Pastoral Letter: On the Problems of the Modern Apostolate
Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer
June 30,1988, at Ecône. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer,
with (from left to right), Bishop de Gallaretta, Bishop Williamson,
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop Fellay.
Starting with this installment, for the first time in English, The Angelus will serialize On the Problems of the Modern Apostolate, the monumental pastoral letter of January 6, 1953, written by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer which identified modernist creep, crystalized the Church's teaching for his diocese (Campos, Brazil), and thereby saved clergy and faithful from the seduction of Vatican II.
The first pages of this pastoral letter follow immediately, reminding priests that nothing is more important than preaching the truth. Thereafter are the first four of Bishop de Castro Mayer's eighty True/False propositions which are classed into seven sections in the original letter: I. The Liturgy (1-13); II. The Structure of the Church (14 31), III. The Methods of the Apostolate (32-40); IV. The Spiritual Life (41-49); V. The New Morality (50-60); VI. Rationalism, Evolutionism, Laicism (61-65); VII. Relations Between Church and State (66-80).
The fiftieth anniversary of the document is next month.
By His Excellency, D. Antonio de Castro Mayer, by the Grace of God and the Holy Apostolic See Bishop of Campos (Brazil). To the Most Reverend Clergy, Secular and Regular, Greetings, Peace and Benediction in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Beloved Sons and Zealous Collaborators,
Of all the duties which are incumbent upon a Bishop, none surpasses in importance that of furnishing to the sheep, who have been confided to his care by the Holy Ghost, the salutary food of revealed truth. This obligation is particularly urgent in our times. The immense crisis in which the world struggles results, in the final analysis, from the fact that the thoughts and actions of men have been dissociated from the teachings and norms laid down by the Church; and it is only by a return of humanity to the true Faith that a solution to the crisis can be found. It is then of the utmost importance to send forth, united and disciplined, all the Catholic forces, all the peaceful army of Christ the King, for the conquest of those people who groan in the shadow of death, deceived by heresy or by schism, by the superstitions of the old paganism or by the various idols of modern paganism.
For this general offensive, so desired by the Sovereign Pontiffs, to be effective and victorious, it is necessary that these same Catholic forces not be contaminated by the very errors that they must be combating. The safeguarding of the Faith amongst the sons of the Church is, then, a necessary measure of supreme importance for the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ on earth. History teaches us that the temptation against the Faith, always the same in its essential elements, presents itself to each era in a different guise. Arianism, for example, which exercised such a great power of seduction in the fourth century, would have held little interest for the frivolous and Voltairian European of the 18th century; and the radical, openly declared atheism of the 19th century would have had only the faintest possibility of success in the times of Wycliffe and John Hus. In addition, the attack against the Faith customarily occurs with a different intensity in each generation. Some it succeeds in completely carrying into heresy. Into others, without wresting them from the loving bosom of the Church in a formal and declared way, it breathes its spirit in such a way that there are numerous Catholics who correctly recite the teachings of the Faith and who believe, sometimes sincerely, that they give a total adhesion to the documents of the Church's Magisterium, while they conduct their daily lives under the influence of doctrines condemned by the Church.
Today, this is a fact of life. How many times we observe around us Catholics proud of their standing as sons of the Church, who never miss an occasion to proclaim the Faith, and who, at the same time, in their manner of judging the ideas, customs, events, in short all that which the press, the cinema, the radio or television diffuse each day, in no way differentiate themselves from the skeptics, the agnostics, and the indifferent? They recite the Credo correctly and, while praying, show themselves as irreproachable Catholics, but the spirit which animates them, consciously or not, in all the circumstances of their daily lives is agnostic, naturalist, and liberal.
As we can see, it is a matter of souls divided by two contrary tendencies. On the one hand, they experience in themselves the seduction of the world; on the other, they still maintain, perhaps by family inheritance, something of the pure, inextinguishable light of Catholic doctrine. And as any state of division is unnatural to man, these souls try to re-establish unity and peace in themselves by mixing, in one body of doctrine, the errors that they admire and the truths with which they do not wish to break.
This tendency to reconcile the irreconcilable, to find the middle line between truth and error, has manifested itself since the origins of the Church. Our Divine Savior had put the Apostles on their guard: "One cannot serve two masters." Arianism having been condemned, this tendency gave rise to semi-Arianism. Pelagianism having been condemned, it engendered semi-Pelagianism. Protestantism having been crushed at the Council of Trent, it created Jansenism. It was from it also that was born the modernism condemned by Blessed [now sainted, of course–Ed.] Pius X as a monstrous mixture of atheism, rationalism, evolutionism, and pantheism in a school of thought resolved to treacherously strike down the Church. The modernist sect has for its objective, while remaining within the Church, to falsify by quibbles, innuendoes, and reservations the true doctrine which outwardly it pretends to accept.
This tendency has not disappeared. One can indeed say that it has become part of the history of the Church. One can infer this from the words of the Sovereign Pontiff gloriously reigning, in a discourse which he delivered in 1944 to the Lenten preachers at Rome:
One fact which always repeats itself in the history of the Church is that, while Christian faith and morals struggle against the strong opposing currents of errors or of corrupt desires, efforts are being made to overcome the difficulties by some convenient compromise, either by avoiding them or by ignoring them (AAS 36, p.73).
If you warn your parishioners against spiritism, Protestantism, or atheism, dear sons and beloved co-workers, none will be surprised. But, in this pastoral letter, we exhort you to denounce opinions which, among these selfsame Catholics, often corrupt the integrity of the Faith. On this point, will you be as well understood? It will seem to many, even among the most pious, that you are wasting your time, because it will be difficult for them to understand why you exhaust yourself in perfecting the Faith in those that already possess it, after a fashion, while it would be of greater value to try to convert those that are found outside the Church, awaiting your apostolate. It will seem to them that you are filling with superfluous treasures those who are already rich, while you leave without bread those who are dying of hunger. Others will imagine that you are imprudent because, the profession of Catholicism being already so meritorious in a century so hostile, you run the risk of losing some even among the very best if you do not content yourself with this or that level of compliance to the general lines of the Faith, without over taxing the faithful with bothersome trifles.
It is very important, beloved sons and my very dear collaborators, that you address your parishioners beforehand on these two objections. For if you do not, your action will not be fruitful, and because of the evil of the time in which we live, your zeal will be badly understood. There will be no lack of people who will see in it not a natural movement of the Church, which, utilizing its best workers and models, is acting as a living organism rejecting another foreign body, but, on the contrary, the unintelligent and obstinate action of puffed-up Pharisees. Thus, above all, show that by its very nature, the Faith does not content itself with that which some call its general lines, but insists upon its own integrity and fullness.
In order to make yourself understood, give as an example the virtue of chastity. Any concession in this matter stains the soul, and any imprudence leads to grave danger. One can compare the pure soul to a person standing on a globe; as long as he keeps his position of balance, he has nothing to fear, but any imprudence on his part can cause him to fall to the bottom of the abyss. This is why moralists and the authors of spiritual works are unanimous in affirming that the essential condition for the conserving of an angelic virtue is a vigilant and intransigent prudence.
One can say the same in the matter of faith. As long as the Catholic places himself on the balance point, his perseverance will be sure and easy. Now, this balance point does not consist in accepting some general lines of the Faith, but in professing all the doctrines of the Church; a profession made not merely with the lips, but with the whole soul, implying the loyal and consistent acceptance not only of that which the Magisterium teaches, but also of all the logical consequences of that teaching. To do this, it is necessary for the faithful individual to possess that living faith by which he is able to humble his own reason before the infallible Magisterium, and to discern clearly all that which, directly or indirectly, opposes itself to the teaching of the Church. But if he abandons, no matter how slightly, this position of perfect balance, he begins to feel the pull of the abyss. And that is why, impelled by prudence and in the interests of the flock confided to Us, We address to you, beloved sons, this Pastoral Letter on the integrity of the Faith.
In this regard, it is advisable to insist again on a point of the Church's doctrine which is often forgotten. One must not think that a well-informed and vigorous faith is the privilege only of the learned, and, therefore, that to them only can one recommend the ideal position of balance described above. Faith is a virtue, and, in the Holy Church, the virtues are accessible to all the faithful, learned or illiterate, rich or poor, teachers or students. The study of the Christian saints is a proof of it. St. Joan of Arc, illiterate shepherdess of Domremy, confounded her judges by the wisdom with which she replied to the theological subtleties by which they tried to lead her into erroneous propositions and thereby justify her condemnation to death. St. Clement-Mary Hofbauer, in the 19th century, a humble handyman who liked to attend the courses of theology at the illustrious University of Vienna, discerned in one of his teachers the cursed leaven of Jansenism which had escaped the discernment of all his students and of the other professors. "I thank Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to the little ones" (Lk. 10:21). In order that we may have a people strong and logical in their faith, it is not necessary that we make of them a nation of theologians. It is sufficient that those who deeply love the Church instruct themselves in the revealed truths according to their general level of culture and possess the virtues of purity and humility necessary to truly believe, understand, and relish the things of God. Likewise, in order that we may have a people truly pure, it is not necessary to make of each of the faithful a moralist. The fundamental principles and the essential understanding of everyday life, dictated in large part by the well-formed Christian conscience, are sufficient. Thus we very often see unlettered persons who have a judgment, a prudence, and an elevation of soul superior to that of many moralists of great learning.
What we have said of the perseverance of a person applies equally to the perseverance of a people. When the people of a diocese possess the fullness of the Catholic spirit, they are, with the help of God's grace, in a position to confront the flood of impiety. But when no one possesses it, when not even those persons habitually considered as pious love or seek this integrity, what can one think of such a people? In reading history, one cannot understand how certain peoples, endowed with numerous and enlightened bishops, with a well-instructed and influential clergy, with illustrious and wealthy educational and charitable institutions, such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark in the 16th century, could slip, from one moment to the next, from a complete and tranquil profession of the Catholic Faith into an open and formal heresy; and that occurring almost without resistance, and, to speak more accurately, almost imperceptibly. What is the reason for such a great disaster? When the Faith came to grief in those countries, it had already been reduced, in the majority of souls, to the mere exterior formulas, repeated without love and without conviction. Thus a simple royal whim was sufficient to bring down the luxuriant and time-honored tree. The sap had long since ceased to circulate in the leaves and, indeed, in the trunk. The spirit of the Faith had not existed for a long time in those regions.
It is this which Blessed Pius X understood with an angelic lucidness in his vigorous battle against modernism. This clement pastor lit up the Church of God with the sweet luster of his heavenly forbearance, yet he was not afraid to denounce the authors of the modernist error, who were in the very bosom of the Church, and to point them out for the execration of the good faithful in these vehement words: "Those who consider you [the modernists] as the most dangerous enemies of the Church will not be straying far from the truth" (Pascendi Gregis).
We can imagine how sad it made the very gentle Pope to use such vigorous language. But his contemporaries did not fail to recognize the singular service which he was thus rendering to the Church. In this regard, the great Cardinal Mercier affirmed that, if at the time of Luther and of Calvin, the Church had had popes of the quality of Pius X, it is doubtful that the protestant heresy could have succeeded in detaching a third of Europe from the true Church. For all these reasons, dearly beloved sons, you see how important it is to exercise the utmost zeal in watching over the keeping of the fullness and of the spirit of the Faith in the sons of Holy Church.
Also, show how wrong are those who allege that the time and effort employed in perfecting in the Faith those already within the Church is, in a manner of speaking, taken away from those who remain outside. Above all, by your example and your words, you can show that these two attitudes are not in any way incompatible: "Oportet haec facere et illa non omittere." Moreover, the fullness of the Faith among the Catholics produces so many of the fruits of virtue, and so quickly spreads the sweet odor of Jesus Christ in the Church, that it efficaciously attracts the infidels to it, so that the good done to the children of the Church will greatly profit those who exist outside the fold. Finally, one of the fruits of fervor in the Faith will necessarily be apostolic zeal. To multiply the apostles is to eventually bring the unbelievers to perfection, is it not? Thus we cannot accept this dissociation between the time dedicated to the faithful and that which is dedicated to the infidels, as if our divine Savior, in forming the apostles and disciples, had perfected a group of privileged ones and had disinterested Himself in the salvation of the rest of humanity.
The luminous example of the Vicar of Christ will encourage you to act in this way. Without doubt, no pope has had to confront so many and such powerful enemies outside the Church. However, he does not disregard the "errors creeping in among the faithful" (Mystici Corporis, AAS 35, p. 197), and he puts us on guard against them by a series of documents, such as the encyclical Mediator Dei, the Apostolic Constitution Bis Saeculari Die, the encyclical Humani Generis, and, more recently, the Allocution to Religious of September 15, 1952, in which he holds as largely responsible for the diminution of vocations certain Catholic writers, lay and ecclesiastic, who falsify the Catholic doctrine concerning the pre-eminence of celibacy over the matrimonial state. And particularly as regards Brazil, the zeal of the Holy See, in the face of the internal problems of the Church, clearly manifests itself in the Letter of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, the attentive reading of which we strongly recommend.
In endeavoring to maintain the traditional spirit of the Holy Church among the faithful, you must see to it that it does not deviate from its liturgical sense. In this current Pastoral Letter, we are considering the exaggerations of the spirit of conciliation as an aspect of the errors of our times. But a symmetrical and opposite error can oppose itself to this evil tendency. It is important to point out what that error is. Properly speaking, we do not fear exaggeration of the traditional spirit. Indeed, this spirit is one of the essential elements of the Catholic mentality, of that which is correctly called the Catholic sense. Now the Catholic sense constitutes in itself the very excellence of the virtue of faith. To fear that someone had too much of the Catholic sense would be the equivalent of fearing that he had too excellent a faith. But it is advisable to make sure that this spirit of the faith not be misunderstood; that it not consist more in an attachment to the mere form, to the mere outward appearance, to the mere rite, than in an adherence to the spirit which animates and explains the form, the appearance, and the rite. Exaggerations of this type are possible, but they do not merit as great a vigilance on your part as does the exaggerated propensity for that which is new, the systematic aversion to that which is traditional. It is this which the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries gives us to understand in its Letter to the Brazilian Episcopacy:
The most urgent danger today is not that of a too rigid and exclusive attachment to tradition, but, principally, that of an exaggerated and imprudent relish for any novelty, whatever it might be (AAS 42, p.837).
And the Sacred Congregation insists in a very clear fashion:
It is to this affected admiration of everything new and fashionable that one owes the multiplication of errors hidden under an appearance of truth and, very often, under a pretentious and obscure terminology (ibid., p.939).
An example of the way in which I understand the spirit of tradition can be shown in the "archaism" (or antiquarianism) to which the Holy Father Pius XII makes allusion in Mediator Dei. By an excessive attachment to ancient rite and form, merely because they are ancient, certain liturgists intend to bring back the altar in the form of a table and to restore other practices of the primitive Church, as if, throughout the course of its history, the spirit of the Church had not been able to express itself, little by little, by new forms and new rites, according to the diversities of time and place. The extremes meet and the most opposite exaggerations readily unite themselves against the truth. The danger of this misunderstood traditional spirit is encountered, most often, among the very fomenters of novelties such as Luther, Jansenius, the promoters of the false Synod of Pistoia, and, in our century, the Modernists.
Explain clearly to the faithful under your care, dear collaborators, the origin of these errors. On the one hand, they are born of the weakness common to fallen human nature. Sensuality and pride have always created, and will continue to create until the end of time, the revolt of certain sons of the Church against the doctrine and spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even in the earliest years, St. Paul was warning the first Christians against those amongst them who were going to "rise up speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:30), "vain babblers and deceivers" (Tit. 1:10) "who will go from bad to worse, erring, and leading others into error" (II Tim. 3:13).
Some seem to think that in the course of most recent centuries, the progress of the Church has been such that one need no longer be afraid of seeing crises aroused by pride and lust surging up in her bosom. However, to have recourse only to some very recent examples, Blessed Pius X declared, in the Encyclical Pascendi, that the fomenters of revolt such as those of whom we are speaking would not only be frequent in his time, but would become more frequent as we get closer to the end of time. And, in effect, in Humani Generis, the Holy Father Pius XII complains that "some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error" (AAS 42, p. 564).1
Such is the natural origin of the errors and crises with which we concern ourselves. But it is fitting to consider not only the weaknesses of fallen human nature, but also the action of the devil. For it has been given to the devil, until the end of time, the power to tempt men in all the virtues and, consequently, in the virtue of faith, which is the very foundation of the supernatural life. It is evident, then, that, until the consummation of time, the Church will be exposed to internal outbursts of the spirit of heresy, and that there is no progress, so to speak, which immunizes definitively against this evil. That the devil would be involved in producing such crises, it is superfluous to point out. Now the ally that he has implanted within the army of the faithful is his most valuable instrument of combat. Recent experience shows that a "fifth column" is more effective than the most terrible of armaments. Once the tumor has been formed within the Catholic milieu, that milieu's forces are divided, and the energies which should be being utilized entirely in the struggle against the exterior enemy, are spent in disputes between brothers. And if, in order to avoid such disputes, the good men give up the fight, greater still is the triumph of the devil, who can then plant his banner in the very heart of the City of God, and rapidly and easily develop his conquests. If, in a certain era, the devil stopped attempting a work as lucrative as this, one could surely say that, during that era, the devil had ceased to exist. Such is the double origin, natural and preternatural, of the internal crisis of the Church.
As you can see, these two causes are perpetual, and their effect will also be perpetual. In other words, the Church will always have to suffer from the internal infiltration of the spirit of darkness. To fully understand your apostolate, it is important to have committed to memory the tactics that the devil adopts. In order that his action remain internal, it is necessary that it be disguised. Deceit is the fundamental rule of him who acts in secret in the territory of his adversary. To achieve his goals, the devil increases the spirit of confusion which seduces souls and leads them to profess error cleverly disguised under the appearances of truth. In this struggle, do not wait until the adversary comes out with statements clearly opposed to the already-defined truths. He will not do that until he judges himself to be in complete control of the terrain. Most of the time, he will "multiply errors hidden under an appearance of truth...and a pretentious and obscure terminology" (Letter of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries to the Bishops of Brazil, ASS 42, p. 839). And the manner of propagating this multitude of errors will itself be veiled and insidious. The Holy Father Pius XII has decreed as follows:
These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth. (Humani Generis, AAS42, p.565)2
Also, do not be surprised if sometimes there are only a few of you who discern the error in some propositions which, to many, will appear clear and orthodox, or, perhaps, vague but open to a good interpretation; or if you find yourselves confronted by certain environments where "half-truths" are cleverly disseminated in order to spread error, but in such a way as to make it difficult to combat. The adversary's tactic has been designed precisely to put those who oppose him in this embarrassing position. In this way it will sometimes draw down on you the antipathy of people who haven't the slightest intention of promoting evil. They will accuse you of being visionaries, fanatics, perhaps even slanderers. Is it not precisely that which the obstinate glorifiers of the Sillon and of Marc Sangnier were saying in France against Blessed Pius X? For fear of these criticisms, will you draw back before the adversary and allow the gates of the City of God to be opened? It goes without saying that you must carefully avoid, in the eyes of God, all exaggeration, all rashness and judgment not fully justified. But, likewise, you must speak up each time that the adversary, disguised under the sheepskin, reveals himself before you, and not cede to him an inch of ground out of fear that he will charge you with excesses which you, in good conscience, know are not excesses. In acting in this way, you will be complying with the expressed intentions of the Holy Father. In all the documents that he has published on this subject, the Sovereign Pontiff gloriously reigning recommends to the bishops and priests throughout the world, that they zealously instruct the faithful, so that they will not let themselves be misled by the errors which, in a veiled fashion, circulate among them.
The instruction desired by the Holy Father must be preventive as well as correctional. Let not the priest of a parish in which error does not seem to have penetrated judge himself dispensed from acting. Given the disguises in which these errors clothe themselves, given the methods of diffusion, sometimes almost imperceptible, which are utilized by their fomenters, there are very few vicars who can be certain that their sheep are uninfected. Furthermore, the good pastor is not content to remedy evil, for he is under the grave obligation to prevent it. Do not be like the man of whom the Gospel speaks, who slept while the enemy sowed weeds in the midst of his wheat. The simple obligation to forewarn should justify the efforts that you will undertake in this matter.
The errors with which we concern ourselves will perhaps have a greater intensity in one country than in another. However, their diffusion throughout the Catholic world is already sufficiently widespread that the Holy Father calls attention to them not just in documents addressed to this or that nation in particular, but to the Bishops of the entire world. We live today in a world without frontiers, in which thoughts are rapidly diffused to the four corners of the earth by the press and, above all, by the radio. Let a false opinion be brought forth in Paris, for example, and it can, on the same day, be heard and accepted in the most distant centers of Australia, the Indies, or Brazil. And, if there still exist some places where extreme ignorance or extreme backwardness are obstacles to the penetration of opinions true or false, no one can say that this is the case in the populous centers of our own dear diocese, at the head of which is our Episcopal city, celebrated throughout Brazil for the cultural attainments of its sons, and the decisive influence that it has always been known to exercise on the national political scene.
A further word on the method that we are adopting. Given that, in its Letter to the Brazilian Bishops, the Sacred Congregation of the Seminaries spoke of a "rapid multiplication of errors," and, indeed, that these errors are very numerous, it would be excessively tedious to explain and to censure the principal ones using a discursive format. We prefer to use a diagrammatic format. That is why we have worked out a little Catechism of those truths which are the most threatened at present; each truth being accompanied by the opposing error and by a brief commentary. For a more convenient exposition, we have made the false or dangerous sentence precede the true. But your effort to denounce the error will have to lead each of the faithful to an exact knowledge of the true teaching of the Church. Only in this way will we have accomplished a positive and lasting work.
Finally, an observation on the way in which the false or dangerous sentences are expressed in the Catechism. We have tried to express them with the greatest accuracy possible, without taking away the appearances and even the fragments of truth that they include. Only in this way will the Catechism be useful, for only in this way will it make known the manner of expression by which error habitually hides itself, and the outward appearances with which it tries to attract the sympathy of people of good will. Now the important thing in this matter does not consist in proving that a certain sentence is bad, but that a certain false doctrine is in reality contained in such and such a formula, whose appearance is inoffensive and even sympathetic. This is why we repeat several formulae which are more or less similar. It is a matter of drawing your attention to the diverse forms into which the same error can enter. Moreover, we have not included only simple, formal theses in the propositions. You will also find formulated as propositions some ways of acting which proceed directly from the false doctrine.
As it will be easy to see, we have been concerned to follow the counsel of the Apostle: "But prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (I Thess. 5:21). Also, in our refutations, we wished to show, in its full extent, the portion of truth which is contained in the tendencies we oppose. Thus the Church is a patient and prudent Mother who condemns with circumspection and who considers as her patrimony all truth, wherever it be encountered.
It is fitting to insist on this point. The truths recalled here are not the patrimony nor the property of any one person, nor of any group, nor of any current of ideas. Orthodoxy is a treasure proper to the Church in which all must participate, and of which no one has a monopoly. That is why, dearly beloved collaborators, when you are spreading the teachings which are found here, present them always as they are in reality: the complete and exclusive fruit of the wisdom of Holy Church.
It is not difficult to perceive that in a general way, the errors reflect, in terms which strain themselves to appear correct, doctrines which attain the greatest influence in the modern world and which constitute the characteristic traits of the neo-paganism of today: evolutionism, pantheism, naturalism, laicism, and that unrestricted egalitarianism which rears up in the politico-social sphere against all legitimate superiority and which, in the religious sphere, tends to suppress the distinction instituted by Jesus Christ between the hierarchy and the faithful, between clergy and laity.
Such are, beloved sons and very dear collaborators, the propositions to which I would like to attract your attention.
Catechism of Opportune TRUTHS
Opposed to Contemporary ERRORS
|
1 FALSE When the faithful assist at holy Mass and pronounce with the celebrant the words of the Consecration, they cooperate in effecting transubstantiation and offering the sacrifice. |
TRUE The faithful are incapable of "concelebrating" with the priest by cooperating in transubstantiation, because they have not received the sacrament of Orders which communicates this power. |
|
Explanation: Only the sacrament of Holy Orders confers the power and the ability to effect transubstantiation in the sacrifice of the New Law. The simple faithful are incapable of doing so. The erroneous proposition renews the heresy of the Protestants condemned by the Council of Trent (Sess. 23, cap. 4) and proscribed again by Mediator Dei of His Holiness Pius XII (AAS 39, p. 556). |
|
|
2 FALSE The faithful "concelebrate" the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the priest. |
TRUE The faithful participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass. |
|
Explanation: These two propositions require an explanation. Never can it be said that the faithful "concelebrate" with the priest, for in the Church the expression "concelebrate" refers to Masses with several celebrants. They all actively concur in offering the sacrifice and in effecting the transubstantiation. An example of this is found in the Mass of priestly ordination, in which the new priests concelebrate with the bishop their ordination Mass. Likewise, the proposition in which it is said that the faithful participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass requires an explanation. Many understand it to mean that the faithful "concelebrate" the sacrifice. That would be the repetition of the error studied in No. 1. Others understand it to mean that the priest is but a mandatary or delegate of the people, and his priestly acts have no value except insofar as he represents the people. It is not in this way that the proposition is to be understood according to the teaching of Mediator Dei (AAS 39, pp. 555-56). In fact, the priest is not a delegate of the people (AAS 39, p. 538), for he is chosen by divine vocation and engendered by the sacrament of holy orders (ibid., p. 539). This does not mean that the priest, in a certain sense, does not represent the people. He does represent it insofar as he represents Jesus Christ, head of the Mystical Body, of which the faithful are the members (ibid., p. 538), and when the priest offers the sacrifice on the altar, he does so in the name of Christ, High Priest, who offers it in the name of all the members of His Mystical Body. So, in a certain sense, the sacrifice is offered in the name of the people. That is why [the faithful] must participate in the sacrifice. In what way must they participate? Mediator Dei tells us:
Thus there is a definite meaning to the expression participate which can be used if one takes care to exclude every other less exact meaning. |
|
|
3 FALSE The faithful who follow the Mass with a Missal participate in the Mass; the faithful who follow the Mass in some other way merely assist at it. |
TRUE The participation of the faithful in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass consists in their uniting their intentions with the intentions of the Sovereign High Priest, Jesus Christ, and of the celebrant. Any method (missal, rosary, meditation) that effectively procures this union is perfect. |
|
Explanation: The refuted sentence renews the Jansenist spirit contained in the proposition of Quesnel, condemned by Clement XI in the Bull Unigenitus (Sept., 1713): "O snatch from the simple people this consolation of joining their voice to the voice of the whole Church is a custom contrary to the apostolic practice and to the intention of God" (Prop. 86).4 Of itself, the refuted sentence is the consequence of the erroneous doctrine by which the faithful concelebrate the Holy Mass with the priest, and thus must pronounce with him the liturgical words. Whoever would not pronounce these words would not participate in the Mass, he would only assist in a purely passive manner. Mediator Dei, on the contrary, lays stress upon union with the intentions of Jesus Christ and of the celebrant, and leaves the faithful at liberty as to the method to apply to obtain this goal. This said, we are far from minimizing the interest that the faithful should take in everything that is said at Mass and also in the knowledge of the Missal, the prayers and ceremonies of the Holy Sacrifice, etc. Just as it is necessary to avoid the confusion to be found in the 16th-century Reformers between the faithful and the priest, so also it is necessary to respect the liberty of the Holy Ghost who, granted the obedience that the faithful owe to holy Church, guides them by His grace according to His ineffable good pleasure: "Spiritus ubi vult spirat–The Spirit breatheth where he will" (Jn. 3:8). |
|
|
4 FALSE One must only assist at Mass by following the words of the Missal. During the sacrifice one must exclude private prayers such as the rosary, meditation, etc. Only the dialogue Mass and versus populum (facing the people) is suitable to the place of the faithful in the Holy Sacrifice. |
TRUE The use of the Missal, recitation of the Rosary, meditation, and other appropriate prayers are all excellent methods for assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The faithful thus have the freedom to choose what best contributes to their union with the intentions of Jesus Christ and of the celebrant. All the methods of assisting at Mass approved by Holy Church are perfectly suited to the position of the faithful in the Holy Sacrifice. All exclusiveness on this point is worthy of reproach. |
|
Explanation: The refuted proposition is intimately linked to the false principle of the formal priesthood of the faithful, which we have shown above. Mediator Dei approves and supports the true liturgical movement. Everything that brings the faithful to know and love the holy liturgy can only merit applause. The evil begins when, as sometimes occurs, false theological interpretations vitiate the spirit with which liturgical piety is propagated. Mediator Dei builds upon this consideration to censure and condemn the extravagances that have been springing up in the domain of liturgical piety. |
|
1. English version cited from The Papal Encyclicals 1939-58, ed. Claudia Carlen, IHM (The Pierian Press, 1990), p. 176.
2. Ibid., p. 177.
3. English quoted from The Papal Encyclicals 1939-58, ed. Claudia Carlen, IHM (The Pierian Press, 1990), p. 135, §93.
4. English quoted from The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. Roy J. Deferred from the 30th ed. of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum [abbreviated hereafter "Dz." followed by section reference], §1436.
These are the first four of the 80 True/False propositions explained in Bishop de Castro Mayer's pastoral letter. The Angelus intends to publish all of them. The next series of questions which will be published next month deals with: Reception of Holy Communion outside of Mass, the simultaneous celebration of Masses, how the altar should be outfitted, on the faithful's recitation of the Divine Office, and the prayer texts used by the faithful.–Ed.
Current Issue
