The Constuction of the New Mass: "The Roman Canon" (Latin Mass 2003 Fall)

7/30/2019 The Constuction of the New Mass: "The Roman Canon" (Latin Mass 2003 Fall)

1/8


2/8

Fall 2003

Publisher: Keep the Faith, Inc.Editor-in-Chief: Father James McLucas

Managing Editor: John W. BlewettAssociate Editor: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Art Director: Ronald W. Lawson

Contributing Editors

Father Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P.Ronald P. McArthur

ContributorsElizabeth Altham s Matthew M. Anger s Father William Ashley

Father Ignacio Barreiro s Bishop Eugenijus BartulisFather David R. Becker s James Bemis

Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. s Laura BerquistMarie Siobhan Boland s Patrick Buchanan

Father James B. Buckley, F.S.S.P. s Neri CapponiFrancis Carey s Matthew Childs s John Clark

William Coulson s Thomas J. Craughwell s H.W. Crocker, IIILeo Darroch s Michael Davies s Michael de Tar, M.D.Brett Decker s Patrick Delaney s William Doino, Jr.Thomas A. Droleskey s Father Raymond V. Dunn

Alice Thomas Ellis s Father Evaristus Eshiowu s Edwin FaustChristopher Ferrara s Father Sean Finnegan

Father Kevin Fitzpatrick s James K. FitzpatrickFather Robert Fromageot, F.S.S.P. s John Galvin

Lord Brian Gill s Cecile Bolling von GoetzRichard Cowden Guido s Norris Harrington

Father Brian Harrison, O.S. s Father Ignatius HarrisonKathleen Howley s Kenneth Jones s Father Peter Joseph

Hermann Kelly s Thaddeus Kozinski s Joseph KungSusan Lloyd s James Lothian s Dino Marcantonio

Father Anthony Mastroeni s Thomas McArdleAndrew J. McCauley s D. Q. McInerny s Diane Moczar

Father John Mole, O.M.I. s Thomas MolnarJohn Muggeridge s Anne Roche Muggeridge

Father Gerald Murray s George Neumayr s John NeumayrSteve OBrien s Julia Ann OSullivan s James Patrick

Father John Perricone s Jonathan PetersRobert Phillips s Father Joseph Ponessa s John C. Rao

Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. s Bishop Fernando RifanMichael Rose s Jeffrey Rubin s Claudio R. Salvucci

Msgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz s Msgr. Richard J. SchulerVirginia Seuffert s Janet Smith s Father Russell E. Smith

Thomas Gordon Smith s Joseph Sobran s James SpencerAlfons Cardinal Stickler s Donna Steichen s Duncan Stroik

Robert A. Sungenis s Steven Terenzio s Jeffrey TuckerDaniel Van Slyke s Alice von Hildebrand

Tom J. Walsh, M.D. s Bruce Walters, M.D. s David WhiteFather Alan Wilders s David Williams

Father W. Ray Williams s Charles M. WilsonKieron Wood s John Wooten s Alessandro Zangrando

The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Cultureis publishedquarterly in March, June, September and Decemberby Keep the Faith Inc. Donations to The Latin Mass aretax-deductible in the United States. Simply make out acheck to Keep the Faith, Inc., and write The Latin Mass onthe memo line. The views expressed by The Latin Masscontributors are not necessarily those of the publisher, theeditors or Keep the Faith, Inc. Please address all subscrip-tion requests or questions to:The Latin Mass Keep the Faith, Inc.50 So. Franklin Turnpike, Ramsey, NJ 07446-25460HONE s &AX

Subscription Rates: YEAR n FOUR ISSUES IN #ANADA 53 YEARS n EIGHT ISSUES IN #ANADA 53 YEARS n TWELVE ISSUES IN #ANADA 53Overseas: $50.00/year (U.S. dollars)Single copy price: $7.25 (includes first class postage)

Letters and articles: Address all editorial mail,submissions, letters to the editor, advertising inquiries to:

The Latin Mass

391 E. Virginia TerraceSanta Paula, CA 93060E-Mail: [email protected]

Manuscripts should be submitted in manuscript and if pos-sible in electronic format as a Microsoft Word document.We do not return unsolicited manuscripts. Letters to theeditor may be edited for length or clarity.

Copyright 2003 Keep the Faith, Inc.

On the cover and inside the back cover:Rest on the flight into Egyptby Luc Olivier Mer-son. The reproduction on the inside back coveris designed for display.

Fall 2003

ContentsFeatures

4 Roman Landscapeby Alessandro Zangrando

6 A Catholic Witness to HistoryAn Interview with Michael Davies

10 Vatican II Renewal: Myth or Reality?by Kenneth C. Jones

16 Building Goddess Paganismby Donna Steichen

26 Friendly Advice from Aelredby Edwin Faust

32 The Incarnation and Western Civilizationby Thaddeus Kozinski

37 Sacred Tradition: A Many Splendored Thing (Part 1)by Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P.

Departments

42 Liturgy: The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresyby Father Romano Tommasi

Sermon: Lead Me in the Way of Oldby Father Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P.

50 History: The Monks and Civilizationby Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

54 Saint for the Season: The Disconcerting Sanctity of Thomas Beckby Diane Moczar

Architecture: Treasures of Tradition in the Worlds Most Tragic Ciby Michael S. Rose

62 Literature: Visible Man: The Story of H.G. Wellsby Matthew Anger and Edward G. Lengel

66 Biography: General Shermans Relentless Battleby Steve OBrien

72 Cinema:Alfred Hitchcock: Spiritual Director?by James Bemis

Book Review:Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican IIby Michael Davies; reviewed by Father Edmund A. Castronovo

Homeschooling

Motivation and Homeschoolingby Laura Berquist

In Praise of the Lowly Baltimoreby Susan Lloyd

Singing with Angelsby Arlene Oost-Zinner and Jeffrey Tucker

A Final Thought

92 Riches Above, Riches Belowby John W. Blewett


3/8


4/8

43Fall 2003

LiturgyThe Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy

patristic Church are Innocent I (c.

415) and Gelasius (c. 495), followed

by Vigilius (c. 550) and Gregory the

Great (c. 590).10 (As we shall see,

it will also be necessary to include a

singular contribution of Pope Saint

Leo the Great [c. 450] for the pur-

pose of critiquing another so-calledreform of the Roman rite by the

Consilium of Paul VI, which intro-

duced new Eucharistic prayers into

the Roman Mass.) These popes were

all very interested in preserving the

apostolic tradition as it was known to

them, while simultaneously reform-

ing the celebration of the Roman

liturgy in order to promote not only

a vigorous and harmonious liturgy,

but especially to combat heresies ordeficiencies that were rife among the

people of their own day.

The principal means by which her-

esies began to be checked in worship

was by the imposition of a standard

written text for Mass that came to be

known in the West as the Canon, or

Eucharistic prayer. By the end of the

fourth century written Eucharistic

prayers had become a normative

means of guarding the sacred myster-

ies of the Mass from the arbitrary,

trite, and erroneous thoughts of less

than capable priests who were often

an occasion of scandal in their cel-

ebration of Mass.11 It was also about

this time, as noted above, that the

liturgies of the Roman Empire and

elsewhere began to diverge into what

we call rites or different rituals.

The Roman Canon is still consid-

ered unique since it is a Eucharistic

prayer much like the figure ofMelchisedech, whom the Canon itself

invokes as an exemplar without

known parentage or origin; nor is

there another comparable Eucharistic

prayer to it in all of Christendom.12

It stands as one long, unique interces-

sion through Christ and His saints,

which is not meant to be so much

a text of practical religious instruc-

tion as it is a spiritual and symbolic

prayer of intercession.13 Even today

the prayer remains mysterious in

origin. Some scholars are cur-

rently attempting to draw a close

link between the Roman Canon and

a Eucharistic prayer of Alexandrian

origin. Undoubtedly there existed

excellent communications betweenthe sees of Alexandria and Rome in

the second and third centuries. It

was not uncommon for Alexandrian

bishops to celebrate Masses in Rome

with the pope present.14 However, if

these contacts

were indeed

the inspiration

for the Ro-

man Canon,

they can onlyemphasize

the reverence

shown to and

authentic tradi-

tion of such an

ancient text,

whose origins

would thereby

be dated to the

third century.

With all this

being said, at

the beginning

of the reform

of the liturgy it

was supremely

important that

whatever work

the Consilium

did, it was for-

bidden to touch

the Roman

Canon;15 evena translation

of the vener-

able text was

initially thought

to be unthink-

able.16 Later, the

Pope unambiguously called for the

Canon to remain immutable, but

this instruction apparently did not

mean that Signs of the Cross could

not be omitted, or that now thePer

ipsum and the consecration could

not be said aloud, along with a host

of other innovations.17 By contrast,

the venerable Canon was considered

inauthentic and impoverished by the

Consiliumssecretary, Father An-

nibale Bugnini. The decision toadd other Eucharistic Prayers to the

Roman Liturgy, he wrote, was not

an intolerable audacity but a return

to authentic tradition and a rejection

of the deplorable impoverishment

that had been

a typical result

of centuries

of liturgical

decadence.18

Amazingly,immediately

prior to these

remarks Fr.

Bugnini had

mentioned that

the original and

oldest books of

the Roman rite

had histori-

cally possessed

many more

prefaces that

came before

the Sanctus;

more than the

Tridentine

missal of Pius

V. The pre-

Pius V missals

also contained

a plethora of

inserts into

the Canon thatwere in com-

mon use until

the Tridentine

Missal was

published.

The old missal

could easily have been enriched

with these historical and authentic

prefaces and inserts(Communicantes

andHanc igiturs for feasts, etc.) by

The Roman Canon is still

considered unique since it is

a Eucharistic prayer much

like the figure of Melchisedech,

whom the Canon itself

invokes as an exemplar

without known parentage or

origin; nor is there another

comparable Eucharistic prayer

to it in all of Christendom.

The Sacrifice of Melchisedech- mosaic, altar antependium


5/8

Fall 200344

Liturgy The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy

reintroducing them into the Roman

Canon. Modern advances in print-

ing could finally have allowed for an

expanded treasury of ancient texts to

enrich the Missal of Pius V further

without necessitating that the Missal

be divided into two volumes (a very

real fear and excessive burden).However, instead of restoring

authentic and non-intrusive texts to

the Missal, Father Bugnini here refers

to some sort of authentic tradition

as the source of

his reform-mind-

edness. As we

are aware, if by

authentic tradi-

tion he means

Roman tradition,there is only one

Eucharistic prayer

that is historical

and demonstrable

from the earliest

days of the Latin

rite. It seems that

he must instead

be referring to a

tradition from the

period before the

formation of the

Roman rite, when

no Church (east

or west) had set a

standard text for

Mass. This ancient

period, then, does

not really have a

tradition properly

speaking; rather it

represents a forma-

tive stage of Churchhistory, lacking a

textual tradition

of even (in many

cases) written Eucharistic prayers as

a norm. Sheer logic compels me to

call Father Bugninis statement above

little more than a bald-faced lie.

Furthermore, in pushing the reform

of the Roman Canon, the Consilium

tried to shift the focus from defin-

ing the identity of the Roman rite as

a liturgy dependent on the Roman

Canon and Roman Collects to a ritual

that is merely dependent on the Ro-

man Genius. This Roman Genius

is that sober and spare style of Latin

composition that exists in the major-

ity of traditional Roman liturgicaltexts. No longer does the Consilium

talk of being faithful to the ancient

texts of the authentic Roman Liturgy

(whether collects, admonitions, or

blessings); rather it

talks about com-

posing entirely

innovative prayers

that are valid and

licit because they

are merely in thespirit of the Ro-

man liturgy.19

Among the

saddest innovations

within the Canon

itself, however, was

that of the removal

of the words the

Mystery of Faith

from the words

of Consecration

of the chalice.

The most ancient

sacramentaries that

we possess in the

Roman rite, reflect-

ing the authentic

Roman rite as

celebrated by even

Gregory the Great

himself, contain

not only the Roman

Canon, but also, atthe consecration

of the chalice, the

very words: This is

the chalice of my Blood, of the new

and eternal covenant the Mystery

of Faith which will be shed for you

and for many.20 However, follow-

ing Vatican II, the Consilium issued

a series of objections to the formula

Mysterium Fidei: (1) it is not bibli-

cal; (2) it is found only in the Roman

tradition; (3) its sense is not clear; (4)

it interrupts the flow of the words and

takes too much emphasis away from

the words of institution.21

First of all, it is important to note

that, strictly speaking, the major-

ity of eastern and western liturgiesconsecration formulae are not

precisely biblical. There is often

mixing of accounts from the Gospels,

or equivalent vocabulary words,

that are not found verbatim in the

biblical texts. There are even spliced

sentences and omissions of biblical

accounts, including the account of

the so-called Hippolytus of Rome.22

Thus it is puzzling as to why a strict

biblical reproduction of the words ofconsecration was deemed necessary,

since the Gospels themselves vary

in the exact words Jesus used at the

consecration.23 Interestingly enough,

a common hypothesis to explain the

origin of the words of institution and

their variations in the diverse rites of

the Church has often been to account

for these varying formulae through

considering them consecration

formulae that are much older than

their written form found in manu-

scripts. Thus each formula could take

its origin from the Roman imperial

period, when for the most part only

orally transmitted Eucharistic prayers

existed. Each of these differing

accounts of the words of institution

could be considered a unique and

valuable tradition originating from

the ancient genius of a local com-

munity.24

Second, theMysterium Fidei is,according to the Consilium, found

only in the Roman tradition. It

is truly stunning that the experts

responsible for returning the liturgy

to its pristine usage, as in the days of

the Fathers, would not consider the

Mysterium Fidei a precious Roman

pearl, since it is unique to the Roman

liturgy alone.25 It is the inheritance

of the Latin Church uniquely. It is

Among the saddest

innovations within

the Canon itself,

however, was that of

the removal of the

words the Mystery of

Faith from the wordsof Consecration of the

chalice.


6/8

45Fall 2003

patristic in its origin, contained in

all ancient Latin sacramentaries,

and is peculiar to our rite. Thus it is

nonsense to delete something so spe-

cifically Roman. The fact that it is

found only in our tradition strength-

ens, not weakens, the argument for its

retention.Thirdly, it was further lamented

that the sense of the words was not

clear.26 Obviously, whatever the

strict meaning of the words Mystery

of Faith, they are meant to describe

the Blood. The Blood of Christ is the

Mystery of Faith. 27 It doesnt take

a genius to figure out in what ways

the Blood of Christ is a mystery for

our faith. Whether talking about its

redemptive value or its otherworldlycharacter to forgive sins and over-

come evil, clearly the application of

these words here is true, accurate,

and not given to

heretical or errone-

ous interpretation.

Furthermore, recent

studies have helped

scholars possibly

pinpoint its mean-

ing even more

precisely. The most

recent leanings in

the scholarly world

tend to regard the

wordsMysterium

Fidei as an addi-

tion to the words

of consecration

by the preeminent

doctrinal champion

of the Church, Saint

Leo the Great.It seems that in

fighting against

Manicheism, he

inserted the words

to emphasize

the world-saving

character of the consecrated chal-

ice.28 Heretics at the time denied the

efficacy of wine to be changed into

the Blood of Christ, since wine was

considered evil,

or at least the

cause of evils (as

in the extremes

of the temperance

movement, along

with Mormons

and certain Prot-estants).

Lastly, the

phrase was

denounced for di-

recting too much

emphasis away

from the words of

consecration by

having the em-

phasis on the last

words: whichwill be offered for you and for many

unto the remission of sins. If it

is accepted thatMysterim Fidei is an

addendum to the

words this is the

cup of my Blood,

of the new and

eternal testament,

it seems that rather

it continues almost

to over-emphasize

the consecration

above and beyond

any other part of the

phrase. It is not just

the chalice of my

Blood but rather

Blood of the new

covenant. Not

merely Blood of

the new covenant,

but Blood of the

new and everlast-ing covenant. Not

even this is enough:

it is, furthermore,

Blood of the new

and everlasting

covenant, the same

covenant that is the Mystery of the

Christian Faith. It seems difficult

to posit that the wordsMysterium

Fidei draw emphasis toward anything

but the nature of

the Blood poured

out for sinners.

It should be

emphasized that

the problem of

the reformers

removing thewordsMysterium

Fidei from the

consecration

formula is not

one of sacramen-

tal validity. It is

a puerile theol-

ogy that calls

into question the

Churchs power to

change any non-essential words in the consecration

formula. Even before Vatican II, the

Magisterium had been teaching that

the only words necessary for validity

were nothing more than this is my

Body and this is my Blood.29 To

settle this argument more authori-

tatively, one need only refer to the

official response of the Holy See on

the essential words of consecration

in order to perform the Sacrifice of

the Mass. Again the essential words

do not include mentioning either the

chalice, the Mystery of Faith, etc.,

but only this is my Blood.30

Pius XII closes any doubt as to

this question in his Constitution Sac-

ramentum Ordinis, in which he refers

to the differences between the Greek

Church and the Roman Church when

it comes to the priestly ordination

ritual. Since the Roman Church has

always recognized the validity ofGreek sacraments, it is necessary to

conclude that the essential elements

of any sacrament are found in those

essential words and actions that were

instituted by Christ the Lord Himself.

This is the minimal condition forva-

lidity. The infallible Council of Flor-

ence declared that Greeks observe

their ordination rituals, even though

they didnt have the same ritual as

It is truly stunning

that the experts

responsible for

returning the liturgy to

its pristine usage, as in

the days of the Fathers,would not consider

the Mysterium Fidei a

precious Roman pearl,

since it is unique to the

Roman liturgy alone.

It is the inheritance

of the Latin Church

uniquely. It is patristicin its origin, contained

in all ancient Latin

sacramentaries, and is

peculiar to our rite.

The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy Liturgy

Pope Pius XII offering a private Mass.


7/8

Fall 200346

Liturgy

the Romans (e.g., handing the Gospel

over to the deacon, a paten and

chalice to a priest, etc.). The conclu-

sion was that the Romans and Greeks

have the common tradition of laying

on of hands and invocation of the

Holy Spirit, and that therefore this is

the only essential part of the sacra-

ment. However, the Roman Church

has the power to require additional

ceremonies for validity by power of

the Keys of Peter.

In the case of the words of institu-

tion in the Mass, the situation is

analogous. All churches (East andWest) share the essential necessity of

needing a priest (with right intention)

to repeat the words of our Savior over

the natural elements of bread and

wine. The addition of theMysterium

Fidei was an additional requirement

for validity in the Roman rite until

the Pope exercised the Keys of Peter

to reduce the formula of consecra-

tion to a more basic and minimal

formula.31

The

problematic

question here

is, again,

not one of

validity but

is rather oneof asking:

How does

removing the

Mysterium

Fidei do any-

thing ben-

eficial for the

Roman rite?

Whether

speaking

merely inhistorical

or liturgical

terms the

reform is

an absolute

aberration.

In fact, it was

only through

the auspices and force of Paul VIs

personal efforts that theMysterium

Fidei was even allowed into the

Novus Ordo. Yet it was allowed only

by way of removing

it from the conse-

cration formula and

introducing after

it the acclamation:

Christ has died,

Christ is risen,

Christ will come

again. It is no

exaggeration to say

that Pope Paul VIarbitrarily introduced an anti-liturgi-

cal practice,32 against the advice of

his hand-picked experts,33 purely

for the motive of having the faith-

ful verbally make an acclamation in

imitation of those that exist in the

majority of the eastern liturgies.34

Yet for all this Paul VIs aberrant

act was excused by some experts

since it at least promoted active

participation.35 It is puzzling to see

so much effort spent by the Consilium

in expunging Gallican prayers (e.g.,

the priests silent prayers in the Mass)

from our liturgy only to adopt other

prayers in imitation of eastern rites.

The Gallican prayers are considered

influenced by the eastern churchesliturgies; therefore the Consilium

expunged them as being against the

spirit of the Roman liturgy, while now

eastern-like practices are adopted with

the post-consecration acclamation. Is

logic a part of the liturgical reform?

First of all, the idea of using the

Mysterium Fidei to introduce an

acclamation by the faithful was the

idea of liturgical amateurs whose

opinions were not even respected bythe Consilium itself.36 Second, the

Pope enthusiastically pushed for the

acclamation to be inserted into the

Canon.37 The Consiliumrightly pro-

tested that the placing of theMysteri-

um Fidei after the consecration would

(1) be an innovation found in no other

rite or church; (2) disrupt the action of

the Mass and the flow of the Canon at

its apex; (3) change the entire mean-

ing ofMysterium Fidei no longer

referring to the chalice, as before,

but to Christs life,

death, resurrection,

and future com-

ing.38 The original

acclamation pro-

posed was: Christ

has died, Christ

has risen, Christ

will come again.

The actual literal

translation is, Weannounce your death, O Lord, and

we confess your resurrection, until

you come again. This is still found

in the newest edition of the Missal of

Paul VI. It has been purported that

this invocation is in imitation of the

venerable and ancient rendition of the

Roman Canon as found in the rite of

Saint Ambrose, or Ambrosian rite of

Milan. To a certain extent this is true.

When all was said

and done, these facts

remained: no tradition

was restored to the

Canon, no problems

were solved, and no

renewal took place.

The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy

The Last Supper, central panel, by Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen


8/8

47Fall 2003

Liturgy

Father Romano Tommasi received his

Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.)

from the Pontifical University of San

Anselmo in Rome.

Notes

1. SCIENTIA LITURGICA, Manuale di Liturgia,ed. professori del Pontificio Istituto Liturgico S.Anselmo, 5 vol., Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1998.Edizione Italiana. (vol 3, p. 65).

2. Neunheuser, Burkhard di. Storia della liturgiaattreverso le epoche culturali, Centro LiturgicoVincenziano-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1999 (3aEdizione), pp. 58-59.

3. MILLER, JOHN H., Fundamentals of the Liturgy,Notre Dame, Indiana, Fides Publishers 1962 (2ndedition), pp. 54-55. The substance of the Roman riteis found in the ancient text, all of which have onlythe Roman Canon, and certain types of prayers forseasons throughout the year.

4. Ibid., p. 75.

5. Vogel, Cyril. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction tothe Sources. The Pastoral Press: Washington D.C.,1986. pp. 73-75 (revised edition in English).

6. Perhaps the Roman Canon is closely linked withAlexandria, Egypt. See: MAZZA, ENRICO, TheCelebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Riteand the Development of Its Interpretation, Min-nesota, Liturgical Press 1999 (1st English edition).Trans. Matthew J. OConnell, pp. 62-66.

7. PREX EUCHARITICA, Textus e variis liturgiisantiquioribus selecti, Albert Gerhards et HeinzgerdBrakmann (editio tertia), vol. 1 , UniversittsverlagFreiburg Schweiz, 1998, pp. 421-422.

8. SCHULZ, HAN-JOACHIM, The Byzantine Liturgy,

New York, Pueblo 1986 (1st English Edition). Trans.Matthew J. OConnell. Pp. 142-144. Here the entireliturgy is reduced to a discussion of the anaphora.

9. Historically, of course, the anaphora of Saint Jamesis of great importance as well.

10. SCIENTIA LITURGICA, pp. 130-131.

11. Synod of Hippo (AD 393), canon XXIII is the begin-ning of a long line of western legislation to preventabuses.

12. SCIENTIA LITURGICA, p. 65.

13. MAZZA, ENRICO, The Celebration of the Eucha-rist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development ofIts Interpretation, p. 270. Here he laments this point,instead of praising the unique features of our ritual.

14. JUNGMANN, JOSEPH, The Mass of the RomanRite: its origins and development, 2 vol. New York,Benzinger Brothers, 1951 (1st English edition. Trans.Francis A. Brunner). vol. 2, p. 32.

15. BUGNINI, A.Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75, Col-legeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press, 1990 (1stEnglish edition. Trans. Matthew J. OConnell), pp.450, 462.

16. Ibid., pp. 105-113.

17.La riforma conciliare dell. Ilpercorso storico-redazionale dei riti dingresso, dioffertorio e di comunione (BEL, 120), CLV-EdizioniLiturgiche, Roma 2002, pp. 356-358.

18. BUGNINI, A.Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75, Col-legeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press, 1990 (1stEnglish edition. Trans. Matthew J. OConnell), p.549.

19. Ibid. Fr. Bugnini admits that the Consilium whenwell beyond the parameters of Vatican II in Sacro-Sanctum Concilium. See The Reform of the RomanLiturgy 1948-1975, p. 110

20. LIBER SACRAMENTORUM ROMANAEAECLESIAE ORDINIS ANNI CIRCULI (Cod.Vat. Reg. Lat. 316/Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, 41/56)(SACRAMENTARIUM GELASIANUM), RerumEcclesiasticarum Documenta, cura PontificiiAthenaei Sancti Anselmi de Urbe Edita ModeranteL.C. Mohlberg, Series Maior Fontes vol. 4, CasaEditrice Herder, Roma 1960. Capitulum [XVIII], #

1249 (Latin only).21.La riforma conciliare dell , p. 489.

22. JUNGMANN, JOSEPH A., Mass of the Roman Rite,194-202

23. In fact, initi ally, the words in t he Roman Canon werethe same as always. Only the 3 new Eucharisticprayers had different words of consecration. Thisallowed pressure to be put on the Pope to changethe Roman Canon so that it would agree with thenewly created Eucharistic prayers. See Fr. BugninisReform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, p. 180, 382.

24. Ibid.

25. Excepting the Ambrosian rite, of course.

26. In an embarrassing feigning of concern fororthodoxy, Fr. Bugnini records that another seriousconcern is thatMysterium Fideicould be translateda sign of our faith. He is frantic to protest thatthese words might lead one to think of the Mass asa sign and not sacrifice; that is using his loaded andinaccurate translation. Apparently, however, thereis no problem using pagan Indian vedic scripturesto replace Mass texts in order to inculturate theliturgy. SeeReform of the Liturgy, pp. 272, 454.

27. ECCLESIA ORANS. MYSTERIUM FIDEI ANDST. LEO THE GREAT (440-461),Estratto daEcclesia Orans-Anno XV-1198-3, Cassian Folsom,Pontificio Istituto Liturgico, Roma, 1998, p. 292.

28. Ibid., pp. 289-302.

29.Papal Teachings, The Liturgy, St Paul Editions, ed.The Benedictine Monks of Solemnes, Boston, 1962,pp. 508-509. Pius XII, Papal Allocution: SacredLiturgy and Pastoral Action (808).

30. ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM, ed. H.Denzinger,H., -P. Hunermann, Herder, ed., Freiburg i. Br1991. See #3928: Decr. S. Officii, 8 Mart. (23 Maii)1957De valida concelebratione.

31. ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM, ed. H. Denz-inger, H., -P. Hunermann, Herder, ed., Freiburg i. Br1991, See #3857-3859.

32.Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, p. 370.

33. Ibid., p. 371. Three serious official rejections can befound by the Consilium.

34. Ibid., pp. 454-455.

35. Ibid., p. 372.

36. Ibid., pp. 351-352.

37. Ibid., p. 365.

38.La riforma conciliare dell , pp.610-611.

39. Mandans quoque, et dicens ad eos: Haec quoties-cunque feceritis in meam commemorationem facietis,mortem meam praedicabitis, resurrectionem meamannunciabitis, adventum meum sperabitis, doneciterum de coelis veniam ad vos. (Missale Ambrosia-num, 1962).

Remember that Paul VI had been in

the See of Milan before becoming

Pope. Couldnt he be simply suggest-

ing here an ancient practice dating to

the days of Saint Ambrose?

Absolutely not. A perusal of the

Ambrosian rite Mass text makes

apparent the following two observa-tions. First, theMysterium Fidei is

found exactly in accord with that of

the Missal of Pius V before Vatican

II. The wordsMysterium Fidei were

later removed from the ancient words

of consecration only after Vatican II.

Second, in the Ambrosian rite, after

the consecration of the chalice, the

priest alone declares: Also [Jesus]

ordering and saying to them: Howev-

er often that youve done these things,

in my memory will you do [them],

you will preach my death, you will

announce my resurrection, you will

hope for my arrival, until again I shall

come to you from the heavens. 39

This is a clear and unambiguous

reference to the fact that the priestexplains that when the faithful do

these things (eat and drink the Body

and Blood of Christ) they preach his

death and resurrection while waiting

on Him to come.

The most important objection is

that the new acclamation interrupts

the flow of the Mass. This innovation

has brought us back into yet another

vicious circle. One of the initial rea-

sons for taking theMysterium Fidei

out of the words of consecration in the

first place was that it interrupted the

flow of the narrative! Now, in order to

save the narrative from being inter-

rupted, the Canon as a whole is split

into two.

When all was said and done, thesefacts remained: no tradition was

restored to the Canon, no problems

were solved, and no renewal took

place.

The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy

The Constuction of the New Mass: "The Roman Canon" (Latin Mass 2003 Fall)

Documents

Transcript of The Constuction of the New Mass: "The Roman Canon" (Latin Mass 2003 Fall)