| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We need an "Authority Pope"
Editor: In the March 1996 issue of HPR, Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., wrote a good article entitled "Why Good Popes Cause More Difficulty Than Bad Popes." He wrote glowingly and properly of John Paul II and his recent writings and teaching, primarily in defense of our Church. The article was concerned more with those outside the Church. But, it seems to me, that the author forgot, or was not concerned with what I consider a big problem, perhaps even greater than the one outside the Church, namely, the open attacks especially by U.S. bishops, priests, nuns, and laity against the doctrines of the Church. A special one I have in mind is that of "no women priests" which John Paul II declared on May 22, 1994.
Up to now he has been a "Teaching Pope," but right now we need an "Authority Pope," one who, when there is open defiance-and we have it now, will publicly stop the dissenting clergy and use the power of excommunication which he did once against Archbishop Lefebvre. We have dissenting clergy whom I consider far more dangerous and insidious than Lefebvre, but John Paul II says and does nothing against them. Why?
In the article following Fr. Schall's in the same issue, Frederick Marks, writing about St. Paul in Galatians 1:9, comments: "In like manner he advises his flock to let a curse be upon any preacher who departs from the Christian orthodoxy." Dr. Marks further writes: "His method of dealing with public sinners was to 'expel' them from the congregation."
On p. 59 of the same issue José Pereira's article, "Infallible Papal Pronouncements" on the prohibition of dissent states in #4: ". . . this judgment is to be definitively held by all (emphasis mine) the Church's faithful." Can John Paul II do any less?
Francis X. Wrenn
Hawthorne, N.J.
The power of the Eucharist
Editor: This is a reply to the response to "The Crisis in Eucharistic Faith" by Abbot Hillenbrand (May 1996). I would like to share with your readers a few thoughts, not that the thoughts of a father of eleven children, with only a high school education count for anything.
Abbot Hillenbrand stated, "The Real Presence in the Eucharist is not an end in itself." I did not understand that Professor Grisez was insinuating that it was. The Abbot continued, "The whole purpose and end of the Eucharist is to nourish the people of God and give them strength to serve the Body of Christ in their family, their work, their own particular social domain." I think (with the possibility of being wrong of course) that this is much too restrictive a statement to make concerning the Eucharist. Yet, if this statement is true, something is drastically wrong with our Eucharist today. I say today, because in the past (that horrid, rigid, unloving, dictatorial Pre-Vatican II past) Catholics received the Eucharist less frequently, yet they appeared to have benefited much more from it. Sometimes one wonders if some of our so-called intellectuals ever come down out of the clouds to see what is happening in our Catholic family. These intellectuals seem to have completely abandoned common sense.
I would like to take the Abbot into the homes of some of our good Catholics who now receive the Eucharist on a much more frequent basis than they did in the past so that he could see that the Eucharist is not coming close to what he claims is Its whole purpose and end. What is wrong with the new post-Vatican II Eucharist? Why is It not doing the job that the pre-Vatican II Eucharist did with less frequent reception? Yes, our Catholic families are falling apart, and if the Abbot is correct, we must have a much less potent Eucharist today.
The Abbot might be right when he said the Eucharist is not an end in itself. But I wonder if he would concede that It could be a beginning; a beginning of a belief that the Eucharist is truly the body of Christ. A beginning of reverence that has been lost prior to the loss of the belief in Christ's Real Presence of about 70% of Catholics polled. A beginning of respect (silence while others are praying) for those who are trying to stay in the 30% who still believe.
No, the Eucharist has not lost Its potency today. It is just as powerful as It was at the Last Supper. The problem lies within the individual recipient. The power of the Eucharist, for better or worse, lies within us. The holier we are the more beneficial the Eucharist will be; the less holy we are the less beneficial It will be. And sad to say, to those in mortal sin It brings condemnation, says St. Paul.
Man is a creature governed by laws. One of these laws is the law of nature. In my uneducated way I tell my children, "You have to act the way you want to believe. If you act as though the church is not the house of God, you will believe it is not the house of God. If you want to believe the Eucharist is the Body of Christ then you must act as though It is the Body of Christ." Many priests and bishops are teaching that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ. Oh, they are not doing it with words, which would be heresy and not as effective. They do it in a much more effective way, by their actions. We all know the saying, "Actions speak louder than words." The problem with simple explanations like these is that they confuse many of the highly educated, who in turn have confused all but 30% of our Catholics.
George Gil
Franklin, La.
Regional theological
accrediting boards?
Editor: Your editorial in the April 1996 issue urging American bishops to require Catholic colleges and universities to observe Canon 812 (by which a mandate must be received from the local bishop before a Catholic may teach theology there) said nothing about the manner of implementing this requirement. A Profession of Faith and an Oath of Fidelity were required of such teachers since 1989, at least theoretically. In case of difficulties with theology teachers, regional theological accrediting boards of experts appointed by the bishops concerned could be used to resolve or judge the matter. Recourse could be made further to a National Theological Commission appointed by the National Conference of Bishops with the approval of the relevant local bishop involved in the case.
Immediate recourse, if necessary, could be to the Vatican's Doctrinal Congregation. This way difficulties in doctrine of a teacher of theology would not be subject to the idiosyncratic or biased or ignorant judgment of a local bishop, but would be dealt with in a more balanced, objective, expert manner, nor would Vatican authorities always have to be involved.
An arrangement such as this may obviate many difficulties while ensuring the genuinely Catholic character of theological teaching in Catholic colleges and universities.
Jerome F. Treacy, S.J.
Clarkston, Mich.
Presence and Real Presence
Abbot Hillenbrand, O.S.B. (May 1996) speaks of the "Real Presence" in Sacred Scriptures, in his neighbors (Body of Christ next to them), the poor and the sick, etc. Truly, Christ is present in all of the above, but ". . . He is present most especially in the Eucharistic Species" (CCC #1373).
I must say that Pope Paul VI expressed a somewhat different view than Abbot Hillenbrand in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei. Paul VI tells us that Christ is present in the Church as she prays, as she performs her works (in preaching), as she administers the Sacraments. He continues: "Moreover, in a manner more sublime . . ." Christ is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass, ". . . in a manner which surpasses all the others; . . ."
Here the Pope is referring to the Holy Eucharist and refers to this presence as "real." We find the Real Presence (as defined in #1374 of the CCC) in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in Holy Communion and in the Blessed Sacrament.
Treacy Gibbens
Naples, Fla.
A unique Presence
Editor: I have seen several times lately (most recently in Abbot Hillenbrand's letter in the May 1996 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review) what I believe is a misuse of the term "Real Presence." People refer to the presence of Christ in us as individuals, in a church congregation or a group praying together as the "Real Presence" spelled with capital letters. No doubt Christ may be really present in us spiritually in these situations. However, the term as spelled with capital letters should be reserved to the manner in which Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament.
He is present body and blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist in a unique manner, in a way in which he is not present anywhere else in the universe. To confuse the two dilutes, even perhaps diminishes, the doctrine of the Real Presence. The only time he is present in us in this way is for the few minutes after holy communion while the species remain intact.
I would like to see editors of Catholic periodicals in future correct what seems to be a misspelling, or at least put a "(sic)" after "Real Presence" when it is used by writers in this loose manner.
Gerard J. Kelly
Omaha, Nebr.
Not likely; not possible
Editor: Here is a question for the dissident theologians still stubbornly arguing in favor of the ordination of women.
To prepare for the question, let us prescind, for the moment, from the fact that the Holy Father and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1577) say that the ordination of women is not possible. Consider only what the CCC says in #1578: "No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders . . . . Anyone who thinks he (let's say: he/she) recognizes the signs of God's call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his/her desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive Orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift."
Question: Could anyone with faith think it likely that God would give authentic signs of his call to the ordained priesthood to any woman when his own one true Church has for 2000 years been, by his authority, teaching that a truly divine call to the priesthood is not given to women? Could it be possible that Almighty, All-Truthful, God could act in opposition to a doctrine that has a basis in Scripture, has been handed down in Tradition, and has always been taught by the official Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Not likely; not possible.
Rev. John Marquardt
Antlers, Okla.
Immanuel Kant
and transubstantiation
Editor: I would like to reply to Fr. Duggan's letter in the April 1996 issue of HPR.
Dear Father Duggan: I have just read your article in the April issue of HPR. I am taking the liberty of writing to you again because some years ago you were kind enough to answer a letter of mine.
How can Immanuel Kant be used as an authority to determine anything about the miracle of transubstantiation when he starts on the premise that man's knowledge of God is confined to phenomena? Man is a law unto himself. There is no such thing as being bound to obey God. Man is self-governing and is not only independent of God but is actually his superior.
Kant taught that the reason why we are superior to God is that we made him up in our own mind. He is a creature of our own mind.
Kant taught that the existence of God can neither be affirmed nor denied on speculative grounds; also, God cannot be affirmed scientifically.
Kant also taught that morality requires belief in the existence of God because without the existence of God there can be no morality. He taught, by means of getting around this dilemma, the following: We must postulate a god. This god is to come from within us, merely our own will. We must then conduct ourselves as if there were indeed an existing God. This thinking is like ethical culture which is Humanism in its foundation. It is based on the love of man or the love of each other; it is the golden rule concept but without God.
In the Problems of Eschatology, edited by E. Schillebeeckx, O.P. and Boniface Williams, O.P. (Paulist Press) we read the following by Fr. Schoonenberg: "We must try to understand why the message of eternal life beyond the grave simply fails to come across today. The idea that man has a mortal body and an immortal soul has lost its credibility."
In the Dutch Catechism the following advice is offered: "We must not underestimate the Christian values contained in Humanism and Marxism."
I cannot understand why agnostics and out and out atheists are even mentioned in regard to transignification or transfinalization when they used the premise of No God to begin with.
Veronica A. Hart
Whiting, N.J.
Why study Latin?
Editor: In response to the article "Latin and the Recovery of the Catholic Mind" (May 1996), I wonder what the author would say about Pope Damasus (366-384) who gave us the two great principles of liturgy-liturgy in the vernacular and the distinction of roles in the liturgy. Pope Damasus (St. Jerome was his secretary) moved the liturgy from Greek to Latin, the language of the people.
The Reformation delayed our liturgy in the vernacular. Luther promptly moved the liturgy to brilliant German and was not worried about losing followers.
I studied Latin for six years. In addition, our philosophy and theology texts were in Latin. These courses are difficult enough in English. Because I don't think in Latin but in English, I was forever transposing Latin into English, even when praying the Breviary. That is hard work! Praying The Liturgy of the Hours in English is delightful, pure pleasure.
I love the Latin language-its order and its precision. It is a great mind-trainer. Latin and Greek should be studied for a genuine liberal arts education. But it makes prayer, philosophy and theology too difficult. The effort is gargantuan, like "a mountain in labor bringing forth a mouse."
Alvin L. Herber, C.PP.S.
Rib Lake, Wis.