Counter-Reformation Association

NEWS AND VIEWS

La Guerche, Main Street, Monks Kirby, Near Rugby CV23 OQZ England

Summer AD 1998                                                                                                             Whitsun

Ave, dulcissima Maria, vera spes et vita, dulce refrigerium!
O Maria, flos Virginem, ots pto nobid Jesum.
.

THE ANTI-TRIDENTINE NEW MASS
PART 4  THE ANTI-ROMAN CANONS

The Roman Canon constitutes the heart of the Tridentine Mass, as it does of the other Mass-rites and uses, such as the Dominican and that of Braga, which form the Roman liturgical family. It was brought to England by St Augustine in AD 597, with the Mass-rite of the local Roman Church; and that at a time when Frankish and Celtic Catholics used a form of the mysteriously Eastern-influenced Gallican Mass. In time, a variant of the Roman Mass, with its distinctive Canon, was to be adopted throughout the British Isles; and English missionaries and scholars were to be instrumental in introducing it into northern continental Europe, and so assisting its development as it became fused with the Gallican Rite.
The Roman Canon, unchanged from the seventh century until John XXIII's arbitrary insertion of the name of St Joseph, shows its place and period of origin by the martyrs mentioned by name, who are either Roman or the objects of special veneration in fourth and fifth-century Rome. In its definitive form, it is remarkable for its stress upon the oblations which are being offered, for its division into a number of successive prayers which still constitute a unity of sacrificial offering and petition, and for the nature of the narrative of institution and the specific words of consecration. The latter are not simply scriptural but also embody Roman traditions.
In response to the Protestant reformers' assaults on the Roman Canon  entailed by their rejection of the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass  the Tridentine Council reinforced its traditional authority by imposing an anathema upon any who would say it should be abrogated as containing errors. However, by Vatican II the Roman Canon was second only to the traditional Offertory in unpopularity among the liturgical reformers. That was for a complex of reasons.
Firstly, some scholars had arrived at the paradoxical conclusion that the Roman Canon  though the oldest Eucharistic Prayer in continuous use in the Church  was liturgically corrupt. The component prayers, they claimed, were in the wrong order, and anyway, an Anaphora should not be broken up into constituent prayers by “Amens”.
Secondly, in the light of the American Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement, “The Eucharist as Sacrifice” (1967), it is clear that the ecuмenists wanted further “convergence in the actual practice of eucharistic worship”, so that such practice would reflect their doctrinal agreements and advance the reinterpretation of the Tridentine dogmas.
Finally, and not least disconcertingly, it must be recognised that the post-Tridentine scholastic theologians had failed to produce a generally accepted and satisfactory theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass - insistent though they were that it was a sacrifice - and that, consequently, liturgical commentators frequently failed to appreciate the meaning of some of the prayers they sought to explain. Seminary professors, as well as catechists, woodenly emphasised that what were on the altar, prior to the consecration, were bread and wine; and rarely taught that they were symbolically the Body and Blood of Our Saviour.
In view of those mutually supporting errors, it was only its undeniable antiquity  and the shadow of the Tridentine anathema  which prevented the Roman Canon from simply being abrogated when the New Mass was compiled. In addition to the crucial suppression of the Catholic Offertory, three strategies were adopted to undermine it. The first was to introduce three New Canons, with the objectionable (to the reformers) Roman elements omitted. The second was to remove from the Roman Canon itself its specific words of consecration. The third was to make optional the naming of the Roman martyrs and patrons, as well as those offensive “Amens”, in the now ex-Roman Canon.
In the Canon of the Tridentine Mass, the oblations being repeatedly offered prior to the consecration are indubitably the same as those offered in anticipation during the offertory  the spotless host of Christ's Body and the chalice of salvation of his Blood, separated in sacrificial death on the Cross.
The Canon begins with the “Te igitur”. “Thee, therefore, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, we humbly pray and beseech that thou accept, and bless, these + gifts, these + offerings, these + holy and unspotted sacrifices, which, first, we offer to thee for thy holy Catholic Church...”
After the memento of the living, the Canon states why the “sacrifice of praise”, is being offered: “for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and safety...”
Then at the “Hanc igitur”: “This oblation, therefore of our service, and that of thy whole family, we beseech thee, 0 Lord, graciously to accept; and to dispose our days in thy peace, and to command us to be delivered from eternal damnation, and to be numbered in the flock of thine elect.”
And finally, that the sacramental sacrifice may effect what it signifies: “Which oblation do thou, 0 God, we beseech thee, vouchsafe in all things to make blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable: that it may become for us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This pre-consecration offering of the oblations  the spotless host and the chalice of salvation  is entirely absent from the three New Canons. In Canon 2, following the introductory words, “Vere Sanctus es, Domine, fops omnis sanctitatis”, the sole petition is: “Haec ergo dons, quaesumus, Spiritus tui rore sanctifica, ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiant Domini nostri Jesu Christi.” A petition that the Holy Spirit will make the “gifts” holy, so that for us they may be the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But the “gifts” have been unambiguously defined  precisely at the “preparation of the gifts”  as bread and wine.
Canon 3 refers to God's gathering a people to himself so that a “clean oblation” (oblatio munca”) may everywhere be offered to the glory of his name. But there is no identification of any such “clean oblation” with the “offerings” (“munera”) now on the altar. It is again these “offerings” (the bread and wine) which are prayed may be made holy and become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. No more than in Canon 2 is there any symbolic offering of the Body and Blood of Our Saviour prior to the consecration.
Throughout the lengthy pre-consecration portion of Canon 4, there is again no mention of sacrificial oblations. Once more, there is only a petition for the making holy of the “offerings” (“munera”)  the bread and wine  that they may be made the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
Whatever meaning of eucharistic sacrifice is to be understood in the New Canons, it is certainly no longer identical with that of the Roman Canon. In the Roman Canon, more especially in the context of the traditional Offertory prayers, the oblations offered throughout the action are the spotless host and the chalice of salvation: the Body and Blood of Christ.
Obviously, the words 11quod pro vobis tradetur” have been added to the traditional Roman words of consecration of the host, and the words “Mysterium Fidei” have been omitted from the traditional words of consecration of the chalice (they are now used as a post-consecration introduction to an acclamation). However, it should also be noted that Our Lord's introductory words, “Accipite manducate ex hoc omnes” and “Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes”  not part of the form of consecration in the Roman Canon  are now printed, and recited, along with his operative words.
There are two grave points to be distinguished here. First, that the New Mass of Paul VI discards (by changing) the immemorial Roman form of consecration. Second, that the doctrine, and corresponding Roman practice, that some only of Our Saviour's words are the operative words  that is, constitute the sacramental form  are set aside.
The discarding of the Roman form of consecration constitutes a grave  indeed, prima facie schismatic  contempt for the traditions of the Holy Roman Church. (Of course, Paul VI displayed the same schismatic contempt when he substituted an Eastern sacramental form for the traditional Roman form in the sacrament of confirmation.)
It should be noted that in the Byzantine Liturgy the priest does sing the words of consecration as: “RECEIVE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”, and: “ALL OF YOU DRINK OF THIS, THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”.
However, in the West doctrinal development has taken place which has led to the separation of Our Saviour's operative words - by which he effects the consecration -from his introductory words. St Thomas Aquinas contributed to this doctrinal development by his analysis of the Eucharistic form in the “Summa Theological' (P3, Q78, Al). There he reasons: “In these words, 'Take ye and eat', the use of the consecrated matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this sacrament... And therefore not even these words belong to the substance of the form.”
(Incidentally, St Thomas holds that the word “for”, though verbally part of the form of consecration, is not logically such. He writes: “The conjunction 'for' is set in this form according to the custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the Apostle; and this on account of the sequence with the words preceding: and -- therefore it is not part of the form, just as the words preceding the form are not.” (“Summa Theological, P3, Q78, A2)
That developed teaching, as to which of Our Saviour's words constitute the sacramental form, was reflected in the way the words of consecration were written in pre-Reformation editions of the Roman Canon, just as they are in the Tridentine Missal. That those words, and those words only, constitute the sacramental form of the Roman Mass, was expressly set out in the Tridentine Catechism, issued by Pope St Pius V (1566). That teaching is also embodied in the Tridentine Missal itself, in the rubric “De defectibus formae” (including in the John XXIII 1962 edition).
Thus, in all four Canons of the New Mass we have both a schismatic discarding of the ancient sacramental form proper to the Holy Roman Church, and also the practical setting aside of the developed doctrine  incorporated into the Roman Canon  of the distinction between Our Saviour's introductory words and the sacramental form proper. We have here, in the treatment of the words of consecration, another manifest reason for concluding that the New Mass lacks doctrinal rectitude.
W. J. Morgan  25 V 98

LORD JESUS CHRIST, GRANT US A TRUE POPE.
OUR LADY OF VICTORIES, PRAY FOR US.