted almost entirely to this theme. That the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist is the union of the Mystical Body is acknowledged by all theologians.

[5] The words of the Consecration that signify this: Now where in the Words of Consecration is this reference to the union of the Mystical Body to be found? Is this signification contained in the mere words, "This is My Body; This is the Chalice of My Blood"? These words signify the True Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, which become present through transubstantiation, not the Mystical Body, and to claim otherwise or to claim that both Christ's True Body and His Mystical Body are signified by these words would be heretical. The words which signify the res sacramenti are found in the final phrase of the Consecration of the Wine: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins."

[6] Proof of the foregoing: "For you and for many unto the remission of sins" are the words of the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist that provide this vital signification of the res sacramenti, for the words "you" and "many" are the only words of the form that explicitly designate the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. Moreover, the final phrase, "unto the remission of sins," signifies the union of the members, as will now be shown.

Now, it is through reception of the Holy Eucharist that we, the members of the Mystical Body in the branch known as the Church Militant, become more closely and firmly united to Jesus Christ -- the Head of the Mystical Body -- and also to one another, and also to our fellow-members in the other two branches; viz., the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. The very principle of existence and origin of this aforesaid union is sanctifying grace. Any person living in the state of sanctifying grace is automatically within Christ's Mystical Body.

But since sanctifying grace is the principle of existence and origin of the union of the Mystical Body, which is the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist, it must then be acknowledged that the essential and absolute prerequisite -- the sine qua non -- of this union is the remission of sins. It is by means of the Sacrament of Baptism that we first receive sanctifying grace; thus through the remission of original sin and actual sin (in the case of adult baptisms) we first become members of the Mystical Body, as the bull Exultate Deo of Pope Eugene IV teaches: "Holy Baptism, which is the gateway (janua) to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church." We retain our status as living members of the Mystical Body by remaining in the state of sanctifying grace. A member who has become spiritually dead, through mortal sin, though not severed from the Mystical Body, can be reinstated as a living member and again become a vital part of the union of the Mystical Body only by the remission of his sins, through what St. Jerome calls "the second plank after shipwreck," namely, the Sacrament of Penance.

From all the foregoing it is evident that the remission of sins -- that is, the actual and efficacious remission of sins; or in other words "in remissionem peccatorum" (unto the remission of sins) -- is the necessary prerequisite for: (a) our initial incorporation in the Mystical Body; and (b) the reinstatement as living members, through the Second Plank After Shipwreck, of those who have lost sanctifying grace. Consequently, the remission of sins can be said to cause the union of the members of the Mystical Body. Hence the final phrase of the form for the Consecration of the Wine in its entirety -- to wit: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" -- comprises the essential words signifying the grace of the Sacrament -- to wit: the union of the Mystical Body. The words "you" and "many" designate the members; the words "unto the remission of sins" signify the cause underlying the principle of existence of their unity, without which there is no vital unity, namely, their living in the state of sanctifying grace.

[7] ICEL form signifies falsely: The ICEL's corrupted form, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," by saying "all" fails to designate the members of the Mystical Body since not all men are members of the Mystical Body, but only "many" are members. Moreover, the words, "so that sins may be forgiven," do not signify the efficacious remission of sins, since they do not convey the idea that any sins actually are or have been remitted, but only "may be forgiven."

Investigating the eight consecration forms currently in use in the Oriental rites reveals that all, without exception, contain the words, "for you and for many" and "unto the remission of sins," thereby having the necessary signification of the union of the Mystical Body. But let me give three illustrations (from among many that could be cited) of ancient liturgies which are no longer in use, which do not contain the precise words, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," but nevertheless have words that are equivalent in meaning and thus "conform to the same definite type."

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of St. Cyril: "This is my blood, which seals the Testament of my death; for it prepares you and the many faithful for eternal life." ("Hic est sanguis meus, qui obsignat Testamentum mortis meae; vos autem, et multos fideles praeparat ad vitam aeternam.") Since this form must be of the same definite type as our Latin Rite form, the words "the many faithful" (multos fideles) demolish the argument advanced by some of our opponents that the words "pro multis" should be interpreted as meaning not just many, but all men. For fideles is a technical term used by the Catholic Church exclusively to denote her members. And it would be absurd to claim that the meaning conveyed by the sacramental form in one liturgy would be different from that of another liturgy. That is, in the present-day vernacularized liturgies "multis" means "all men," but in this ancient liturgy "multos" with "fideles" clearly can mean Catholics only!

Moreover, not only does "you and the many faithful," contain the necessary signification of the members of the Mystical Body, the words, "prepares ... for eternal life," beautifully signify their union, for The Church Triumphant consummates, nay is, this union. It is also seen from this example that the words "unto the remission of sins" are not per se essential words; they are essential only in those rites where they appear and fill the role of signifying the union of the Mystical Body.

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of St. James: "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for the many faithful (pro multis fidelibus effunditur), and is given unto the remission of sins and eternal life."

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of Moses Bar-Cephas: "This is my blood, which is shed and given for you and for those who believe in me, preparing for eternal life all those who receive it." Again a form that conforms to the same definite type, inasmuch as "those who believe in me" surely is equivalent to "many," and cannot conceivably mean "all men."

[8] The grace that must be signified is in the recipient: It may be argued by some that since the words, "This is My Body; This is the Chalice of My Blood," signify the True Body and Blood of Christ, Whose Real Presence is brought about through the Consecration, and since Christ is true God, the Author of all grace, this would suffice to satisfy Pope Leo's teaching that the form must signify the grace of the Sacrament. This argument is fatuous to the extreme, and is on a par with arguing that in the form for Baptism the only essential words are, "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," because these words signify the Holy Trinity, God, and since God is the Author of all grace these words automatically signify the grace of the Sacrament! God is the Author of all grace, but He is not grace; least of all is He the sacramental grace, the res sacramenti, of the Holy Eucharist.

At the Consecration during Holy Mass, when the priest brings about the Real Presence of Our Lord through transubstantiation, not one iota of increase (if we may use that expression) of sanctifying grace nor a scintilla of sacramental grace is thereby automatically conferred on anyone at all. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Author of all grace, becomes sacramentally present -- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity -- but He does not confer grace merely by this sacramental Presence any more than His mere physical presence on the Cross conferred grace on any one. The Source of all grace was there, but none save Dismas and Longinus (to our certain knowledge) benefited by His Divine Presence, co-operating with the actual grace that He (as He, the most loving superabundant Source of grace, is always eager to do for all) gave to them.

It is in the reception of the Holy Sacrament that the res sacramenti, the reality of the sacrament, is conferred (the res sacramenti also can be received, though not fully, through the desire for it, but that topic is outside the scope of our present discussion). But it is also in the reception of the Holy Sacrament that some bring about their eternal damnation.

The following, which a young friend located and passed along to me some time ago, is from "A Treatise on the Holy Eucharist," written by St. Thomas More in the Tower of London in 1534. He entitled it: To receive the blessed body of our Lord sacramentally and virtually both.

"And yet of His high sovereign patience He refuseth not to enter bodily into the vile bodies of those whose filthy minds refuse to receive Him graciously into their souls. But then do such folk receive Him only sacramentally and not virtually [that is, they receive not the effect : the res sacramenti]. That is to wit, they receive His very blessed body into theirs under the sacramental sign, but they receive not the thing of the sacrament, that is to wit, the virtue and effect thereof, that is to say, the grace by which they should be lively members incorporate in Christ's holy mystical body, but instead of that live grace they receive their judgement and their damnation."

=================================================================================

The teachings of Apostolicae Curae and of the "Vindication" specifically and directly referred to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But these principles, especially the vital point of sacramental theology Pope Leo XIII laid down infallibly, which was quoted in step [1] of Part I above, apply to all the Sacraments, which is a fact that has never been challenged, nor can it be challenged. Monsignor McCarthy does not deny that all these teachings do in fact apply to the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. In LT-2 (p. 2) he reproduces accurately the aforementioned principle that was quoted in step [1]. But his understanding of it is absolutely unorthodox, confused and false.

"I understand Pope Leo XIII to mean that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist signifies principally and immediately the grace of the Real Presence and of the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. Consequently, that form cannot be apt or sufficient which omits signifying this. But the res tantum, the producing of sanctifying grace in those rightly disposed to receive it [this is not the res tantum], is secondary and less immediate; it need not for validity be mentioned expressly in the form of consecration."

Later on the same page he attempts to quote St. Thomas to support this, but in these quotations the Angelic Doctor merely says the following: that Christ "bestowed the life of grace upon the world"; Christ "works the life of grace"; "Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace"; "this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist] confers grace". The Monsignor continues (top p. 3): "From this response of St. Thomas we see that the first and principal effect of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is Christ Himself, Who, `by coming sacramentally into man, works the life of grace'."

The Monsignor has thus misinterpreted the words of the Angelic Doctor. For here is what St. Thomas actually says: "The effect of this sacrament [which is the unity of the Mystical Body, as the Angelic Doctor clearly teaches elsewhere] ought to be considered first and principally from what is contained in this sacrament, which is Christ, Who, ... by coming sacramentally into man, works the life of grace" (Summa, III, Q. 79, A. 1). Hence it is clear that St. Thomas does not teach here that "the first and principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is Christ Himself," as the Msgr. so erroneously misreads, but rather that "the effect," the unity of the Mystical Body, is to be considered principally from what is contained in this Sacrament -- to wit: Christ, He Whom all Catholics know to be the Author of all grace ("works the life of grace in man" and "bestowed the life of grace upon the world" and is "the cause of grace"). But to think that He is "the effect" of His Sacrament, namely, the grace of the sacrament, namely, the union the Mystical Body is absurd!

The Monsignor confuses "the effect" (res sacramenti) of the Sacrament with the primary and most awesome effect (i.e., result) of the Consecration; namely the bringing about of the sacramental presence of Christ; and this is to confuse two entirely different applications of the word "effect." Therefore, not only does he make a false appeal to St. Thomas, but he thoroughly misunderstands the nature of sacramental grace and the teaching of Apostolicae Curae; namely, that the sacramental grace (which is created and finite habitual grace) that is conferred on the recipient who is properly disposed spiritually, must be expressed in the Words of Consecration.

LT-2 (p. 3): "Omlor errs where he says that the union of the Mystical Body is `the very effect' of the Sacrament." "This position of Omlor is erroneous Catholic theology. While he thinks that the union of the Mystical Body is `the very effect of the Sacrament,' St. Thomas teaches otherwise." LT-2 (p. 2).

LT-1 (p. 9): "St. Thomas does teach [his emphasis] that `the real effect of the sacrament (res sacramenti)' of the Eucharist (precisely referred to as the res tantum) or `the effect of this sacrament' (III, q. 73, art. 6, corp.) is the `unity of the Mystical Body' (III, q. 73, art. 3, corp.)." ... "Thus we see, from the teaching of St. Thomas, that the res tantum of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is `the unity of the Mystical Body'..."

To borrow the words of Cicero: "Ex ore tuo te convincam!"

The Monsignor puts words into my mouth, making it appear that I have claimed that the remission of sins is the effect of the Sacrament, something that he knows is not correct and which is even contradicted by the quotation from LT-2 (p. 3) just above. Here are his words (LT-3, p. 4): "It is more than an oversimplification to say that the effect [his emphasis] of a valid consecration is the actual forgiveness of the sins of the elect, as Omlor assumes ..." As though every time a priest consecrates, the sins of the elect are remitted, thus eliminating the necessity for the Sacrament of Penance!

In LT-2 (pp. 3-4) he calls upon St. Thomas to show that the absurd opinion he attributes to me is wrong, which was quite unnecessary, since any Catholic would be able to tell him it is haywire. "Regarding `the very effect' (Omlor, p. 105) of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, [He is here referring to p. 105 of TNS where I repeat that the very effect is the union of the Mystical Body; and, moreover, on that page the word `remission' does not appear and the word `sins' does not appear, though the word `of' does appear quite a few times] St. Thomas ... replies: `The remission of sins is not placed here as the proper effect of this sacrament...'." Which is something we all knew.

Greased Weasel : Q.E.D.

LT-1 (p. 8): Referring to an "Editor's Note" (footnote 23 on p. 31 of QTVMcC) which Father Brey added as a comment to what I had written in the main text, the Msgr. remarks: "In an editor's note it is stated: `The res sacramenti, which is the effect or the grace proper of any given sacrament, must be signified in the words of the sacramental form. This pertains to all sacraments.'" What next appears in Fr. Brey's footnote is a quotation from St. Alphonsus in Latin, and in that quotation what jumps out at the reader are the words in omnibus sacramentis in bold italics, in order to support the sole point Fr. Brey was making, namely, it is not just the Holy Eucharist that has its res sacramenti.

Msgr. McCarthy then inquires: "Where did Omlor and his editor discover this?" Answer No. 1: Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae! Answer No. 2: The one and only point Fr. Brey was making here is that there is a res sacramenti associated with every Sacrament -- a self-evident fact, in that every Sacrament obviously has its own particular grace proper to it. In the supporting quotation from St. Alphonsus, who also pointed this out by means of the words "in all the sacraments," the Latin text presented had these key words "in omnibus sacramentis" in boldface italics. Now either Monsignor McCarthy does not read Latin, or else when these words jumped off the page at him he ducked.

Among theologians there is an unresolved controversy regarding exactly which words of the wine-consecration form in our Latin Rite are absolutely essential for validity. For some hold that the "short form" (or the "truncated form," as Fr. Lawrence Brey is wont to describe it), namely, the first seven words: "This is the Chalice of My Blood," alone by themselves would suffice for validity. On the opposite side in this controversy are those who deny this aforesaid supposition and claim that the entire form as printed in the Roman Missal and as spelled out in De Defectibus must be recited, for otherwise the Sacrament and the Mass would not be valid.

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 erroneous, 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 also 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 in the same action of the rite, to wit, holding the chalice in his hands."

In the first of these works just mentioned (Script. Sup. Lib. IV Sent.) St. Thomas says that the entire sacramental form is essential (essentialia) and also in the very same sentence he uses 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). And earlier in this very same Summa Theologica St. Thomas actually defines precisely what he means when he says "the substance of a sacramental form." In his section on the Sacraments in General he establishes principles that apply to all the sacraments, each of which he later in the Summa discusses individually:

"Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form should be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words; and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished." [Emphasis added].

Therefore since the Angelic Doctor, in the words cited earlier, has stated that "And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow [i.e., which follow `This is the Chalice of My Blood'] are of the substance of the form...," and furthermore that "if anything that is of the substance of the form would be suppressed...the sacrament would not be accomplished" it is evident that he is in the camp of the "entire form" proponents who insist that the entire form is essential for the validity of the Sacrament.

On p. 17 of LT-1 the Monsignor quotes from St. Thomas's In 1 Cor. XI (lect. 6): "the whole [all the words of the form] pertains to the effective force of the form" and interprets it thus: "This is true psychologically, in the sense that there is no psychological break between the two parts as the words are pronounced." Which no doubt, the Msgr. presumably thinks, must be exactly what St. Thomas had in mind. As we have just seen from the text of In 1 Cor. XI (lect. 6) quoted above, St. Thomas teaches: "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." He speaks of no "psychological break"; he says they are necessary (de necessitate) because "it is by signifying that the forms have their effect" and that "all these words belong to the meaning or signification" of the recitation of the form and hence "appertain to the effecting power of the form."

It will be readily seen by the reader who procures copies of the Monsignor's writings that in LT-1 the two main pillars of the new Monsignor McCarthy's case are his claims (1) that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the short form, "For this is the Chalice of My Blood," is all that is required for the validity of the wine-consecration and (2) that the Roman Catechism teaches the same thing.

In his very first article on the invalidity issue (LT-F), which appeared about two years before the publication of LT-1 (where now one of his main pillars is that St. Thomas espouses the "short form" theory), Monsignor McCarthy accepted the fact that St. Thomas taught the necessity of the entire form, as is evidenced by his remark at the bottom of p. 2 in LT-F: "Omlor has recourse to St. Thomas Aquinas and others to show that these mere words [i.e., `This is the Chalice of My Blood'] probably do not suffice for validity." Instead of refuting this claim of mine, he immediately goes on to quote the key passage from Summa Theologica, III, Q. 78, Art. 3, showing that this is indeed the mind of St. Thomas.

Equally significant is the fact that his major argument at that time, which was refuted in Section 7 of QTVMcC (pp. 27-35), was that instead of "for you and for many" the mere words "for you" signify the union of the Mystical Body. Now since the words "for you" are among those words which he now (in LT-1) belatedly claims are not essential, this argument in LT-F would be a pointless argument if he at that time did not consider those latter words part of the essential form. But he did in fact consider them essential: "But Our Lord...is referring only to members (present or future) of the Mystical Body where He says `for you.' Therefore, from this aspect, the essential sense of the proper form [my emphasis added] is preserved" (LT-F, pp. 4-5).

And furthermore, a little later (p. 5 of the same LT-F) we find the following: "What I do want to point out is that `for all men' does not invalidate the form, if the aspect of efficacy recedes from `for many' to `for you'." This is his slippery "recession theory," which is a sample of G.W.'s semantic hanky-panky (more of his tricky business on the word "conveniens" will be seen later). "Does not invalidate the form, if" says or implies `for all men' -- a part of the entire form, mind you (the ICEL's bogus one, of course) -- would in fact invalidate the form if his "recession theory" about `for you' does not hold. (So absurd is that recession nonsense that in QTVMcC it was dismissed in passing on p. 32). The point here, however, is that in LT-F the Monsignor was acknowledging that words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood" are essential for the validity of the wine-consecration.

"Ex ore tuo te convincam!"

In teaching on the "Sacraments in General" the Catechism of the Council of Trent lays down principles that are to apply to all the Sacraments. For example, in Part II, Chap. I, § XII, we read: "In our Sacraments...the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the Sacrament null." Since I have always applied this principle to the one and only form for the Holy Eucharist that the Catechism gives -- namely, the entire form -- Monsignor McCarthy accuses me of equivocation. Why? Because this passage from the Catechism, when applied to the form for the Holy Eucharist, really means the mere words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," as he so lucidly shows us in LT-1 (to be examined anon). He accuses me of prevarication, not even giving me the benefit of the doubt that I acted in ignorance of his great finding, unknown to mankind before the glamorous debut of the glorious LT-1.

But now let us learn all about that scoundrel Omlor and his equivocation.

"OMLOR'S EQUIVOCATION. In citing from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Omlor equivocates on the term `form.' He quotes the Catechism as saying: `In our Sacraments the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the Sacrament null.' ... The Catechism is talking about the necessary form [which he so brilliantly proves in LT-1 is the `short form'], but Omlor presents it to mean (the entire form)." (LT-1, p. 4).

On an earlier occasion (i.e, in LT-F, pp. 6-7) referring to this same passage from the Roman Catechism and (at that time) interpreting it correctly exactly as I -- the equivocator -- explain it, my fellow-equivocator wrote the following:

"I think, then, that the ICEL translation `for you and for all' in the form of consecration of the wine, whatever its validity, is an imposition on the consciences of many of the faithful for the following reasons: ... c) Some believe that the translation of pro multis [which is part of the `entire form'!] into `for all' may actually invalidate the Mass. All the faithful have a right to believe the Roman Catechism where it says: `In our sacraments (of the New Law), on the contrary, the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null. Hence the form is expressed in the clearest terms, such as exclude the possibility of doubt.' These faithful believe that they have a right not to have doubt imposed upon them in the wording of the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but rather to have the form expressed in the clearest terms."

"Ex ore ... etc. ...!"

Section 7 of QTVMcC was devoted to refuting Monsignor McCarthy's claim that the words "for you" in the wine-consecration suffice to denote the members of the Mystical Body. He claimed that since I had acknowledged that the words "for you" in St. Luke's Gospel denote the members of the Mystical Body, therefore these same words "for you" in the Words of Consecration also denote the Mystical Body. At the bottom of p. 29, I wrote: "There is a subtle, yet chasmal, difference between the `for you' in St. Luke's Gospel I cited, standing alone by itself, and these same words `for you' taken from St. Luke and made part of the sacramental form, `for you and for many unto the remission of sins'." I then proceeded to develop my case and demonstrate the truth of that statement. I wish, incidentally, to retract nothing whatsoever that I wrote in QTVMcC. (Sorry, Monsignor).

In the Preface to QTV I said words to the effect that I would not refuse correction if I were shown to be in error. It seems that I have to do all the work, that is, finding my own error. Recently, while re-reading a part of QTV in order to check something, I discovered something else in § 149, which I wrote twenty-four years ago and now wish to retract, very belatedly.

It is under the heading : The Canons of Hippolytus, which begins thus: "The so-called Canons of Hippolytus, dating from the third century, contain this form: `This is my blood which is shed for you (the members of the Mystical Body).'" Later in the same paragraph I implied that I doubted "the authenticity and/or validity of Hippolytus' form" (which I still do). But that, of course, does not nullify or excuse what I wrote in the opening sentence; that is, that the mere words "for you" in this liturgy denote the Mystical Body. It was a similar supposition that I (contra McCarthy in QTVMcC) proved cannot hold.

We shall be referring frequently to the Salmanticenses in the pages that follow. For the benefit of those of my present readers who might not know of those illustrious (16th-17th centuries) Discalced Carmelite theologians of Salamanca, Spain, known universally as the Salmanticenses, who as a group were the most learned followers of all time of the mind of St. Thomas, I cite the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Consequently they made strict adherence to Thomism their fundamental principle, and carried it out with greater consistency than probably any other commentators of the neo-Scholastic period. ... [S]uch uniformity and consistency were obtained that it could be claimed that there was not a single contradiction in any of these immense works, although nearly a century elapsed between the publication of the first and the appearance of the final instalment. ... The Salmanticenses have ever been held in the highest esteem, particularly at Rome where they are considered a standard work on Thomistic scholasticism."

After reading LT-1 and LT-2 (which I received on the same day), I sent the Monsignor a photocopy of a personal letter to a Dominican theologian I had written on July 24, 1969, discussing Summa Theologica, III, Q. 78, Article 1. In this correspondence was set forth the purpose and the meaning of this aforesaid Article 1. As will be seen a little later, Monsignor McCarthy bases his case that St. Thomas espouses the "short form" opinion on this particular Article 1. Hoping he would retract his colossal blunder in a subsequent issue of LT, on the photocopied page I wrote some marginal notes to him: "This is only the kernel. The argument can be developed much more thoroughly, but the occasion to do so never arose. None of my opponents ever attempted to build a case based on Article 1." I also furnished him with some references to enable him to see that his "case" had already been soundly refuted long ago: "See also Salmanticenses, par. 26 on pp. 573-574 of Vol. XVIII (Paris edition, 1882), which Doronzo summarizes briefly on pp. 160-161," were my words.

I also enclosed a copy of Issue No. 5 of Interdum (Oct. 7, 1970), to show him that the argument of his second main pillar -- to wit: what he supposes the Roman Catechism teaches -- is based on a mistranslated sentence in the McHugh & Callan version of the Catechism, and that I had pointed this out more than twenty years ago in the aforementioned issue of Interdum. On August 2, 1991 I mailed these items to him.

Receiving no reply or acknowledgment of this missive for several months, I sent him a letter, dated October 31, 1991, which included the following:

"The last issues of Living Tradition I received from you were those of May and July [i.e., LT-1 and LT-2], which concluded with `To Be Continued.' If you have published subsequent issues on the `invalidity case,' please send me copies.

"I presume you received my missive in August, with the enclosures re two of your key arguments; viz., those based on Summa, III, Q. 78, a. 1 and also based on the (faultily translated) passage from the Roman Catechism. Some other erroneous points you raised also need refuting. Your first article (Issue No. 24) [LT-F] was much better than your recent ones [LT-1 and LT-2] which contain far too many flaws and weak points. ...

Cordially and respectfully,

Patrick H. Omlor"

In a letter to me dated February 22, 1992, Monsignor McCarthy acknowledged receipt of my Oct. 31, 1991 letter, and he said "I have finally cleared some time to finish my reply to your booklet [QTVMcC] ... and I will certainly send you a copy [of what turned out to be LT-3]." No mention was made of the items I had mailed him on August 2, 1991.

It was out of charity that I sent the Monsignor that August 1991 mailing to let him know that his two main arguments had already been torpedoed long ago, hoping that he would retract his foolishness, or at least let it get consigned to its condign oblivion, thus sparing me the unpleasant task of embarrassing him publicly. Not really wanting at that time (Aug. 1991) to make any public reply at all to LT-1 and LT-2, I was sincerely trying privately to help him straighten things out. If that were not my motive, why would I, usually regarded as a sane polemicist at least, send my adversary an advance copy of my counter-arguments? Hence he already was aware long before he issued LT-3 that his two main pillars would be destroyed publicly if he persevered in his errors. No risk to my case was involved, of course, in sending him all this, for his mere reading of my counter-arguments would hardly undermine them. I did this for his benefit only, and my attempt to raise our relationship to a more charitable and amicable level was demonstrably genuine.

Now lest my present readers, in perusing the remainder of my essay, might suspect that I indulge in exaggeration or take "out of context" or blow out of proportion anything the Monsignor has written, I strongly suggest to, nay, heartily urge everyone to procure copies of these issues of Living Tradition (LT-F, LT-1, LT-2 and LT-3). And that is the reason the Monsignor's address was displayed so prominently towards the very beginning of Part I. No doubt the good Monsignor will reciprocate by heartily urging all of his readers to procure copies of this present effort of mine.

By way of preview (which we hope will whet the reader's appetite, induce him to stop everything, and immediately follow our "heartily urge" appeal) we present the following delicate vignettes from the Monsignor's pen. They represent a mere sampling of his offerings, being gleaned from just the one issue LT-3, which was his response to the sincerity I displayed in my correspondence to him of August and October 1991. What follows just below illustrates his forte as a writer. Were it not for these colorful, nay brilliant, little barbs, so very copiously interspersed throughout all of his confusing, confused and tormentingly tedious prose, I am quite sure that all of his readers would very quickly lose interest in such thoroughly boring bavardage. I mention this as a forewarning to those of my present readers who will be procuring this collector's item, LT-3, before they embark upon the atonement for their sins, doing salutary penance in the reading of those pages. Also it is a medical warning to those who are chronic sufferers from migraine.

"In the first part of this study, I have uncovered the hidden equivocation in Omlor's use, ... etc." (p. 1). "Omlor's claim...is a false appeal..." (p. 1). "But Omlor was deceiving his readers in this argument..." (p. 2). "Omlor's attempt...produces a false translation..." (p. 2). "This is a false and deceptive example ..." (p. 5). "But Omlor has again twisted the discussion away from the point at issue" (p. 5). "Omlor's appeal...labors under the same delusion" (p. 6). "Omlor uses a fundamental equivocation when he says..." (p. 7). "Omlor, with a show of overconfidence not indicative of a cautious thinker..." (p. 9). "Omlor does not refrain from adding gratuitous insult to his panoply of specious argumentation" (p. 10). "But this device increases the fault of leading into error those of his [Omlor's] readers who are not, in fact, capable of analyzing his logical fallacies" (p. 10). (He even insults my readers!)

"Thus does Omlor cast himself in the role of the classic deceiver who, like a shell-game operator at a country fair, invites the simple readers [that's you folks out there] who gather around him to `use their eyes' and `see for themselves'..." (p. 10). "In trying to prove too much...Omlor failed to prove anything. This should give him cause for a sincere examination of his whole approach, followed by an act of repentance for having offended against justice, charity and filial piety in rashly transgressing the limit of what logic and historical fact might otherwise have enabled him to demonstrate" (p. 12). "Not only does he [Omlor] present subtle equivocations while hiding important facts, but he also uses disparaging language as a rhetorical device to lead his readers into error. The damage that he has thus caused to simple [have you gotten the point yet?] believers is great" (p. 12). "...many Catholics were led out of the Church and became Protestants in the sixteenth century because of real abuses that were stretched out of proportion by anti-papal preachers. The case of Patrick Omlor, polemicist, would seem to be the same" (p. 12).

We all recall the axioms of Euclid that were drilled into our minds during our study of geometry. Those utterly simple, self-evident truths that cannot actually be proved, because there are no simpler terms to rely upon to explain or prove them. For example, "the whole is equal to the sum of its parts and is greater than any one of them." Now I have noticed something mathematical about the Monsignor's writings, and I am prepared to state an axiom. In any given lengthy preachment the number and the frequency of his interspersed disparaging comments are always directly proportional to the degree of vacuity of thought in the surrounding material.

Monsignor McCarthy is not the first to have claimed that St. Thomas was an advocate of the "short form" position, for some theologians have tried to show from one single phrase in Summa, III, Q. 78, art. 3 -- namely, "ad integritatem ejusdem locutionis" -- that despite all that St. Thomas taught in the same Summa and elsewhere (which we presented back in Section 5 of this Part II), the Angelic Doctor was saying by this aforementioned single isolated phrase that it was his mind that all the words following "For this is the Chalice of My Blood" -- 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" -- are not necessary for validity, but only for the integrity or completeness of the form.

That farfetched argument (which, incidentally, is not the argument that Monsignor McCarthy advances) was soundly thrashed by Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P. and by the Salmanticenses, among others, and more recently by the Rev. Doctor Emmanuel Doronzo. St. Alphonsus likewise found it to be a very thin argument and he remarked that how such a theory squares with the mind of St. Thomas is not at all apparent. Elsewhere I have gone into that hollow "integrity argument" at some length and it is not in itself germane to our present discussion. The only reason for bringing it up here is to point out that those who advanced it based their case on what St. Thomas wrote in Article 3 of III, Q. 78 of his Summa Theologica.

Monsignor McCarthy, on the other hand, claims that St. Thomas espoused the "short form" ("This is the Chalice of My Blood") as being the only words "necessary" for the validity of the Sacrament, basing this preposterous claim on what the Angelic Doctor wrote in Article 1. He begins his presentation as follows:

"THE NECESSARY FORM. I think that Mr. Omlor would have done better if, in studying Article 3 of Question 78 in the Third Part of the Summa Theologica, he had paid more attention to what St. Thomas says in Article 1 of the same question." (LT-1, p. 2).

As a start: from among all those theologians who either held the "entire form" position or who held the "short form" position, or who, like John Duns Scotus, declined to state a definite position, I am able to locate and actually name only one person (though there may be others) who ever held the same view as Msgr. McCarthy's regarding Article 1, and were it not for the Salmanticenses, who in their refutation of his fatuous argument named him, I would probably never have come across that obscure seventeenth-century Dominican, named Martin Serra.

On p. 13 of LT-1, Msgr. McCarthy writes:

"The Salamancans [a McCarthyism for `Salmanticenses'; he avoids conventional nomenclature] argue that Cajetan, in his commentary on the Summa, III, q. 78, art. 1, [my emphasis] says that `for the consecration of the Blood, only the four words, This is My Blood, are necessary,' and Pope St. Pius V ordered those words of Cajetan expunged from his commentary."

The Salmanticenses in fact say: "Indeed the most holy (Pope) Pius himself always held this opinion [that the entire form is necessary for validity] and so strongly judged it to be true, that he ordered the contrary opinion to be expunged from Cajetan's Commentaries on art. 3 [not art. 1], where he abandoned St. Thomas."

Let us, then, begin our demolition of Msgr. McCarthy's "First Pillar" by quoting from the renowned Salmanticenses:

"Forasmuch as opposites are more apparent when placed side by side, and in order to avert the possibility of being confronted once again with the question of the Holy Doctor's meaning, we shall set forth the arguments adduced by various Thomists against our opinion. St. Thomas, they say, remarks in Summa, III, Q. 78, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 4, that `If a priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of confecting the sacrament, etc.' Now by the `aforesaid words' we must understand him to mean the words of consecration which he had set forth in the title of the article. But the title reads: `Whether this is the form of the sacrament, This is My Body, and This is the Chalice of My Blood.' Therefore it is the opinion of the Holy Doctor that only the following words are of the essence, or are necessary, for the consecration of the chalice: `This is the Chalice of My Blood.' Serra places so much stock in this argument and line of reasoning that he would have St. Thomas teaching that the changing of wine into blood occurs by the agency of those words alone." ...

"To this we might reply as follows. In the passage under consideration the Holy Doctor's only concern was so to determine the bare minimum of words that are universally received as being essential for the consecration, as to place them beyond questioning. Whether other words besides these are required for the consecration of the chalice he did not care to state in that passage, namely, Art. 1, but he reserved the discussion of that issue for Art. 3, where he fully considered the question. Therefore we must understand him exactly as he explained the Master of Sentences (In IV, d. 8), in his commentary on the letter, where he said `It is not the intention of the Master in this passage to determine definitively the precise words which effect consecration, but only to explain that the consecration is effected by the words of the Lord.'"

[Author's Comment: The importance of the preceding argument must not be underestimated. When St. Thomas himself was commenting on the words of the Master of Sentences (Peter Lombard), the Angelic Doctor explained that the purpose of the Master was solely to demonstrate that consecration is brought about by the words of Our Lord, and that in that place the Master was not teaching the precise form of words for the wine consecration].

Continuing with the Salmanticenses:

"The reply given in the text itself corroborates this: for when the Holy Doctor says: `If a priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of confecting this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid,' his meaning is not at all such as would be favorable to our opponents (Adversarii), that is to say, that these words alone are required for sacramental validity [of the wine-consecration]: `This is the Chalice of My Blood'. His meaning is quite different and in no way similiar to that; viz., that it is the words which precede: `Qui pridie quam pateretur, etc.' [i.e., the narrative preambles `Who the day before He suffered, etc.' for the bread; and `In like manner, after He had supped, taking also this excellent chalice, etc.' for the wine] which are not required. This is evident from both the Objection itself as well as from his reply thereto." ...

[The Salmanticenses next reproduce in its entirety Objection 4 (to which St. Thomas will subsequently reply), which clearly points out what St. Thomas was here driving at. For example, "Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed by uttering those words alone, while leaving out all the others which are said in the Mass; yet this seems to be false, because,... etc." We will omit the reproduction of Objection 4].

Continuing, then, with the Salmanticenses:

"Such was the difficulty with which St. Thomas was dealing, thus posing a question quite different from that which [our opponents suppose] ..., and leading to the demonstration of an entirely different matter. Furthermore, the Objection pertains to both elements of the sacramental form, to both the bread and the wine."

[Author's comment: as opposed to a treatment of the wine consecration alone; for in the next article (Art. 2) St. Thomas treats of the essential form for the bread and then in Art. 3 the essential form for the wine. The Salmanticenses next reproduce the entire Reply to Objection 4 (which we will here omit) and then they go on to their finale].

"Thus both in the Objection and in the Reply it is manifest that he is not treating of those words, `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 of others, namely of those that precede, and, as it were, introduce the consecratory form, `Qui pridie quam pateretur, etc.' ... and it is those words only which St. Thomas declares unnecessary... But in no part of this Article 1 does he touch upon the present controversy. Consequently, it is evident that the author of whom we spoke above [Martin Serra] erred in his assertion that St. Thomas's teaching in this passage is contrary to ours: in fact, neither explicitly nor implicitly did he teach what Serra [like Monsignor McCarthy] makes him teach, for on that occasion he was not even discussing the matter of the essential form, since it was not relevant to the question being considered in Article 1."

Earlier we presented only the opening words of Msgr. McCarthy's case that St. Thomas taught in Article 1 that the necessary form for the wine-consecration consists of the mere words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," without actually reprinting his arguments. If the reader will refer to p. 2 of LT-1 up through the first part of p. 3, he will see that Msgr. McCarthy's case is exactly the same as Martin Serra's. Namely, the stating of the title of Article 1, followed by references to the Reply to Obj. 4.

This, one of the two main pillars of his case, is so jerry-built that he, possibly sensing its fragility, repeats his claim regarding what St. Thomas allegedly teaches in Article 1 again and again throughout LT-1 -- and even into LT-3 (p. 1), where he boasts: "In the first part of this study [LT-1], I have uncovered the hidden equivocation in Omlor's use of the expression `the essential sense of the proper form' in his citations from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent."

He cannot uncover even the most elementary and obvious things. The Monsignor, like the equally benighted Serra, apparently is able to read only the words in a discussion without understanding them in their context and as they relate to the overall purpose of the discussion itself. He fails in this regard repeatedly, as shall be pointed out as we go along.

Building a case on what St. Thomas wrote in the title of Article 1 -- where he, for brevity's sake, used only the words, "This is My Body, This is the Chalice of My Blood" -- is the mark of the rank amateur, the dilettante de luxe. Occasionally in their homilies on transubstantiation or on the truth of the Real Presence the Fathers (e.g., St. Justin, St. John Damascene) say that the words of consecration are "This is My Body, This is the Chalice of My Blood." Now no one would seriously cite these passages to show that they considered these words alone to be essential for validity. One would easily see that the purpose of the homily was to teach transubstantiation, etc., not to teach the precise form of words required for validity. And that is exactly the failure of Msgr. McCarthy: he failed to see the purpose of Article 1. He saw only the words on the page, thought they would suit his purpose and grabbed them, while the cogent doctrine of the Angelic Doctor went right over his head like an Apache arrow. In his classic work, The Mystery of Faith, the distinguished scholar Fr. Maurice de la Taille, S.J. relegated his comments on this same subject to a mere footnote, where he likened the case of the Fathers to that of St. Thomas's Article 1:

"I pass over an objection from patristic authority in which it is presumed that: when the Fathers say, as they often do, that the consecration is effected at the words This is my body, this is my blood, they must be taken thereby to determine the precise series of formal words which is required. But what these Fathers actually mean to convey is: that at the enunciation of the work which is done, that work which is enunciated is done (as the Salmanticenses justly remark...). Much in the same way St. Thomas, having said briefly in art. 1, ad. 4m of the same question 78, that were the priest to make use of these words alone, This is my body, This is the chalice of my blood, without any narrative preamble, he would consecrate, goes on to say, nevertheless, in article 3, that the words This is the chalice of my blood would not suffice without the words which follow them."

My apologies to the reader for taking up so many pages in the foregoing razing of the "First Pillar". But it seemed necessary to cover the matter thoroughly, lest the "argument" from Article 1 should ever see the light of day again. But that, of course, is unlikely to happen, during my lifetime anyway, as it seemingly pops up only once in a blue moon, about three centuries having elapsed between Serra and McCarthy.

Having chained himself to his comical claim regarding Article 1, Msgr. McCarthy now finds himself faced with the impossible task of explaining away Article 3. He begins by informing his readers that it is Omlor who has trouble with Article 3. Here are his words: "Hence, Omlor, in attempting to use Article 3 of this Question, quotes St. Thomas as saying the opposite of what he explicitly says in Article 1." Whoa! Not quite! I do admit to using St. Thomas against what McCarthy thinks he says in Article 1. "We can begin to see the reason for Omlor's confusion," he continues, "if we look at the title of Question 78, Article 3, upon which Omlor so much relies. It reads in Latin: `Utrum haec sit conveniens forma consecrationis vini, Hic est calix sanguinis mei, etc.' And it may [my emphasis] be translated as follows: "Whether this is a suitable form [Oh, good grief!] of the consecration of the wine: `This is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, etc.'" (LT-1 p. 3).

The greased weasel doth approach, methinks.

The best English translation of the Summa that is available is the three-volume edition, which on its title page bears the words, "Literally Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province." These English Dominican Fathers translate the title of Article 3 thus: "Whether This Is the Proper Form [my emphasis] for the Consecration of the Wine: This is the Chalice of My Blood, etc.?" (Volume Two, p. 2474).

Contrary to what is universally understood, Msgr. McCarthy claims that what St. Thomas teaches in Article 3 is not that the entire form is the substantial form, but that it is merely "suitable." I say universally, because even though I was able to locate one person, Serra, who espoused the same ideas as Msgr. McCarthy's on the nonsense we discussed earlier, there is absolutely nobody else (who values his reputation as a Thomist) who would translate "conveniens forma" in this place as "a suitable form."

Anyway, the Monsignor's accusation of my "attempting to use Article 3 of this Question, quoting St. Thomas as saying the opposite of what he explicitly says in Article 1" and his comment on "Omlor's confusion" should also be directed to the following: the Salmanticenses, Pope St. Pius V, St. Antoninus, de la Taille, Doronzo, Suarez, Scotus, Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., Herveus, Capreolus (called the "Prince of the Thomists"), Sylvester, Tabiena, Armilla, Peter de Soto, Viguerius, Bartholomeus Spina, Arauxo, Huertos, John Nicolai, Gonet, John Gerson, Aegidius Colonna, Petrus de Palude, etc. -- who represent just a sampling of all the Thomists who correctly interpret Article 3 in exactly the same way that I have always interpreted it.

Now in translating from one language to another, if someone diverges from the customary and established renditions, and thereby places a construction on an author's words that is entirely different from that which is universally understood, he had better give a very good explanation for his particular choice of words. Msgr. McCarthy gives no explanation at all other than "It may be translated as ... a suitable form." Consulting his Latin-English dictionary, he finds that one of the possible words for "conveniens" is "suitable," and he moreover finds that very suitable for his purposes. Conveniens means "suitable" and that's that!

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, Chap. 6.

He uses the same slippery technique with the Latin word oportet. On p. 15 of LT-1, in quoting St. Thomas, where the Angelic Doctor is teaching that the words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood" must be of the substance of the form, we read the McCarthyism: "it is behooving (oportet) that they be of the substance of the form." Consulting A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, we find that the principal definitions of "oportet" are "it is necessary, needful, ... must or ought." The English Dominican Fathers, for example, render it as "must be" or "had to be"; not "behooving." [See as examples: III, Q.74, A.2, (Vol.2, p.2440): "must be determined"; Q.78, A.3, ad 1 (Vol.2, p.2475): "had to be denoted"].

Msgr. McCarthy then proceeds throughout LT-1 to repeat over and over again "suitable," "behooving," or synonyms such as "appropriate," "fitting," "convenient," etc. He declares on p. 17: "The word `fittingly' is important" -- You bet it is! His whole case relies on it. The repetition (28 times on only seven different pages, p. 17 winning first prize with ten occurrences) is so mesmerizing that I even caught myself beginning to believe him!

As mentioned above, the English Dominican Fathers translate "conveniens forma" as "the proper form" in the title, and that is the terminology I have adopted and used right from the beginning in 1968 (often saying "the ancient and proper form"). And this rather reasonable habit of mine of following the established terminology is one of the reasons why Monsignor McCarthy accuses me of equivocating. "I have uncovered the hidden equivocation in Omlor's use of the expression `the essential sense of the proper form' in his citations from St. Thomas ..." (LT-3, p. 1). "Omlor here, as throughout his essay, equivocates in the expression `the essential sense of the proper form' ... Thus Omlor equivocates in his use of the term `proper.'" (LT-1, p. 5).

Great balls o' fire!

Well, equivocate means "Use ambiguous words to conceal the truth, prevaricate." Hence I have prevaricated, have used ambiguous words to conceal the truth, because, like the English Dominican Fathers, I have used the word "proper" in referring to the entire form as being essential. Whereas Monsignor McCarthy is squeaky clean when he, albeit in blindness, gives a spurious explanation of Article 1, and then to defend that explanation, which actually has no defense, chooses his own slippery translation of "conveniens," as used in Article 3, without giving any reason at all, dins it into his readers' minds by incessant repetition; and, finally, thereby places a totally false but eminently suitable construction on the mind of St. Thomas.

The Dominican Fathers: "Consequently barley bread would not be a suitable (conveniens) matter for this sacrament" (III, Q.74, A.3, ad 1, p.2441). Since barley bread is in fact invalid matter, "suitable" is inapt and too weak a word in this place. It should read "would not be correct matter." A perfectly valid rendering for conveniens is this stronger term: correct.

In Q. 78, Art. 3 (which is the subject of our discussion) The Dominican Fathers do in fact render inconveniens as "incorrect" : "Now this seems incorrect (inconveniens) ..." This is the very translation my fellow-equivocator himself quoted on p. 3 of his original LT-F. Furthermore, in LT-1 (p. 3) he first quotes from this same article 3, supplying his suitable words "not suitable": "it seems that this is not a suitable form (inconveniens) for the consecration of the wine ..." He is reading from the translation by the Dominican Fathers, who have `not the proper form' and remembers to plug in `not a suitable form'. BUT just six lines later on the same page he, still reading from the Dominican Fathers' text, forgets himself and unthinkingly writes: "Now this seems incorrect [!!] ..." Inconveniens (!!).

"Ex ore ... etc. ...!"

Eureka! Inexplicably he gets something right! "Now, it should be clear," he writes, "that one sense of a word is not necessarily the only sense of that word" (LT-3, p. 5). And I wish he had thought of this before he decided to force it down our throats that "conveniens" must mean "suitable."

In Art. 1, as pointed out by the Salmanticenses, the Holy Doctor simultaneously treated of the forms for the bread and the wine with the purpose in mind of which we have already spoken. Next, in Art. 2, he explains the words that are the necessary form for the consecration of the bread, to wit, "This is My Body"; and in Art. 3 the necessary form for the wine, to wit, the entire form as laid down in the Roman Missal. In both Art. 2 and Art. 3 he uses the word "conveniens" in the title, and in Art. 2 he says that the words in the aforesaid title are the "conveniens" form for the bread-consecration. Does Msgr. McCarthy then consider "This is My Body" to be not the necessary form for the bread-consecration, but merely "a suitable form"?

Even more ridiculous than his first pillar, if such be possible, is the second main pillar of Msgr. McCarthy's argument, namely, that the Roman Catechism teaches that the short form, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," comprises the only words essential for the validity of the wine-consecration.

Finding that the most excellent Salmanticenses disagree with him on this, as on everything else he says, he gives me a brief, momentary respite as the target of his attack and deigns to offer correction to those revered Carmelite scholars: "The Salamancans argue that the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches the need of the entire Latin-rite form, but the Catechism actually teaches that the necessary form is contained within those words (see above nos. 5-6)" (LT-1, p. 12). [His "above nos. 5-6" are the sections on pp. 3-5, where, pouncing upon the mistranslated sentence, he thinks the Catechism "actually teaches" that "This is the Chalice of My Blood" suffices for validity, and gives us his learned explanation thereon].

As will be recalled, Pope St. Pius V ordered to be expurgated from Cajetan's Commentaries on St. Thomas's Summa his rejection of the Angelic Doctor's teaching that the entire wine-consecration form is essential for validity. These words of the Salmanticenses were cited earlier: "Indeed the most holy (Pope) Pius himself always held this opinion [that the entire form is necessary for validity] and so strongly judged it to be true, that he ordered the contrary opinion to be expunged from Cajetan's Commentaries on art. 3, where he abandoned St. Thomas." Now Cajetan had claimed that nothing more is required than "these four words `Hic est sanguis meus' (`This is My Blood')." Monsignor McCarthy, on the other hand, claims that five words alone are necessary: "Hic est Calix sanguinis mei." ("This is the Chalice of My Blood"). And so he then attempts to neutralize the terrible impact of St. Pius's expurgation by suggesting on p. 13 of LT-1 -- is the reader ready? -- by suggesting that a possible reason for the expurgation was that St. Pius was miffed at Cajetan's omission of the word "chalice"!

Gbo'f!

The overall strategy of Monsignor McCarthy in his LT series is altogether too transparent. Two of the main champions of our cause he attempts to steal and make it appear that they instead support his position; namely, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. The devastating blow dealt by St. Pius V he tries to explain away. Other vindicators of our position he denigrates: the Salmanticenses, Fr. Maurice de la Taille, S.J., Emmanuel Doronzo and Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., for example. He corrects the Salmanticenses for their faulty interpretation of the Roman Catechism, overlooking the fact they, unlike the Monsignor, did not have the advantage of learning from the faulty translation of those 20th-century American Dominicans John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan.

The following thoroughly disgusting and pretentious verdicts against his theological betters are all to be found in the Monsignor's marvelous LT-1:

"Therefore Doronzo is not correct in saying ..." (p. 14); "The Salamancans claim that in this article St. Thomas `clearly and obviously' teaches, ... etc., but we have shown in the preceding section... etc." (p. 15); "Therefore, argue the Salamancans, ... etc., but what St. Thomas is really saying is that ... etc." (p. 15); "For the Salamancans and de la Taille, this passage is as express and obvious as one could ask that St. Thomas teaches the necessity of the following words for the validity of the sacrament. This is not true. Let us examine the wording." (p. 17); "A correct reading of St. Thomas reveals ... etc." (p. 17); "And with this understanding we can conclude, against the opinion of the Salamancans and de la Taille, that neither ... does St. Thomas teach `clearly and obviously' that the words following `This is the chalice of My blood' ... are necessary ... What St. Thomas does teach (with some lack of clarity) is that ... etc." (p. 18).

Confronted by one who knows nothing and is utterly unteachable, obviously even the Angelic Doctor would be unable to make himself clear. He also (p. 8) attributes "a certain ambiguity" to St. Thomas, to which I would reply in the words of the erudite Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P.: "The opinion of St. Thomas is not difficult if it is properly understood." And speaking of Capisuccus, who likewise baffles the Monsignor, we must learn about his shortcomings. In LT-2 (all on p. 5), Msgr. McCarthy, we can thank our lucky stars, points out for us the silliness of Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus: "his use of the word `essence' is vague"; "he is reasoning from faulty premises"; "This is a logical fallacy"; "he is arguing in a circle".

It is perhaps a truism to say that in understanding the Angelic Doctor's doctrine, in grasping the mind of the Authors of the Roman Catechism, in depth of theological learning and scholarship, nay, in ability to read and write, Monsignor McCarthy is to St. Pius V, the Salmanticenses and Capisuccus as the guppy to the whale.

The following excerpts are taken from the McHugh & Callan translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, pages 224-226. These texts are reproduced below exactly as they appear in the book, with the following exceptions: (1) I have put boxes around two parts, which I have labeled (A) and (B); (2) I have put a double underscore under seven words or phrases, which I have labeled with the superscripted numerals from 1 to 7 enclosed in parentheses; (3) I have supplied my own translation of one sentence, rejecting McHugh & Callan's translation. The sentence will later be identified and compared with the original Latin and also with McHugh & Callan's version.

The Authors of the Roman Catechism begin by giving the form for the bread-consecration:

We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: `This is my body' ...

(A) By Reason

That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also. The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed ...

Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration of the matter. Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood. But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament ...

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form(1). We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words(2): 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. Of these words(3) the greater part are taken from scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition. ...

(B) And Reason

Concerning this form(4) no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. For it is evident: of those words(5), which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of our Lord, the form of this element consists. Since, therefore, the words already cited(6) clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

They(7) moreover express certain fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, ... Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; ... A third effect is the remission of sins.

At the time the Authors wrote the Catechism, as well as in St. Thomas's day, some held that besides the Words of Consecration other words are required for validity. For example: (1) the entire Canon; (2) the narrative preambles Who the day before He suffered, etc. and In like manner, etc.; (3) the words: He blessed, etc.; (4) the words Take ye and eat and Take ye and drink; (5) the word `for' in For this is My body; For this is the Chalice etc.; (6) the epiclesis. As noted earlier, the purpose of St. Thomas's Art. 1 of the Summa, III, Q. 78 was to refute the aforementioned opinions (1), (2), (3) and (4). He refuted (5) in Art. 2. Following the Angelic Doctor, the Catechism also considers and rejects several of these opinions.

Examination of the boxed part on the preceding page labeled "A" shows that here the purpose of the Catechism's Authors is to refute the opinions that the following are required for validity, namely, those views denoted just above as: (3) The words: He blessed; (4) The words Take ye and eat; and (5) The word "for" in For this is My body. Moreover, they are here discussing only the bread-consecration.

It should be observed that the paragraph which I have labeled "B" is the counterpart of "A", as the translators of the original London edition of 1687 point out by means of the marginal note "By Reason" alongside "A" and the complementary note "And Reason" alongside "B". In "B" the purpose of the Authors of the Catechism is to explain that what they taught in "A" regarding the bread-consecration likewise applies to the wine-consecration; to wit, that "He blessed, etc." and "Take ye and drink, etc." and "for" are not necessary for the validity of the wine-consecration.

But, to avoid detailed repetition of the same points, they cover it by saying, "Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread," referring to what they had explained in "A". This statement does not, needless to say, refer to what was said in the earlier paragraph above "A", where they teach that the words This is My Body comprise the only essential words for the bread-consecration. For such a conjecture could lead to the unfounded notion that, by comparison, they mean that This is the Chalice of My Blood suffices for the wine, which would blatantly contradict what they had stated so emphatically in the immediately preceding paragraph: "We are then firmly to believe..., etc."

The reader is next asked to examine the words or phrases that I underscored twice. Clearly all seven refer to exactly the same thing, namely, the entire form that is prefaced by "We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words." Consider (5): "For it is evident: of those words(5), which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of our Lord, the form of this element consists." Now the words which actually signify the transubstantiation of the wine are the words This is the Chalice of My Blood. Is the Catechism then teaching that "those words...of which the form of this element consists" are This is the Chalice of My Blood?

Hardly! For immediately following this we read: "Since, therefore, the words already cited(6) clearly declare this." The only words "already cited" are the entire form. Finally, the clincher in (7): "They" -- still referring to those words(5) -- cannot possibly mean This is the Chalice of My Blood; because "They" are said to include the following: of the new and everlasting testament and the mystery of faith and the remission of sins.

The foregoing exposition, as the reader has perhaps deduced, provides some clues anent Msgr. McCarthy's "evidence."

Let us now consider the sentence for which I provided my own translation. Compare the following versions:

(_) Latin: "Constat enim, iis verbis, quae vini substantiam in sanguinem Domini converti significant, hujus elementi formam contineri."

(_) Omlor: "For it is evident: of those words, which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood our Lord, the form of this element consists."

(_) London (1687): "For it is manifest that by these words, which signifie the substance of the wine to be converted into the Blood of our Lord, the Form of this element is contained."

(_) Donovan: "...evidently consists of those words, which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of the Lord."

(_) McHugh & Callan: "The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord."

The McHugh & Callan sentence, the reader will observe, is badly put down. Unlike the Latin text, and unlike the other three English translations provided, the McHugh & Callan version fails to set off by commas (or a comma) the clause which reads: "which signify ... the Blood of our Lord." The superficial reader, encountering this very poor rendition by McHugh & Callan and also not realizing the purpose of the Catechism's Authors in this place, and reading only this sentence, might take it to mean that the mere words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," are the words of which the form "evidently consists." One such reader is Monsignor McCarthy, who builds his whole case on this one sentence, a sentence that is glaringly mistranslated. And this is another example he provides to demonstrate that he reads only the words without understanding them in their context and as they relate to the overall purpose of what is being explained.

When I said above "glaringly mistranslated," I meant also the opening words of McHugh & Callan's sentence, namely, "The form to be used." The original Latin text says nothing about "being used." The form that must be used, regardless of the priest's opinion about the "short form" vs. "entire form" controversy, is that entire form laid down in the Roman Missal and insisted upon by De Defectibus. Realizing this, Monsignor McCarthy should have immediately suspected from these opening words that there is something radically haywire in this sentence.

Now his interpretation of it (LT-1, pp. 3-4 and ad nauseam thereafter) is that the Authors are here teaching that the mere words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," alone by themselves, are the only words necessary for validity.

Thus, having recently been educated by McHugh & Callan, who supposedly are teaching that: of these mere words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," the form to be used evidently consists, presumably the Monsignor is now going the whole hog with McHugh & Callan and now uses only those words for the consecration of the wine.

Inasmuch as the Roman Catechism was written primarily for the salutary instruction of parish priests, the Authors in their explanations of the various Sacraments never failed to make clear exactly what is the sacramental form for each of the Sacraments. If some part of a given prescribed form that might be thought by some to be necessary for validity is in fact not necessary, these Authors are diligent in explicitly pointing this out. As examples: (1) In the Latin form for Baptism, "Ego te baptizo, etc." the emphatic word "ego" is not absolutely necessary because the verb ending of "baptizo" conveys the concept: "I baptize." (2) The entire form for Penance is "I absolve thee from thy sins in the Name of the Father, etc." The Catechism's Authors state that the form is simply "I absolve thee." (3) In explaining the form for Extreme Unction, they cite precisely several very minor variations in wording used by the Eastern Rites, which, of course, they are careful to note, involve "no change of the sense."

Having said so energetically, "It must certainly be believed that it consists of the following words: 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," these learned Authors specifically single out as not being necessary for validity one and only one word, namely, the word "for". Now, this entire form likewise appears in bold print in altar missals, and many priests would therefore correctly presume that its entirety is necessary for validity. If, in the opinion of the Authors of the Catechism, only the opening words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," are required, they would certainly have spelled this out explicitly (just as they explicitly single out unnecessary words in the forms of the other Sacraments). In truth, neither explicitly nor even implicitly does the Catechism teach what Monsignor McCarthy would make it teach, as has been clearly shown.

But, desperate to discredit Omlor, Msgr. McCarthy finds a sentence in the McHugh & Callan translation of the Catechism, notices nothing haywire about it despite all the evidence, fails to grasp its context, seizes upon this one botchy sentence and, thinking he knows more than the Salmanticenses, de la Taille, Doronzo and everyone else, completely discredits himself with an absolutely laughable claim. Then he later remarks that the Catechism teaches this "although less explicitly" than St. Thomas (LT-1, p. 10). Which, of course, is entirely true, since neither teaches it at all.

It is universally acknowledged by theologians who have studied the issue and written upon it -- not just the Salmanticenses -- that the Roman Catechism clearly teaches the necessity for validity of the entire wine consecration form. For example, Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Catholic University, Washington, D.C., sums up his learned analysis in the following words:

"We conclude: the authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St. Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [i.e., the "Entire Form" Opinion] is the more probable. However, since in the judgment of so many and so great theologians, especially Thomists, there is disagreement concerning the mind of St. Thomas [on this matter], which the Authors of the Catechism plainly intend to follow, we do not venture to cling to one of the opinions rather than the other, but we deem them both to be equally probable."

Here, after having considered in depth both sides of the issue, Emmanuel Doronzo -- perhaps the most erudite and thorough of the investigators of the "short form" vs. "entire form" controversy -- in his first sentence quoted above (which the Msgr. neglects to mention, as we shall soon see) gives the lie to Monsignor McCarthy's claims regarding both St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism, and thus his two pillars, having been firmly set in a bed of marshmallow, come crashing down, his entire case likewise caving in and collapsing on the heap of ruins.

Here is the Monsignor's impression of Doronzo's conclusion:

"Emmanuel Doronzo, in a lengthy study of the question, leans toward the opinion that the words `This is My Blood' alone are not sufficient for the validity of the sacramental form, but, because so many theologians, especially so many Thomists, have taught that this is not the view either of St. Thomas or of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, he concludes that both the affirmative and the negative have equal weight behind them." (LT-1, p. 12).

Especially so many Thomists have taught (?) that this is not the view either of St. Thomas or of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (??) Let us refrain from calling it a translation; rather is it his gut feeling for what Doronzo is saying. Either (a) he cannot read Latin at all; or (b) he is just being the same old slippery G.W.

Two final little notes: In their translation of the wine-consecration form itself, I think McHugh & Callan, instead of writing "to the remission of sins," should have adhered to the time-honored words "unto the remission of sins," as set down in the Rheims New Testament (Matt. 26,28) by that most eminent theologian and linguistics scholar Father Gregory Martin.

Also in their translation: "Since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form," the final words, adhering literally to the Latin text, should read: "it is plain that another form must not be set down" : (perspicuum est, aliam formam constituendam non esse). This brings out the purpose of these words, intended to teach that the epiclesis -- i.e., "another form" -- must not be set down as an additional sacramental form; that is, something necessary for validity, as is claimed by the Eastern schismatics. Hence "aliam formam constituendam non esse" was, in my opinion, put down here "for the record." For there were at that time, the latter part of the 16th century, some Eastern schismatics who were showing indications of their desire to return to Catholic unity within the bosom of Holy Mother Church, and many of them did in fact return. "Aliam formam constituendam non esse" made it clear that their belief in the necessity of the epiclesis must be abandoned.

The toppling over of the two essential Pillars of his case thus annihilates the Monsignor's entire case itself along with his credibility as any conceivable kind of scholar. Consequently it is not of necessity that I continue. But I shall. After ploughing through the somewhat complex and perhaps tedious expositions just presented, the reader now is ready for a bit of relaxation. We devote this section to some light entertainment.

Paying no attention to the forewarning I charitably gave him (Aug. 1991), in LT-3 the Monsignor stubbornly and blindly forges ahead in a section on p. 2 under the heading : VISIBLE COMMAS.

Here the great Latin scholar and translator par excellence comes up with the ingenious conclusion that putting commas in the sentence is not a good idea, and that Omlor's version (with commas) is a "less plain reading of the Latin text." As was seen in the specimens presented earlier, it isn't just Omlor, but the 1687 London translators and also Dr. Donovan -- the only translators of the Catechism into English before McHugh & Callan -- saw the necessity of commas for the correct rendering into English of this sentence, which necessity is abundantly proved by the absence of commas in McHugh & Callan's translation, which translation in very fact misled and still misleads the myopic Monsignor. Finally, he deems our (i.e., 1687 Londoners, Donovan and Omlor) clear, unequivocating, and impeccably correct rendering into English to be a "less plain reading of the Latin text" -- which Latin text, as even one with myopia can see, has its own VISIBLE COMMAS.

"An exact translation of this sentence quoted from the Catechism," the Roman oracle doth proclaim Urbi et Orbi: "would be as follows: `For it is established (it is evident) that the form of this element is contained in those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of the Lord.'" Aw! What a letdown. We saw this play already, a re-run of the McHugh & Callan tragedy.

There is a Latin saying, "Repetitio mater memoriae est," and reading the Monsignor's writings would lead one to conclude that McCarthy "Pater repetitionis est." Already I have mentioned the 28 times in the space of seven pages that he repeats "suitable," "behooving," "fitting," etc. etc. Possibly missing a few, I have noted in LT-1 and LT-3 at least sixteen places where he repeats or else refers the reader back to his dazzling explanations on Article 1 and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

For example, on p. 1 of LT-3 he says, "In the first part of this study [i.e., LT-1], I have uncovered the hidden equivocation in Omlor's use of the expression `the essential sense of the proper form' in his citations from St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent." Lest anyone with short-term memory problems might have in the meantime forgotten about the wonderful LT-1, at the bottom of the very next page (p. 2) he reminds us: "In Part One of this study, I have also shown that St. Thomas does teach the necessary and sufficient form to be: `This is the chalice of my blood,' ..." (He then omits all mention of these things for the prolonged duration of one short paragraph atop p. 3). But immediately thereafter, for the benefit of those having a very severe short-term memory problem, in the second paragraph of p. 3 he repeats, almost verbatim, what he had just stated: "St Thomas says30 that the necessary and sufficent words of the form are `This is the chalice of My Blood.'" His footnote 30 reads: "Summa Theologiae, III, q. 78, art. 1." Rrrright! Article 1!

At this point I might demonstrate the extremely short term memory problem which apparently afflicts the Monsignor. I refer the reader to p. 11 of LT-1. About mid-page we find the following:

Donlan, Cunningham and Rock, O.P., say this: "The form of the Eucharist is the words of Christ which first perfected the sacrament. Hence the words: hoc est corpus meum, hic est calix sanguinis mei ("This is my body, this is the chalice of my blood") are absolutely essential to the form of the Eucharist; no one of them may be omitted. It is possible, however, that the words which follow in the consecration of the chalice ("of the new and eternal covenant, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins") are not essential. ...

Practically all the manualists teach the same thing. For example, Tanquerey writes 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 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." What Donlan, Cunningham and Rock are saying is nothing more nor less than this. They do not say that the words of consecration for the chalice consist only of "This is the Chalice of My Blood," and they say that the remaining words possibly are not essential.

Having quoted the above-mentioned passage from Donlan et al., Msgr. McCarthy comments upon it immediately. Immediately is to be taken literally, for there is not so much as a whisper of extra space between the cited passage and his commentary, which is as follows:

"Note that only [my emphasis] the words (over the wine) `This is the chalice of My Blood' are `absolutely essential to the form of the Eucharist,' and that `it is probable [my emphasis], however, that the words which follow ... are not essential.'"

The reader should heed my advice and hasten to procure a copy of the famous LT series; because, if for no other reason, they will at least become valuable as collector's items. For no one else, absolutely no one, could conceivably be so artless as to destroy utterly all credibility in his scholarship by first citing a passage and then immediately twisting it. Perhaps several pages later when the reader may have forgotten the exact cited text, but immediately? Or maybe the Monsignor thinks his own readers possess the same negligible nous that he attributes to mine: "Thus does Omlor cast himself in the role of the classic deceiver who, like a shell-game operator at a country fair, invites the simple readers etc."

A tamperer with texts, if he displays a bit of finesse, can sometimes avoid being caught. The clumsy tamperer, on the other hand, often produces quite hilarious results. If the reader will re-examine the Monsignor's comment, he will notice that it is akin to saying, "Only men are allowed in this club, and probably not women." Or "Only felines can miaow and probably not hippopotamuses." "McCarthy" may in time become a household word among hobbyists who collect such Literary Looney Tunes.

"Note that some of these words [i.e., words following `This is the Chalice of My Blood'; e.g., `The mystery of faith'] are not contained in some Eastern rite liturgies that the Church has always recognized to be valid. Understand that this fact itself greatly qualifies the statement in the Catechism of Trent that `the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null.'" (LT-1, p. 11).

Wait a minute! Why are we talking about words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood"?? I seem to recall that earlier we learned from the Monsignor that I equivocated on this very passage from the Catechism, because it supposedly has no bearing on the words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood," because the Catechism in this passage is supposedly referring to the "essential form," which the Monsignor has repeatedly told us is merely "This is the Chalice of My Blood". This is in contradiction to his basic thesis!

"Omlor, in contradiction to his basic thesis, which is that any change is a violation of the `sacred consecration form' and `renders the sacrament null,' admits without making any correlations: `In comparing our Latin Rite with the Eastern rites, however, some caution must be observed. Some elements that are fittingly contained in the Oriental liturgies are not to be found in our Latin Rite. Vice versa, the words `the Mystery of Faith,' (for example), that are part of the Latin Rite formula, do not fittingly appear in any of the Eastern rite liturgies, except those of the Maronites, the Chaldeans, and the Malabarites.'

"`Some caution must be observed'? Indeed! Would that Omlor had exercised some caution throughout his argumentation, by which he attempts to prove that the vast majority of all the Masses being celebrated today in the vernacular of the Western Rite are invalid because they are invalidly worded. If there are some elements that are `fittingly contained' in the form of the Latin Rite that need not be contained in the form of some Eastern Rites, then obviously there is an essential form that transcends what is proper to different liturgical rites. Yet nowhere does Omlor recognize this distinction." (LT-1, pp. 11-12).

His remark, "obviously there is an essential form that transcends what is proper to different liturgical rites," is worded with his customary lack of lucidity, and we must unravel its meaning. Fact 1: We know that when he says "essential form" he always means simply "This is the Chalice of My Blood" or else perhaps "This is My Blood". Fact 2: By "what is proper to different liturgical rites" he must mean the various somewhat differently worded wine-consecration forms that are found in the eight Eastern rites, since that is the subject he broached right at the outset. "Transcends" is the tricky bit. It doesn't seem to be the mot juste here. Webster's New World Dictionary of The American Language defines transcend thus: "to go beyond the limits of; overstep; exceed: as, the story transcends belief (Ahem!), to be superior to; surpass; excel."

None of these definitions seems to make any sense or to fit in this place. It is unclear what would be meant by "This is the Chalice of My Blood" goes beyond the limit of all the various forms; or oversteps the various forms; or is superior to or surpasses or exceeds or excels all these various forms. Perhaps the reader doesn't know what the Monsignor means. Well, I do (I think). Having spent hours poring over his literary masterpieces, I am now a qualified cryptographer. Here, in simple English, is what he means (I think): If we examine all the Eastern rites and our own Latin Rite, we observe that the words "This is (the Chalice of) My blood" are the only words that are common to all these rites, and consequently they are the "essential form." The most excellent Cardinal John de Lugo, S.J. (1583-1660) also once thought this, but was proved wrong by the Salmanticenses. Lugo, however, was studying certain ancient rites, no longer in use. Examining the Eastern Rite forms currently used shows that the words "for you and for many" are also common to all of them. But we shall overlook that fact.

In our Latin Rite the form for the Sacrament of Confirmation is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." In the Byzantine Rite the form for Confirmation consists of simply these nine words: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." Since the words, "the Holy Ghost," are the only words common to these two forms, may we infer that a sufficient form for validly conferring the Sacrament of Confirmation is found in the mere words, "The Holy Ghost"?

The Monsignor has told us that "obviously there is an essential form that transcends what is proper to different liturgical rites." Perhaps he does not mean "common to all rites" by his $10 word "transcends." What, then, does he mean by this profound statement of his? I hope this investigation will not turn out like the case of the Jewish rabbi who, on his deathbed, was asked by the mourners in the room for some last words, some words of eternal value for them to cherish. He raised his head and said: "Life is like a river." Silence came over the room as the mourners pondered this great saying, and they nodded to each other in admiration of the great rabbi's wisdom. But a young man who was present asked just exactly what the rabbi meant by those words. They went to his bedside and asked him for an interpretation of the parable. The old man looked heavenward and replied: "Well, maybe life isn't like a river." Now it is not "obvious" to me what precisely the "transcendent" essential form for Confirmation might be. Will Monsignor John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D. please reveal what it obviously is? "Well, maybe there isn't an essential transcendent form ..."

The reader will recall that what led to this whole discussion was the following: "In comparing our Latin Rite with the Eastern rites, however, some caution must be observed" (my words). And "`Some caution must be observed'? Indeed! Would that Omlor had exercised some caution throughout his argumentation, by which he attempts to prove that the vast majority of all the Masses being celebrated today in the vernacular of the Western Rite are invalid because they are invalidly worded" (the Monsignor's words).

I think I detect something in the Monsignor's remark, made only in passing: "by which he attempts to prove that the vast majority of all the Masses being celebrated today in the vernacular of the Western Rite are invalid because they are invalidly worded." Perhaps unwittingly he has given us the clue to one of his stumbling blocks. And I am convinced that it is the same stumbling block that paralyzes many others. It is simply this: they cannot handle the enormity, the awesomeness, of the idea and its necessary consequences. Consequences for the world itself, for the Church and, especially, for them personally. Hence their wills command their intellects not to accept the evidence. Furthermore, there are some who have a vested interest in remaining purblind.

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

And I believe that attitude is one cogent explanation why so many priests who are inured in using the ICEL's product are resisting grace and remaining wilfully blind. "Because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying." (2 Thess., 2:10).

Father Brey and I have cited St. Alphonsus many times, but we have never claimed that he espoused the "entire form" opinion; and least of all did either of us ever say, or even imply, that his writings directly prove our invalidity thesis. On the contrary, in Interdum No. 3 (May 2, 1970, entitled, "Res Sacramenti") I even went so far as to remark (p. 7) that St. Alphonsus "leaned towards" the "short form" opinion. Many teachings of St. Alphonsus, however, have been very useful in establishing our thesis; but they are merely pieces in the mosaic. As I explained on pp. 12-13 of QTVMcC, I regard myself as nothing more than a mosaicist. Referring to those numerous most sound, most reliable teachers of mine that I am wont to rely upon, I wrote the following:

"Each of these respected authorities has furnished valuable jewels of evidence, theological principles that are certain beyond question, all of which if taken as a whole form one harmonious mosaic of sacramental theology. I am only the mosaicist. If all these brilliant facets are considered in their magnificent totality, the one supporting and enhancing the other, and the overall panorama is beheld, then my conclusion that the vernacular `Mass' is no Mass at all is the only conclusion that can reasonably be reached" ... "the impact, the dynamic force, of the mosaic of their teachings, the formidable ensemble of those truths, which implicitly but relentlessly drives towards that conclusion."

I would venture to say that all of my readers (with one exception) understand my role as mosaicist, and they have understood it all along, even long before I wrote the foregoing paragraph. Though that paragraph appears in a book whose title includes his surname, the Monsignor seemingly thinks that each time I quote an authority to lay down one plank in my case, rather set one jewel in the mosaic, that I am thereby claiming, or at least implying, that that authority has explicitly concurred with everything else, including the completed mosaic itself, which, of course, is that the vernacularized "Masses" are no Masses at all. If that were the case it would logically follow that I require but one authority, and there goes my job as a mosaicist.

A purely hypothetical example will illustrate this peculiarity of his. After reading the beautiful little paragraph of St. Thomas More that was presented earlier, in which he spoke of the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist, the Monsignor might say something like this: "It avails nothing for Omlor to quote St. Thomas More, since St. Thomas More does not say that `for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven' would invalidate the Mass." Here, now, is an actual example: "It avails nothing for Omlor to quote the teachings of Scotus that the res tantum of the Holy Eucharist is the union of the Mystical Body, since Scotus does not say that the union of the Mystical Body must be expressed in the form of consecration" (LT-2, p. 1).

Which leads us to another topic for discussion. Scotus, as well as many others including St. Alphonsus, never taught this important truth, simply because it was not until 1896 that Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae laid down the principle of sacramental theology that proves it; which is, as it were, the last piece to go into the mosaic. "Very well, then," our Adversarii might reply, "why is it that between 1896 and 1968, when Brey and Omlor first entered the picture, no one else ever pointed this out?" And I would say, first of all, a goodly number of the "theologians" (so-called) during that period were out-and-out Modernists (whose ideological descendants plague Christ's Church still today), who were (and are) so busy sowing the seeds of heresy and apostasy among the faithful that they would scarcely have found either the time or the interest to examine the real implications of the teaching Pope Leo XIII handed down in Apostolicae Curae, as it applies to the res sacramenti, the union of the Mystical Body, of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Moreover, many of these Modernists do not even accept the primary teaching of Pope Leo XIII in this Bull regarding the invalidity of Anglican Orders. Also they find the doctrine of the Mystical Body to be quite passé, that is, vis-à-vis "ecumenism."

Secondly, of those theologians who were (and are) not Modernists, the connection between Pope Leo's important principle of sacramental theology and the necessity for the entire form of the wine-consecration would not have entered their minds, for the simple reason that most of them had been taught and were themselves teaching the "short form" theory; and thus were paralyzed and victimized by that form of diseased thinking so convincingly described in the quotation ascribed to Tolstoy that we encountered earlier.

Thirdly, your run-of-the-mill bishop or parish priest was kept so busy with his actual duties, coupled with the weekly 18 holes of golf, etc., that his mind would not have likely ever wandered to thoughts about the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist being the union of the Mystical Body. Although perhaps he was once taught this in the seminary and the idea lay dormant somewhere in his deep subconsciousness, this concept would have been as remote from him during waking hours as, say, the name of the team that won the 1919 baseball World Series (the Cincinnati Reds, by the way).

Fourthly, perhaps in God's infinite Wisdom and Providence, the time did not become ripe for this until October 22, 1967, when the Masonic Destroyers of the ICEL first laid their vile, sacrilegious hands on the Holy Mass.

LT-1, p. 9: "What we learn from the words of St. Alphonsus is that he himself holds the opposite of what Omlor claims he holds. St. Alphonsus teaches that the initial words of the form, `This is the chalice of My Blood,' or their equivalent suffice for the validity of the Mass."

I have never attributed any definite opinion to St. Alphonsus on the "short form" vs. "entire form" controversy, except (as mentioned above) to say in 1970 that he "leaned towards" the short form opinion.

LT-1, p. 10: "[A]ccording to the teaching of St. Thomas and of St. Alphonsus Liguori the essential part of the form for the consecration of the wine in our liturgy consists of the words, `This is the chalice of My Blood.' ... Consequently, that Patrick Henry Omlor is mistaken in claiming from these authorities ... that a change in pro multis ... would render the Mass invalid."

We have already proved that his above-mentioned claim regarding St. Thomas, based on his inane interpretation of Article 1 and also based on his "conveniens" ruse anent Article 3, is unadulterated balderdash. We shall see below that his claim regarding St. Alphonsus is likewise unfounded. Also, to repeat what I have already stated, since I have never claimed anything at all from St. Alphonsus on this matter, it is impossible that I am "mistaken in claiming" it.

LT-2, p. 1: "[B]ut where did Omlor get the idea that the union of the Mystical Body must, for the validity of the Sacrament, be expressed in the sacramental form? [APOSTOLICÆ CURÆ!] While Omlor likes to impress his readers with copious documentation for his remarks, he cites no authority for the claim that the res tantum, or the effect of sanctifying grace of the sacrament in believers rightly disposed, must be expressed in the sacramental form. [From Apostolicae Curae: "All know that the Sacraments of the New Law ... must both signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite ... yet it pertains chiefly to the form..."] ... [B]ut, as I have shown in my wonderful LT-1 [not quite his exact words], St. Alphonsus teaches the contrary."

LT-3, p. 3: "St. Alphonsus, for instance, states explicitly [my emphasis] that these beginning words [i.e., `This is the Chalice of My Blood'] are sufficient for the validity of the sacrament, and he teaches that even the words, `This is My Blood' would be sufficient ..."

From the foregoing we see that Msgr. McCarthy makes the following claims:

[1] St. Alphonsus teaches, that is, "states explicitly" that the "short form" ("This is the Chalice of My Blood") is sufficient for the validity of the wine-consecration.

[2] St. Alphonsus himself holds the "short form" opinion.

[3] Omlor claims that St. Alphonsus espouses the "entire form" position.

All three of these claims are wrong. I have already shown that [3] has no basis whatsoever in fact. The first two claims are false simply because, true to form, the Monsignor has gone to the wrong paragraph in St. Alphonsus's explanation. That is, § 220, in which, as is indicated by its heading, St. Alphonsus is simply laying down the words of the wine-consecration that must be recited ("verba sint proferenda").

St. Alphonsus is teaching here neither that the mere words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood" (or "This is My Blood") are sufficient, nor that he himself espouses that opinion, as is alleged by the hapless Monsignor. This paragraph, viz., § 220, is a prefatorial paragraph before he even begins to discuss the "short form" vs. "entire form" controversy. As a moral theologian (the greatest, in the view of many), writing a text in moral theology, St. Alphonsus is here warning his priest-readers that they must recite the entire form ("verba sint proferenda") under the penalty of mortal sin. Being a most excellent teacher, later in § 224, after completing his exposition on the aforesaid controversy, he comes back and repeats the same warning, this time reminding his readers that the very same thing is prescribed in De Defectibus.

Let us now see what St. Alphonsus says after his prefatorial § 220. In § 223 he airs both sides of the controversy, presenting the various arguments of each side, but not declaring that either represents his own views. He refers to the "short form" opinion as "the more common" opinion. And this is the place where he remarks that it is not apparent how the "integrity" argument of the "short form" exponents fits in with the thinking of St. Thomas on the matter.

Finally, he concludes that "both opinions are speculatively probable" ("Caeterum utraque sententia est speculative probabilis."), thus showing his neutrality on the matter.

A final note: I now see that there is no evidence at all to support what I wrote earlier (in 1970 in Interdum No. 3), that St. Alphonsus "leaned towards" the "short form" opinion.

If St. Alphonsus had lived in the 16th century, he would have described as the "more common opinion" the opinion that the entire wine-consecration form is essential for validity, as opposed to the "short form" opinion. But by the time that St. Pius V, a most staunch upholder of the necessity of the entire form, ordered Cajetan's contrary view to be expurgated from the 1570 edition of his Commentaries great damage had already been done by Cajetan, a theological lightweight compared to St. Thomas, (his earlier Venetian edition had been circulating since 1533, followed by a Lyons edition published posthumously in 1540). Other theological lightweights, as shallow and as proud as Cajetan, jumped on the bandwagon. Within two hundred years, at the time St. Alphonsus wrote, the "short form" opinion had become "the more common" opinion, and so it remains until today. And it is a virtual certainty that many of those who foolishly abandoned the teaching of St. Thomas and St. Pius V and other great Thomists in order to adopt the doctrine of the lightweights did so because of "conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives," to cite once again the words of Tolstoy.

By temperament I am a person who always regards with great suspicion the "more common opinion." All of my troubles in this present life, and the future "troubles" I shall suffer in purgatory, have been, still are, and will be the result of everybody's following the "more common opinion." For once there was a certain opinion held unanimously by all mankind -- a very remarkable situation indeed! -- and though everyone was of superior intelligence that particular more common opinion was fatally wrong, for they, deceived by a vile serpent, adopted the opinion that somehow by disobeying God they could become as gods.

I hope the reader is sitting down. In LT-1 on p. 17, this Clown Prince of Thomists tells us that the words of Jesus Christ in the wine-consecration form, "which shall be shed," because they are in the future tense, have no effective force: "the future tense has no effective force in itself (cf. III, q. 78, art. 6, corp.)." [Emphasis in the original text].

Perhaps the Monsignor has forgotten that when he celebrates Mass he recites the Words of Consecration in persona Christi. In QTV there is a Section under the heading, "The Source of Power in These Words" (pars. 47-50). The following are excerpts:

"In all the sacraments except the Holy Eucharist the minister has an act to perform in addition to pronouncing the required words of the form. For example, pouring water in Baptism, anointing with chrism in Confirmation, and in Holy Orders the imposition of hands, etc., which constitute the matter of that sacrament. But in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the priest has no act to perform except the pronouncing of the necessary words. (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1)."

"Moreover, the power of the form of this sacrament is derived solely from the fact that the words spoken by the priest are the exact words of Our Lord. `But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.' (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1)."

Hence the view that some words of Our Lord, words taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew, because they are expressed in the consecration form in the future tense, are therefore devoid of effective force in themselves is absolutely eerie. And, mind you, he refers to St. Thomas to support this!

Knowing that the Monsignor never blots his unsullied record for getting things wrong, and, moreover, that he is quite versatile in his numerous different ways of lousing things up, I was naturally quite eager to consult the reference he gives in the Summa, which supposedly supports his claim about "the future tense has no effective force in itself," and applying this remarkable principle of sacramental theology to the words of Our Lord in the Consecration Form -- "which shall be shed" -- thus presumably showing that all the words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood" cannot be essential for validity. Mirabile dictu! As would be expected, rather must be expected, St. Thomas in that place is discussing an entirely different matter.

The title of the article in question is this: "Whether the Form of the Consecration of the Bread Accomplishes Its Effect before the Form of the Consecration of the Wine Be Completed?" Here are St. Thomas's words:

"Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the bread produce their effect before the words are spoken for consecrating the wine. ...

"[F]or the truth of this phrase, This is My body, wherein the verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing to be signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards [i.e., had to wait for the wine-consecration], a verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, This is My body, but -- This will be My body. But the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech."

The only corollary to this that one could possibly apply to the wine consecration is that the words "This will be the Chalice of My Blood" must not be said.

Monsignor John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D., G.W., I have noticed, is very touchy about criticisms of his superior intellect. On p. 10 -- notice p. 10 -- of QTVMcC I wrote a short paragraph that demonstrated the Monsignor's "fuzzy logic." It was an unfortunate choice of words to apply to someone of such cerebral supremacy. And my remark did not escape the Monsignor's attention, nor did he laugh it off. On p. 7 of LT-1, he rebukes the Lowly One: "Accordingly, it is extremely presumptuous of Omlor (p. 10) to call `the paragon of fuzzy logic' my observation ... etc." Next comes his rebuttal: "In uncovering my `fuzzy logic,' Omlor declares (pp. 11-12) ... " See what I mean? I had finished my "fuzzy logic" proof on p. 10. I rest my case.

On p. 11, I commenced a new paragraph and another topic, which is the topic I wish to discuss now. In this new paragraph atop p. 11, I stated: "Consequently none of my `array of authorities' [the Monsignor's words] would have had the occasion to single out explicitly as invalid this particular phraseology [i.e., `for all men']." My point was that until the ICEL came along and actually implanted these bogus words in the liturgy, there was no concrete example of "for all men," and hence theologians of the past would have had no particular reason to single out these words "for all men," and explicitly declare that their presence in the wine-consecration form would be a source of invalidity. For there are numberless hypothetical substitutions of words that would invalidate any sacramental form. Hence the writers of moral theology texts single out those invalid substitutions that would most likely be made. Hence I remarked in this same paragraph that before the infamous ICEL "translation" of 1967 no one, not even Msgr. McCarthy, would have dreamed that anyone would actually even propose such a substitution.

Monsignor McCarthy replied (p. 7 of LT-1): "The facts speak otherwise. St. Thomas did have occasion to single out explicitly such a substitution in two places." He then points out the two places (Summa, III, Q. 78, Art. 3, Obj. 8 and the parallel passage in Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum), where St. Thomas rejected the hypothetical wording "for all," just as the Authors of the Roman Catechism subsequently did, but failed to say explicitly that the substitution of these words in place of "for many" would invalidate the Sacrament and the Mass.

The Monsignor continues, "But, if St. Thomas believed that the substitution of `for all' would invalidate the Mass, he would logically have had to say this here ... Omlor's idea that St. Thomas had no particular occasion to rule out `for all' as invalid has no standing on the level of logic."

Right on! No standing at all on his level of logic. St. Thomas wrote the Summa as a source of instruction for his students. In this same Article 3 he states that all the words of the wine-consecration form are "of the substance of the form." He had stated earlier, "Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form would be suppressed, that would destroy the essential sense of the words; and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished." And then he points out in the same Art. 3 (cited by the Msgr.) that "for all," by referring to the sufficiency aspect of Our Lord's Passion, is wrong in that Our Lord was here speaking of the efficacy aspect, namely, the salvation of only many; to wit: the "finalized" Mystical Body, the elect. Which is exactly how the Authors of the Roman Catechism explain, but in more detail, why "Rightly therefore was it done, that `for all' was not said."

Now, I am removed too far away in time to be able to prove conclusively anything at all about St. Thomas's students; so I will have to take a wild guess and suggest that not one of them was as slow as Msgr. McCarthy. St. Thomas did not choose to hit them over the head with his teaching. The same logical inferences that I set forth in the preceding paragraph, drawn from the Angelic Doctor's exposition, would have likewise necessarily been made by each and every one of them if asked to judge the validity of "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

Furthermore, a single counter-example will suffice to show the emptiness of the Monsignor's argument that since St. Thomas brought up the hypothetical example "for all," therefore "if St. Thomas believed that the substitution of `for all' would invalidate the Mass, he would logically have had to say this here." In the immediately preceding article, namely, Art. 2, St. Thomas says in Objection 3 (which he later refutes): "... Therefore, as a noun is inserted on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be inserted in the subject, so that it be said: This bread is My body." The Angelic Doctor says absolutely nothing regarding whether this would be valid or invalid. And I do hope the Monsignor does not consequently consider "This bread is My body" to be valid (though possibly unsuitable), for it is familiar to all theologians and liturgists as the classic example; viz., that flagrantly invalid form that was once actually used by those classic meddlers, the ancient Ethiopian Catholics. Thus in two consecutive articles of the Summa (III, Q. 78, arts. 2 and 3) St. Thomas cites sacramental forms that are clearly invalid -- "This bread is My body" and "for you and for all." And in neither case does he find it necessary actually to say they are invalid, which explodes the Monsignor's claim that "he would logically have had to say this here." That is the claim that "has no standing on the level of logic."

In TNS I mentioned, only in passing, that the ancient Ethiopian Catholics had a knack for invalidating their liturgies (those were not my exact words); and they were quite inventive, as well as being quite prolific in their multiplication of liturgies. The Salmanticenses relate that for quite some time there were no valid Masses at all "in their extremely vast regions." In those days what was called Ethiopia was a territory exceedingly greater in area than the present-day African country by the same name.

In perusing the pages of Brian Walton's Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, I came across something quite interesting on p. 137 in Book V, where the text of St. Matthew's Gospel, Chap. 26, was shown in various languages, with Latin translations alongside. Until then it had not occurred to me that the Ethiopians also messed around with Holy Writ. Though I suppose it should have been expected. Well, on this aforesaid page 137, under the heading, "Versio ÆTHIOPICA cum Interpretatione LATINA," the Latin translation of the Ethiopian text for certain verses from St. Matthew was given as follows: "Hic panis est corpus meum," and "Hic calix est sanguis meus" -- the infamous "This bread is my body; This chalice is my blood". (Incidentally, in this place in St. Matthew there is no mention of "chalice"; that word is from St. Luke's account!)

I have some good news for Monsignor McCarthy and the ICEL, and I have some bad news. First the good news! On this same p. 137 ("St. Matthew's" Gospel, Ethiopian style) we find a precedent for that phrase I have written about so much (QTVMcC pp. 13-19, e.g.) and so heartily loathe, viz., "so that sins may be forgiven." "Qui effunditur propter multos [they got that much right] ut remittatur peccatum" is the way it was put by our hopeless, ever-invalidating brethren of olden times on the Dark Continent. And that, the "kiss of death" precedent, is the very, very bad news.

=================================================================================

Home