Sacramentizing Rightly

When I read the letter of the Archbishop of Detroit regarding Fr Matthew Hood's invalid baptism and subsequently invalid Confirmation, invalid Confessions (dozens, surely), invalid Diaconate ordination and, ultimately, invalid Presbyteral ordination, I was especially struck by the pastoral swiftness and pastoral vigilance His Grace took to address the situation.  This was the +Allen Vigneron I got to know while he was bishop of Oakland--I've had the pleasure to serve as his MC twice and to have interactions with him regarding the Deaf Catholic ministry in the East Bay--doctrinally sound, pastorally vigilant, and conscientiously evangelical.

In the larger scheme of things, it was surprising--yet very, very refreshing--to see Archbishop Vigneron name names:  Not only of Father Matthew Hood, but also of Deacon Mark Springer.  Not even the Council of Trent named Luther and Calvin for the errors they peddled; naming Hood and Springer serves to show how severe the situation was, which lead me to my subsequent, yet happy, surprise:  An obvious demonstration of concern for salvation over face-saving that's become the modus operandi of many Christian leaders.

Here at the conventual priory where I live, there is a longtime friend of mine who is also a longtime liturgist--not the sort that opines and puts on the "Father Martin Show" and calls it Mass, but who celebrates both in the Latin and Byzantine Rites, has studied under no less than Dom Mark Daniel Kirby OSB, holds an M.A. in liturgy from The Liturgical Institute at Mundelein Seminary, and a D.Min. in the same from Oxford University through the Graduate Theological Foundation.  Father Martin is old enough to remember the silly season after the sublime Council, and often talks shop about the clumsy implementation not only Sacrosanctum concilium but also Perfectae caritatis.  He was not the least bit surprised at the ministerial malfeasance of Deacon Springer, because of the sort of formation that was dished out at the time.  In effect, Father Martin said, Give him a break!

Especially, quoth I, if he is a product of "Iron John."

Luis Cardinal Ladaria's dicastery is much to be commended for publishing its Responsum, more so if they had a good sense that this would cause a disruption in the lives of the faithful.  And disrupted it did--medicinally.

Thin doctrine has given way to an overemphasis on emotivism as if "Salvation of souls" has been replaced with the "assuaging of feelings" and the Church of Christ metamorphosed into the Church of Nice.  Sure, "We baptise you..." sounds warm and fuzzy, but it's got as much doctrinal content as Nutella has vitamins, though equal amounts of sugar.

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy clearly teaches that "By His power [Christ] is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes" (S.c., 7).  St Paul speaks of Christ as the Head of the Church (cf Eph 1:22-23), whereas Christians are His Body.  It is not the Church who baptises, but the Church's Head, namely Christ; nor does the Church confirm, but the Church's Head, again the Anointed One.

"From His fullness we have all received, grace upon grace" (Jn 1:16).  The doctrine of the "Capital Grace" of Christ means that, as the Anointed One, the Holy Spirit overflows from Christ to Christians, from the Head to the Body, as from the 'Anointer' to the 'anointees'; St Thomas Aquinas often points to the anointing of Aaron flowing from his head to his body in Psalm 133 [132]:2 as a type of Christ's Capital Grace.  That is how grace is conferred upon us:  From Christ to us, and not--I repeat, not--from us to each other.  "We baptise you..." undercuts the doctrine of Jesus' Anointing; it's not only lazy Sacramentology and bad Christology, it's even worse Pneumatology.

If it's anything, it's pop psychology.

Yet if my research on the Anointing of Jesus has taught me anything, the Holy Spirit is everyone's favourite Person of the Trinity to ignore.

In my earlier research on the sacramental validity of a signed, inaudible consecration, I discovered Aquinas' more nuanced understanding of "the sacramental word" (which most of us know as "form" or "formula"):

As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.), the word operates in the sacraments "not because it is spoken," i.e. not by the outward sound of the voice, "but because it is believed" in accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And this sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to their sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter in what language this sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete (S.th., 3a, q. 60, art. 7, ad 1).

Critics of the Responsum (or, as Cardinal Mueller delightfully calls them, "theological ignoramuses") accuse the Holy See of holding to a "magical" sense of the sacramental economy.  Not so, says Aquinas appropriating Augustine, because it's not the utterance that carries power, but the sense of the words which is held by faith.  "We baptise you..." is theologically meaningless and therefore impotent, whereas "I baptise you..." is powerful as it lends voice to Christ who gives to the new believer a share of His own Anointing and highlights the doctrine of Christ's own priesthood.  All of the Church's "sacramental words" are efficacious not because they are merely miraculous, but because they are proclamatory of what Christ's disciples believe.

(While I'm at it, have a look over at my friend Brett Graham Fawcett's blog on those supposedly Pharisaical Vatican officials.  And, if we're honest, the charge of Pharisaism is the last resort of one who's run out of points to score.)

Changing the words of the Sacred Liturgy--the Olympic sport of clericalism--is not only disrespectful of what's been handed down to us (as if we are within rights to change what we don't own but only entrusted with) and disobedient to authority (as if the promise we made to our bishops at ordination can be taken lightly), it is also narcissistic because it dismisses Christ who performs the liturgical action and replaces Him with "We," to Feuerbach's delight.

There is something to be said, too, about the assuaging of feelings that replaces salvation of souls now in vogue, but I'll save that for another day.

In any case:  Go easy on Deacon Springer, as he is, through no fault of his own, the victim of formators who engaged in eisegesis instead of exegesis of the Council documents.  Father Hood is to be praised for stirring the pot, as it were, because the flood of invalid sacraments has given rise to not only torrential inconvenience, but also a fresh rain of catecheitcal opportunities.  And, to his great credit, Archbishop Vigneron has broken rank and restored the rational soul to its rightful place of mastery over the sensitive soul by putting believing in charge of feeling.

Let us rejoice in Christ for what He has done for us, not because we fancy ourselves to be Him.