The sacraments enfold and hallow all the chief events of our lives. "Ask, and you shall receive," He tells His disciples. But if prayer should fail in its purpose, due to our loss of friendship with God, then like a sweet, unfailing mother, His Church would ever be at our side from the cradle to the grave, ever ready to restore, repair, strengthen and consummate our union with Our Lord. Hardly have we opened our eyes to the things of this world than Holy Mother Church brings us forth to God through the sacred regenerating waters of baptism, making us sons and daughters of God and heirs to the kingdom of heaven.

When we have defiled our white baptismal robe, she restores it to us washed in the streams of redeeming Blood that flow in the cleansing Sacrament of Penance. She leads us to the Banquet Table of the Lord where we are refreshed through the Holy Eucharist. In the Sacrament of Confirmation she strengthens our weakness and makes us staunch and loyal soldiers of Christ. And when our life's journey is drawing to a close and the shadows are lengthening towards the valley of death, she is there to comfort us through Extreme Unction, and to shield us against the terrors that may accompany the last fierce fight to win the everlasting company of the Savior of immortal souls. And out beyond the borderland of death's valley she follows us with her indulgenced prayers.

These five sacramental channels of heavenly graces are sufficient to supply the needs of all Christians in general. But in order to furnish a continuous flow of new members for Christ's spiritual kingdom, to propagate the human race and raise children in a Christian manner, to aid parents to repopulate the empty places in heaven made vacant by the fallen angels, Christ blessed holy wedlock and raised matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament.



From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder (Mk 10:6-9).

The first chapter of the first book of the Bible tells the story of creation. After He had separated the night from the day, and the land from water, after He had made the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, and the other living creatures of the earth, God paused and said: "Let us make man to our image and likeness; and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image" (Gen 1:26-27).

Adam rejoiced over what he saw before him. But unlike all the rest, he, of all creatures, was all alone. The joy of created things is enhanced when that joy is shared with others. Mindful of this, one of man's deepest needs, God said: "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself . . . Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, He took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib ... into a woman, and brought her to Adam" (Gen 2:18/21-22). The woman was Eve, which means "mother of all the living."

This was the first contract of matrimony entered into between man and woman, with God Himself bestowing His divine blessing upon this sacred union. To this original contract, as we shall presently see, Christ later attached special graces and blessings by raising it to the dignity of a sacrament of His Church. But we must first fully understand the nature, object and properties of the contract as ratified by God.

From what transpired between Adam and Eve, with God as witness, we can learn much about the nature and purpose of marriage. First and foremost, marriage is a contract freely and mutually entered into between one man and one woman through which is formed a spiritual and physical relationship. This is manifested by the words spoken by Adam: "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh" (Gen 2:18-24).

As to the purpose for which marriage was instituted, it is made clear from God's own words in the overall account of creation, when He blessed the pair: "And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: increase and multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen 1:27-28).

It is clear then, that the matrimonial state was instituted by God, who willed that it should be the medium of the propagation of the human race. But the obligation to marry and beget children does not fall on every individual. The human race can be propagated by the millions who choose to marry, however great the number of persons who do not become parents. In the case of our first parents, however, there was a strict divine obligation of begetting children, that the race might be propagated through Adam and Eve.

By reason of the primary purpose of marriage, this contract is also called matrimony (from the Latin mater: "mother"), indicating that, from Eden on, marriage and motherhood were inseparably linked. Marriage is sometimes referred to as a conjugal union, from the Latin conjugere, to unite in marriage husband and wife. Unite, from the Latin unus, "one," defines the nature of the joining. These words admit of no other possible meaning than one single indivisible bond. These various terms—matrimony and conjugal union, pointing to the primary object or purpose of marriage, namely, the begetting of children—indicate what the qualities or properties of marriage must be, if the purposes for which marriage was intended are to be attained. These qualities are unity and indissolubility.

By unity we mean that God instituted marriage as a union between one man and one woman only. God took only one rib from Adam and created only one woman. Had He intended Adam to have more wives, He could just as easily have taken several ribs and made him several wives. Alternatively, had He meant marriage to be a union between two men, He could have made another man from the rib.

The moment man and wife exist, Adam sees them as parents, and this by the revelation of God. "Wherefore, a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh" (Gen 2:24). It was not through experience of his own that Adam spoke of a man leaving father and mother; Adam and Eve had none to leave. Hence, Adam’s words were prophetical, spoken in behalf of his children and all future generations.

This principle of unity was highly respected by the people of Israel in patriarchal times. We are familiar with the history of Isaac and Rebecca (Gen 24:64-67; chapter 26), and of Jacob and Rachel (Genesis, chapters 29 and 30). In the beginning it was the same under the Law of Moses, as we find in the marriage of Ruth and Booz (Ruth 2-4; their child was the grandfather of David); of Sara and Tobias (Tobias, chapters 7, 8, 10). God confirmed their unions and blessed them.

But as the centuries wore on, before the coming of the Redeemer, darkness began to gather. Not only individual families, but whole nations were soon wandering far from the Commandments of God. His anger at this led Him to send the Deluge to destroy the whole human race, leaving only Noë, his wife, and his sons and their wives to repopulate the earth. Because of the smallness of the group, and the heavy loss of men due to the constant warfare waged by the Jews, God, for a special purpose, and for a time—to preserve the Jewish race from extinction, at least until the coming of the promised Redeemer—allowed the Jews to have several wives.

Although the bond between man and wife never lost its sacred character in the Old Dispensation, and continued a type and figure of marriage in the New Law, this temporary concession was followed by many evils. Even the Jewish people began to look upon woman as an inferior being. It became a matter of debate whether she even had a human soul. Consequently, the good pleasure of the husband, whose possession of a soul was not questioned, became paramount. If the wife no longer pleased him, she could be dismissed with a bill of divorce (Deut 24; Mt 19:3?12).

Other nations followed the example of the Jews. Soon husbands became so depraved that they would divorce their wives for the most trivial offenses; burning the food was sufficient cause for dismissal. Hence, women were accustomed to reckon time not by historical events or the number of months in a year, but by the number of husbands they had had. This was the sad state of affairs in family life when Christ came into the world. Man had become the slave of his own depraved passions.

It was part of His mission to restore marriage to its original state and dignity as God the Father had instituted it in paradise. In His Sermon on the Mount He assured His listeners that He was not come to destroy the Law or the prophets: "I am not come to destroy, but fulfill" (Mt 5:17).

In the theological schools of the Jews, there had developed two schools of thought concerning marriage. One held that divorce was permissible only in case of adultery; the other taught that divorce was permissible for a great variety of reasons. On a day when Christ was beyond the Jordan and a great crowd of people had gathered (Mt 19:1-2), "There came to him the Pharisees tempting him [meaning 'putting Him to the test']. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Mt 19:3). [1] The question was designed to force Him to take sides on the much-disputed question. Note that they did not ask Him, "Is divorce permissible?" but, "When is divorce permissible?"

Christ's answer astounded them; He said that they were both wrong. Henceforth, He declared, no reason at all could justify divorce, not for a slight grievance, not for adultery, and repeated the words from Genesis, which they knew very well:

Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore, now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [The Pharisees] say to him: why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shallmarry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery (Mt 19:4-9).

The commentary on Matthew 19:9 says that the Greek word used by Our Lord in the italicized phrase means incestuous marriage within the degree forbidden by the Mosaic Law (Lev 18:1-17). [2] It is the offense for which St. Paul excommunicated the Corinthian (1 Cor 5:13). This interpretation is substantiated by the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem, convened in 49 A.D. This first council of the Church directed the faithful of the time as follows: "As touching the Gentiles that believe, we have written, decreeing that they should only refrain themselves from that which has been offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication" (Ac 21:25). These were common practices of Gentiles which offended the Jews: eating things which had been offered to idols, eating blood (meats which had not been drained), things strangled, and fornication.

So the fornication from which the Gentile converts are to refrain, by order of the Council of Jerusalem, has to do with the degrees of kinship between marriage partners observed by the Jews (see 1 Cor 5). The decree ordered the Gentiles to conform to the same prohibitions.

Present-day civil laws mirror the Levitical prohibition; all of them are meant to promote the common good, and are dictated by the operation of inexorable laws of nature. Any marriage practices, or even pairing of animals which ignore these restrictions, result in the birth of defective offspring. In England under the statute of 32 Henry VIII, c. 38, all marriages were made lawful between parties not within the Levitical degrees of relationship; this was interpreted to mean all marriages excepting those between relatives in the direct line and in the collateral line to the third degree. In most, if not all, of the states there are statutes covering this subject, and in a number of them, marriages between first cousins are forbidden.

This scholarly insight into Christ's actual words, from a closer scrutiny of the Greek used in translating St. Matthew's Gospel, would, even if we had nothing else, fully vindicate the infallible teaching authority of the Church, as it vindicates the reliability of Catholic Tradition. The research comes along some twenty centuries into her history, but the Church has never depended on the Bible for her doctrine. As St. Irenaeus says: "For indeed the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel; and by them we have known the truth. . . For by no others have we known the method of our salvation, than those by whom the Gospel [meaning, in the context, the good news, glad tidings] came to us: which was both in the first place preached by them, and afterwards by the will of God handed down to us in the Scriptures. . . . For it never can be right to say, that they preached before they had perfect knowledge; as some venture to say, boasting themselves to be correctors of the apostles. For after that Our Lord rose from the dead, and they were clad with the power of the Holy Ghost coming on them from on high, were filled with all things, and had perfect knowledge [the infallibility of the apostles]; they went out into the ends of the earth, bearing the good tidings. . . ." [3]

In the most indispensable book on the Bible [4] that I know of, Msgr. Henry Graham speaks of the quandary of the Christians subject to Diocletian's Edict. When he ordered that all the churches be razed to the ground, and that all the Sacred Scriptures be delivered up to be burned, the question arose as to what was Sacred Scripture. If a Christian gave up an inspired writing to save his life, he became an apostate, betrayed Christ, and denied the Faith. The author says: "I am not bound to go to the stake for refusing to give up some 'spurious' Gospel or Epistle. Could I, then, safely give up some of the 'controverted' or disputed books, like the Epistle of St. James, or the Hebrews, or the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Epistle of St. Barna­bas, or of St. Clement? There is no need to be a martyr by mistake. . . . What, definitely and precisely, were to be the books for which a Christian would be bound to lay down his life on pain of losing his soul?" [5]

The persecutions ended with the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. After consideration at four Councils, that of Rome (374) and three in Africa (Hippo [393] and Carthage [397 and 419]), at which St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, was one of the forty-four bishops who signed the proceedings, the canon of the Old and New Testa­ments was firmly established. The canon of these councils is the Catholic canon of seventy-three books, which includes those seven books called by Protestants "Apocrypha,"—which originally meant hidden, but in Protestantism has come to mean spurious—Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Machabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.

After enumerating the books, the Council at Carthage in 419 added: "But let the Church beyond the sea (Rome) be consulted about confirm­ing this canon." Rome had, in fact, already spoken. In a document issued about 374, Pope Damasus listed the first (clearly in­spired: protocanonical) and second (those that required a second look: deuterocanonical) canon, as the African Fathers now deter­mined it. The same canon is found in a letter from Pope St. Inno­cent I, to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, dated February 20, 405.

            All of this proves that the Church already had the doctrine, and had been teaching it everywhere for several decades before the New Testament was written, and for several centuries before the Bible as a whole was assembled, and for fourteen centuries before printing was invented. And the Church has never permitted remarriage after the dissolution of a valid marriage, despite the numbers who today misrepresent and flout her teaching. Whatever is discovered, she need not fear that she has been teaching the wrong doctrine.

About adultery, there was no question. Christ had denounced divorce for any reason when He answered the Pharisees (Mt 19:4-9), who pointed to Moses' command "to give a bill of divorce" (Deut 24:1-4). On leaving Judea to go into Galilee, Our Lord passed through Samaria (Jn 4:3-4). There, He encountered the woman at the well, to whom He spoke about living water, a perpetual spring efficacious for life everlasting, the theological name for which is sanctifying grace. [6] By verse 15, she wants this water, but there is an obstacle to it: the moral disorder of her life. "Call thy husband" (verse 16), would have seemed a very natural remark, for a long public discussion with a woman was not according to custom: "His disciples . . . wondered that he talked with the woman" (verse 27). The woman's denial, "I have no husband," was evasive, equivocal, and perhaps a lie, and it concealed ugly facts which Christ, with merciless mercy, unmasked. [7] He declared that her words were literally true, "For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband. This thou hast said truly" (Jn 4:18).

The indissolubility of marriage had been established as a principle, well understood by the apostles (Mk 10:5-12; Lk 16:18). But in His Sermon on the Mount, we see Him fulfilling the Law of Moses by elevating and perfecting it, by strengthening it and raising it to a more spiritual plane, by turning the minds of his hearers to a greater love and higher standards. Just as forgiveness of enemies replaced revenge (Mt 5:21-24), to adultery was added the occasion of sin and purity of heart:

You have heard that it was said to them of old: thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart . . . And it has been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery (Mt 5:27-32).

After the encounter with the Pharisees, Christ with His disciples retired into a house. But His words had been so startling that even the apostles were surprised. Hence, St. Mark says: "And in the house again, His disciples asked Him concerning the same things. And He saith to them: whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mk 10:10-12).

These are Christ's last words to His apostles on His future doctrine on marriage and divorce. In this final instruction Our Lord made no further reference to any exceptions. The note of finality is appropriate. He never deviated from this teaching, nor has the Church.

Around 57 A.D., eight years after the Council of Jerusalem, St. Paul writes to the Corinthians in words that differ not at all from the teaching of the Church then and today: "To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife" (1 Cor 7:10-11). Therefore, to the question, "Why does the Catholic Church forbid divorce and remarriage?" the answer is simple: because Christ forbade it. (To distinguish divorce from mere legal separation, in this discussion, we use the term in the sense in which it is commonly understood outside the Church, as a severance of the marriage bond with the consequent freedom of marrying again.) As the institution founded by our divine Savior and commanded to teach His doctrines, the Church could sanction divorce only by being faithless to the command of Christ.

Although Christ's real meaning is sufficiently clear (Mt 5:31-32; Mk 10:5-12; Lk 16:18), it is ignored by Protestants, who choose to interpret the word fornication as adultery, and have long permitted remarriage after divorce, claiming as authorization that Christ made an exception for the latter: "And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Mt 5:32; 19:9). This means, they maintain, that when a wife has been guilty of adultery, her husband may not only put her away but may marry another.

No; this means that if marriage between partners within forbidden degrees of kinship has been attempted, the would-be wife shall be put away. When the man remarries someone he is free to marry, that is, someone outside the forbidden degrees of kinship and who has no spouse already, he does not commit adultery. And he that marries the wife that was put away for fornication, does not commit adultery. But he who puts away his wife for any other reason, and "marries" another, commits adultery, as does the man who "marries" the put-away wife. So remarriage during the lifetime of the other party constitutes the sin of adultery, and is never permitted. When Christ made the solemn and impressive proclamation, "What therefore God bath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mt 19:6; Mk 10:9), He made the marriage bond indissoluble henceforth by any human power.

Christ declares without any limitation: "He that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." This would not be true if the previous marriage is dissolved. Christ's answer to the Pharisees is unambiguous: in case of infidelity to her marriage vows, a husband may separate from his wife, but the marriage itself is not dissolved except by death of one of the partners, and if he contracts a new marriage he himself becomes an adulterer. So even by their own interpretation, that adultery and fornication are all the same thing, Protestant teaching on marriage stands exposed as false and unbiblical. If one partner even in a real marriage, as distinguished from an attempted marriage within forbidden degrees of kinship, i.e., fornication,  has committed real adultery, according to the teaching of Our Lord, he is in reality still married. This?-certainly not the only case, only one of the most egregious?-illustrates the plight of Protestants, who have no infallible authority to preserve them in the teaching of Christ.

The indissolubility of marriage was one of the doctrines which set Christians apart from pagans, with their habitual practice of divorce, in the first place. And the attack on the sanctity of marriage, with the excuse of a misread and certainly misunderstood text, was led by Protestantism, taking Christians back to the same level as their pagan neighbors, as though Christ had not come.

The guest on the 700 Club with the chortling Pat Robertson will have overcome addictions to any number of things?-drugs, alcohol, gambling. To round out his story, he will often add the seemingly insignificant detail that in addition to his addictions, he left behind another marriage partner. Matter-of-factly, he tells the world at large that he got a divorce and remarried, and both he and the new partner "got saved," in keeping with the Protestant dogma which holds that the declaration and attainment of salvation are identical. And no one bats an eye.

While the marriages of Protestants, contracted either before their own ministers or before a civil officer, are valid marriages provided both parties are free to marry, the questions raised by this public proclamation are neither asked nor answered. Welcomed with glad cries on such "Christian" programs, they are held up to the rest of us as examples of how "born-again Christians," exemplifying Christian ideals, ought to live.

A marriage investigation can take months, or even years. No one on these shows wastes one second determining the true status of these "converts." Is either validly married to another, and both living presently in adultery? Was the former partner of either validly married to another, meaning that the immediately previous union was not valid? Was any one of the respective previous unions a valid marriage? Was either free to marry anyone at all?

And their manner! Only imagine St. Paul, or St. John, chuckling nonchalantly to one who in all likelihood is living with someone else's lawful wife, or living with someone to whom he is not married, but no longer bets on the ponies! Only imagine them calling on such a "convert" to "witness" to others! In the narrative of how he and the new partner came to "accept Jesus" as their "personal savior," there will be not so much as one reference to the Commandment which forbids adultery, although, from time to time, mention will be made of the Bible. It says, "He became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation" (Heb 5:9).

A man and woman can enter into marriage only by an act of free consent. No one is forced, whether by physical laws, by the moral law of God, or the laws of civil society, to marry; the union, then, can be effected only by the parties' free will. This free consent is a real contract, by which each binds himself in justice.

There is a great difference between the marriage contract and other contracts; in the latter, the contracting parties freely decide on the terms of the contract. For example, an independent contractor enters into a contract with an employer, in which the amount of work to be done, the number of hours to be spent in work, and the wage to be paid are specified to the satisfaction of each. Both parties freely consent to these terms. This free consent completes the contract.

But in the case of the marriage contract, it is altogether different. The man and woman who wish to marry find the terms of the contract already determined. The two parties are free to enter into the contract or not, but if they do enter into it, they can and must do so only on the terms which God has set down.  They assume all the obligations and acquire all the rights which He has attached to the married state. If they do not consent to marriage as God instituted it, if there is some mental reservation, or some impediment on the part of one of them, their marriage?-the contract?-is invalid, and therefore no marriage has taken place.

For fifteen centuries after Christ had spoken the words  which restored the original contract of marriage to the high dignity given it by God in paradise (Mt 5:31-32), all Christians looked upon that sacred bond as one that could be broken only by death. Within the Christian fold, divorce was practically unknown until the Protestant Reformation, when the so-called Reformers in the sixteenth century began again to wrest, in the words of St. Peter, the words of Scripture from their context to accommodate the flouting of God's laws.

King Henry VIII of England, once known as the "Defender of the Faith" for writing a treatise in defense of the seven sacraments (of which Holy Matrimony was one) against the teachings of Martin Luther, had a saintly wife, Catherine, but no son. He became infatuated with the lady-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn. Because Pope Clement VII would not grant him a divorce from his lawful wife, he repudiated the authority of the papacy, set up his own religion, precipitated the bloody persecutions that followed, and ran up a total of six wives before he died.

Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, did most to destroy the Christian faith of the people in the unity and permanence of marriage. He began by declaring that "marriage is a mere worldly thing." [8] Then he encouraged divorces by announcing from his pulpit that after the example of the Assyrian king, every husband who was not satisfied with his spouse could substitute Esther for Vashti, and put the servant in place of the mistress. [9] Going even further, he sanctioned a plurality of wives. In his sermon On the First Book of Moses, he declared: "It is not forbidden, however, that a man have more than one wife, though I could not today advise it." [10]

Nor did his teaching remain mere theory: he put it into practice. Together with his fellow "Reformers," he authorized Philip, the Landgrave of Hesse, to take a second wife while he was still living with his first, the mother of his eight children, from whom he had no intention of separating. Here, we see at work at the very birth of Protestantism those forces which have been ceaselessly operative within her numerous divisions, and which under the stress of human passions have so twisted and distorted the great ideal proclaimed by Christ: the union of husband and wife in a marriage indissoluble by any human power.

Because the Church can change only her own laws, not God's, she has seen whole nations torn away, helpless to do otherwise, if she is to remain true to her commission by Christ. Replacing His clear teaching as found in Holy Scripture and by the unbroken tradition of fifteen centuries with their own opinions, the founders of the principal Protestant denominations began by permitting divorce on the sole ground of adultery. It was the entering wedge that was destined to pry apart millions of unions which Christ had forbade any man to put asunder. Under the pressure of man's unbridled lust, the grounds for divorce began to be multiplied, until today they are so numerous as to permit people to sever the sacred tie for the slightest and silliest of reasons.

Almost without exception, all Protestant ministers, including Fundamentalists, preside over the remarriages of persons divorced once, twice, or even more times with no apparent recollection of the stern warning of the divine Founder of Christianity: "What therefore Cod bath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mt 19:6; Mk 10:9). Thus is His teaching concerning the holiness and the permanence of marriage torn into shreds and tatters. The grounds on which divorce is granted have practically annihilated in the sects the law of Christ concerning the sanctity and the indissolubility of the marriage bond.

Because the Catholic Church is the authorized teacher of Christ's doctrines, Catholics must hear those doctrines. The situation may call for fewer happy "homilies" and more sound doctrine, for example, the warning words which St. Paul addressed to the Christian colony at Corinth more than nineteen centuries ago: "Not I but the Lord commandeth" (1 Cor 7:10). The absolute indissolubility of the bond of Christian marriage is not the invention of the apostles, of the councils or pontiffs of the Church, or of any man, but the plain unmistakable teaching of Jesus Christ Himself.

Splitting the smallest unit of society, the family, unleashes destructive forces of the same magnitude as those set loose by splitting the smallest unit of matter, the atom?-forces as profoundly catastrophic to society as the atomic bomb is destructive in nature. But unlike the Catholics who in the last thirty to forty years unleashed this disorder in the Church, who may well have known exactly what they were doing, neither individual Protestants nor Protestant leaders associate these calamitous consequences with basic Protestant principles. They cannot identify them as the result of a failure to uphold the natural law and the Commandments.

Through the legal destruction of the family, the state is undermined; no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Hence, weaken the bonds of marriage, and you weaken the solidity and strength of the state. The empires of ancient Greece and Rome are typical examples. Both fell, not through the attacks from other nations, but rather through the destabilization of the family through divorce. As Bonald said: "When the state destroys the family, the family avenges itself and ruins the state." [11] Seeing the evils of divorce, Gladstone wrote to Sir Edward Russell: "I have long thought that the battle of Christianity will have to be fought around the sacredness of marriage." And he might have added that the preservation of family and state will depend upon the successful outcome of the struggle.

Figures from 1972 indicate that 45% of families in the United States consisted of two parents with children; by 1999, the figure had dropped to 26%. According to the 1998 Statistical Abstract, reporting rounded figures from 1994, there were 2,362,000 marriages and 1,191,000 divorces, more than one divorce for every marriage; in 1997, there were 11,719,000 children living with one parent only. These figures reflect only those couples legally married and divorced. Not included are the children whose parents never bothered with marriage at all. Senator Moynihan of New York stated on This Week [12] that 52% of the children born in New York City are born to single parents. In Philadelphia, the figure is 83%. "And that's not just one child per parent," he added; "it can be two or three." There are attendant evils. The evening news frequently features reports that a child has been hospitalized, or even killed, after being abused by the mother's "boyfriend."

We have become accustomed to hearing of someone who has a child "by his girlfriend." What this means is that the child was deprived of his right to two parents from the start, and not by death, but by choice. Reason tells us that God the Creator has assigned the care of children to their parents, because to them alone God has given that deep and powerful love of the child which they must have who are to undertake the long and trying task of bringing him to bodily, mental and moral fitness. The obligation of parents, then, of training their children, and the right and duty, given to them by God directly, of caring for them, is difficult if not impossible of fulfillment under these circumstances.

The social evils of easy divorce are obvious. One of the most far?reaching of these evils is the encouragement of lower conceptions of conjugal fidelity, for when a person regards the taking of a new spouse as entirely lawful for a multitude of more or less slight reasons, his sense of obligation toward his present partner is subject to attenuation. Simultaneous cannot seem much worse than successive plurality of intimate relationships, although the much-married Elizabeth Taylor sees some virtue in it: she declares that she "at least 'married'" her "husbands."

There are cases which call for legal separation without the right to contract another marriage. The Church permits this limited separation, chiefly, when further cohabitation would cause grave injury to soul or body, for instance, in cases of physical abuse of wife or children. In such situations, a legal divorce is often required to ensure support of children, or to avail oneself of legal means of protection from a violent spouse.

We, as Catholics, know that God instituted marriage, and we know that the Catholic Church does not tolerate divorce. But we are surrounded by those who do not agree with us, and some of them are in the Church, masquerading as Catholics. By manipulating the internal laws of the Church, these have been managing for years now to annul valid marriages of Catholics. This pernicious practice, the granting of annulments of valid marriages followed by approved remarriage, constitute a departure from her teaching.

Hence Catholics are subjected to evil influences inside the Church. Outside, they encounter the spirit of the pagans around them, exemplified by the feminists, the lobbyists for abortions, and the politically active deviates who would undermine the family by giving it a new definition. The toleration/acceptance of "temporary," "companionate," "trial," and even homosexual marriages, which are entered into by mutual agreement and may be broken off at will like any other agreement, makes a mockery of the concept of Christian marriage.

To see them and their activities in the proper light, we need only recall the Catholic teaching on marriage, restated, in this case, by Cardinal Gibbons: "Marriage is the most inviolable and irrevocable of all contracts that were ever formed. Every human compact may be lawfully dissolved but this. Nations may be justified in abrogating treaties with each other; merchants may dissolve partnerships; brothers will eventually leave the paternal roof, and, like Jacob and Esau, separate from one another. Friends, like Abraham and Lot, may be obliged to part company. But by the law of God, the bond uniting husband and wife can be dissolved only by death. No earthly sword can sever the nuptial knot which the Lord has tied; for 'what God hath joined together let no man put asunder.'" (Emphasis in original.)

This, then, is the origin, nature, object, properties and benefits of the contract of marriage. But is it a sacrament?

Calvin in his "Institutions" (IV, xix, 34), says: "Lastly, there is matrimony, which all admit was instituted by God, though no one before the time of [Pope] Gregory regarded it as a sacrament. What man in his sober senses could so regard it? God's ordinance is good and holy; so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair?cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments." Luther speaks in terms equally forceful. On the first page of his German work, published at Wittenberg in 1530 under the title Von den Ehesachen, he writes: "No one indeed can deny that marriage is an external worldly thing, like clothes and food, house and home, subject to worldly authority, as shown by so many imperial laws governing it." In an earlier work he writes: "Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions which claim such sacredness for it are a mere jest." And two pages later: "Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject." [13] Following, as usual, the Reformers and not Holy Scripture, Protestants say no, marriage is not a sacrament.

In the opening pages above, twelve citations from Holy Scripture document the incompatibility between the Protestant toleration of divorce and remarriage and the teaching of the Christ. This demonstrates the highly selective use of the Bible in Protestantism. So when the charge is made that something “does not appear in the New Testament,” Catholic have only to remember what Protestants do with words that do appear in the New Testament.

According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the Church, and is thus defined (in canon i, Sess. XXIV): "If any one shall say that Matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema." This solemn declaration was the response of the Church to the denial of the sacramental character of marriage. That Christian marriage (i.e., marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense of the word is for Catholics, then, an indubitable truth.

The reason why marriage was not expressly and formally included among the sacraments, and the denial of it branded as heresy earlier, is to be found in the historical development of the doctrine regarding the sacraments, but the fact itself may be traced to apostolic times.

With regard to the several religious rites designated as sacraments of the New Law, there was always in the Church a profound conviction that they conferred interior divine grace. But the grouping of them into one and the same category was left for a later period, when the dogmas of faith in general began to be scientifically examined and systematically arranged. This is not strange; anyone inheriting a number of valuables is going to take time to identify, sort out, categorize, and determine their worth. He may even call in an expert for an appraisal.

So it was with the immense treasure left to us by Christ in the Church. The appraisal took place only with the passage of time, often in response to a denial of the value of one or the other. In the meantime, the Church went on doing what the apostles, instructed by Our Lord, had done, with the beneficiaries of the treasures, the faithful, none the worse off.

Moreover, that the seven sacraments should be grouped in one category was by no means self?evident. For, though it was accepted that each of these rites conferred interior grace, yet, in contrast to their common invisible effect, the difference in external ceremony and even in the immediate purpose of the production of grace was so great that, for a long time, it hindered a uniform classification. Thus, there is a radical difference between the external form under which the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are administered, and those that characterize Penance and Matrimony. For while Holy Matrimony is in the nature of a contract, and Penance in the nature of a judicial process, the three first?mentioned take the form of a religious consecration of the recipients.

To prove that the Church has taught that marriage is a sacrament of the New Law from apostolic times, it will suffice to show that, concerning marriage, the Church has always taught those things which belong to the essence of a sacrament. The name sacrament cannot be cited as satisfactory evidence, since it did not acquire until a late period the exclusively technical meaning it has today; both in pre?Christian times and in the first centuries of the Christian Era it had a much broader and more indefinite signification.

             The classical scriptural text is the declaration of St. Paul, who emphatically declares that the relationship between husband and wife should mirror that between Christ and His Church:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the savior of his body. Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men tolove their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and eherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church (Eph 5:22-33).

We do not claim that the italicized phrase, "This is a great sacrament," proves that marriage is a sacrament, for the meaning of the word, as has been said, was at that time too indefinite. But considering the expression in its relation to the preceding words, we are led to the conclusion that it is to be taken in the strict sense of a sacrament of the New Law. This conclusion is unavoidable if we bear in mind what a sacrament is, and what it does. The sacraments are visible, outward signs, permanently instituted by Christ, to confer grace. The sacraments therefore signify what they effect, and effect what they signify.

St. Paul is saying that the love of Christian spouses for each other should be modelled on the love between Christ and the Church, because Christian marriage, as a copy and token of the union of Christ with the Church, is a great mystery or sacrament. It would not be a solemn, mysterious symbol of the union of Christ with the Church, which takes concrete form in the individual members of the Church, unless it efficaciously represented this union, i.e. not merely by signifying the supernatural life?union of Christ with the Church, but also by causing that union to be realized in the individual members; or, in other words, by conferring the supernatural life of grace.

Indeed, there would be no reason why the apostle should refer with such emphasis to Christian marriage as so great a sacrament, if the greatness of Christian marriage did not lie in the fact that it is not a mere sign, but an efficacious sign of the life of grace. Furthermore, it would be entirely out of keeping with God's plan of salvation as revealed in the New Testament if we possessed a sign of grace and salvation instituted by God which was only an empty sign, and not an efficacious one.

Elsewhere, St. Paul emphasizes in a most significant fashion the difference between the Old and the New Testament, when he calls the religious rites of the former "weak and needy elements" (Gal 4:9) which could not of themselves confer true sanctity, the effect of true justice and sanctity being reserved for the New Testament and its religious rites. If, therefore, he terms Christian marriage, as a religious act, a "great sacrament," he means not to reduce it to the low plane of the Old Testament rites, to the plane of a "weak and needy element," but rather to show its importance as a sign of the life of grace, and, like the other sacraments, an efficacious sign: a sign which does what it is a sign of.

St. Paul, then, does not speak of marriage as a true sacrament in explicit and immediately apparent fashion, but only in such a manner that the doctrine must be deduced from his words. Put another way, we know what he means because he is describing a sacrament, what it is and what it does. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV), in the dogmatic chapter on marriage, says that the sacramental effect of grace in marriage is "intimated" by the apostle in the Epistle to the Ephesians. For further verification of the doctrine that marriage under the New Law confers grace and is therefore included among the true sacraments, the Council of Trent refers to the Holy Fathers, the earlier councils, and the ever-manifest Tradition of the universal Church.

The teaching of the Fathers and the constant Tradition of the Church set forth the dogma of Christian marriage as a sacrament, not in the scientific, theological terminology of a later time, but only in substance. Again, the following elements belong to a sacrament of the New Law: (1) it must be a visible sign, (2) permanently instituted by Christ, (3) which produces the sanctifying grace by means of the visible sign. Hence, whoever attributes these elements to Christian marriage, thereby declares it a true sacrament in the strict sense of the word.

From the time of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 A.D.), the Fathers give to matrimony all the qualities required of a sacrament. Their doctrine can be summed up under these three headings: (1): Matrimony is one of the "sacred things." Tertullian (c. 160?-c. 225), for instance, asks: "How can we describe that marriage which is made by the Church, confirmed by the Holy Sacrifice [oblatio], sealed by the blessing, which the angels proclaim and which is ratified by our Father in heaven?" (Ad uxorem, II, 9).

(2): Matrimony is made holy by Christ. St. Ambrose (c. 339-c. 397) says, "Though we praise virginity we do not deny that marriage was sanctified by Christ when His divine voice spoke the words, 'They will be two in one flesh and one spirit’" (Ep. 42 ad Sync. n. 3).

(3): Grace is connected with matrimony. The union between man and wife is compared to the union between Christ and His Church. Just as the union of Christ with His Church produces all the holiness in the Church, so does marriage produce a permanent and sanctifying bond. By reason of the marriage bond the union will be permanently sanctified and the partners will receive the grace to sanctify their love and observe the duties of married life. Moreover, in the New Law, the rites which signify sanctifying grace also cause it?-these rites are the rites used in the six other sacraments. The marriage rite then not only signifies but produces sanctifying grace.

There is nothing in the teaching of Christ or the apostles concerning the matter and form of this sacrament. According to the commonly accepted opinion, the external sign or the matter and form are contained in the matrimonial contract itself, being the words of the signs of mutual consent expressed by the contracting parties. From the earliest times the fundamental proposition, Matrimonium facit consensus, has been upheld: marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament.

Since the matrimonial contract is in itself the Sacrament of Matrimony, it follows that the rite of the sacrament, its matter and form, must be looked for only in the mutual consent of the contracting parties. The sacramental rite of Matrimony is the mutual consent of the parties, externally expressed.

If we wish to investigate further and determine precisely what element in the mutual consent is the matter of the sacrament, and what clement is the form, we find that various opinions are offered, none of which can claim certainty. The explanation more commonly given is this: the words of consent of both parties, inasmuch as they signify the matrimonial surrender of self, constitute the matter of the sacrament; inasmuch as they signify the acceptance of matrimonial rights they constitute the form of the sacrament.

In all the other sacraments, the minister of the sacrament is always a person distinct from the recipient. No one may baptize himself, no priest can forgive his own sins. But in the case of the Sacrament of Matrimony it is quite different?—the recipients of the sacrament are always the ministers of the sacrament. It is not difficult to see why this should be so: the minister of a sacrament is he who performs the sacramental rite. Since in Matrimony the sacramental rite is made up of the mutual consent of the parties, the ministers are those who give this mutual consent.

But is not the priest the minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony? No; the part played by the priest in marriage is that of witness. There are certain conditions required (or used to be?) by the law of the Church, which conditions must be fulfilled, or else the contract is invalid. One of the conditions required for the valid marriage of two Catholics, or of a Catholic with a non-Catholic, is that a priest should be present as a specially delegated and authorized witness of the Church.

The form for the celebration of the Sacrament of Matrimony in the "Rituale Romanum" was remarkably simple. It consisted of the following elements: (1): A declaration of consent made by both parties and formally ratified by the priest in the words: "Ego conjungo vos in matrimonium in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen." (I unite you in wedlock in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen). (2): A form for the blessing of the ring which the bridegroom receives back from the hand of the priest to place upon the ring finger of the bride's left hand. (3): Certain short versicles and a final benedictory prayer. This ceremony according to the intention of the Church was almost always followed by (4): the Nuptial Mass, in which there were Collects for the married couple, as well as a solemn blessing after the Pater Noster and another shorter one before the priest's benediction at the close. At this Mass also it was recommended that the bride and bridegroom should receive Holy Communion.

Cana, where Our Lord worked His first public miracle, is only six miles from the little village of Nazareth, where He spent His childhood, with Joseph and Mary watching over Him. We know them as the Holy Family, the Family of Saints. And there is a reason. For in His omniscient wisdom, the Divine Child could see far into the future. He could see all the other families that are now, that have been, and that will be in time yet to come. Already in Bethlehem and Nazareth, He had come, as He informed us later, to be the way, the truth and the life. Already there, with Joseph and Mary, He had formed the Holy Family, the model for all other families.

Since He selected for Himself such an exalted ideal of Christian family life, we should not wonder then that He should select a marriage feast as the occasion for His first public miracle. Since Cana was so near, Our Lord no doubt knew the young couple personally. They were probably poor, as are the inhabitants of Cana today. St. John tells the story of the miracle at the wedding feast: "There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited . . . to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: they have no wine . . . His mother saith to the waiters: whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye . . . And Jesus saith to them: fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus saith to them: draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast . . . The chief steward calleth the bridegroom and saith to him . . . Thou hast kept the good wine until now" (Jn 2:1-10). 

Scarcely a year goes by without some new and widely publicized charge that the Catholic Church is the enemy of women. The only thing these books prove is the ignorance of those who write them. One example, widely advertised and extensively read, appeared some sixty or so years ago: Woman and the New Race. Its author declares that her campaign for "new sex ideals" is "a challenge to the Church." She sneers at the thought of original sin, and consequently also at our Redemption by Jesus Christ, and scoffs at the idea that marriage is a sacrament. She charges that, instead of uplifting women through the institution of marriage, the "hierarchy created about the whole love life of woman an atmosphere of degradation." The primary object of marriage is excluded entirely. We would never guess the book is so old; we hear the same ideas at least once a week.

This woman's ignorance appears to be all-encompassing. Beginning with marriage, it includes the history of the human race, and the debt womanhood owes to the Catholic Church. It is no secret that before the time of Christ, the position of woman was low and degraded. It was He who restored the natural contract of marriage to all its pristine dignity as God had instituted it in the Garden of Eden when He blessed the union between Adam and Eve. The woman regained her proper place of honor when He reconfirmed the words spoken by Adam: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Mt 19:4). Then He added: "What, therefore God bath joined together let no man put asunder" (Mt 19:6). This notion was so novel as to bring on consternation: "You mean we can no longer turn her out of the house and send her out into the night for burning the dinner?"

Now, to say that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Matrimony is not the same thing as to say that Christ instituted marriage. God instituted marriage in the beginning; Christ added to the marriage contract the character of a sacrament. Instead of creating about marriage "an atmosphere of degradation," as this woman contended, Our Lord did the very opposite. Having renewed the ancient character of marriage, He also provided the means of sustaining it, by adding to this original contract the graces and blessings of a sacrament. He vivified the natural contract with supernatural, sacramental life.

Anyone who sees the Church as the oppressor of women need only compare their lot with that of women in Moslem, Buddhist, or Hindu lands where Christianity has barely penetrated. The contrast is most striking, according to Father O'Brien, who tells of the woman above in The Faith of Millions. [14] About the time she wrote her book, he was traveling in the Middle East. In the hold of the vessel, amid a squalor rarely seen in Christian countries, were a number of Turkish families who were returning from Greece to Constantinople. In one corner was a little group of six women and one man eating out of a single large bowl. The faces of the women were veiled down to their mouths. Upon inquiry as to the relationship existing among the members of such an unusual combination, he was informed that the women were the six wives of the Turk. Squatted on the floor, ministering to their master like slaves, they presented a revealing picture of the condition of women under paganism?-a condition which exists to a large extent still in non-Christian lands, a fact easily verified by watching the scenes from the lands of the Middle East on the daily news lately.

Other evidence that things have not changed much in these countries, if at all, is provided by an autobiography of an Arab woman published in a little paperback called Unveiled, or another by an American woman who had married a Moslem; her book is entitled Not Without My Daughter. The advocates of women's liberation would do well to compare woman's degraded status in such countries, where she is still a serf doing the drudgery of her lord and a plaything ministering to his lust, with the position of dignity and reverence accorded her in those countries where truly Christian ideals prevail, says Father O'Brien.

Let the women who chafe under the law of Christ concerning the permanence and unity of marriage, Father continues, visit the excavated cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii. In those old Roman homes dating from the pagan era, they will see the quarters set aside for the concubines, upon whom the head of the household frequently lavished the greatest luxury. Let them see this before they agitate against the solitary lever which has lifted womanhood from the foul morass of pagan lechery to the position of honor and reverence which she enjoys today. That lever is the teaching of Christ?-a teaching which His Church has held for almost twenty centuries as a beacon light to guide the groping feet of mankind from the darkness of paganism to the refinement of Christian life and culture. [15] 

The influence of the Church can be seen also in the protection afforded women in the states whose laws reflect the Catholic beliefs of their settlers. In some (perhaps all?), unless there is a prenuptial agreement signed by both parties, a wife discarded by her husband will find herself and her children destitute only if he is. "Community property" laws dictate that she gets half of everything, period. So if he subscribes to the maxim that "he travels fastest who travels alone," and takes to his heels, he will travel even faster, having left behind half of everything he owned.

We sum up in the words of the Council of Trent, which says that "the holy Fathers, the Councils, and the Tradition of the Universal Church have always taught that marriage is rightly to be numbered among the sacraments of the New Law" (Conc. Trid. Sess. 24, cap. de matrimonio).

But, says the Protestant: "The word sacrament does not appear in the New Testament. Protestants accept baptism and the Lord's Supper because they are specifically instituted by Christ (Matt. 3:11-17; Mark 1:8-11; Luke 3:15-16; Matt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-20; 1 Cor 10:16, 17; 11:23-29). Their position is stated officially in the Thirty-nine Articles [of the Anglicans] as follows: 'There are two sacraments ordained by Christ. The five commonly called sacraments, that is, confirmation, penance, order [meaning Holy Orders], marriage, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel. They have no visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.'" [16] (Capitalization as in source.)

When the leaders of the new churches met at the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire at Speyer in April, 1529, it was resolved that, according to a decree promulgated in 1524 at the Diet of Worms, communities in which the new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid the Mass, or hinder Catholics from assisting thereat. Against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel, the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Luneburg, the Prince of Anhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities, entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called Protestants. In the course of time the original connotation of "no toleration for Catholics" was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of those . . . sects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by the Reformers in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. [17] 

It would appear that in keeping with the origin of their name, they never stop protesting. In this case, the large number of Bible verses in the above Protestant's protest against Catholic teaching suggests to the reader unfamiliar with Protestant apologetics that Holy Scripture is his authority. All the numbers, along with the ceaselessly-broadcast Protestant myth that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the source of his beliefs, serve only to reinforce the false impression. But despite all the numbers, Holy Scripture is once again playing a bit part; it is mentioned, but not allowed to settle the matter. And the shifting and conflicting opinions of quarreling sectarians turns out to be authoritative enough for this man and millions of other Protestants to scuttle five of the sacraments.

Let us do what this Protestant spokesman failed to do: consult Holy Scripture. We are examining the case of Holy Matrinmony at present; that leaves four other sacraments which Protestants do not accept because, supposedly, they were not instituted by Christ.

When, at the Last Supper, Our Lord commanded that the apostles "Do [this] for a commemoration of me" (1 Cor 11:24), He was instituting the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and thus speaking to men with the powers of the priesthood.

Catholics, who know better, do not expect to see every word and act of Our Lord recorded in Holy Scripture. Just as some unrecorded events can be deduced from other passages, for example, the Resurrection, we do not find the complete ordination ceremony repeated. But St. Paul refers to the rite itself when he writes to Timothy: “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood” (1 Tim 4:14;  2 Tim 1:6). Elsewhere, St. James refers to “the priests of the Church” (Jas 5:4) in connection with Extreme Unction.

Late in the same day on which He rose from the dead, He appeared in the room where the apostles were gathered and said to them, "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (Jn 20:21), conferring on them the same mission which He, the Word Incarnate, had from the Father, to be exercised in the name and with the authority of Christ Himself. And "When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (Jn 20:22-23). This text depicts Christ instituting the Sacrament of Penance.

When the apostles heard that the Samaritans "had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were cone, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them: and they received the Holy Ghost" (Ac 8:14-17).

This text depicts the apostles administering the Sacrament of Confirmation. Is it conceivable that the wicked Catholic Church, with her invented rites and doctrines, had displaced the Primitive Protestant Church so soon?

In the following letter, written to the faithful in general, St. James is exhorting them not to withhold from the dying the graces available through the Sacrament of Extreme Unction: "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him" (Jas 5:14-15).

As with marriage, "ordaining" their ministers, and in some sects, retaining Confirmation, Protestants have kept these, while denying that they are sacraments. In the case of Penance and Extreme Unction, they have rejected them altogether, despite St. James ordering that the priests be brought in when someone is seriously ill. This is only another case of the selectivity with which Protestants read the Bible.

            Now for the Protestant apologist's authorities--in this case, authority. We take the history of The Thirty-nine Articles from a Protestant reference work, which speaks of them as "The set of doctrinal statements finally adopted by Convocation (1563) and Parliament (1571). . . . The final stage of a process. . . . In the context of negotiations with the Lutheran princes from 1535, a list of Ten Articles was . . . adopted with royal authority . . . . After a year, [another instruction] reasserted seven sacraments against the three of the Ten Articles. . . . In 1539, the Act of Six Articles swung back in the Catholic direction." [18] (My emphasis.) The quarreling and revisions were still going on in 1801.

So, a document drawn up by Protestant revolutionaries declares that five of the sacraments are not "ordained by Christ." We ask: "Where in Holy Scripture can we find The Thirty-Nine Articles?" The account in this Protestant history of the Anglicans' difficulties in founding their church repeats the standard declaration found in one version or another of the Articles that "the Scriptures" are the "rule of faith," but if this is the case, why were they "negotiating" with the Lutheran princes? Why does the number of sacraments seesaw back and forth? Why are there first seven sacraments, and then only three? Why does the Protestant spokesman quote The Thirty-Nine Articles as his authority on the number of sacraments "ordained by Christ," but accept only two? And where in the Bible can we find authorization for the faceless men who wrote the several drafts to abolish, by crossing them off a list, those aids for our salvation which Christ meant us to have?

Now, to deal with his objections. This Protestant advocate is correct when he says that the word sacrament does not appear in the New Testament, meaning that it does not appear in his New Testament. There is a reason, which we will come to shortly. It does appear once in the Douay (Catholic) Version of the Bible, as has been shown above, where St. Paul says: "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church" (Eph 5:32).

What does this word mean? Where does it come from? The Protestant would in all likelihood confidently reply that it was made up by the Catholic Church. To answer the questions, let us consult a Protestant source. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says, under Sacrament: "An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. . . . It originally meant an oath, especially the soldiers' oath of allegiance. But the main factor in determining Christian usage was its employment in the Latin New Testament to render the Greek . . . mystery." [19]

             In Ephesians 5:32, the (Protestant) King James Version of the New Testament retains the Greek, and quotes St. Paul as saying: "This is a great mystery; but I speak in Christ and in the church" (Eph 5:32). So, even if he knew where to start, the Protestant would have a great deal of trouble unearthing these buried facts.

First, he does not suspect that he has been tricked by the Protestant translators of his Bible. Then, too, seeing it as his duty to prove the Catholic Church wrong, not to find the evidence that she is right, he lacks the motivation to dig for the truth. And Protestant historians and authorities will make him dig. The word sacrament has disappeared from the Protestant vocabulary, and hence, his consciousness. So unless the reader already knows that mystery and sacrament are the Greek and the Latin words for the same identical thing, he will never learn the truth. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, with almost 1600 pages of information about "the Christian Church," has no entry for mystery. So the whole thing is, and is likely to remain, a mystery to the Protestant.

Besides, to say that a word is not in the New Testament is not the same as to say that the thing is not there. As is demonstrated above, the Church has always looked on marriage as a sacrament. To repeat, a sacrament is a visible sign, permanently instituted by Christ, for the purpose of producing sanctifying grace in the soul. Since the sacraments are the signs of sacred things insofar as by these sacred things men are sanctified, and since the external rite cannot of itself give grace, it is evident that all sacraments properly so called must originate in divine appointment.

What is more, marriage as a sacrament of the New Law has never been a matter of dispute between the Church and any of the Oriental churches separated from it??a convincing proof that this doctrine has always been part of ecclesiastical Tradition and is derived from the apostles. The correspondence (1576?1581) between the Tubingen professors, defenders of Protestantism, and the Greek patriarch Jeremias, terminated in the latter's scornfully rejecting the suggestion that he could be won over to the Lutheran doctrine of only two sacraments, and in his solemn recognition of the doctrine of seven sacraments, including marriage, as the constant teaching of the Oriental Church.

The Church being the divinely appointed custodian of all the sacraments, it belongs to her jurisdiction to interpret and apply the divine law of marriage. As has been said, she cannot repeal or change that law. In its essential requirements, marriage is ever the same, a monogamous union, indissoluble. The contract validly made and consummated is dissolved by death alone. However, the Church must determine what is required for a valid and licit marriage contract. Doubt in so grave a matter, or uncertainty as to the form and duties of marriage, would be disastrous for the temporal and spiritual good of individuals and of society. The Church derives her power to legislate in matrimonial affairs, not from the state, but from Christ; and acts not on sufferance, but by divine right. She recognizes the duty of the state to take cognizance of Christian marriage, in order to insure certain civic effects, but her jurisdiction is superior and of divine origin.

The laws of the Church governing Christian marriage are of two kinds: fundamental and unchangeable laws, or accidental, circumstantial, and changeable laws. The natural law, divine revealed law, and the apostolic law of marriage are interpreted by the Church, and cannot be legitimately repealed or dispensed from. Circumstantial laws are enacted by the Church, and may vary or be repealed. But: "Protestants . . . are troubled in regard to some of the precepts of the Roman Catholic Church. They do not like, for example, to be considered more or less as pagans as far as mar­riage is concerned. They insist upon being acknowledged as Christians equal in every respect and treated as such." [20]

This Protestant spokesman asks the impossible; Protestants are not equal in their regard for marriage as indissoluble, nor even in its purpose. How, then, can they bring to the marriage those resolutions and intentions which will best safeguard the spiritual welfare of the marriage partner and the children?

Mixed marriage is frequently employed to designate unions between Catholics and those of no faith at all, i.e., infidels. Of this, St. Paul says: "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?" (2 Cor 6:14-15). By "unbelievers" the writer meant the pagans. His words are equally applicable to those who contemplate marriage with the pagans around us today.

The term mixed marriage, however, is more accurately applied to that contracted between Catholics and non?Catholics, when the latter have been baptized in some Christian sect. The word mixed, weighty and portentous, denotes the lack of unity at the start: unable to agree even on the basics, they enter into a contract! This little word mixed proclaims the presence of the seeds of dissension which accompany the couple across the threshold. A few years down the road, the seeds will have sprouted into the active threat to the faith of the Catholic partner and the future children, to say nothing of the harmony on which happiness depends.

Continuing the explanation of Catholic doctrines and practices which "trouble" such Protestants as the spokesman above, I turn to the book mentioned earlier, The Faith of Millions. It is one of the many still available here and there which can be trusted to tell us what the Church teaches. This is one of the reasons why I have repeated, when appropriate, Father O'Brien's words verbatim. The reader is entitled to have the teaching of the Church in terms which are both precise and authoritative. The other reason will be made clear later.

Father says that Catholics are not being intolerant when they speak of the risks of marrying outside the Faith. We agree that not only tolerance, but even of friendliness and goodwill, must characterize all our dealings with Protestants throughout the whole vast domain of our common civic relationships. Equality before the law, in business, in politics, in civic affairs, yes; we agree. Intolerance on the grounds of religion is intolerable, as Catholics will be the first to say.

Father goes on to say, however, that the idea of tolerance can be pushed too far. It can be intruded into domains where it has no relevance. Thus to the query, "What is the sum of two and three?" no one would expect the teacher to smile as benignly upon the response, "ninety-seven," as upon the answer, "five." Why? Because truth has rights which error does not possess. (My emphasis.) Tolerance means that people can hold certain principles to be true and others to be false without being accused of narrow-mindedness. Remember, these statements are Father O'Brien's.

Catholics believe that the doctrines taught by Christ and promulgated by the Church which He founded are correct. They believe that all doctrines which contradict anything in the deposit of divine Revelation are wrong. It is because such marriages frequently lead to religious indifference on the part of the parents and to the neglect of the religious upbringing of the offspring that the Church, until the last thirty-some years, forbade them. Her policy was no more than the exercise of her duty to protect her children from serious dangers to their faith?—the only policy which is consistent with her belief in its supreme value.

In the estimation of any Catholic worthy of the name, the greatest treasure in life is the deposit of religious truth given to mankind by Jesus Christ; it is the "pearl of great price" (Mt 13:46). Nothing could ever compensate for the loss of faith in even one of the faithful.

Then too, owing to the lack of religious instruction in school and in the home, many of her children are not properly grounded in the Faith. (These words from sixty-three years ago, quaint as they appear to us today, being so unfamiliar, are even more applicable in our present situation.) In consequence, unfavorable criticism, ridicule, social pressure, political discrimination and many other extraneous considerations prompt Catholics to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage.

The influence of the home environment is probably most marked in the case of the children. With the spectacle of a division in religious creed among their own parents, it is  natural then for the child who has grown up in such a divided home to say: "If my own parents cannot agree as to which is the true religion, how can I?"

Moreover, example does count. The influence of the home is more powerful than any school; for it teaches not by precept alone but by example as well. Parents are designed by God and nature to be the child’s most effective teachers. If there is disagreement on the matter of religion between these two teachers, it is difficult to see how the pupil can escape the penalty in the form of religious confusion and bewilderment.

Experience has shown that the sons of non-Catholic fathers are greatly damaged; a Catholic mother might single-handedly, by example and instruction, produce Catholic daughters, but nature will thwart her purpose in the case of her sons. The boy naturally wants to imitate his father; how can she offset his indifference, or even scorn, of the child's religion? And almost hopeless is the case of the Catholic father whose children are being raised by a mother who simply thinks that the Catholic Church is wrong. She is not evil; she has no positive intention to do harm, but no one can convincingly teach anything at all which he does not believe.

In a home where the non-Catholic father strove to fulfil the promise he made at the time of his marriage to see that the children were reared in the Catholic faith, there was every outward appearance of success crowning his efforts. On Sunday morning the father prided himself on the regularity with which he called the children and saw that they went to Mass with their mother. He himself remained at home reading the worldling’s Bible?—the Sunday newspaper. In such an environment where the paternal example was at right angles with the precept, the children grew to maturity.

Finally on one Sunday morning when he called his son for Mass, the latter refused to arise. Astonished, the father said to him: "Why, what does this mean? Have I not trained you from early youth to attend to your religious duties? Why are you not going today the same as on other Sundays?" The son replied: "Father, you have always called me and told me to go, but you have never gone yourself. I am no longer a child; I am a man. And I figure that if you don't have to go, neither do I."

Father O'Brien says, in summation, that in every home where there is a division of religious faith, the force of parental example is fashioning slowly but surely its tangled imprint upon the impressionable mind and memory of the children?—an imprint they will carry with them to their dying day.

If the children are to come through the Great Falling Away, the "great revolt" (2 Th 2:3), the difficulties are multiplied. In the novelist Carson McCullers' The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, a black physician in (obviously) Columbus, Georgia reminds the local descendants of slaves that they are the strong; their ancestors survived the trip across the Atlantic, while the weak all died off in the holds of ships on the infamous "Middle Passage." Catholics of today are undergoing a test which will determine whether they survive. The weak are not themselves going to come out of this trial with the Faith intact, let alone leave any survivors recognizable as Catholics.

And this does not even take into account the difference in outlook. In a mixed marriage the Catholic parent is going to have to do double duty in the best of times, while the non-Catholic need do only . . . nothing.

There is the comment on the events of the day. They will have a dimension for the Catholic partner which will be quite unknown, irrelevant, irritating, or all of the above, to the non-Catholic spouse. Whether it is the question of modesty in dress, whether a television feature or movie is decent or an occasion of sin, whether the television should be turned off at least for  the three hours between twelve noon and three on Good Friday, whether the money she gives to the Church could be better spent on something else, strain will develop at every level. Dinnertime becomes the occasion of heated debates, the home a battleground. Constant struggle is wearing; who will get tired first? Who will choose peace at any price? Whose viewpoint will prevail?

The ordinary instructed Catholic sees himself as an individual born into the life of nature, reborn into the life of grace, united with Christ in the Church which is His Mystical Body, aided by angels, hindered by devils, destined for heaven, in peril of hell. Even when there is no crisis, says Frank Sheed, many "have not so much Catholic minds as worldly minds with Catholic patches. Intellectually, we wear our Catholicism like a badge on the lapel of the same kind of suit that everyone else is wearing." [21] If the Catholic in the times of the Great Apostasy is to persevere to the end, while millions of his contemporaries fall away every year, he must be more than an ordinary Catholic. As Sheed has said in another context:

It is not . . . enough that we should see the same thing as other people plus the things the Church teaches. Even the things that we and they both see will not look the same or be the same; because what the Church teaches affects even the things already in the landscape, the things of ordinary experience. It is like a physical landscape at sunrise: it is not that you see the same things that you saw before and now find yourself seeing the sun as well. You see everything sun-bathed. Similarly it is not a case of seeing the same universe as other people and then seeing God over and above. For God is at the center of the being of every­thing whatsoever. If we would see the universe aright, we must see it God-bathed. [22]

Everything the committed Catholic sees, he sees in the light of the Faith. Put such a one in the same house with one who does not, and the perception of everything they look at, being radically different, is going to expose and widen the deep cleft between them, the perception of each reflecting either the possession of revealed truth, or, on the part of the other, the lack of it. The differences ensure, perpetuate, and exacerbate the lack of harmony between these two who have "become one."

Only a starry-eyed and giddy couple "in love" could claim that "Difference in religion need not affect the happiness of the family life, nor mar its unity." Such notions are implanted by romantic novels and movies, and they dissolve quickly in our actual world of flesh and blood, where the tears flow and hearts ache because a family is cut in two by the sword of religious differences. Religion is either a bond that unites or a sword that separates. There are exceptions, of course, but they only prove the rule. The only thing I can suggest for such a pair as the one above is to tie each of them to a chair until they come to their senses.

What is said above applies is equally applicable to the mixed marriages that take place between Traditional Catholics and those who accept the religious revolution in the Church with its Novus Ordo worship service, many of whom are Protestant in all but name. The sad history of such "unions," along with plain old common sense, foretell trouble ahead. The implementation of the "reforms" of the Second Vatican Council has multiplied the problems while removing the Church's solutions and sanctions.

Following on the Ne Temere decree of Pius X, which went into effect early in 1908, a Catholic could be validly married only before a Catholic priest with two witnesses. The bishops were therefore to warn Catholics against such marriages and were not to grant dispensations for them except for weighty reasons and not at the mere will of the petitioner.

Father O'Brien says that the Church finds herself obligated to require that the marriage be performed by a Catholic priest. To sanction the marriage of one of her children with a non-Catholic before a non-Catholic minister would mean that the Church was implicitly recognizing such a denomination, founded by a mere man, to be of equal validity with the Church established by Jesus Christ. This the Church could do only at the cost of her intellectual integrity, he says.

What is more, he tells us, the Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament, while (as we have seen) most non-Catholic ministers do not. With no wish to hurt anyone's feelings, Father says, the Church finds herself compelled by the clear consciousness of her divine origin, and of the mission divinely appointed unto her, to give to error no more recognition than her divine Founder gave to it. Father says that to place the churches founded by Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, John Wesley, Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy and by Mrs. Aimee Semple MacPherson Hutton on the same plane as the Church founded by Christ, and to clothe them with the same authority, would be for her to commit the sin of apostasy. That is why the Church forbids, said Father O'Brien in 1938, her children to attempt to contract matrimony before the minister of an heretical sect. [23]

Under the Code of Canon Law before it was revised in 1983 (but ignored for years before that), the prescribed penalty for communicatio in sacris (from the Latin "joining in sacred actions") was excommunication. Joining in sacred actions, defined as the act by which a Catholic actively and publicly joins in divine worship with non-Catholics, encompasses the rites of matrimony. "Those unworthy members who deliberately and wilfully violate that solemn law," says Father O'Brien, "the Church punishes with excommunication. For they are guilty not only of grievous disobedience to the Church, but also of treason to the faith of Jesus Christ." [24]

Catholics who attempt marriage before a civil officer, such as the justice of the peace, sin mortally and do not contract a valid religious marriage. They do not, however, incur the penalty of excommunication, because they have not committed the sin of apostasy or of treason to the Faith.

This legislation applied only to Catholics, as the Church does not legislate for non-Catholics as such. Contrary to a charge frequently made, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the marriages of Protestants, contracted either before their own ministers or before a civil officer. This is not enough for the Protestant, who complains: "As for the precepts of the Roman Catholic Church in relation to its own members, Protestants have 'no comment,' since this is strictly internal business of the Roman Catholic Church . . . As far as the right to hold such precepts is concerned, Protestants agree that the Roman Catholic Church, in its internal affairs, has total jurisdiction. It is when it begins to apply the precepts to general conditions outside its own organization that Protestants feel that they must object." [25] (Emphasis in original.)

Protestant objections aside, no one lives in a vacuum, and because this is so, one of her children not infrequently wishes to contract marriage with a Protestant. It is the duty of the pastors and clergy, representatives of Holy Mother Church to, well, do their duty.

Father O'Brien reports that a pronouncement of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America commented unfavorably upon the requirements of the Catholic Church in the case of mixed marriages, and adds that, in reply to such criticism, the chairman of the administrative committee of the American hierarchy pointed out that the Church does not encourage such alliances but is in agreement with non-Catholic leaders in stressing the advisability of marriage among members of the same religious faith. In the following exposition of Catholic teaching in 1938 (in which is found some necessary repetition), Father asks: "What more can the Church do, than she is now doing, to discourage mixed marriages and to encourage her children to marry within their own fold? The fact that the vast majority of non-Catholics experience little or no religious scruple in signing the required promises testifies to the levity with which denominational ties rest upon them.

"This is due to the cardinal principle of Protestantism, namely, the supremacy of private judgment in religion. Acting on this principle, a Protestant suffers no qualms of conscience in renouncing his previous creed and in embracing another which appeals more to him. He knows that his denomination cannot consistently bid him nay. For, according to this root principle of Protestantism, whence have sprung such a bewildering variety of sects and creeds, the individual becomes the supreme court from which there is no appeal.

"In the Catholic religion, on the other hand, the principle of authority, in contradistinction to that of private judgment, is recognized as supreme. The authority of Jesus Christ and of the Church which He authorized to teach in His name is regarded by the Catholic as a safe and reliable guide in matters of religious belief. The fundamental principle of his faith does not admit, therefore, of the flexibility by which the non-Catholic can pass so easily from one creed to another. Then, too, may it not truly be said that no non-Catholic denomination feels sufficiently sure of itself as to proclaim that it is the one true church of Jesus Christ? The corporate uncertainty that characterizes practically all non-Catholic denominations today reflects itself in the unsettledness and the groping for greater security of truth, which is manifest among vast numbers of their nominal adherents. These are factors which must be recognized in any honest and impartial study of the shifting of religious affiliations occasioned by mixed marriages." [26]

To repeat: all of the above, Father O'Brien said in 1938. I have before me a book written by the same Father O'Brien, called Catching up with the Church. [27] It would be inaccurate to say that I have never seen the like. I have. We have all seen the like many, many times. It deals with the documents of Vatican Council II, and Louis Bouyer says that "it promises to be irreplaceable as a summary of conciliar development in Catholic faith and practice." The council closed on December 8, 1965. Is it possible that Bouyer thought that "conciliar development[s!] in Catholic faith and practice" had already, or would at some time soon, come to an end, so quickly as to allow the quick publication of a summary, with an imprimatur dated February 17, 1967?

Father O'Brien had told us in 1938, and I believed him, as well as all the pastors and assistants who said the same thing, that "truth has rights which error does not possess." [28] Should we stop believing that? He does not say, but his enthusiastic remarks about one decree of Vatican Council II?-all of which he praises unstintingly?-suggests that, by 1967, he had:

"Of all the decrees and declarations issued by the Second Vatican Council, the one that was received with the greatest plaudits from the whole world was undoubtedly the Declaration on Religious Freedom. In the U.S. with its hundreds of religious faiths [translate: sects, a word he used in 1938 but may have dropped from his vocabulary by 1967] the proclamation was welcomed with especial enthusiasm." [29]

The facts he relates in the first sentence of the paragraph above ought to have told Father O'Brien something. When the enemies of the Church rejoice, it ought to give us pause for thought about what is making them so happy. Does truth no longer have rights which error does not possess? This is the very question raised by thoughtful Catholics. Many of them, whose qualifications to discuss it exceed my own by far, think that, precisely because its authors appear to have ignored the distinction between truth and error, this declaration represented a break with the teaching of the past, and ask for clarification. Father O'Brien is untroubled by such apprehensions.

He has told us that "Tolerance does not mean that people cannot hold certain principles to be true and others to be false without being guilty of narrow-mindedness." [30] Unupdated as I am, I still think this is true, too.

But let us define principle, from the Latin principium  meaning "beginning, basis: a fundamental principle." Catholic practices were, until recently, based on Catholic principles, just as Protestant practices are based on Protestant principles.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that a different set of principles underlie the changes in policy and practice put into place after Vatican Council II. (It must be borne in mind that Father O'Brien is only one of thousands, useful to us because we have in print what he said, and appeared to believe, in 1938, and what he said, and appeared to believe, in 1967. They are twenty-nine years and a million miles apart.)

As we look at the traditional teaching of the Church, and the policies of the Church based on those doctrines, all of which he, and all the rest of the clergy, once upheld, and compare the Father O'Brien of 1938 to the Father O'Brien of 1967, we are struck by the speed with which he first forgot, and then abandoned, principles. One good example is provided by his remarks on the use of Latin.

In Radio Replies, to the question, "Why is Latin used in the Roman Catholic service instead of English, or the national language of each country?" Fathers Rumble and Carty responded as follows (again, because it cannot be improved upon, I use their exact wording): "We can scarcely say that Latin is used 'instead of English,' when both Latin and English are used. All sermons and instructions are given in English, or in the language of the country in which the Church happens to be. I have heard Italian priests preaching in Italian, French priests preaching in French; German priests preaching in German, etc. You yourself would never hear a priest preaching in a Catholic Church in this country save in English.

"But you must remember that the Catholic religion does not consist merely in preaching and the singing of hymns. She has an official liturgical worship, of which the chief element is the Sacrifice of the Mass. And for this official liturgical worship, which is offered to God, and not to the people, she uses her official liturgical language, Latin.

"The Mass is an act of sacrifice to God. And whether the Mass were in Arabic, or Greek, or Hebrew, the people would understand it as an act. [Emphasis in original.] In the old Jewish law, the high priest retired to the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice, and the people assisted in spirit, each praying his own prayers.

"The Church reserves Latin for her liturgical worship for many reasons. Firstly, the significance of her rites is preserved in its original form. Latin is a dead language, not subject to the constant changes of meaning which we find in all living languages. For this reason. the Jews still use Hebrew in their Synagogues?—whether they be English Jews, or German Jews, or American, or French, or Italian. Now Latin is the basic language of European civilization. Italian, Spanish, French, and even English to a great extent, are but modern variations of Latin. The Catholic Church retains the Latin, avoiding the variations. In their prayer books, of course, Catholics have the translation of the Latin liturgical language, and in their own countries can follow the prayers in English, Italian, French, or German, as the case may he.

"Secondly, the Catholic Church, as a universal Church, needs a single universal language, so that at least her essential rites may he universally the same. This could not be, were the Mass offered in the language of one particular country. But, wherever a Catholic travels he can assist at Mass and be quite at home, finding it said in Latin, just as in his own country, whether he be in Palestine or Africa, Fiji, Alaska, Belgium or Austria, or anywhere else. If an Anglican minister celebrated his English service in a remote Japanese village, because he knew no Japanese, the villagers would be sadly puzzled. If I went there, the moment I began the Latin Mass, every Japanese Catholic would feel quite at home, for I would offer Mass just as every Japanese Catholic priest offers Mass. There are other reasons, but I have said enough to indicate the chief grounds for one common liturgical language in the one great universal Church." [31]

Is there one word in the above which stopped being true when the implementation of the decrees of Vatican Council II began? Were we supposed to forget all this? Father O'Brien states: "One of the changes in the liturgy which has brought perhaps the greatest joy [I would have said, 'anguish'] to Catholics, clergy as well as laity, is the greater use of the vernacular in the Mass and in the sacraments. This has been the hope, prayer and dream of the faithful for centuries. What is more natural than to understand the readings, chants and prayers of the Holy Sacrifice which one attends and of the sacraments which one receives?" [32]

In "True and False Obedience," [33] Michael Davies quotes Professor Johannes Wagner, Director of the Liturgical Institute of Treves, who wrote in 1967, the same year Catching up with the Church was published: "History has proved a thousand times that nothing is more dangerous for a religion, nothing is more likely to result in discontent, incertitude, division and apostasy than interference with the liturgy, and consequently with religious sensibility." Asking whether, in 1983, we do not see "discontent, incertitude, division and apostasy" all around us, the speaker adds that Professor James Hitchcock reached the same conclusion in his book The Recovery of the Sacred: "The manipulation of sacred symbols to give increased meaning to the liturgy tends instead to destroy its meaning, and alienate the participants from the Church's worship." [34]

Successive Gallup Polls reflect one of the consequences. In 1958, Mass attendance was 75%; the latest figure I have was published several years ago in Catholic Family News: 27%.

Father O'Brien cites on the dedication page of his book the following words of Pope Paul VI: "Do they want the Church to go back to infancy? They forget that Jesus has compared the kingdom of heaven to a little seed that must grow and develop into a mighty tree." No, Your Holiness, it is precisely those who did not want to go back to the infancy of the Church who saw the optimism of the Father O'Briens as unfounded, and, unwilling to surrender things we loved to please those who loved them not at all, resisted the mighty hand of destruction.

There are several other things here which call for comment.  First, whether intentional or not, the words of Pope Paul  constituted a cue to the molders of opinion: the weapon of choice in dealing with the expected dissent was to be ridicule. There is the suggestion that anyone who did not join in the general rejoicing was a troglodyte, that is, on the level of a cave-dweller. The technique was so effective, it cowed large numbers into the notion that they had always hated Latin, that they had never understood what was happening when the Mass was being celebrated, and that now, they understood the whole thing?-an assertion which negates itself?-and had never been so happy. Many of these before long stopped assisting at Mass altogether, and eventually formally apostatized.

Moreover, in the question of Pope Paul VI regarding the likes of us, "Do they want the Church to go back to infancy?" we may have one of the earliest examples of the pronouncements which followed like leaves in the winds of Vatican Council II: one says this; the other says that, and in this case, all in the same book. The truth is, as Father O'Brien himself assures us on another page, that we were, or at least we were supposed to be, returning to the infancy of the Church. "That the greater use of the vernacular in the Mass, sacraments and sacramentals is not an innovation but a renewal and a return to the practice of the apostolic era can best be seen from a brief historical sketch of the use of languages in the liturgy." [35] (My emphasis.)

This is followed immediately by two statements which can only be described as true, but deceitful: "In Palestine at the time of Our Lord the language used by the Jews was Aramaic. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian communities throughout all Palestine used Aramaic until their dispersion around the year 70." [36] Read the above carefully; it says that the Jewish Christians lived in communities in Palestine where the spoken language was Aramaic, and that is all it says. And although Father evidently considers the statements proof of something, it does not prove that the vernacular--Aramaic--was the language of the liturgy, which is what the reader might well conclude.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914 edition, says: "The history of the liturgies that deeply affect the life of Christians in many ways . . . is no inconsiderable element of Church history . . . From Germany we have the works of H. Probst, Thalhofer, [and] Gihr. . . ." [37] It is the conclusions of the latter liturgiologist which, unlike those of Father O'Brien, contribute something to the question of whether, in abandoning Latin, we are going back to the beginning, i.e., Aramaic, as Father O'Brien implies.

In a book first published in 1902, and apparently not revised for the 1949 edition, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr says: "Whether the apostles celebrated the Holy Sacrifice in the language of each individual nation or only in the Aramean (Syro-Chaldaic), Greek, and Latin languages cannot be determined with certainty. In any case, no liturgy of the first four centuries is known to have been composed in any other than the three languages [Hebrew, Greek and Latin] of the inscription of the Cross (Jn 19:19 f.). In the West?-for example, in Italy, Germany, Spain, France, England?-Latin was at all times the liturgical language." [38] (My emphasis.)

Father Gihr acknowledges that "the Church's very ancient practice of celebrating Mass, not in the living language of a country, but in a dead language, one for the most part not understood by the people, has since the twelfth century been frequently made the subject of attack." [39] In a footnote he identifies "the opponents of the Latin language of worship" as so consistently "heretics, schismatics, and rationalistic Catholics; for example, the Albigensians, the so-called Reformers, the Jansenists, Gallicans, Josephites, and the so-called Old Catholics" [40] as to constitute a rule--that is, they were always to be found in one of these groups. He adds that "Such attacks originated principally in a heretical, schismatical, proudly national spirit hostile to the Church, or in a superficial or false enlightenment, in a shallow and arid rationalism entirely destitute of the perception and understanding of the essence and object of the Catholic liturgy, especially of the profoundly mystical sacrifice." [41] Although these words were first written in 1902, they are no less relevant today.

The testimony of the British liturgist, Father Adrian Fortescue, is similarly telling: "Though Hebrew was a dead language after the [Babylonian] Captivity, [the Jews] continued to use it in the Temple and the synagogues in the time of Christ, and still retain it in their services." [42] As Michael Davies has told us, "Much of the Paschal liturgy [the liturgy of the Last Supper and the veritable foundation of the Mass] was in Hebrew which was as far removed from the contemporary vernacular (Aramaic) as Latin is from modern French." [43] (My emphases.) What is more, "Our Lord never attended a vernacular service in His life." [44]

Besides failing to prove the sterling quality of the motives of those who would abandon Latin in the liturgy, Father O'Brien's "documentation" similarly fails to prove that we have no right to what Vatican Council II itself had ordered, in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 36, §1, which states: "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

A decree inspired by the Holy Ghost for the good of the Church and of the faithful, would not have needed deceit and double-talk to facilitate its acceptance.

And there is yet more to say about this supposed "dream of the faithful for centuries." It would be more accurate to state, with Dom Gueranger, "Hatred for the Latin language is inborn on the heart of all the enemies of Rome," [45] a contention substantiated by Father Gihr's naming those who wished to abolish the sacred language. None of us being enemies of Rome (in the context, the Catholic Church centered at Rome), we wonder about the company Father O'Brien had been keeping.

All the same, if his contention has any truth to it at all, it only proves all over again how fine is the line between a dream and a nightmare. While Father O'Brien sees as "The crown and climax of the whole liturgical movement . . . the enactment of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy by Vatican Council II," [46] Professor Peter Berger, a Lutheran professor of sociology, confirms the view of those who do not perceive the changes in the liturgy which followed the enactment and implementation of this decree as the answer to fervent prayer and a dream come true: "If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible, had been an adviser in the Church, he could hardly have done a better job." [47]

             "History does not record whether there were diehards who protested against the innovation [from Greek to Latin]," [48] says Father O'Brien. This book was written very soon after the close of Vatican Council II. This means that Father was either picking up on the cue from Pope John and Pope Paul VI, or that he had already encountered such opposition as to form this opinion, and respond to it with an attempt to discredit those who disagreed with him.

Let us pause to reflect on this. It is those who loved the Mass, loved the Church, loved the Faith that he is calling "diehards." We are reminded of the two women claiming the one baby brought before Solomon: the one who did not love it was the one who was willing to see it cut in half (3 Kgs 3 : 16-26).

No; it was the dissenters among the faithful he dismisses as "diehards," it was Catholics, not Protestants. For these, the tone is entirely different. The Faith of Millions is replete with such expressions as "our dear non-Catholic readers, our separated brethren, our Protestant brethren. our non-Catholic friends," and the like, while, in Catching up with the Church, those Catholics who have reservations about the wholesale abandonment of almost every practice, policy, tradition, and yes, so much doctrine, are "diehards." Why cannot we be "dear brethren," too, or at least "separated brethren"? After all, if we are separated?-in doctrine, in loyalties, in spirit?-from those who frequent the churches where we once felt at home, it is not our doing.

For the past thirty-five years, apologies have been extended to any number of groups for every conceivable offense; Catholics, supposedly speaking for the Church, have accepted blame for everything imaginable, with the suggestion that all would have been well had their benighted predecessors only appreciated the virtues of the various heretics they offended. The only group who can most assuredly not expect an apology are not heretics. They are the Catholics who wish to adhere to the Faith of our Fathers.

A diehard is "one who resists against hopeless odds, especially an irreconcilable opponent, offering extreme resistance to change; completely and determinedly fixed." It derives from a phrase which refers to "one that dies hard, resisting to the last," for example, the 57th Regiment of Foot in the British Army. In general, we accept this description of Traditional Catholics. We intend to resist to the last.

Even so, its use in this context suggests other circumstances and other kinds of resistance, and the mental pictures involuntarily activated by the words die hard raise questions. I could speculate as to which one of us is going to die hard, the one who still has the Faith, the one who voluntarily gave it up, or the one who has lost it through his own fault. I could go on about this, but never mind.

As the Great Renewal proceeded, and the skeptics as to its supposed benefits increased in number, some of them even daring to turn their backs on the supposedly renewed celebration of the Mass, the diehards received new names. Now they were no longer just disobedient, they were schismatics.

This brings to mind an interview with William F. Buckley by Evans and Novak, around 1964 or so. Goldwater, they said, used "coded" language to signal to his fellow racists his real views. Expanding on their contentions, they pointed out that he had even predicted that there would be riots in northern cities in the summer. Well, said Buckley, there were riots in northern cities that summer, for instance, in Chicago. "Yes," one of them cried triumphantly, "but Goldwater predicted them before they happened." Buckley responded, "So a racist is anyone who sees something before the liberals see it."

            Despite our grief over the spoliation of the most sacred, the most priceless, the most beautiful things this side of heaven, the universality of the apostasy, vertically and horizontally, and the loss of millions of souls over two generations now, we who "cling to Tradition," as recommended by the apostles (2 Th 2:14; 3:6; 1 Jn 2:24; Jude 17) and by St. Vincent de Lerins, rest comfortably in our prefabricated opprobrium. A schismatic, after all, is only someone who sees something before the "Conservative" Catholics, aptly labeled "liberals in slow motion," see it.

One "diehard," again far more qualified than I, had already spoken. Through the Encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy of November 20, 1947, Mediator Dei, His Holiness Pope Pius XII voiced his concerns about the novel liturgical practices in the offing.    "(59). The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast days??which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation??to other dates. . . .

"(60). The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. . . .

"(61). The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man. . . .

"(62). Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See."

Thirty years before that, yet another (would anyone dare to call her a "diehard"?) had spoken on the subject. We have the evidence in a biography of Cardinal Tisserant, one of the principal actors in the Vatican-Moscow Agreement, written by Monsignor George Roche, who is not a Traditional Catholic. He quotes Pius XII on the Third Secret of Fatima, revealed to the three little children by the Blessed Mother in 1917, as follows: "Suppose, dear friend, that Communism [Russia and Russia's errors in Fatima's terms] was only the most visible of the instruments of subversion to be used against the Church and the traditions of Divine Revelation. . . ." His meaning was clear: Communism, while the most visible, is only one of a number of means used by Russia to war against the Church. There must be, then, other equally destructive means which are not visible, or at least not easily recognized: the changes in the Mass.

"I'm worried," Pope Pius XII continued, "by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith in her liturgy." [49] (Emphasis in source quoted.)

But Father O'Brien declares that this particular change in the liturgy, from the sacred language to the vernacular, "has brought perhaps the greatest joy to Catholics, clergy as well as laity." The apostasy we see before us has occurred despite the  great joy of the clergy and laity.

"This has been the hope, prayer and dream of the faithful for centuries," Father has said. I myself never dreamed of it even so much as once, let alone hoped for it, or prayed for it. Nor did I know anyone who did, nor had I ever heard of anyone who had. If Father O'Brien is correct, I must have been, in those days, much like the country boy who "not only don't know nothing; he don't even suspect nothing."

There is some reason to believe that, some twenty years before the fulfillment of so many hopes and prayers, Father O'Brien had not ever heard of anyone praying for such a thing, or even thinking about it, either. In The Faith of Millions, there is not one mention of Latin as a liturgical language.

Three decades later, Father asks, "What is more natural than to understand the readings, chants and prayers of the Holy Sacrifice which one attends and of the sacraments which one receives?" Some might resent his implication, that none of us understood "the readings, chants and prayers of the Holy Sacrifice which [we attended] and of the sacraments which [we received]." It was because of books like The Faith of Millions, which explained all of the above, that so many millions of the faithful did understand. Moreover, there are other ways to bring about an understanding of something short of destroying it. One of them is catechetics. Another is the use of a little book called a Missal, which gave on side-by-side pages a translation of the "readings,"?-what was wrong with the words Epistle and Gospel??-"chants and prayers of the Holy Sacrifice."

As Michael Davies has pointed out, before Vatican Council II the ordinary Catholic gave no more thought to Latin in the liturgy than he did to the color of his mother's eyes. Let us, as the youngsters say, get real: a Catholic would no more have even dreamed of objecting to the one than to the other.

It should be emphasized that the collapse of the Church, while it was certainly organized by revolutionaries, was not brought about by the way-out Father Mods found here and there; there were never enough of them to do the job. Besides, they scared people. The schemes of the revolutionaries were put into practice on the parish level by the priests who had blessed our marriages, baptized our children, given them First Communion, and seen them graduate from the parish grammar schools. Through a misplaced "obedience" which, following their teaching and example, was imitated by the faithful, the revolution was solidified and given respectability by . . . the priests we trusted most.

The lines were drawn from the very beginning: between those who would keep the Faith, the pearl of great price (Mt 13:46), at any cost, and those who, supposing obedience to be the highest virtue (it is not), would obey, whatever the cost. These "conservative Catholics" have lost everything we lost?-the Mass, the sacraments, the schools, and all the rest, because when the revolution began, they did the one thing which ensured its success: nothing. Docile victims, they explained away every outrage as it was imposed. We "diehards" have lost all the consolations of it, but, thanks be to God, we have not lost the Faith.

There were other, less obvious divisions. In every parish  and every diocese, there were those who not only knew what was happening, but were making it happen. Their number was very small. Then there were those who were aware of what the former were doing?-perpetrating unarmed robbery?-and, accurately predicting disaster, urged others to resist. They, too, were very few. Moreover, the more vocal they were, the sooner they were ostracized and marginalized. With their gloomy predictions, they put a pall on the party atmosphere. They lost their friendly relationship with the parish priests, who spoke of them with scorn, attacked them from the pulpit, avoided them altogether, or all of the above. As the saying goes: "whatever works." The rest, comprising by far the largest group, were unaware that anything was happening, beyond what they were told. And they allowed themselves to be told only certain things: how wonderful it all was, and what great things were sure to follow. People like us, if allowed to speak, ruined their day. As it happened, to prevent the ruin of their day, they allowed the ruin of the Church.

Without the acquiescence of this vast third group of faithful, the multifarious "hopes, prayers and dreams" of the chafing conspirators?-whose accomplices, (willingly, knowingly, or otherwise, only God knows) were the clergy in the Chancery Offices, the Catholic press, and the parishes, and the sisters in the schools?-would have come to naught.

Had they consulted history, the laity might have been less easily deceived. St. Thomas Aquinas defines heresy as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." [50] Heresy, in this context, the restricting of belief to certain points of doctrine selected and fashioned to suite one's self, almost always, if not invariably, originates with the clergy. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any other source. The layman with ideas to share with the world must find a forum?-a publisher, or failing that, rent a sound system, and round up an audience. The clergy could count on a captive congregation obliged under pain of mortal sin to hear them and their opinions on every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation. Under the cloak of Church authority, and using the respect for the priesthood in which to package them, the clerical heretics propagate their errors. Simply by remaining where they are, speaking from within the Church, they exploit the trust of the faithful, who assume they are speaking for the Church.

They never use the term new doctrines; they pass off their heretical notions as Catholic teaching by labeling them new insights, new developments, new perspectives, and whatnot. The unwary, the indolent, and the indifferent, unable and/or unwilling to distinguish between the human person of the priest and the Church, and too lazy to make the distinctions and do the comparisons, are the indispensable accomplices in every heresy. They allow it to take hold and grow.

To be sure, the faithful never rejected the Faith as a whole, all at once, as does a conscious apostate. They just accepted a substitute for what they had, one bit and piece at a time. The revolutionaries could not have been certain of the reaction, and so the approach was cautious, lest those marked for destruction detect the real objective of it all. Naturalists tell us that snakes do not really "charm" birds; the myth rests on the fact that the snake moves so slowly, the bird is never really sure he is in danger. Someone has learned something from the serpent?-that is, the Serpent?-and only little by little did we learn the extent of doctrinal changes.

The leaflet missal meant for one Sunday only?-which replaced the Sunday Missal with every day of the year, and useful for forty or fifty years, or until it fell apart?-was a work of genius. No more effective screen could have been imagined. Depriving the faithful of any permanent reference by which to gauge the relentlessness, ruthlessness, and depth of the revisions in doctrine and rubrics, while simultaneously recording those changes from one week to the next, it would have furnished irrefutable documentary evidence of the step-by-step conversion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into a Protestant worship service, and therefore, of the conversion of Catholics into Protestants. It would have, that is, had it not been left behind each Sunday in the pews and on the floors, where, in the opinion of many, it belonged. Father DePauw, an early champion of Tradition, marveled that its authors protected the contents of the leaflet missal with a copyright; he asked: "Who would want to steal their trash?"

If ever a monument is erected to the men who conceived and carried out the destruction of the Church, the missalette, with its short life span and its end as litter, will surely be nominated as the very symbol of the Great Renewal. Its only competitor would be the lady in a polyester pants suit, carrying a ciborium across the sanctuary as she approaches the outstretched hand before her. Because practice dictates belief, the change in belief and attitude she brought about resulted in the Sacred Host (consecrated? We hope not, but who knows?) joining the missalette in the litter in the pews and on the floor. It would be a gross injustice to deprive her of recognition. There can be no doubt about it: these two, the missalette and the "lay ministerette" (John Vennari's term) have equally strong claims to fame. Between them, they brought Catholics to forget just about everything they had ever known.

(To be Continued Next Issue)

Part Five

Mystics speak of the severe punishment meted out to pastors, prelates, and pontiffs for their infidelity, more harsh by far than that for lay people who mouth heresy. This is because more malice is involved. It is a real adultery, apostasy; it is a violation of vows, a shifting of loyalties, a transfer of love. Furthermore, one priest takes a multitude into heresy (and hell?) with him, while few laymen have like influence, and thus can damage far fewer. St. Luke describes the gathering at Ephesus, where St. Paul addresses the assembled bishops, and in so doing, alerts us to the fact that bishops can be weak reeds on which to lean; they can "speak perverse things." (Who can dispute this, today?) He admonished them to "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Ac 20:28-30).

In another place, the same apostle warns us, 1900 years in advance, that even an angel from heaven can preach a different gospel?-to say nothing of revolutionaries in occupied Rome?-and admonishes us to examine the content, and if it differs from what the apostles have preached to us, reject the messenger and his message: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema" (Gal 1:8-9).

This advice presupposes the ability of the faithful to distinguish between apostolic doctrine, embodying eternal truths,  and novelties. This assumed ability would have led them to reject a departure from "what had been preached" to them. If there was such a faculty, it seems to have been disabled, perhaps by the carefully inculcated, but false, notion that the pronouncements of Vatican Council II were doctrinal definitions, and infallible. Whatever the reason, the mental gears, for the most part, were never even engaged.

Those responsible for training agents to deal with counterfeit currency waste no time on pointing out flaws in counterfeit bills. They teach them, instead, what a real bill of the proper denomination looks like, acting on the supposition  that once you know that, any deviation from it is easily detected. This is what the faithful, many of them with many years of Catholic education, had presumably been educated for: to know what real Catholic worship looks like, what real Catholic churches look like, what real Catholic doctrine sounds like, and what real Catholic bishops and priests look like, act like,  believe and teach. Judging from the results, their education was a failure.

Hence St. Paul's admonition was wasted on them. The faithful thought that the Church would never hurt them, and in this they were right. They were wrong to see the clergy and the sisters as identical with the Church. So, with few exceptions, the parents of children in the Catholic schools allowed themselves to be bamboozled with talk of obedience and great things to come: "In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts [renewal; a massive influx of new converts]" (Ps 25:10).

Instead of exercising discernment in spiritual matters, the laity allowed the clergy to expound each new doctrine without even asking that they explain how it could be reconciled with what they had already been taught. In fact, any layman who did, found that the conversation ended almost before it began. From the start, the choice has always been: "Get with it, or get out." Most got with it.

Having abdicated their duty as Catholics to "keep the faith" (2 Tim 4:7), they proceeded to abdicate their duty as parents. They left their children, who had no one else to protect them, in the hands of people who hated the Faith and had themselves either already lost it, or were rapidly losing it. Obeying every new order?-whether half-heartedly or not is irrelevant in terms of the consequences?-surrendered their rights, and in so doing, surrendered the Faith, for themselves, for their children, and for their children's children.

There is no doubt that some priests were themselves confused. Others were the counterparts to the famous Dr. Feelgood, who injected dangerous drugs into his patients' bloodstream, leading to a false sense of physical well-being. It was the Father Feelgoods who anesthetized the faithful and filled them with a false sense of spiritual progress.

            The openly expressed?-perhaps hitherto repressed??-clerical dissatisfaction with the past, the eagerness with which they discarded traditional teaching and practice, and the alacrity with which they embraced novelty in every sphere was stupefying to the laity. We had assumed that they were even more attached to the Faith than we were; had they not been called for this purpose, to teach, maintain, and defend it? It was always obvious that many of us, lacking their intense education and training, had no sense of direction.

But priests and bishops? Where was their internal gyrocompass? This instrument, whose spinning axis is confined to a horizontal plane so that the earth's rotation causes it to assume a position parallel to the earth's axis, and thus point always to true north, has its spiritual parallel in the sensus catholicus, defined by Dietrich von Hildebrand as "a sense of being Catholic," which enables us to recognize authentic Catholic truth and perceive departures from it. As Christopher Ferrara has pointed out, "the sensus catholicus abhors innovation; and not just innovation in what [conservative Catholics] misleadingly call the 'substance' of the Faith, as if everything else could be changed with safety." [51]

A divine gift, it is the grace of discernment which separates truth from error. "When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place; he that readeth let him understand . . . There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, inasmuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect" (Mt 24:15/24).

Although many of the prophets were endowed with supernatural knowledge and illumination, and did foretell the future, in the classical Greek adopted by the Septuagint, to "prophesy" does not mean "to predict the future." The prophet is one who "acts and speaks in the name of God, on his authority, as His delegate and spokesman." [52] In the text above, Our Lord is telling us that in these days of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Dan 9:27), false prophets, some of them showing great signs and wonders, who claim to speak for God but do not, would deceive, if it were possible, even the elect.

St. Paul's letter to the Thessalonians offers equally valuable guidance. The faithful at Thessalonica were convinced that the Day of the Lord was at hand, and consequently spent their time in idleness. Upon hearing this, the apostle wrote them in order to remove all misunderstanding on the subject of the Second Coming of Christ. [53] He says:

I beseech you, brethren . . . that you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God . . . Now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mysteryof iniquity already worketh; only he that now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan . . . and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; 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. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity (2 Th 2:1-10). Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace (Rom 11:5).

To ponder the magnitude of the catastrophe is to entertain any number of more unanswered, and unanswerable, questions. Did priests and bishops allow their vows of obedience, mixed perhaps at the beginning in the wrong proportions, to override their duty to uphold the Faith? This accounts for the loss of faith in probably the greater number of the faithful; they obeyed, and in so doing lost the Faith. Where is the virtue in this?

             When instructing converts, or writing articles explaining the Faith, for instance the use of Latin, was the pastor wishing all the while to be rid of it? Did he love it then, and only begin to hate it when he was told that he had always hated it, and that its abolition was his hope, his dream, the object of his most fervent prayers? Or did he merely parrot what he had been taught, and when the Catholic world was turned upside down, just as willingly parrot the new teaching? Was it all just skin-deep? Did none of it reach down to his blood and bones? Was it something which inhabited his brain but not his heart?

Were our pastors and prelates totally ignorant of Church history, or only unable or unwilling to extract from it its unfailing guidance? Were they just reading, without adverting to its meaning to us all just when we needed it most, St. Paul's admonition: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal 1:8)?

The historical imperatives are clear: when the winds howl, and the waters rise, "Cling to Tradition." Time after time, the Faith was maintained and passed on by a handful; the others allowed themselves to be swept away by the storms.

Fairness would dictate that anyone dissatisfied with the Church, and convinced that Protestant dogma and practices are the correct ones, should just leave, rather than stay and overhaul the religion of the rest of us. There is probably not one city, town, or even village in the United States without a Protestant church with services in the vernacular, with ministers?-every single one of them married and with a family?-trained to both entertain and arouse the emotions of the congregation, and who cannot be made to feel foolish.

          The interior of the standard Methodist?Baptist?Presbyterian church building is a big, usually unadorned room with pews. They call the entire room the sanctuary. Not a one of them has an altar as such; some have a table. Often, a step leads to the pulpit/table/organ and choir area. This step is called in some sects "the altar." Among the more sober types, for example, Methodists, bread and grape juice are distributed. At their "communion service," they behave exactly as Catholics do, these days, when they receive Communion.

Unless they are "High Church" Anglicans/Episcopalians, who imagine that they are Catholics, there will be no crucifix, only the two crossed sticks (without a corpus) someplace. The visual focus is the pulpit and the table, where an open Bible is usually displayed, even during their communion services (which occur twice a year or so), flanked by a brass cross and two candles.

Protestants have always laughed and talked inside their churches, as Catholics do, since the Great Renewal. In most Protestant bodies, there are not only no black vestments, there are really no vestments at all, although some Protestant clergy like to dress up a little. Thus, you can see Protestant ministers garbed in flowing robes of some sort. They also, by and large, eschew clerical dress, although, again, they occasionally appear in Roman collars (!), usually worn with gray clerical suits to avoid being mistaken for a real priest. Protestants already had women “ministers of the gospel,” some of them wearing Roman collars; for example, the wife of Admiral Poindexter, formerly National Security Adviser, at the Iran-Contra hearings, was wearing some kind of gray suit coat over her Roman collar.

They already had baptismal "pools." Again, with the exceptions of "High Church" Anglicans/Episcopalians, incense will be unknown and unheard-of. Many, many of them provide singing accompanied by pianos, drums, guitars, the latter, in contrast to the early days of the Great Renewal, even in tune. Again, except for "High Church" Anglicans, not a one of them has a confessional, a kneeler, or a statue, except at Christmas time, of course, when a manger scene is erected. Graven images are forbidden by the Bible, the rest of the year.

Elvis Presley once said that he had learned many of his  mannerisms?-the prancing from one side of the stage to the other, the sudden dropping to one knee, or both?-from the Pentecostal preachers of his childhood. Well, as Lewis Grizzard said, "Elvis is dead, and I don't feel too good myself," but, as if to console us for his absence, from Steubenville University, I think, there came Father Bob Somebody. With his capering and frolicking, he was just as passable an imitator of Elvis as all the rest, and an even better imitator of a Pentecostal preacher. There was something lacking in that he performed without a guitar, but this was no doubt just as well; an electrified instrument combined with the electricity Father Bob generated might have blown the fuses. But he seems to have taken his act on the road, or something; he has dropped from sight.

Father O'Brien refers to occasional visitors at Catholic worship; we think of those who, for reasons unrelated to their own religious preferences, find themselves at a Catholic wedding, or a funeral. "Accustomed to seeing only a pulpit within the four bare walls of a church, stripped of altar, statuary, paintings, flowers, lighted candles, and to a service devoid of the slightest touch of pageantry, they are naturally somewhat bewildered at the profusion of ceremony in Catholic devotions, especially in that central act of Catholic worship, the holy sacrifice [sic] of the Mass. Besides those of our separated brethren who express simply their lack of understanding of the meaning of the Church's liturgy, there are those who assert that the lavish use of such ceremonies distracts the worshipper from his primary purpose?-the worship of God." [54]

             There are two points here worth noting. First, under assault by the ongoing novelties labeled "the implementation of the decrees of Vatican Council II," the vast majority of our fellow Catholics were won over to the opinion of the second group, the ones who openly charged that the lavish use of such ceremonies distracts the worshipper from his primary purpose?-the worship of God, and they themselves rather quickly became "accustomed to seeing only a pulpit within the four bare walls of a church, stripped of altar, statuary, paintings, flowers, lighted candles, and to a service devoid of the slightest touch of pageantry." Second, when all of the above, altar, statuary, paintings, flowers, lighted candles, and the hardest of all to forgive, the music, disappeared, there was apparently only one group who mourned: the ones the same Father O'Brien calls diehards.

We were told that the devastation in the sanctuary was only “the implementation of the decrees of Vatican Council II.” Michael Davies has proved that "there is no mandatory legislation requiring a single change in a single pre?Vatican II sanctuary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world." [55]

All of those present in the churches of the sects are friendly and hospitable. Apart from error and confusion, what else do they have to offer? Look at it this way: when you have no sacraments, you have to be folksy and hearty. They regard "converts" (i.e., apostates) from the Faith as trophies. They would have welcomed the disaffected with open arms, as they still do. Those who wanted all the things which identify the sects as Protestant could have found a home almost anyplace, where their views would have been recognized for what they are, and appreciated.

So why did those who hated the Catholic religion not just leave? We were not dissatisfied: "I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of thy house, and the place where thy glory dwelleth"  (Ps 25:8), and we had no place else to go. Why did they have to take everything away from us and our children? Because they had a hidden agenda.

Lest this be thought only an opinion of the writer, I point to Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914), who warned the French hierarchy in 1910 that there was a "great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One World Church." [56] (I have failed to find this document on a single website which lists the documents of Pope Pius X, even those which list letters as well as encyclicals.)

Equally revealing is the testimony of Jean Guitton, considered by many to be the great Catholic philosopher of our times, the key personality of not only French Catholicism, but of modern Catholicism. A member of the Academie Francaise, of the Academie De Sciences Morales et Politiques, and an honorary professor at the Sorbonne, he knew Pope Paul VI for nearly half a century. Not only that; he says, "I was a close friend to him, and I can also say that he was very close to me." During an interview on a nationally?transmitted radio program (Ici Lumiere 101) in France on December 13, 1993, he stated:

"The intention of Paul VI in the matter of the liturgy, in the matter of what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy so that it should approximate as closely as possible to the Protestant liturgy  . . . with the Protestant Lord's Supper . . . I can only repeat that Paul VI did all that he could to bring the Catholic Mass away from the tradition of the Council of Trent towards the Protestant Lord's Supper. . . .

"The Mass of Paul VI is first and foremost a banquet, is it not? It lays heavy emphasis upon the aspect of taking part in a banquet, and much less upon the idea of sacrifice, ritual sacrifice in the presence of God, the priest only showing his back. So I do not think I am mistaken when I say that the intention of Paul VI, and the new liturgy which bears his name, was to ask the faithful to participate more in the Mass, to make more space for Scripture and less for what some call 'magic' [!!] but others call consecration, consubstantiation,  transubstantiation and the Catholic Faith. In other words we see in Paul VI an ecumenical intention to wipe out or at least to correct or soften everything that is too Catholic in the Mass and to bring the Catholic Mass, again I say, as close as possible to the Calvinist liturgy."

"Clearly that is a revolution in the Church," interjects the host. Guitton replies: "Clearly so." [57]

The reason those who no longer believed Catholic doctrine, despised the Church's liturgy and wanted something different did not leave because they had an agenda. The agenda required them to stay, and change Catholic churches into replicas of the Protestant sects described above. The reason for this, in turn, is rather simple, and springs from the same principles which apply to marriage.

A married couple can live together in harmony only if they share the same basic beliefs. If everyone is to settle down cozily in the One World Church, they, too, must all believe, or more accurately in this case, refuse to believe, the same doctrines. Catholics were the ones who were different.

Now, Protestants are never going to accept the teaching of the Catholic Church. They will never venerate the saints; they will never confess their sins to a priest; they will never accept the Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament; they will never accept a celibate clergy; they will never accede to the teaching of the Church on marriage?-its purpose and indissolubility; they will never accept the authority of the papacy. It is not possible to force on someone a doctrine he does not wish to believe.

If all are to share the same beliefs, the revolutionaries' only option was to take away from someone else the beliefs he already had. This is possible; it has been done before our very eyes. We might call it an induced apostasy, brought about by the inexorable operation of an unwritten law. As Michael Davies states: "An accepted principle in regard to liturgical worship is that the doctrinal standpoint of a Christian body must necessarily be reflected in its worship." To test the soundness of this principle, reread the paragraphs above describing Protestant worship; everything they do faithfully reflects what they believe, or, more accurately, do not believe.

The Church's liturgical prayers gave expression to the doctrine behind the rite. Similarly, Catholic churches, by their design, furnishings, and appointments, once reflected the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches. This principle is embodied in the phrase legem credendi legem statuat supplicandi ("let the law of prayer fix the law of faith"), usually expressed in the abbreviated form of lex orandi, lex credendi. [58] The revolutionaries, by changing the liturgy of the Church, brought about a change of beliefs, or to be more exact, eradicated from the minds and hearts of the faithful those beliefs which were peculiarly Catholic. Now, Catholics do not believe what Protestants do not believe. These Catholics who do not believe Catholic doctrine go to Protestant worship services in buildings with signs outside which say that they are "Catholic" churches.               In 1938, Father O'Brien said of the Church's laws regarding mixed marriages: "[Her] policy . . . reflects the Church’s twin solicitude for the promotion of human happiness and the preservation of the faith of her children. She grants a dispensation to such an individual for sufficient grounds, permitting her to marry a Protestant or a person unbaptized in any faith. This she does, however, only when she has been given assurances of the proper safeguarding of the faith of the Catholic party and of the children." [59]

These assurances were contained in the following promises which were signed by the non-Catholic party in the presence of a priest: "I, the undersigned, not a member of the Catholic Church, wishing to contract marriage with N. N., a member of the Catholic Church, intend to do so with the understanding that the marriage tie cannot be dissolved, except by death, and promise her on my word of honor, that she shall enjoy the free exercise of her Catholic religion, and that all the children of either sex, born of this marriage, shall be baptized and educated in the faith and according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I further promise that no marriage ceremony other than that to be performed by the Catholic priest shall take place."

The Catholic party likewise was required to sign the following promise: "I the undersigned, a member of the Catholic Church, wishing to contract marriage with N. N., do hereby promise that I will have all my children baptized and educated in the Catholic religion, and that I will practice my religion faithfully and do all I can, especially by prayer, example and the frequentation of the sacraments, to bring about the conversion of my consort."

So far as I have been able to determine, neither party these days is obliged to promise anything. It would be interesting to have Father O'Brien's comments on the changes in discipline and laws which followed Vatican Council II, the event which inspired his euphoric observations.

Having said in 1938 that "Catholics believe that the doctrines taught by Christ and promulgated by the Church which He founded are correct," [60] he answers the question, "Is it not narrow-minded and unreasonable for the Church to ask that all the children be reared in the Catholic faith?" as follows:

"Underlying [this question] is the assumption, commonly made by the non-Catholic, that all religions are about the same?—equally good and equally true. On that assumption the Church’s stand is one-sided. But that assumption is false.

"Christ founded not many churches, but one Church. Catholics honestly believe that theirs is that Church, On the basis of actual fact and historical truth, the Church’s policy is not unreasonable, but on the contrary, is the only one which demands for truth rights which error does not possess. If the Church were to compromise, allow some to be brought up outside her fold, she would be false to her divinely appointed mission of teaching to all mankind the truths taught by Christ, The Church is, therefore, under a divine obligation to protect the faith of her children and of her children’s children. The Church not only believes in her divine origin and mission, but she has the courage to translate that belief into action. [Emphasis in original.]

"For the same reason the Church finds herself obligated to require that the marriage be performed by a Catholic priest. To sanction the marriage of one of her children with a non-Catholic before a non-Catholic minister would mean that the Church was implicitly recognizing such a denomination, founded by a mere man, to be of equal validity with the Church established by Jesus Christ. This the Church could do only at the cost of her intellectual integrity.

"Moreover, the Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament, while most non-Catholic ministers do not. With no wish to hurt the feelings of our . . . non-Catholic friends, the Church finds herself compelled by the clear consciousness of her divine origin and of the mission divinely appointed unto her, to give to error no more recognition than her divine Founder gave to it." [61]

The explanation he gives here is consistent with the  conviction that "Catholics believe that the doctrines taught by Christ and promulgated by the Church which He founded are correct." Today, in Catholic churches, Catholics marry non-Catholics, with the minister of a heretical sect officiating not on an equal basis with the priest, but actually conducting the whole thing, while the priest stands by his side, mute. All of this is done with the full approval of the authorities charged with the care of souls. Father O'Brien died in 1980; whether he lived to see this, or what he thought of it if he did, I do not know. I do know this much: every bit of it violates every one of the principles expressed above, the principles which guided the Church for almost twenty centuries.

For the Church to place the churches founded by Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, John Wesley, Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy and by Mrs. Aimee Semple MacPherson Hutton on the same plane as the Church founded by Christ, and to clothe them with the same authority, would have been, before Vatican Council II, to commit the sin of apostasy and treason to the faith of Jesus Christ. This the Church could do only at the cost of her intellectual integrity, Father O'Brien said in 1938. It would seem that for all too many, this apostasy is no longer a sin; it is no longer treason to the faith of Jesus Christ. Anyhow, very few would recognize it, since it never appears without its disguise, and besides, it has a new name. It is called "ecumenism."

There has been a colossal betrayal here. Consider what I will call a mutual understanding, a tacit agreement. Most of those shopping for a new house look at houses. They give little or no thought to the location of a police station, a doctor, a hospital, or a firehouse. They buy the house they like, in the neighborhood they like, taking all of the above for granted.

Similarly, in the days before Vatican Council II, young couples contemplating marriage took many things for granted. We thought that we would have the Mass, that our children would be baptized by a Catholic priest in the Latin Rite in a Catholic Church, that a priest would be in the confessional to hear our sins and give us absolution. We thought that we would have the help of holy priests in the parish, and that the good sisters, priests and brothers in the Catholic schools would help us to instruct our children in the Faith, giving them a grounding in the eternal truths which are never dated, and thus never need updating. We thought that when they were ready to marry, they would receive sound instruction from a priest who understood, and even believed, the religion himself. We thought holy priests would conduct the parish missions and retreats which deepened our spiritual lives. We thought that when we die, we would have a good priest to administer Extreme Unction, and then to recommend us to God with a Requiem Mass, sung by a parish choir, up above  and out of sight, and then, bury us in consecrated ground. For many of us, these assumptions are now futile and forlorn hopes.

Nevertheless, all of these assumptions on our part, and the mere presence of the Church on the other, constituted an unwritten?-indeed, an unspoken?-contract, the substructure, in fact, of the marriage contract:

We enter marriage with the blessing of the Church. We understand that we must answer to God for the souls of any children we bring into the world. We assume these formidable responsibilities willingly and freely. You, the pastor, the bishop, must answer to God for all of our souls. We count on you to fulfil your obligations, and to help us to fulfil ours.

One day, people, we found ourselves with nothing but the children?-and the obligation. Yes, there has been a default here; someone has failed to keep his part of the contract. More questions: were the  clergy all deceived, to the same degree? Were they all so ignorant of the teaching of the Church? Did they honestly believe that principles can change, that doctrine can change? Even though, as was immediately apparent, the liturgical innovations, instead of renewing the faith of Catholics, were disastrous in their consequences? Was it mere cowardice? Was it ambition?

The priest, of necessity, sees himself as a father to all of the flock entrusted to him. It is possible that this wider responsibility gives him a case of far-sightedness. The fathers of families, on the other hand, are of necessity near-sighted. They looked on the Faith, on its teaching, on the Mass, the sacraments, the schools, and the colleges as a patrimony to themselves, and the only thing of value they had to pass on to their children.

Does it boil down, in the end, to the fact that priests have no children? I hope not; I really hope not. This explanation of such a colossal calamity is just not grand enough. It ought not to be so small. I, myself, like cowardice and ambition better.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: and the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know mine, and mine know me (Jn 10:11-14).

Let us take heart. We are not the first to be faced with the seemingly impossible responsibility of hanging on to the Faith, without the help of those whose duty it was to help us, whose help we would have valued most, whose help would have made all the difference.

There are truly heroic priests who have undergone persecution by their peers, denunciation by their bishops, scorn from the uninformed and unthinking, physical hardship and suffering to minister to those who are determined to remain Catholic. They baptize children, they hear confessions. If they are not too far away, they bury the dead. The rest are on the golf course, teaching the odious RCIA and RENEW programs, overseeing Cursillo, or looking with Father Fessio and the Sovereign Pontiff toward the imminent "springtime in the Church."

This pathetic expectation is proclaimed from somewhere amid the ruins, somewhere in the rubble left by the demolition crew. Not only has the rubble not been carted away; not only has rebuilding not even begun; the demolition is still in progress. There are times when the living envy the dead; this time, those of us who can see might well envy the blind. Speaking in worldly terms, they must be much happier than we are.

Were it a geographic entity, the whole Church would have been declared a disaster area long since, and Catholics who believe Catholic doctrine would be on the list of endangered species. While we wait for help from heaven, we wear our scapulars, we say the Rosary. We rely on the graces of our vocation which come to us through the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony to help us to fulfil the duties of our state. We ask the holy martyrs of every age and nation to pray for us, that we may persevere to the end.

Change has been so fast and constant for more than a generation now, we may sometimes feel that we have been swept away. In those times, it may be helpful to remember that there are lots and lots of things that can never change, and can never be changed, despite the numbers, power, influence, rank, placement, determination and arrogance of those who would have it otherwise. Moreover, God has not abandoned us. "I am the salvation of the people," says the Lord; "in whatever tribulation they shall cry to me, I will hear them: and I will be their Lord forever" (Introit, Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost); "Say to the fainthearted: Take courage, and fear not: behold your God will bring the revenge of recompense: God himself will come and will save you" (Is 35:4).


[1] . A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (in further references, CCHS), gen. ed., Dom Bernard Orchard (New York, 1953), 708a.
[2] . CCHS, 708a-e.
[3] . Against Heresies, III. i. 1.
[4] . Where We Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church, TAN BOOKS (Rockford, 1977), Rt. Rev. Henry G. Graham.
[5] . Where We Got the Bible, 36.
[6] . CCHS, 789e.
[7] . Commentary from CCHS, 779b-f.
[8] . Sämmtliche Werke, Vol. XVI, Zimmer (1877), 518-519.
[9] . Sermon on Marriage, Wittenberg, 1522. Sämmtliche Werke, Vol. XX.
[10] . Sämmtliche Werke, Vol. XXXIII, (Erlanger Heyder, 1843), 324.
[11] . Which Bonald, and where, I have been unable to determine.
[12] . September 26, 1999.
[13] . The original edition of De captivitate Babylonica.
[14] . In further references, TFOM. Rev. John A. O'Brien. Our Sunday Visitor (Huntington, IN, 1938).
[15] . TFOM, 285-286.
[16] . Stanley I. Stuber, Primer on Roman Catholicism for Protestants, Association Press (New York, 1965), 72.
[17] . The Catholic Encyclopedia (in further references, CE), Vol. XII, p. 495.
[18] . The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, Jerald C. Brauer, ed., The Westminster Press (Philadelphia, 1971), p. 818-819.
[19] . The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, sec. ed., F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, ed., Oxford University Press (Oxford, 1977), p. 1218.
[20] . Stuber, 58.

[21] . F. J. Sheed, Theology and Sanity (New York, 1946), p. 4.

[22] . Sheed, 9.

[23] . TFOM, 321.
[24] . TFOM, 321.
[25] . Stuber, 58.
[26] . TFOM, 325.
[27] . In further references, CUWC, Herder and Herder (New York, 1967).
[28] . FTOM, 314.
[29] . CUWC, 135.
[30] . TFOM, 314.
[31] . Fathers Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies, TAN Books (Rockford, 1979), Vol. III, pp. 320-321, #1313.
[32] . CUWC, 35.
[33] . A transcribed speech published in The Angelus, August, 1983.
[34] . Quoted by Davies in "True and False Obedience."
[35] . CUWC, 35.
[36] . CUWC, 35.
[37] . CE, XIII, 71.
[38] . Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, B. Herder  (1949), p. 359, n., p. 362.
[39] . Gihr, 359-360.
[40] . Gihr, n., 360.
[41] . Gihr, 360.
[42] . Michael Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass, The Angelus Press, (Dickinson, TX, 1980), p. 361.
[43] . Davies, 401.

[44] . Michael Davies, Pope John's Council, Arlington House Publishers (New Rochelle, 1977), p. 222.

[45] . Liturgical Institutions, Vol. I, Chapter IV, first published in 1840. Cited by Davies in Pope John's Council, p. 297.

[46] . CUWC, 61.
[47] . Homiletic and Pastoral Review, February, 1979. In Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass, 80.
[48] . CUWC, 36.
[49] . The Fatima Crusader, Spring 1999, issue #59, p. 55.
[50] . CE, VII, 256.
[51] . In his response to The Wanderer, part 4.
[52] . CCHS, 201b.
[53] . A Commentary on the New Testament, The Catholic Biblical Association (1942), p. 557.
[54] . TFOM, 361.
[55] . Michael Davies, in his booklet The Catholic Sanctuary.
[56] . Letter to the French Bishops and Archbishops on the Sillon, 1910.
[57] . The Latin Mass, Fort Collins, CO, Winter 1995, pp. 10-11.
[58] . Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order, Augustine Publishing Company (1976), p. 57.
[59] . TFOM, 320.
[60] . TFOM, 314.
[61] . TFOM, 320-321.