Counter-Reformation Association

NEWS AND VIEWS

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

Spring AD 1998                                                                                                              Lady Day
Dignare me Laudare te, Virgo sacrata.
Da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuas..

THE ANTI-TRIDENTINE NEW MASS
PART 3  THE UNTRADITIONAL SACRAMENTAL FORM

The new “Mass” is presented by Paul VI, in his putative Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” (3rd April, 1969), as a reform of the (Tridentine) Roman Missal codified by Pope St Pius V in the Bull “Quo Primum,, (1570). Accordingly, the doctrinal rectitude of the New Mass is to be assessed in terms of its continuing or excluding the doctrinal significance of the prinripal parts of the Mass. as expressed through the prayers found in the traditional Roman rite.
In Part 2, we examined the ‘“Offertory” of the New Mass, and found that the meaning expressed by its prayers excludes the doctrinal significance of the Tridentine Offertory (the same doctrinal significance as found in the other developed rites of Mass), and, consequently, that the Novus Ordo of Paul VI lacks doctrinal rectitude.
We turn next to the heart of the Mass: the words of consecration - the sacramental form. These words effect the transubstantiation of the bread which symbolises Our Saviour’s Body into that Body in ontological reality, and the wine which symbolises his Blood into that Blood in ontological reality, thereby bringing about the sacramental renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Our examination of the changes made to those words will show them to be of doctrinal significance. Accordingly, the question of their adequacy as a sacramental form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is bound to arise. It did so in the historic “Brief Study” of the New Mass (drafted by Pere Guerard des Lauriers O.P.), which was famously presented to Paul VI by Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani. There, in an original footnote, the opinion is advanced that the new words could be used as a valid sacramental form by the celebrating priest, but that they are not such intrinsically. That is, according to that opinion, the New Mass is contingently but not intrinsically valid.
Readers may be surprised, and possibly disappointed, but I intend leaving that issue aside in this article. While the question of the invaliditv of putative ordination rites has been illuminated by the brilliant theology of the Bull “Apostolicae Curae” (1896), in connection with the invalidity of Anglican orders, there has been surprisingly little attention paid to analogous grounds for invalidity in a putative rite of Mass - as contrasted with defects arising from the misuse of a Catholic rite. Even English Catholics fail to pose the question as to whether valid but sacrilegious Masses were celebrated all over England on Whit Sunday 1549, when uniformly validly ordained priests and bishops first used Cranmer’s New Mass. Until that question has been thoroughly explored, and the theological principles clarified, it is, I submit, premature to undertake a consideration of the validity of Paul VI’s New Mass.
However, to leave aside issues of validity does not entail ignoring the question of the doctrinal rectitude of the changes made in the New Mass to the traditional sacramental form, as it is found in the definitive Roman Canon. To examine this matter, it is first of all necessary to appreciate that the traditional Eucharistic form, with its accompanying institution narrative, does not reproduce one of the scriptural accounts (as provided by St Matthew, St Mark and St Luke in their Gospels, and by St Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians), nor is it simply a harmonisation of those accounts. The words of consecration, as also the institution narrative, in the definitive Roman Canon are a tradition of the Holy Roman Church. They have found their way into some other Catholic Rites, but by no means all.
We reproduce here the Roman institution narrative and words of consecration for convenience of reference. (Incidentally, we note that the widely-used “St Andrew Daily Missal”, by its typography, was tendentiously setting aside the distinction between the narrative and the sacramental form - complete with nihil obstat and imprimatur - back in the pontificate of Pope Pius XII!)
Qui pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas, ac venerabiles manus suas, et elevatis oculis in caelum ad to Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens, bene+dixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite, et manducate ex hoc omnes. [Who the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy and venerable hands, and lifting up his eyes to heaven to thee, 0 God, his almighty Father, giving thanks to thee, he blessed, broke and gave to his disciples saying: Take, and eat ye all of this.]
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.  [FOR THIS IS MY BODY]
Simili modo postquam coenatum est, accipiens et hunc praeclarum Calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas: item tibi gratias agens, bene+dixit, deditgue discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite, et bibite ex eo omnes. [Likewise, after he had supped, taking also this excellent Chalice into his holy and venerable hands: also giving thanks to thee, he blessed, and gave to His disciples, saying: Take, and drink ye all of this.]
HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. [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 FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.]
Haec quotiescuмque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis. [As often as ye do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.]
As a preliminary, and strictly subordinate point, it should be noticed that, in the New Mass, although Canon I (the ex-Roman Canon) preserves the traditional Roman narrative of Our Lord’s gestures, the other three Canons discard it, substituting their own narratives. However, the heart of the matter concerns the New Mass’s treatment of the words of consecration - the sacramental form.
In “Missale Romanum”, Paul VI writes: “Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR [TAKE AND EAT ALL OF THIS: FOR THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU]; over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. [TAKE AND DRINK ALL OF THIS: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.] HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM. [DO THIS IN MY MEMORY.]-,
Accordingly, in the New Missal all those words in capital letters are printed as though they are the sacramental form (but with a space left before the “HOC FACITE”). A comparison of those words with the traditional sacramental form in the Roman Canon shows that the Roman sacramental form has been discarded; and, at the same time, the traditional teaching as to which of Our Saviour’s words constitute that form has been set aside.
In the New Mass, the new "offertory" prayers define the "gifts" and "offerings" before the consecration as bread and wine. This exclusion of the doctrinal significance of the pre-consecration Roman Canon is yet another reason why the New Mass lacks doctrinal rectitude.
What, then, are we to make of the sacrificial wording of the New Canons after the consecration? In Canon 2 this is absolutely minimal, and appears to do no more than recapitulate what has been said at the "offertory" about the bread offered becoming for us "the bread of life" ("panes vitae"), and the wine offered becoming for us "spiritual drink" ("potus spiritalis"). "...we  offer to thee, Lord, the bread of life [panem vitae] and the chalice of salvation [calicem salutes]..."
However, in Canon 4 there is, after the consecration, an explicit offering of the Body and Blood of Christ. "...offerimus tibi eius Corpus et Sanguinem, sacrificium tibi acceptabile et tote mundo salutare." ["...we  offer thee his Body and Blood, an acceptable sacrifice to thee and for the salvation of the whole world."]
Similarly, in Canon 3, after the consecration, it is stated that "...we offer thee... this living and holy sacrifice". There follows a reference to the "Church's oblation", and the petition that God will see the Victim ("Hostiam") whose immolation has reconciled us, and that those who are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ "may be found one body and one spirit in Christ".
Accordingly, those who have been led to believe that in the Mass the priest first consecrates and only then offers the Body and Blood of Christ may be satisfied by this aspect at least of Canons 3 and 4. However, those who appreciate that the Body and Blood of Christ are offered throughout the Eucharistic action will not be.
Further, the apparently strong sacrificial language in the post-consecration Canons 3 and 4 is fully compatible with the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice set out in the 1967 U.S. Lutheran-Conciliarist Statement. That is: "the Church 'offers Christ' in the mass" in the sense that "the members of the body of Christ... become
.participants in his worship, his self-offering, his sacrifice to the Father". Thus, "the eucharistic assembly 'offers Christ' by consenting in the power of the Holy Spirit to be offered by him to the Father", while pleading "Christ, the sacrificial lamb and victim whom the Father has given us".
That Lutheran understanding of how "the Church 'offers Christ' in the mass" - by the self-offering of the "members of the body of Christ" (the worshippers in the "eucharistic assembly") - is found in key petitions in Canons 3 and 4. In Canon 4 there is: "Respice, Domine, in Hostiam, quam Ecclesiae tuae ipse parasti, et concede benignus omnibus qui ex hoc uno pane participabunt et calice, ut, in unum corpus a Sancto Spiritu congregate, in Christo hostia viva perficiantur, ad laudem gloriae tuae." ["Look, 0 Lord, upon the Victim, which thou hast prepared for thy Church, and graciously accord to all those who partake of this one bread and one chalice, that, gathered, together in one body by the Holy Ghost, they may be perfected in Christ as a living victim, to the praise of thy glory."] While in Canon 3 there is: "Ipse nos tibi perficiat munus aeternum..." ["May he perfect us as an everlasting gift to thee..."]
For the Church, by contrast, the Sacrifice of the Mass is the sacramental renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. As sacramental, it effects what it signifies. The Body and Blood of Christ, separated in sacrificial death, are  by his designation, institution and mandate  offered under the symbols of bread and wine. Then, at the immolatory consecration, the symbolic Body and Blood become in ontological reality the Body and Blood of the accepted, risen and ascended Lamb of God.
W. J. Morgan – 25 III 98

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