In the traditional rite, the first part of the Mass of the Faithful is the Offertory. Its importance is manifest in that in ancient times, the catechumens were dismissed before this started, and also by the fact that the faithful must be present during these prayers in order to fulfill their Mass obligation. In it the Sacrifice is both prepared and directed to a determinate end. In essence, the Offertory prayers anticipate the consecration and make the sacrificial nature of the remainder of the rite unmistakably clear.
In the true Mass the Offertory prayers refer to the bread by the term hostia or 'victim.' Thus, in the first Offertory prayer, the priest unveils the chalice, takes the gold-plated paten with the host of unleavened bread, raises it to the level of his heart and says: 'Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and everlasting God, this spotless host which I, thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for mine own countless sins and negligences, and for all here present, as also for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may avail for my own and their salvation unto life everlasting.' (Though these prayers are said by the priest in Latin, the faithful follow them in their Missals which provide an exact parallel vernacular translation. Post-Conciliar Catholics, unfamiliar with the devotions of their parents, should not assume that the average person could not follow the traditional rite.)
What a marvel of doctrinal exactitude. along with the actions of the priest, the prayer makes it clear that what is offered is the 'spotless host' or victim. Second, the propitiatory nature of the Mass is explicit - it is offered for our sins. Third, it reminds us that the Mass is offered 'for the living and the dead'; and forth, that it is the priest who offers the Sacrifice as a mediator between man and God. The beauty of the precise expression is the splendor veritatis -- the splendor of the truth.
This prayer has, needless to say, been deleted. And one of the reasons Paul VI offers for doing so is to make the doctrinal content of the Mass 'more clear.'
Also deleted is the second Offertory prayer, Deus qui humanae..., an oration equally rich in doctrinal content: 'O God, who in a wonderful manner created and ennobled human nature and still more wonderfully renewed it grant that, by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divinity who was pleased to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Your son Our Lord...' The reason it had to be deleted is that it refers to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ and it recapitulates the entire economy of the Sacrifice. In fact, of the twelve Offertory prayers in the traditional rite, only two are retained. And of course, the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated. And why? Because, as Luther said, they 'smacked of Sacrifice... the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation.'
The Novus Ordo Missae not only omitted these significant prayers, but it effectively abolished the entire Offertory. The General Instruction speaks instead of the 'Preparation of the Gifts.' And within this part of the new rite there is not a word which so much as hints that it is the Divine Victim which is offered. The bread and wine -- 'the work of human hands' -- is all that is offered. Michael Davies points out that this concept is fully compatible with the Teilhardian theory that human effort, the work of human hands, becomes in a certain way, the matter of the sacrament. And further, except for the prayer of the washing of the hands, all the petitions are in the first person plural -- 'we' -- which is consistent with the concept that it is not the priest-president who offers up the Mass, but the 'assembly' or 'the people of God.'
In line with this principle, all prayers that differentiate the priest from the laity have been systematically eliminated. The Latin original of the new Missal still makes such a distinction within the prayer Orate Fratres. This was a prayer which the Consilium wished deleted and which was replaced at the demand of the Synod of Bishops. However, the innovators achieved their desire in the vernacular translation where - in English, French, Portuguese and German -- the distinction of priest from laity was eliminated.
Conservatives will point to the retention in the Novus Ordo Missae of the traditional Offertory prayer In Spiritu Humilitatis (In a spirit of humility), as proof that the new Offertory rite alludes to the traditional teaching that the Mass is first and foremost a Sacrifice offered to God. Now, this prayer is taken from Chapter Three of Daniel and refers to the personal sacrifice -- at most, a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving' -- made by Azarias and his companions in the fiery furnace. As such, it is totally acceptable to Protestants and was retained by them in the Lutheran and Anglican services. Should any one doubt its acceptability to the modernist, he has but to consider the interpretation placed on this prayer by Father Joseph Jungmann -- one of the most scholarly members of the Consilium responsible for the new rite. 'The prayer 'In a spirit of humility' which had always served as an emphatic summary of the process of offering, and as such was recited with a deep inclination, has been retained unchanged for the very reason that it gives apt expression to the 'invisible sacrifice' of the heart as the interior meaning of all exterior offering.'
In the Novus Ordo Missae, interpreted literally, all that is offered is the bread and wine. Against this, some will say that, in the offering of the bread-host, the priest says 'It will become for us the bread of life.' But as the late Father Burns, one of America's most conservative Novus Ordo priests, pointed out, this can as well be understood as referring to the bread we eat each day, often called 'the staff of life.' It also includes the phrase 'for us' which Cranmer insisted denied the sacramental principle ex opere operato -- the principle that, providing proper form and matter is used, and providing the celebrant is a true priest, consecration occurs regardless of the disposition of the participants (26). The same comment can be made with regard to the phrase 'it will become our spiritual drink' And so, once again, the conclusion of the Critical Study appears appropriate.
'The three ends of the Mass are altered; no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only 'spiritually' (not substantially) changed... Not a word do we find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.'
CHAPTER XII, part 11
THE LITURGICAL REVOLUTION
The Canon: the new Eucharistic prayers
The heart of the traditional Mass is the Canon. It remains the same every time Mass is offered, except during the most solemn feasts of the Church, when a phrase or two is added which refers to the mystery being celebrated (nothing however being deleted). In the new 'mass' the Canon is abolished. In its place are four (at least for now) 'Anaphoras' or 'Eucharistic Prayers' (henceforth 'EP').
The first Eucharistic Prayer is not, as is often claimed, the ancient Roman Canon. It is merely modeled on the traditional Canon. Its retention, against Archbishop Bugnini's wishes, allowed the new rite to be accepted with a minimum of protest. (Those using it were assured they were saying the old Mass.) However, with the destruction of the traditional Offertory (with its prayers that state precisely what occurs during the Canon), Eucharistic Prayer 1 is entirely capable of being given a modernist and Protestant interpretation.
The phrase which allows for this is found in the prayer Quam Oblationem: 'Be pleased to make this same offering wholly blessed, to consecrate it and approve it, making it reasonable and acceptable, so that it may become FOR US the Body and Blood...' In the absence of the traditional Offertory prayers, 'for us' can be understood in the Cranmerian sense. In Cranmer's first edition of the Book of Common Prayer, he prefaced the words of Institution (i.e., the words used for the Consecration) with this phrase: 'Hear us, O merciful Father, we beseech Thee; and with Thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these Thy gifts and creation of bread and wine that they may be made UNTO US the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved son, Jesus Christ.' Some of his fellow reformers attacked this on the grounds that it was capable of being understood as effecting transubstantiation! to this Cranmer indignantly replied: 'We do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made into the body and blood of Christ, but that UNTO US in that holy mystery they may be made so; that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the same that we may be partakers in Christ's body and blood, and that therefore in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished.' Cranmer was insisting that the expression 'for us' meant that no objective transubstantiation occurred, but that rather it was the personal disposition of those involved which allowed them to be spiritually nourished. In other words, these two words in effect denied the Catholic doctrine 'as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.'
As in Cranmer's second Book of Common Prayer, so also in the Novus Ordo's Eucharistic Prayer No. 2, all pretence of a Catholic interpretation is eliminated. When Eucharistic Prayer No. 2 is used, the Te Igitur, Memento domine, and Quam Oblationem -- three prayers that ambiguously allow for a catholic interpretation of nobis (for us) -- are no longer said. There is absolutely no preparation for the 'consecration.' Sneeze and you miss it.
Eucharistic Prayer No. 2 is said to have been taken from Hippolytus' 'Apostolic Tradition'(written at a time when he was a schismatic and an anti-pope). However, to this questionably authentic document, the innovators made significant changes. Thus for example, they gratuitously inserted into the original text this very phrase 'FOR US.' Eucharistic Prayer No. 2 further follows Cranmer in suppressing the word benedixit ('He blessed...'), a word which the Reformers associated with the doctrine of transubstantiation, and in suppressing the phrases ut mortem solveret et vincula diaboli dirumperet, et infernum calceret et iustos illuminet ('so that He [Christ] could conquer death, break the chains of Satan, trod hell under foot, and illuminate the just'), and qua nos dignos habuisti adstare coram te et tibi sacerdotes ministrare (for holding us worthy to stand before Thee and serve Thee as priests) -- all concepts the innovators and liberal Protestants abhor.
In the traditional Mass it is impossible to understand nobis in the Cranmerian sense. In Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 of the NOM, the situation is ambiguous. But in Eucharistic Prayer No. 2, Catholic teaching disappears and Protestantism triumphs. As Hugh Ross Williamson said, 'it is impossible to understand it any other way than in the Cranmerian sense.'(28). Further, the deliberate nature of the changes in Eucharistic Prayer No. 2 -- the addition of these two words -- reflect back on the manner in which we are to understand nobis in EP No. 1. To make matters worse, the creators of the new 'mass' clearly show their preference for Eucharistic Prayer No. 2. The official documents from Rome instruct us that it can be used in any 'mass.' It is recommended for Sundays ' unless for pastoral reasons another eucharistic prayer is chosen.' It is also particularly suitable 'for weekday masses, or for mass in particular circumstances.' Further, it is recommended for masses with children, young people and small groups, and above all for Catechism classes. Beyond this, human nature being what it is, most priests will use it because of its brevity and simplicity.
It is worth noting at this point that Paul VI added the phrase quod pro vobis tradetur (which is given up for you) to the words of consecration. So also did Luther and Cranmer. Luther explained the reasons for this in his Shorter Catechism. 'The word 'for you' calls simply for believing hearts.' And such of course only further highlights the importance of the word nobis in this entire sordid affair.
Space allows for only a brief comment on Eucharistic Prayers No. 3 and 4.
In Eucharistic Prayer No. 3 the following words are addressed to the Lord: 'From age to age you gather a people to Yourself, in order that from east and west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.' This phrase once again makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the priest, that are the indispensable element in the celebration. Even Michael Davies, who presumably believes that only an ordained priest can consecrate, is forced to note that 'in not one [his emphasis] of the new Eucharistic prayers is it made clear that the Consecration is effected by the priest alone, and that he is not acting as a spokesman or president for a concelebrating congregation.'
Eucharistic Prayer No. 4, composed by innovator Father Cipriano Vagaggini, presents yet another interesting aspect of the liturgical revolution. The Latin itself is innocuous, but the official (and Roman approved) translation used in the United States is clearly open to an heretical interpretation. (...)
Faced with the fact that 'the entire teaching of the Church is contained in the liturgy' (Father Joseph Jungmann in Handing on the Faith), this is a most instructive piece of skulduggery. In the Latin version of the NOM the words Unus Deus or 'one God... living and true,' are to be found, and no explicit heresy is taught. However, even in the Latin, apart from the Creed, there is no clear expression of the doctrine of the Trinity. (What a striking economy of language is used in our traditional Preface!) When we come to the vernacular Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer No. 4, the mistranslation of Unus Deus by 'You alone are God' clearly departs from the traditional norm. In the absence of any other reference in this prayer to the Son or the Holy Ghost, the use of the world 'alone' is an explicit denial of the Trinity. It is for this reason that some have referred to this Eucharistic Prayer as the 'Arian Canon.' Yet another example of a return to primitive practice! Because of repeated complaints this mistranslation has been recently corrected. That an explicitly heretical formula could have been used for 18 years in the post-Conciliar Church speaks volumes about the innovators' ignorance of the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church.
The narratio institutionis
In the NOM, as in the Lutheran service, the words of consecration -- the very heart of the traditional rite -- are part of what is called the Narratio Institutionis or the Institution Narrative (32). This phrase is not found in the traditional Missals of the Church. The placing of the Eucharistic Prayers --the 'canons' -- of the NOM within such a section, or under the heading of such a title, is bound to induce the priest-president to say these words as if he were merely retelling the story of the Last Supper; that instead of making an action present 'here and now,' he is merely calling to mind an event that occurred some 2000 years ago. Nowhere in Paul VI's Missale Romanum is the priest-president instructed that the 'action' is happening here and now, and that he must say the Words of Consecration in persona Christi. (The traditional teaching is that the priest must say these critical words in the person of Christ, for it is Christ who, through the priest, effects the Consecration. The 'revised' version of the General Instruction, seeking to mollify criticisms, does speak of the priest acting in persona Christi, but not with regard to the manner in which he says the Words of Consecration.) Even if this were the only defect in the new rite, it would be sufficient to raise grave doubts as to whether or not any true Catholic Sacrifice occurs.
The traditional Church has always taught that for the Sacred Species to be confected, that is, for consecration to occur, the priest must not only be properly ordained; intend to do what the Church does; use the proper matter; use the correct words (form); he must also say the Words of Consecration in personal Christi, and not as part of a historical narrative such as occurs when he reads the relevant Scripture passages. Should he say them as part of a historical narrative, he turns what occurs at Mass into just a simple memorial of an event that occurred two thousand years ago and nothing sacred happens. As St. Thomas Aquinas says: 'The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the Sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. therefore, it is CHRIST'S words that perfect the sacrament... The form of this Sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this Sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ' (Summa, III, Q 78, Art. 1).
To say the words of Consecration merely as part of a narrative renders the Mass invalid; that is, the bread and wine remain just bread and wine, and do not become the Body and Blood of Christ. According to Rev. J. O'Connell, in The Celebration of Mass: 'The Words of Consecration have to be said, not merely as a historical narrative of words used once by our Lord -- as the celebrant recites them, e.g., in the accounts of the Last Supper, which are read in the Mass in Holy Week, or on the Feast of Corpus Christi -- but as a present affirmation by the priest speaking in the person of Christ, and intending to effect something, here and now, by the pronouncing of these words.'(33)
Older priests may do this from habit. Younger priests, basing their practice on the General Instruction and on the Modernist theories of sacramental theology which they imbibe in the post-Conciliar seminaries, almost certainly will not. Thus it is hardly surprising to find the Critical Study noting that: 'The Words of Consecration, as they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo [in Latin] may be valid according to the intention of the ministering priest. But they may not be, for they are so no longer ex vi verborum (by the force of the words used), or more precisely, in virtue of the modus significandi (way of signifying) which they have had till now in the Mass. Will priests who, in the future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the Novus Ordo to do what the Church does, make a valid consecration? One may be permitted to doubt it...'
CHAPTER XII, part 12
THE LITURGICAL REVOLUTION
Changing Christ's words and the form of consecration
And so we are brought to the Words of Consecration. These are most sacred, for they are attributed by Tradition to Christ Himself, and it is by means of them that the Sacred Species is 'confected.' These precious words, the very words of Christ, once only written in gold, and always highlighted in their printed form, have been altered and imbedded in the Narratio Institutionis of the new 'mass'.
Now, a sacrament is a sensible sign, instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to signify and produce grace. This sensible sign consists of a 'matter' and a 'form.' As St. Augustine taught, 'the word is joined to the element and the sacrament exists.' Examples of 'matter' are water in Baptism and the mixture of water and wine in the Mass. The 'form' consists of the words which the minister pronounces and which he applies to the matter. These words determine the matter to produce the effect of the sacrament and also closely signify what the sacrament does. The forms of the sacraments were given to us either in specie (exactly) or in genere (in a general way). According to standard teaching: 'Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined -- e.g., to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders.'
A note on 'matter'
The matter of the sacrament we are considering is wine mixed with water, and bread made from wheat mixed with natural water and baked in fire (either leavened or unleavened). Canon 815 states: 'the bread must be pure wheat and freshly baked.' Despite this, no less a person than Cardinal Joseph L. Bernadin has approved for the 'bread' a mixture of 'two cups of white flour to which baking soda has been added, with 1 1/4 cups of cold water, 1/3 cup of melted butter, and two teaspoons of honey - the entire mixture being baked on a buttered cookie sheet.' Such, as any cook knows, is cake and not bread. This recommendation has led to his being called by some 'the cookie cardinal.' Similarly with regard to the wine: according to Canon 814, this must be 'natural wine made from the juice of the grape, 'naturally fermented'and 'uncorrupted.' Again, the post-Conciliar Church has given permission ad experimentum for Catholics in Zaire to use hosts made of farina of casava and wine made from corn (La Croix, Aug. 9, 1989). Such 'matter' would, needless to say, render the rite invalid. in any event, it is clear that the faithful are by no means automatically assured that the matter (be it the bread or the wine) used in the NOM is 'valid' and capable of transubstantiation.
Back to the form
The form of the Consecration in the traditional Mass has been fixed since Apostolic times. It has been 'canonically' fixed since the so-called Armenian Decree of the Council of Florence (1438-1445). According to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the form (capitalized below) is found within these words in the Canon:
Who the day before He suffered took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and with His eyes lifted up to heaven, to You, God, His almighty Father, giving thanks to You, He blessed, broke, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and eat you all of this
FOR THIS IS MY BODY
In like manner, after He had supped, taking also this glorious chalice into His holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to You, He blessed and gave it to His disciples saying: Take and drink you all of this
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF THE FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of me.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent continues: 'of this form, no one can doubt.'
Taken from the People's Mass Book, and in accord with DOL 1360, the following is the 'form' for the NOM (In the People's Mass Book -- as in the 'Missalette' in common use in American churches -- no words are capitalized or italicized; they are run together so that the form of the sacrament can in no way be distinguished from the rest of the text which forms part of the Institution Narrative: however in Paul VI's Latin original, the words are italicized and in the paragraph below italicization is used.):
'Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: take and eat, all of you, this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, He took the cup. Again He gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to His disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. do this in memory of me.'
In introducing these new forms Paul VI called them 'the words of the Lord' (verba dominica) rather than 'the Words of Consecration' -- thus once again stressing the narrative nature of the rite. Having changed the very words of Our Lord, he further said that he 'wished them' to be 'as follows' (DOL 1360). How any one, even a 'pope' could 'wish' them to be other than they are is beyond conception. It would seem however that for the innovators, even the very words of Christ are neither sacrosanct nor inviolable. And so it is with exactitude that Paul VI described the changes introduced into the Eucharistic Prayers as 'singularly new,' as 'amazing and extraordinary' and as the 'greatest innovation' of all the innovations introduced. Indeed, with regard to the Words of Consecration instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, Paul VI used the Latin term 'mutation.' When such a 'mutation' is substantial -- that is, when it changes the meaning of the form, it renders it invalid. As we shall see, even if there is only doubt about whether or not a change is substantial, i.e. whether or not there is a change in meaning, the use of such a form is considered sacrilegious.
In changing the form the innovators argued that they were bringing it 'into line with Scripture.' Now there is absolutely no reason why this should have been done. Scripture is not a greater source of Revelation than Tradition --indeed, strictly speaking, it is part of Tradition. Imagine the hue and cry that would be raised if someone were to say that he wanted to change Scripture to bring it into line with Tradition! It is not from Scripture, but from Tradition that we receive the form used in confecting the Eucharist. Such indeed must be the case as the earliest Gospel was written some eight years after our Lord's death. Listen to the words of Cardinal Manning: 'We neither derive our religion from the Scriptures, nor does it depend upon them. Our faith was in the world before the New Testament was written.'
And, as Father Joseph Jungmann states: 'In all the known liturgies the core of the Eucharistia, and therefore of the Mass, is formed by the narrative of the institution and the words of consecration. Our very first observation in this regard is the remarkable fact that the texts of the account of institution, among them in particular, the most ancient, are never simply a Scripture text restated. They go back to pre-Biblical tradition. Here we face an outgrowth of the fact that the Eucharist was celebrated long before the evangelists and St. Paul set out to record the Gospel story.'
Beyond this, 'Pope Innocent III notes that there are three elements in the narrative not commemorated by the Evangelists: with his eyes lifted up to heaven, and eternal testament, (whereas the Gospels give only 'of the New Testament') and the mystery of the faith (mysterium fidei).' And these he holds to be derived from Christ and the Apostles, 'for who would be so presumptuous and daring as to insert [much less remove] these things out of his own devotion? In truth, the Apostles received the form of the words from Christ Himself, and the Church received it from the Apostles themselves.'
Indeed, it is quite possible that the Scripture accounts intentionally avoided giving the correct form lest it be profaned. Listen to St. Thomas Aquinas: 'The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the form of the Sacraments which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ' (Summa, III, Q. 78, Art. 3.).
No one can doubt but that the new Church has gone against tradition, against the decrees of the Ecumenical councils, and against the Catechism of the Council of Trent in changing the form of the Sacrament. It is not a matter of debate as to whether sh has the right to do so. As Leo XIII said in the Bull Apostolicae curae: 'The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or 'ceremonial' parts to be used in the administration of the sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns before or after the actual words of the form are recited...'
One of the documents printed in front of every edition of the traditional Missal (De defectibus) states: 'If anyone omits or changes anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and blood, and in this change of words, changes the meaning [lit: does not mean the same thing], then he does not effect the Sacrament.'
With regard to those sacramental forms given us in genere, the words can be changed providing there is no change in meaning. When such occurs the change is called 'substantial.' Now apart from the fact that one cannot apply this principle to those forms given us in specie, it is nevertheless argued by some that, despite the change in the words, there is no change in meaning, and hence no substantial change. It behoves us then to consider the substance of the Eucharistic form, for if there is a 'substantial' change -- that is to say, a change in meaning -- then the form is unquestionably rendered invalid. This is not a matter of debate, but of fact.
First, consider the change in the first and last sentences. Instead of 'do these things' we find the celebrants instructed to 'do this,' that is, 'take and eat (drink),' thus strongly suggesting that what is involved is a 'supper' and a 'memorial,' rather than the entire action. Next note the addition of the phrase 'which will be given up for you.' We have already alluded to Luther's reason for adding this phrase and of course the NOM had to be brought into line with the Lutheran rite. The removal of the phrase 'Mystery of the Faith' (which Tradition tells us was added by the Apostles) and its displacement to the so-called 'Memorial Acclamation' leads the faithful to believe that the mystery lies, not in the Consecration, but rather in Christ's Death, Resurrection and Final Coming. While Christ is supposedly on the altar, the faithful are made to say 'until you come again.'
It is also argued that as long as the priest says the essential Words -- 'This is My body... This is My Blood...' -- nothing else is required. Those who hold to this position ignore the defects in the form and the fact that the other words -- the setting in which these words are used (as we shall see below) --alter the meaning of these words. They also ignore the fact that these words, while essential, do not constitute the complete form. Finally, they ignore the fact that it is forbidden for a priest to use the Words of Consecration with the intent to confect the Sacred species outside of a true Mass. As Canon 817 states, 'it is unlawful even in the case of extreme necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass.' Benedictine canonist Father Charles Augustine comments on this to the effect that 'to consecrate outside of the Mass would not only be a sacrilege, but probably an attempt at invalid consecration.'
The issue of the context in which the essential Words of Consecration are used is most important because this setting is capable of changing their meaning in a substantial manner. This is another reason why the traditional Church has always been so insistent upon the integrity of the form used. consider the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas: 'Some have maintained that the words 'This is the Chalice of My Blood' alone belong to the substance of the form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words that follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's Blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression. And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words 'As often as ye shall do these things' [Not including these words, for the priest puts down the Chalice when he comes to them.] Hence it is that the priest pronounces all the words, under the same rite and manner, holding the chalice in his hands' (Summa, III, Q. 78, Art. 3).
CHAPTER XII, part 13
THE LITURGICAL REVOLUTION
FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER XII, parts 1-12:
(1) Rev. T. E. Bridgett, Life of Blessed John Fisher, London: Burns Oates, 1888.
(2) Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, New American Lib: N.Y., 1974. The head of the Anglican Church is the King or Queen of England. Changes in its teaching or liturgy have to have the approval of the British Parliament. Hence American Anglicans in 1776 found themselves in a somewhat ackward position. They resolved this by declaring themselves independent of British royalty and government, and by changing their name to Episcopalian. No doctrinal or ritual changes of significance were involved in this transition.
(3) Quoted by Michael Davies in Cranmer's Godly Order, Augustine: Devon, 1976.
(4) As Hilaire Belloc said, 'the first new service [of Cranmer] in the place of the Mass had to be a kind that men might mistake for something like the continuance of the Mass in another form. When that pretence had done its work and the measure of popular resistance taken, they could proceed to the second step and produce a final Service Book in which no trace of the old sanctities would remain' (Cranmer, innumerable editions).
(5) Hartman Grisar, S.J., Luther, B.Herder: St. Louis, 1913.
(6) In referring the 'priest' as a 'president' we are only following the pattern established by the General Instruction.
(7) A group of 400 pilgrims walked from Paris to Rome to ask Paul VI to grant them permission to use the traditional Mass. He was too busy to see them. Later it became known that at the time of their arrival he was entertaining the Belgian soccer team.
(8) 'It would be well to understand the motives for such a great change introduced [into the Mass]... It is the will of Christ. It is the breath of the Spirit calling the Church to this mutation...' (General Audience, Nov. 26, 1969). According to the Canon lawyer Father Capello, a 'mutation' in the form of a Sacrament would invalidate it(De Sacramentis).
(9) DOL 1757 Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts, The Liturgical Press: Minn., 1983. (In the text DOL refers to this source with appropriate numerical designation.)
(10) Michael Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass, Angelus: Texas, 1980.
(11) Christian Order, Oct. 1978. The full quote is of interest. Reporting on a conversation: 'At the end Dr. de Saventham asked the prelate whether the traditional liturgy could not be permitted at the side of the new one. The answer was startling: 'Sir, all these reforms go in the same direction: whereas the old Mass represents another ecclesiology!' Dr. de Saventham: 'Monseigneur, what you said is an enormity!' Benelli: 'I shall say it again: those who want to have the old Mass have another ecclesiology!' It was shortly after this that Benelli was made a Cardinal, and Michael Davies describes him as 'a most authoritative spokesman for the post-Conciliar Church' (No. 10).
(12) See previous chapter for references.
(13) See previous chapter for a more detailed history of the traditional rite.
(14) These 'options' often contained traditional ideas. This was a clever method of allowing post-Conciliar apologists to claim that the new rite was still orthodox, while at the same time virtually guaranteeing that no one would utilize these 'options' in the every-day liturgy.
(15) For example, Archbishop R. J. Dwyer said: 'who dreamed that on that day [when the Council Fathers voted for the Constitution on the Liturgy] that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expurgated, and that it would be reduced to a memory fading in the middle distance? The thought of it would have horrified us, but it seems so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off.'
(16) For details of this see the Chapter on Orders.
(17) Father John Barry Ryan, The eucharistic Prayer, Paulist Press: N.Y., 1974.
(18) Father Jungmann, S.J., The Mass, Liturgical Press: Minn., 1975. Father Jungmann was a member of the revolutionary liturgical Consilium and fully approved of the changes made in the Mass.
(19) Le Monde, Sept. 1970.
(20) These phrases will be very familiar to post-Conciliar Catholics. It is pertinent that Luther tells us that it was Satan who convinced him that the Mass was not a true Sacrifice, and that in worshiping bread, he was guilty of idolatry. Satan appeared to him and said: 'Listen to me, learned doctor, during fifteen years you have been a horrible idolator. What if the body and blood of Jesus Christ is not present there, and that you yourself adored and made others adore bread and wine? What if your ordination and consecration were as invalid as that of the Turkish and Samaritan priest is false, and their worship impious... What a priesthood is that! I maintain, then, that you have not consecrated at Mass and that you have offered and made others adore simple bread and wine... If then, you are not capable of consecrating and ought not to attempt it, what do you do while saying mass and consecrating, but blaspheme and tempt God?' Luther acknowledged at the close of this conference that he was unable to answer the arguments of Satan, and he immediately ceased saying Mass. The details are available in Audin's Life of Luther, and are quoted by Father Michael Muller C.SS.R. in his chapter on 'The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,' God the Teacher of Mankind, B. Herder: St. Louis, 1885.
(21) Father Jungmann, S.J. tells us that the new prayer 'is simply a confession that we are sinners.' He further tells us that the Misereatur was retained, while the Indulgentiam was discarded because the former could be said by any layman. The Mass, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1975, p. 167.
(22) The word 'Consubstantial' is of hallowed use since the council of Nicea where it was used to distinguish Catholic doctrine from the Arian heresy. Arius, like many liberal Protestants, denied the divinity of Christ, and hence the term has anti-ecumenical connotations. Pope St. Damasus anathematized all who refused to use the term 'consubstantial.' The post-Conciliar translators justified this error on the grounds that 'the son is not made but begotten, he shares the same kind of being as the Father.' This is, to say the least is semi-Arianism. Michael Davies discusses this issue in some detail in his book. (Note 10)
(23) Msgr. Fredrick McManus was the directing force behind the English translations. As early as 1963 he objected to the Offertory Prayers that 'anticipate the Canon and obscure the sacrificial offering in the Canon itself.' One wonders how the Church survived over the past 2000 years without the help of these liturgical innovators. ('The future: Its Hopes and difficulties', in The Revolution of the Liturgy, N.Y. Herder: 1963.
(24) op. cit. No. 10.
(25) op. cit.
(26) Catholics believe that providing the priest is validly ordained, uses proper form and matter and has the right intention, Consecration occurs. The technical phrase is ex opere operato. It occurs regardless of the spiritual state of the priest or the believer. Space has limited our ability to discuss the issue of 'intention.' Suffice it to say that there is an external intention implicit in the words and actions of the priest, and also an internal intention on the part of the priest which we can never know apart from his informing us of it. In the traditional Mass, one could presume that the internal intention corresponded with the outer acts and words -- the priest would have had to entertain a positively contrary internal intention to invalidate the Mass. (i.e., a priest can intend not to consecrate while using the correct words and actions, and then nothing would happen. Of course he would be guilty of a grave sacrilege.) In the new rite, the external words and acts in no way assure us of a proper intention on the part of the celebrant is present. If the priest's internal intention is based on the external words and actions of the NOM, the sacrament is, to say the least, most doubtful. For the priest in the NOM to consecrate -- assuming for the moment that such is even possible within this rite -- he must have the positive intention to 'do what the Church does,' and/or, 'to do what Christ intended.' What makes this pertinent is that the majority of priests being trained today are not taught traditional sacramental theology and therefore cannot know the nature of the positive intention they must entertain. According to Father Robert Burns, C.S.P., editorial writer for The Wanderer, 'Many newly ordained priests are either formal or material heretics on the day of their ordination. This is so, because their teachers embraced modernist errors and passed them along to their students. Their students, after ordination, in turn propagated these errors, either in catechitical teaching or in pulpit preaching. The same situation is also true in the cases of many older priests who return to schools of theology for updating courses or 'retooling in theology'.' (Aug. 10, 1978)
(27) Cf. Chapter on Holy Orders.
(28) Hugh Ross Williamson, The Modern Mass, Ill: TAN. Mr. Ross Williamson appealed to the English hierarchy to remove the words FOR US from EP NO. 2 'as evidence of good faith,' but his petition was completely ignored.
(29) DOL 1712, 1960.
(30) Father Joseph Jungmann, op. Cit.
(31) op. cit. No. 10.
(32) The term 'Institution' refers to the institution of the Sacrament by Christ, and is a perfectly legitimate theological word. The idea that the Mass is a mere 'narrative' however, is patently false and entirely Protestant. Despite this, official French catechisms make such statements as 'at the heart of the Mass lies a story...' The official French Missal published with the approval of the hierarchy states that the Mass 'is simply the memorial of the unique sacrifice accomplished once! ('Il s'agit simplement de faire memoire de l'unique sacrifice deja accompli.') This statement has been repeated in more than one edition, and despite the repeated protests of the faithful. It would however appear to be the 'official' teaching of the Conciliar Church.
(33) Father J. O'Connell, The Celebration of Mass, Milwaukee: Bruce, 1941.
(34) The Catholic Encyclopedia, (1908), Vol XIII, p. 299.
(35) Michael Davies, op. cit. No. 10.
CHAPTER XII, part 14
THE LITURGICAL REVOLUTION
All versus many
The culmination of sacrilege occurs in the new form with the mistranslation of the Latin word multis (many) by 'all,' a change which clearly 'determines the predicate,' namely Christ's Body and Blood. (cf. paragraph above) The excuse given for this was that there is no Aramaic word for 'all,' a philological falsity propagated by the Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias, and one which has been repeatedly exposed.
Moreover, of the various Mass rites which the traditional Church has always recognized as valid - some 76 different rites in many different languages - many of which date back to Apostolic times -not one has ever used 'all.' (Imagine turning each of the 'manys' in St. Matthew's gospel to 'alls.') (36). What makes this particular mistranslation most offensive is that the Church has always taught that the word 'all' is not used for specific reasons. St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, explains why in an opinion confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
'The words Pro vobis et pro multis (For you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious Blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all - it saves only those who cooperate with grace'(Treatise on the Holy Eucharist).
It is pertinent that Pope Benedict XIV discussed this issue and stated that teaching 'explains correctly' Christ's use of 'for many' as opposed to 'for all'(De Sacrosanctae Missae Sacrificio). In view of the constant teaching of the Church, this change from many to all cannot be accidental. (The Latin original of the NOM still uses multis, but how often does one hear the new 'mass' in Latin? Moreover this mistranslation occurs in almost all the vernacular versions: German: fur allen; Italian, tutti; and in French, the vague word multitude. In Polish, for some reason, 'many' is retained.) It is clearly mandated from Rome (DOL 1445, footnote R 13). According to Archbishop Weakland, Paul VI reserved to himself the approval of he vernacular translations of the Institution Narrative, and especially of the word multis. Given all this, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the heresy of apocatastasis is being promulgated - the heresy held by many of our 'separated brethren' such as the Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, the Christodelphans, Rationalistic Protestants, Universalists and Teilhardians -namely, the false notion that all men will be saved. (This perhaps explains why Hell is also in disfavor.) Reference to the chapter on Vatican II will show to what extent all this is highly consistent with many of the statements of this dubious council, as well as those of the post-Conciliar 'popes.'
The memorial acclamation
As mentioned above, the phrase Mysterium fidei (The Mystery of Faith) was part of the Consecration form of the traditional Mass. In the new 'mass' the phrase has been removed from the form and made into the introduction of the people's 'Memorial Acclamation.' Right after the supposed consecration, the faithful are asked to say or sing 'Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.' Not only is this an entirely new practice, but it implies that the Mystery of the Faith is the Death, Resurrection and Final Coming of Our Lord, rather than His 'Real Presence' on the altar. Nor are the other Memorial Acclamations any more specific - e.g. 'When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.'
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini informs us in his memoirs that this issue was discussed directly with Paul VI. The Consilium had wished to leave the 'Memorial Acclamation' up to the National Bishops' Committees on the Liturgy, but Paul VI urged that 'a series of acclamations (5 or 6) should be prepared for [use] after the consecration.' According to Archbishop Bugnini, Paul VI feared that 'if the initiative were left to the Bishops' Committees, inappropriate acclamations such as 'My Lord and My God' would be introduced.' The traditional Church had always encouraged the use of the ejaculatory prayer 'My Lord and My God' at the elevation of the Host during Mass as it both affirmed belief in the Real Presence and gave praise to God.)
The Body of Christ
Some conservative Novus Ordo Catholics claim that the Real Presence is affirmed when the priest-president says 'The Body of Christ' at the time of giving out communion. Not so! Let us listen to the Instruction of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy which laid down the rule that the priest was to use this new truncated expression instead of the traditional 'May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting, Amen.'
'The use of the phrase 'the Body of Christ, Amen,' in the communion rite asserts in a very forceful way the presence and role of the community. The minister [sic] acknowledges who the person is by reason of baptism and confirmation and what the community is and does in the liturgical action... The change to the use of the phrase 'The body of Christ,' rather than the long formula which was previously said by the priest has several repercussions in the liturgical renewal. First, it seeks to highlight the important concept of the community as the body of Christ; secondly, it brings into focus the assent of the individual in the worshiping community, and finally, it demonstrates the importance of Christ's presence in the liturgical celebration.' (To understand this 'presence' the reader should refer to Paul VI's 'definition' of the Mass discussed below.)
And indeed, in line with this 'new gospel,' the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy strictly forbade the priest to say 'This is the Body of Christ!'