HERE IS A PDF WITH THE ENTIRE ORDER OF MASS, TO INCLUDE ANGLICAN ELEMENTS AS WELL AS EXTRAORDINARY FORM ELEMENTS BUT CLEARLY A MASS REVISED ACCORDING TO THE ACTUAL DESIRE OF THE FATHERS OF VATICAN II!
However, I think the PDF above may be out of date as it does not include the actual EF rubric's for the canon as the photo below indicates the priest kisses the altar after beginning the Te Igitur which is not in the rubrics of the PDF above:
I don't want to get too optimistic about this, but I can't deny one thing: the publication of this missal, through the Congregation of Divine Worship, does set the precedent that at least a more traditional missal at the hands of the Vatican is *possible,* if unlikely, even in today's climate.
One of the peculiarities about the Anglican Mass, which has been passed on into this one it seems, is the translation, or, rather, mistranslation from the Latin, of the Gloria: "Peace, goodwill towards men", as opposed to "peace to men of good will". There is a huge difference in meaning. This reminds me of the universalist implications in using "for all" instead of "for many" in the words of consecration.
Thank you for providing this, Father. I have had a look at the PDF and which it certainly an improvement on the Novus Ordo Mass to me it still doesn't come close to the Tridentine Latin Mass.
I also noticed what Victor said about the mistranslation of the words, "the Gloria: "Peace, goodwill towards men", as opposed to "peace to men of good will". As Victor says there is a huge difference in meaning from the exclusive to the all inclusive.
Briefly some other things I noticed are:
*No invocation to the saints and relics and forgiveness of sins *No introit *The Kyrie Eleison has been amended so there are not three invocations in honor of the Holy Trinity *Gloria changed - not peace to me of goodwill - instead peace to all men. * An Offertory procession may take place *No gradual - no invocation to cleanse the priest's heart or soul, no prayer for a blessing; no sign of the cross on forehead lips or breast *Antiphon omitted *Introduction of a penitential rite (facing the people) then the people join in speaking the penitential rite.
* Comfortable words introduced.
*No secrets
* Words of consecration changed as in the Novus Ordo Mass:
For the consecration of the the host the TLM has only the words: FOR THIS IS MY BODY
For the consecration of the chalice the TLM has:
This is the chalice of My Blood Of the new and eternal testament: The mystery of Faith Which shall be shed for you And for many Unto the remission of sins.
(The mystery of Faith is taken from the words of consecration and this has been one of the bugbears about the Novus Ordo Mass. Also the word "shed" as happens with a victim has been replaced with the word "poured" out as from a cup or glass as pertaining more to a meal than a sacrifice.)
* Also omitted: Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with There in the Unity of the Holy Ghost, God world without end amen - substituted is the Henry the 8th prayer - for thine is the Kingdom blah, blah.
* No prayer for sanctification * No prayer for grace replaced by prayer of humble access * I will take the Bread of Heaven and call upon the name of the Lord - omitted - the prayers for the Communion of the priest and the faithful are amalgamated.
* Communion can be given under both kinds. *One of the prayers during ablution omitted: May Thy Body O Lord ...
* No Hail Marys at the end of Mass * No Prayer to St Michael the Archangel
Others no doubt will find other things omitted or added. I don't like the heading "comfortable words" etc. To me it detracts from the Mass overall.
Another comment I will make is that this Anglican Missal, while it is better than the Novus Ordo in parts - in some parts it is worse because of the addition of these comfortable words and other prayers. To me the TLM is absolutely majestic and it just flows from start to finish. The translation I have is beautiful too and raises the heart and mind heavenward during Mass - at least the 1962 missal is - I don't like some of the rewording of this Anglican Missal, which is much colder than the beauty of the translation of the Tridentine Mass.
It has to be remembered too that, like the Novus Ordo Mass, the Anglican Mass has also failed to retain the people, unlike the Tridentine Mass where Mass attendance was at its highest. That illustrates firmly to me the foolishness of those who went ahead with the reform against those who said: if it ain't broke don't fix it!
Some people may wonder why the removal of the words "mystery of Faith" from the consecration of the chalice were contentious. There is a good explanation of it on Fr Z's blog, which I excerpt here:
"St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274) taught that removing an essential part of the formula of consecration would make the consecration invalid (cf. STh III, q. 60, a. 8). Aquinas opined that “mysterium fidei” was an essential part of the form of the consecration of the chalice (cf. STh III, q. 78, a. 3; Super I Cor, c. 11, v. 25).
Aquinas’s teaching is not automatically the equivalent of the Church’s Magisterium, mind you.
Aquinas explains in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:25 that while the simple consecration formula for Body of Christ needs nothing added to it, the form for the Blood of Christ requires additional clarification beyond simply saying “Hic est (enim) calix Sanguinis mei”. While the species of the Eucharistic “bread” represents the subject of the Passion, Christ Himself, the species of the Eucharistic “wine” expresses also the effects of the Passion which come to us through this sacramental mystery.
According to Aquinas, the effects of the Passion in the pouring out of the Blood (“for you and for many”) are three-fold: 1) remission of sins; 2) the justification of faith, and 3) the attaining of heavenly glory. The Sacrifice is tied into our reward at the end of the world.
In 1969, after witnessing a trial run of the projected Novus Ordo of the Mass, a document now called the “Ottaviani Intervention” was addressed by important theologians to Pope Paul VI. The chief authors were Alfredo Card. Ottaviani (head of the Holy Office, now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and Antonio Card. Bacci (distinguished Latinist). They objected strongly to the change, saying that “‘mysterium fidei’ was an immediate confession of the priest’s faith in the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood….”
In the Novus Ordo, “mysterium fidei” becomes a preface of an acclamation made by the congregation who share in Christ’s priesthood by baptism, not by the qualitatively different hierarchical priesthood.
In the Novus Ordo there is no immediate affirmation by the consecrating priest of the Church’s faith in Christ’s saving work through transubstantiation as he consecrates the Precious Blood. Instead there is now an acclamation by the priest and congregation affirming the connection of the two-fold consecration with the Lord’s saving work in His death and resurrection.
The new acclamations stress the inseparable bond of the Passion to the Last Supper in light of the need of Christians to persevere in holy and Catholic faith regarding the effects of the whole Mysterium Paschale, the Paschal Mystery (Cenacle – Golgotha – Empty Tomb), until Christ comes and the dead rise after the example of the Lord’s own resurrection.
In the Novus Ordo the mysterium fidei section refers to an eschatological concept: the return of the Lord. (“Eschatology” is from Greek eschaton, “last”, and so it is the study of the “last things”.)
No one should doubt the validity of the consecration in the Novus Ordo because the words mysterium fidei were displaced.
First, the words of consecration have, over the history of the Church, varied. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox did not use the phrase. Also, it is impossible that the Vicar of Christ and Holy Church would permit continuous use of an invalid sacramental form in the Church’s most precious treasure, the Mass. Furthermore, it is the tradition of the Church that Christ effected the transubstantiation of His Body and Blood by saying ‘This is My Body,’ and ‘This is My Blood’.” These words are in every form of consecration. They are essential for validity.
Nevertheless, the removal of the mysterium fidei was a titanic innovation. I consider it in light of the explicit words of the Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Liturgy:
23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."
Apart from what Fr Z says, though, about Aquinas's teaching not being part of the Magisterium, those words "mysterium fidei" have actually been codified by the magisterium. In fact by several Popes: Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202.
Those words were removed by Cranmer who did not accept that the Mass was a sacrifice but a memorial meal.
Therefore, to avoid all doubt and ambiguity and to roll back the interpretation that has largely been in place since the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass, that it is only a happy meal and the subsequent widespread loss of belief in the Real Presence, I think that is something that seriously needs to be rectified in the Novus Ordo Mass and the Anglican Rite Mass.
Father, if you'd like to watch an entire Solemn Mass according to this Missal, you can do so below. The quality is excellent, and if you use the PDF you linked to, you'll be able to follow it with ease. Enjoy! The PDF doesn't make it clear, but it seems the rubrics of the Canon - Mystery of Faith aside - are the same as those of the EF.
It is not the various prayers of human composition that sanctify the Mass, but the sacrificial action of Christ. Are you looking for the Sacrifice of the Cross when you participate in the Holy Mass, or for something else?
The 'Comfortable Words' were not 'introduced'. They're part of the Anglican liturgy. Since this missal is for the Anglican Ordinate, it seems rather fitting that they would be included. If the idea was to have them worship in a wholly Roman way, Rome would have just mandated they use the Ordinary Form missal.
JBS, I am simply saying why I prefer the TLM as opposed to the two other forms of the Mass. I believe you yourself have mentioned a preference for one form of Mass, but if you are not worried about the various prayers of human composition then I am sure you won't mind the original ICEL translation of the Mass nor the ad libbing that occurs in many parishes these days and we won't see you commenting on any form of the Mass in future.
Flavius, if you read Fr McDonald's comments he said the Mass has been revised according to Vatican II. I had assumed those prayers were part of the Anglican Ordinariate but I was merely commenting on the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass and why I prefer the TLM over the other two forms of Mass. However, if the Anglican rite Mass was available where I am I would certainly choose to attend it over the Novus Ordo as things stand with the Novus Ordo.
JBS, also from the start of the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass there has been concern as to the words of consecration because of first the change in the word "many" for "all" which was rectified in the most recent translation. However, there is still concern over the removal of the words "mystery of faith" from the words of consecration. I have set out Augustine's argument above that says that those words form part of the words of consecration and were of course codified by earlier Popes.
This is one of the main reasons for some not attending the Novus Ordo Mass because they doubt the validity of the consecration. While I don't doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass I think that those words should be re-instituted to remove all objections and the doubt of some that Christ's sacrificial action actually occurs in the Novus Ordo Mass and in the Anglican Ordinariate Mass.
The seriousness of removing the words "mystery of faith" was set out in the Ottaviani intervention where it is said that for the Novus Ordo, to be valid, the priest now needs to have the intention to consecrate because those words "mystery of faith" have been removed from the words of consecration. That being so, it is becomes important when attending a Novus Ordo Mass to be sure the priest is orthodox and, therefore, one would assume has the intention to consecrate. The intention to consecrate is not needed by a priest offering the Tridentine Mass because the words "Mysterium Fidae" remain in the words of consecration and so the consecration is effected regardless of the priest's intention.
My concern is, and has always been, promotion of reverent worship of our divine Father in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To this end, the EF missal can be a powerful tool. I hope the post-Anglican missal can serve a similar purpose.
So, Jan, is it your belief on the necessity of the words mysterium fidei (mystery of faith) to validate the consecratory formula of the wine, that is, to change the wine into the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
"For this is my Body; for this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."
In the Novus Ordo there is of course the memorial acclamation, which reads: "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died. Christ is Risen, and Christ will come again."
Are you saying that these words of acclamation (above) have nothing to do with the previous context, in which the mystery of faith referred straightforwardly to the transubstantiation?
Has it ever been *infallibly* taught by the Church that as far as the Latin Rite Mass, any words other than "this is my Body"," this is my Blood" are necessary for the consecration to occur? At least since the Third century?
I know some Councils have spoken to this but was it ever infallibly?
I trust in the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, that is, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Extraordinary Magisterium.
Now as far as the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari (Chaldean and the Assyrian Churches)
The Catholic Church has explicitly recognized the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, without explicit mention of the Words of Institution, saying that "the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.
Saint John Chrysostom: "That saying, 'This is my body', once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ's coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches."
George, I believe 'Mysterium Fidei" was codified in the Council of Florence. I will set out what I have found in a separate post. But it has always been a bone of contention as you can see from the notes to the Ottivani Intervention:
29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it."
So, George, if Catholic theologians at the time questioned both the change in the word "many" to "all" which has since been rectified, and also the removal of "mysterium fidei" from the words of consecration, then it seems that there is a doubt that can exist for those Ordinary Form Masses offered by a priest who does not believe in the real presence but sees himself as merely presiding at a memorial. So intention to consecrate is required with the Ordinary Form of the Mass for validity. Therefore, it suggests to me that the words "mysterium fidei" need to be put back to avoid any doubt.
Those are good points. In the Western Church, the Eucharistic Canon was always prayed quietly by the priest, so there was no need to consider how it would sound to the congregation. However, now that the priest speaks it audibly, there is confusion among the congregants about whom the priest is addressing. Indeed, even some priests seem to think they are recounting the Last Supper for the congregants! Pure heresy! If the Canon must be recited aloud, then perhaps the East has the right idea, leaving out reference to the words of Christ at His Last Supper.
George, I haven't been able to find that the insertion of the words "mysterium fidei" into the consecration are infallible. However, it could be argued that, as the Tridentine Mass was codified in perpetuity by Pope Pius V in the papal bull Quo Primum in 1570 that the words of consecration are covered by that:
"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing."
The reason for removing the words "mysterium fidei" was said to be that they weren't in sacred scripture. However, it is interesting to read that by tradition they have been ascribed to St Peter himself and to Our Lord Himself. It has also been pointed out that the liturgy is older than scripture. I found the following quote by someone who has studied this matter worthy of note:
" Commenting on St. Paul's words, "Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience" (i Tim. iu. 9), Estius says that Catharinus considers them to refer to the Holy Eucharist, and to allude to the chalice of the Precious Blood which the deacons presented at Mass to the faithful. Hessels, on the same Epistle, takes the view of Catharinus. The reasons given by Innocent III., Bona, Bellarmine, and others for the presence of the words in the form of consecration seem to favour the explanation of Catharinus and Estius.
The words of Innocent III. in his letter to John, Archbishop of Lyons, may be translated thus : "Since the Evangelists do not testify that Christ said this (" Mysterium Fidei"), you are not a little disturbed, and wonder that anyone should try to maintain that He said more than any of the Evangelists asserts. But if you will diligently inspect the form of the Canon, besides this which you inquire about, you will find two other insertions in the Canon, viz., " Elevatis oculis in coelum " and " lEtemi Testamenti," which are not read in the text of the Gospel. Forsooth, we find many things omitted by the Evangelist about Our Lord's words and actions which the Apostles are recorded to have supplemented in words or expressed in act. . . . We believe, therefore, that the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors received from the Apostles, the form of words as it is found in the Canon," &c. (Lib. v. Epist. 121).
Bona shares the opinion of Innocent III., which finds so little favour in the judgment of your Leicester critic ; Bona writes "Haec verba, g Mysterium Fidei' non sunt in Ordine Romano, sunt tamen in omnibus antiquissimis missalibus M. S. S. quos vidi " (Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. cap. xiii.).
Bellarmine writes of Kemnitz and other Lutherans : " Quinto calumniantur addita ilia in forma consecrationis calicis : Novi et aetemae Testamenti et Mysterium Fidei.' Nam in Evangelio non habetur, nisi Novi Testamenti '." The Cardinal's reply is : "I answer that, according to tradition, St. Peter added them to the form ; that they cannot be found fault with ; that they are most true, and are gathered from the Scriptures. For the Testament of Christ is eternal, and thus is distinguished from the Old Testament which was temporary. Also, that the chalice of Our Lord's Blood is rightly called the Mystery of Faith cannot be doubted, since in no other thing is faith more to be exercised, and more frequently exercised, than in this which is contradicted by all the senses" (De Controv. lib. iv. cap. xiv.).
Barrada (torn. iv. lib. iv. c. v.) maintains that these very words were spoken by Christ, and were taught by St. Peter to the Roman Church. For, says Barradas, if the words were not said by Christ, the Church would by no means have added them to the words of consecration which all are words of Christ. He quotes Salmeron and St. Thomas Aquinas (pars iii. q. lxxviii. a. 3).
'The Saint answers the objection that no Evangelist gives these words. He says that the Evangelists did not intend to give the forms of the Sacraments, which in the primitive Church ought to be concealed, as Dionysius says ; but they intended to construct the history of Christ. . . " Quod autem additur lEtemi ' et iterum, Mysterium Fidei,' ex tmditione Domini habetur, quae ad Ecclesiam per Apostolos pervenit secundum illud (1 Cor. xi. 23) Ego accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis ' ; ut et (a Tim. iii. 9) Habentes mysterium fidei.' " Thus St. Thomas also sanctions the application of these words of St. Paul to the Holy Eucharist. Barradas, however, does not seem to adopt this interpretation. Scotus takes the same view and gives the same reasons and explanations as those of St. Thomas (pars iii. q. lxxviii. a. 3)."
Therefore, George, in view of the above, and, given the doubts expressed in the Ottaviani Intervention by Catholic theologians at the time, and, given that the doubt that was cast on the validity of consecration through insertion of the word "all" instead of "many" was finally rectified after more than 30 years, then I think, yes, that these word should be restored to remove any doubt and in keeping with the hundreds of years of tradition and, especially bearing in mind what was written by the Holy Office in 1958:
"This Supreme Sacred Congregation has learned that in a certain translation of the New Order of Holy Week into the vernacular, the words "mysterium fidei" in the form of the consecration of the chalice are omitted. It is also reported that some priests omit these words in the very celebration of Mass.
Therefore this Supreme Congregation gives warning that it is impious (nefas) to introduce a change in so sacred a matter and to mutilate or alter editions of liturgical books. (cf. Can. 1399, 10).
Bishops therefore, in accordance with the warning of the Holy Office of 14 February, 1958, should see to it that the prescriptions of the sacred canons on divine worship be strictly observed, and they should be closely watchful that no one dare to introduce even the slightest change in the matter and form of the Sacraments. 45. "Omission of the Words 'Mysterium Fidei' in the Consecration of the Chalice." A Monitum of the Holy Office dated July 24, 1958, Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Vol. 50, p. 536".
One can only conclude that the "authors" of the Mass were very misguided, indeed, and we see the continuing fallout to this day because not only was Pope Pius V ignored bu so was the Holy Office as late as 1958.
Jan, I really can only say one thing. The reason all of these elements of the Extraordinary Form (the term TLM is, well, not technically the name) are not there, and other things are is that, wonder of wonders, this is not a missal of the extraordinary form. That is not the point of the ordinariate. I would like to see the citation from Anglicanorum Coetibus explaining that the Ordinariate would be defined by and use a translation of the 1962 missal into Cranmerian English.
Jan, hello. I realize it's been some time since these comments were made. But I just saw this now, and felt that something should said in response. (NB: I did not read all of the comments, so perhaps I missed a later clarification by you.) In any case, you wrote above: "... this Anglican Missal, while it is better than the Novus Ordo in parts - in some parts it is worse because of the addition of these comfortable words and other prayers."
To Jan and anyone else interested, here are the actual "Comfortable Words" (verbatim, as they appear in the 1928 US Book of Common Prayer and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer):
"Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith unto all who truly turn to him.
COME unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. St. Matt. xi. 28. So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. St. John iii. 16.
Hear also what Saint Paul saith. This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. 1 Tim. i. 15.
Hear also what Saint John saith. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the Propitiation for our sins. 1 St. John ii. 1, 2."
I'm not an expert on Elizabethan English, but I belive these are called "Comfortable Words" because they are comforting or reassuring, faith-building for us to hear.
As you can see, the "Comfortable Words" are quotations from the New Testament, the words of Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. John. How could the Anglican Missal be said to be worse than the Novus Order because of their inclusion? I would think the opposite would be more likely the case.
Just reading this now. I know that CTS is publishing a study version of Divine Worship, The Missal in a smaller size (like the Daily Roman Missal). Does this Missal, in general, contain all of the texts for the readings of the year? That would be nice as I attend this Mass and would love to have a hand missal.
There must be some mental telepathy going on, because as you were posting this comment on an old post, I was writing a new post on the Ordinariate's Missal! You can look at it now and make comment there as no one is going to read your comment here because it is so old. I only saw it because it came to me as an email to post! :)
23 comments:
I don't want to get too optimistic about this, but I can't deny one thing: the publication of this missal, through the Congregation of Divine Worship, does set the precedent that at least a more traditional missal at the hands of the Vatican is *possible,* if unlikely, even in today's climate.
One of the peculiarities about the Anglican Mass, which has been passed on into this one it seems, is the translation, or, rather, mistranslation from the Latin, of the Gloria: "Peace, goodwill towards men", as opposed to "peace to men of good will". There is a huge difference in meaning. This reminds me of the universalist implications in using "for all" instead of "for many" in the words of consecration.
Thank you for providing this, Father. I have had a look at the PDF and which it certainly an improvement on the Novus Ordo Mass to me it still doesn't come close to the Tridentine Latin Mass.
I also noticed what Victor said about the mistranslation of the words, "the Gloria: "Peace, goodwill towards men", as opposed to "peace to men of good will". As Victor says there is a huge difference in meaning from the exclusive to the all inclusive.
Briefly some other things I noticed are:
*No invocation to the saints and relics and forgiveness of sins
*No introit
*The Kyrie Eleison has been amended so there are not three invocations in honor of the Holy Trinity
*Gloria changed - not peace to me of goodwill - instead peace to all men.
* An Offertory procession may take place
*No gradual - no invocation to cleanse the priest's heart or soul, no prayer for a blessing; no sign of the cross on forehead lips or breast
*Antiphon omitted
*Introduction of a penitential rite (facing the people) then the people join in speaking the penitential rite.
* Comfortable words introduced.
*No secrets
* Words of consecration changed as in the Novus Ordo Mass:
For the consecration of the the host the TLM has only the words:
FOR THIS IS MY BODY
For the consecration of the chalice the TLM has:
This is the chalice of My Blood
Of the new and eternal testament:
The mystery of Faith
Which shall be shed for you
And for many
Unto the remission of sins.
(The mystery of Faith is taken from the words of consecration and this has been one of the bugbears about the Novus Ordo Mass. Also the word "shed" as happens with a victim has been replaced with the word "poured" out as from a cup or glass as pertaining more to a meal than a sacrifice.)
* Also omitted: Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with There in the Unity of the Holy Ghost, God world without end amen - substituted is the Henry the 8th prayer - for thine is the Kingdom blah, blah.
* No prayer for sanctification
* No prayer for grace replaced by prayer of humble access
* I will take the Bread of Heaven and call upon the name of the Lord - omitted - the prayers for the Communion of the priest and the faithful are amalgamated.
* Communion can be given under both kinds.
*One of the prayers during ablution omitted: May Thy Body O Lord ...
* No Hail Marys at the end of Mass
* No Prayer to St Michael the Archangel
Others no doubt will find other things omitted or added. I don't like the heading "comfortable words" etc. To me it detracts from the Mass overall.
Another comment I will make is that this Anglican Missal, while it is better than the Novus Ordo in parts - in some parts it is worse because of the addition of these comfortable words and other prayers. To me the TLM is absolutely majestic and it just flows from start to finish. The translation I have is beautiful too and raises the heart and mind heavenward during Mass - at least the 1962 missal is - I don't like some of the rewording of this Anglican Missal, which is much colder than the beauty of the translation of the Tridentine Mass.
It has to be remembered too that, like the Novus Ordo Mass, the Anglican Mass has also failed to retain the people, unlike the Tridentine Mass where Mass attendance was at its highest. That illustrates firmly to me the foolishness of those who went ahead with the reform against those who said: if it ain't broke don't fix it!
Some people may wonder why the removal of the words "mystery of Faith" from the consecration of the chalice were contentious. There is a good explanation of it on Fr Z's blog, which I excerpt here:
"St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274) taught that removing an essential part of the formula of consecration would make the consecration invalid (cf. STh III, q. 60, a. 8). Aquinas opined that “mysterium fidei” was an essential part of the form of the consecration of the chalice (cf. STh III, q. 78, a. 3; Super I Cor, c. 11, v. 25).
Aquinas’s teaching is not automatically the equivalent of the Church’s Magisterium, mind you.
Aquinas explains in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:25 that while the simple consecration formula for Body of Christ needs nothing added to it, the form for the Blood of Christ requires additional clarification beyond simply saying “Hic est (enim) calix Sanguinis mei”. While the species of the Eucharistic “bread” represents the subject of the Passion, Christ Himself, the species of the Eucharistic “wine” expresses also the effects of the Passion which come to us through this sacramental mystery.
According to Aquinas, the effects of the Passion in the pouring out of the Blood (“for you and for many”) are three-fold: 1) remission of sins; 2) the justification of faith, and 3) the attaining of heavenly glory. The Sacrifice is tied into our reward at the end of the world.
In 1969, after witnessing a trial run of the projected Novus Ordo of the Mass, a document now called the “Ottaviani Intervention” was addressed by important theologians to Pope Paul VI. The chief authors were Alfredo Card. Ottaviani (head of the Holy Office, now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and Antonio Card. Bacci (distinguished Latinist). They objected strongly to the change, saying that “‘mysterium fidei’ was an immediate confession of the priest’s faith in the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood….”
In the Novus Ordo, “mysterium fidei” becomes a preface of an acclamation made by the congregation who share in Christ’s priesthood by baptism, not by the qualitatively different hierarchical priesthood.
In the Novus Ordo there is no immediate affirmation by the consecrating priest of the Church’s faith in Christ’s saving work through transubstantiation as he consecrates the Precious Blood. Instead there is now an acclamation by the priest and congregation affirming the connection of the two-fold consecration with the Lord’s saving work in His death and resurrection.
The new acclamations stress the inseparable bond of the Passion to the Last Supper in light of the need of Christians to persevere in holy and Catholic faith regarding the effects of the whole Mysterium Paschale, the Paschal Mystery (Cenacle – Golgotha – Empty Tomb), until Christ comes and the dead rise after the example of the Lord’s own resurrection.
In the Novus Ordo the mysterium fidei section refers to an eschatological concept: the return of the Lord. (“Eschatology” is from Greek eschaton, “last”, and so it is the study of the “last things”.)
No one should doubt the validity of the consecration in the Novus Ordo because the words mysterium fidei were displaced.
First, the words of consecration have, over the history of the Church, varied. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox did not use the phrase. Also, it is impossible that the Vicar of Christ and Holy Church would permit continuous use of an invalid sacramental form in the Church’s most precious treasure, the Mass. Furthermore, it is the tradition of the Church that Christ effected the transubstantiation of His Body and Blood by saying ‘This is My Body,’ and ‘This is My Blood’.” These words are in every form of consecration. They are essential for validity.
Nevertheless, the removal of the mysterium fidei was a titanic innovation. I consider it in light of the explicit words of the Council Fathers in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Liturgy:
Part 2 follows
Part 2
23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."
Apart from what Fr Z says, though, about Aquinas's teaching not being part of the Magisterium, those words "mysterium fidei" have actually been codified by the magisterium. In fact by several Popes: Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202.
Those words were removed by Cranmer who did not accept that the Mass was a sacrifice but a memorial meal.
Therefore, to avoid all doubt and ambiguity and to roll back the interpretation that has largely been in place since the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass, that it is only a happy meal and the subsequent widespread loss of belief in the Real Presence, I think that is something that seriously needs to be rectified in the Novus Ordo Mass and the Anglican Rite Mass.
Father, if you'd like to watch an entire Solemn Mass according to this Missal, you can do so below. The quality is excellent, and if you use the PDF you linked to, you'll be able to follow it with ease. Enjoy! The PDF doesn't make it clear, but it seems the rubrics of the Canon - Mystery of Faith aside - are the same as those of the EF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdAhl9u62k
Jan,
It is not the various prayers of human composition that sanctify the Mass, but the sacrificial action of Christ. Are you looking for the Sacrifice of the Cross when you participate in the Holy Mass, or for something else?
Jan,
The 'Comfortable Words' were not 'introduced'. They're part of the Anglican liturgy. Since this missal is for the Anglican Ordinate, it seems rather fitting that they would be included. If the idea was to have them worship in a wholly Roman way, Rome would have just mandated they use the Ordinary Form missal.
JBS, I am simply saying why I prefer the TLM as opposed to the two other forms of the Mass. I believe you yourself have mentioned a preference for one form of Mass, but if you are not worried about the various prayers of human composition then I am sure you won't mind the original ICEL translation of the Mass nor the ad libbing that occurs in many parishes these days and we won't see you commenting on any form of the Mass in future.
Flavius, if you read Fr McDonald's comments he said the Mass has been revised according to Vatican II. I had assumed those prayers were part of the Anglican Ordinariate but I was merely commenting on the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass and why I prefer the TLM over the other two forms of Mass. However, if the Anglican rite Mass was available where I am I would certainly choose to attend it over the Novus Ordo as things stand with the Novus Ordo.
JBS, also from the start of the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass there has been concern as to the words of consecration because of first the change in the word "many" for "all" which was rectified in the most recent translation. However, there is still concern over the removal of the words "mystery of faith" from the words of consecration. I have set out Augustine's argument above that says that those words form part of the words of consecration and were of course codified by earlier Popes.
This is one of the main reasons for some not attending the Novus Ordo Mass because they doubt the validity of the consecration. While I don't doubt the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass I think that those words should be re-instituted to remove all objections and the doubt of some that Christ's sacrificial action actually occurs in the Novus Ordo Mass and in the Anglican Ordinariate Mass.
The seriousness of removing the words "mystery of faith" was set out in the Ottaviani intervention where it is said that for the Novus Ordo, to be valid, the priest now needs to have the intention to consecrate because those words "mystery of faith" have been removed from the words of consecration. That being so, it is becomes important when attending a Novus Ordo Mass to be sure the priest is orthodox and, therefore, one would assume has the intention to consecrate. The intention to consecrate is not needed by a priest offering the Tridentine Mass because the words "Mysterium Fidae" remain in the words of consecration and so the consecration is effected regardless of the priest's intention.
Jan,
My concern is, and has always been, promotion of reverent worship of our divine Father in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To this end, the EF missal can be a powerful tool. I hope the post-Anglican missal can serve a similar purpose.
So, Jan, is it your belief on the necessity of the words mysterium fidei (mystery of faith) to validate the consecratory formula of the wine, that is, to change the wine into the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
"For this is my Body; for this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."
In the Novus Ordo there is of course the memorial acclamation, which reads: "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died. Christ is Risen, and Christ will come again."
Are you saying that these words of acclamation (above) have nothing to do with the previous context, in which the mystery of faith referred straightforwardly to the transubstantiation?
Has it ever been *infallibly* taught by the Church that as far as the Latin Rite Mass, any words other than "this is my Body"," this is my Blood" are necessary for the consecration to occur? At least since the Third century?
I know some Councils have spoken to this but was it ever infallibly?
I trust in the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, that is, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Extraordinary Magisterium.
Now as far as the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari (Chaldean and the Assyrian Churches)
The Catholic Church has explicitly recognized the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, without explicit mention of the Words of Institution, saying that "the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.
Saint John Chrysostom: "That saying, 'This is my body', once uttered, from that time to the present day, and even until Christ's coming, makes the sacrifice complete at every table in the churches."
George, I believe 'Mysterium Fidei" was codified in the Council of Florence. I will set out what I have found in a separate post. But it has always been a bone of contention as you can see from the notes to the Ottivani Intervention:
29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it."
So, George, if Catholic theologians at the time questioned both the change in the word "many" to "all" which has since been rectified, and also the removal of "mysterium fidei" from the words of consecration, then it seems that there is a doubt that can exist for those Ordinary Form Masses offered by a priest who does not believe in the real presence but sees himself as merely presiding at a memorial. So intention to consecrate is required with the Ordinary Form of the Mass for validity. Therefore, it suggests to me that the words "mysterium fidei" need to be put back to avoid any doubt.
George,
Those are good points. In the Western Church, the Eucharistic Canon was always prayed quietly by the priest, so there was no need to consider how it would sound to the congregation. However, now that the priest speaks it audibly, there is confusion among the congregants about whom the priest is addressing. Indeed, even some priests seem to think they are recounting the Last Supper for the congregants! Pure heresy! If the Canon must be recited aloud, then perhaps the East has the right idea, leaving out reference to the words of Christ at His Last Supper.
George, I haven't been able to find that the insertion of the words "mysterium fidei" into the consecration are infallible. However, it could be argued that, as the Tridentine Mass was codified in perpetuity by Pope Pius V in the papal bull Quo Primum in 1570 that the words of consecration are covered by that:
"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing."
The reason for removing the words "mysterium fidei" was said to be that they weren't in sacred scripture. However, it is interesting to read that by tradition they have been ascribed to St Peter himself and to Our Lord Himself. It has also been pointed out that the liturgy is older than scripture. I found the following quote by someone who has studied this matter worthy of note:
continued
" Commenting on St. Paul's words, "Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience" (i Tim. iu. 9), Estius says that Catharinus considers them to refer to the Holy Eucharist, and to allude to the chalice of the Precious Blood which the deacons presented at Mass to the faithful. Hessels, on the same Epistle, takes the view of Catharinus. The reasons given by Innocent III., Bona, Bellarmine, and others for the presence of the words in the form of consecration seem to favour the explanation of Catharinus and Estius.
The words of Innocent III. in his letter to John, Archbishop of Lyons, may be translated thus : "Since the Evangelists do not testify that Christ said this (" Mysterium Fidei"), you are not a little disturbed, and wonder that anyone should try to maintain that He said more than any of the Evangelists asserts. But if you will diligently inspect the form of the Canon, besides this which you inquire about, you will find two other insertions in the Canon, viz., " Elevatis oculis in coelum " and " lEtemi Testamenti," which are not read in the text of the Gospel. Forsooth, we find many things omitted by the Evangelist about Our Lord's words and actions which the Apostles are recorded to have supplemented in words or expressed in act. . . . We believe, therefore, that the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors received from the Apostles, the form of words as it is found in the Canon," &c. (Lib. v. Epist. 121).
Bona shares the opinion of Innocent III., which finds so little favour in the judgment of your Leicester critic ; Bona writes "Haec verba, g Mysterium Fidei' non sunt in Ordine Romano, sunt tamen in omnibus antiquissimis missalibus M. S. S. quos vidi " (Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. cap. xiii.).
Bellarmine writes of Kemnitz and other Lutherans : " Quinto calumniantur addita ilia in forma consecrationis calicis : Novi et aetemae Testamenti et Mysterium Fidei.' Nam in Evangelio non habetur, nisi Novi Testamenti '." The Cardinal's reply is : "I answer that, according to tradition, St. Peter added them to the form ; that they cannot be found fault with ; that they are most true, and are gathered from the Scriptures. For the Testament of Christ is eternal, and thus is distinguished from the Old Testament which was temporary. Also, that the chalice of Our Lord's Blood is rightly called the Mystery of Faith cannot be doubted, since in no other thing is faith more to be exercised, and more frequently exercised, than in this which is contradicted by all the senses" (De Controv. lib. iv. cap. xiv.).
Barrada (torn. iv. lib. iv. c. v.) maintains that these very words were spoken by Christ, and were taught by St. Peter to the Roman Church. For, says Barradas, if the words were not said by Christ, the Church would by no means have added them to the words of consecration which all are words of Christ. He quotes Salmeron and St. Thomas Aquinas (pars iii. q. lxxviii. a. 3).
'The Saint answers the objection that no Evangelist gives these words. He says that the Evangelists did not intend to give the forms of the Sacraments, which in the primitive Church ought to be concealed, as Dionysius says ; but they intended to construct the history of Christ. . . " Quod autem additur lEtemi ' et iterum, Mysterium Fidei,' ex tmditione Domini habetur, quae ad Ecclesiam per Apostolos pervenit secundum illud (1 Cor. xi. 23) Ego accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis ' ; ut et (a Tim. iii. 9) Habentes mysterium fidei.' " Thus St. Thomas also sanctions the application of these words of St. Paul to the Holy Eucharist. Barradas, however, does not seem to adopt this interpretation. Scotus takes the same view and gives the same reasons and explanations as those of St. Thomas (pars iii. q. lxxviii. a. 3)."
continued
Therefore, George, in view of the above, and, given the doubts expressed in the Ottaviani Intervention by Catholic theologians at the time, and, given that the doubt that was cast on the validity of consecration through insertion of the word "all" instead of "many" was finally rectified after more than 30 years, then I think, yes, that these word should be restored to remove any doubt and in keeping with the hundreds of years of tradition and, especially bearing in mind what was written by the Holy Office in 1958:
"This Supreme Sacred Congregation has learned that in a certain translation of the New Order of Holy Week into the vernacular, the words "mysterium fidei" in the form of the consecration of the chalice are omitted. It is also reported that some priests omit these words in the very celebration of Mass.
Therefore this Supreme Congregation gives warning that it is impious (nefas) to introduce a change in so sacred a matter and to mutilate or alter editions of liturgical books. (cf. Can. 1399, 10).
Bishops therefore, in accordance with the warning of the Holy Office of 14 February, 1958, should see to it that the prescriptions of the sacred canons on divine worship be strictly observed, and they should be closely watchful that no one dare to introduce even the slightest change in the matter and form of the Sacraments. 45. "Omission of the Words 'Mysterium Fidei' in the Consecration of the Chalice." A Monitum of the Holy Office dated July 24, 1958, Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Vol. 50, p. 536".
One can only conclude that the "authors" of the Mass were very misguided, indeed, and we see the continuing fallout to this day because not only was Pope Pius V ignored bu so was the Holy Office as late as 1958.
Jan, I really can only say one thing. The reason all of these elements of the Extraordinary Form (the term TLM is, well, not technically the name) are not there, and other things are is that, wonder of wonders, this is not a missal of the extraordinary form. That is not the point of the ordinariate. I would like to see the citation from Anglicanorum Coetibus explaining that the Ordinariate would be defined by and use a translation of the 1962 missal into Cranmerian English.
Jan, hello. I realize it's been some time since these comments were made. But I just saw this now, and felt that something should said in response. (NB: I did not read all of the comments, so perhaps I missed a later clarification by you.) In any case, you wrote above: "... this Anglican Missal, while it is better than the Novus Ordo in parts - in some parts it is worse because of the addition of these comfortable words and other prayers."
To Jan and anyone else interested, here are the actual "Comfortable Words" (verbatim, as they appear in the 1928 US Book of Common Prayer and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer):
"Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith unto all who truly turn to him.
COME unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. St. Matt. xi. 28.
So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. St. John iii. 16.
Hear also what Saint Paul saith.
This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. 1 Tim. i. 15.
Hear also what Saint John saith.
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the Propitiation for our sins. 1 St. John ii. 1, 2."
I'm not an expert on Elizabethan English, but I belive these are called "Comfortable Words" because they are comforting or reassuring, faith-building for us to hear.
As you can see, the "Comfortable Words" are quotations from the New Testament, the words of Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and St. John. How could the Anglican Missal be said to be worse than the Novus Order because of their inclusion? I would think the opposite would be more likely the case.
Just reading this now. I know that CTS is publishing a study version of Divine Worship, The Missal in a smaller size (like the Daily Roman Missal). Does this Missal, in general, contain all of the texts for the readings of the year? That would be nice as I attend this Mass and would love to have a hand missal.
There must be some mental telepathy going on, because as you were posting this comment on an old post, I was writing a new post on the Ordinariate's Missal! You can look at it now and make comment there as no one is going to read your comment here because it is so old. I only saw it because it came to me as an email to post! :)
Post a Comment