Sancta Liturgia: September 2004

Sep 28, 2004

Confiteor Deo

Missale Romanum 1962
P/S: Confíteor Deo omnipoténti, beátæ Maríæ semper Vírgini, beáto Michaéli Archángelo, beáto Joanni Baptístæ, sanctis Apóstolis Petro et Paulo, ómnibus Sanctis, et tibi, Pater: quia peccávi nimis cogitatióne, verbo et ópere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa. Ideo precor beátam Maríam semper Vírginem, beátum Michaélem Archángelum, beátum Joánnem Baptístam, sanctos Apóstolos Petrum et Paulum, omnes Sanctos, et vobis, fratres (et te, Pater)1, oráre pro me ad Dóminum Deum nostrum.

S/P: Misereátur tui omnípotens Deus, et dimíssis peccátis tuis, perdúcat te (vos) ad vitam ætérnam.

P/S: Amen.

P. Indulgéntiam, absolutiónem, et remissiónem peccatórum nostrórum tríbuat nobis omnípotens et miséricors Dóminus.

S. Amen.

P/S: I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you Father, that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word and deed: He through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and you brethren (you, Father), to pray to the Lord our God for me.

S/P: May Almighty God have mercy upon you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to life everlasting.

P/S: Amen.

P.May the Almighty and merciful God grant us pardon, absolution, and remission of our sins.

S.Amen.

Missale Romanum 1970
All: Confiteor Deo omnipotens et vobis, fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, omnes Angelos et Sanctos, et vos, fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum.

P: Misereatur nostri omnipotens Deus et, dimissis peccatis nostris, perducat nos ad vitam aeternam.

C: Amen.

All: I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

P: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.

C: Amen.

The Confiteor has gone through periods of change and development. (See the Catholic Encyclopedia article at the NewAdvent website). The differences in the older form and the current are negligible. The revised form retains the confessional portion, and the request to the Angels and Saints and especially the Blessed Virgin Mary for intercession. The revised form of the Confiteor is actually more theologically sound in that it adds the sin of omission to our confession, because one sins also by not doing good. I also have a deep appreciation for the older missal and older prayers. I even say my Rosary in Latin (which by the way has been very helpful in moving beyond the words to a more contemplative prayer of the Mysteries). In no way do I wish to criticize or detract from the older missal, but rather to present a picture that objectively analyzes the differences while expressing the continuity of the two Roman Missals allowed for the celebration of the Holy Mass.

That being said, the two versions of the Confiteor in the Latin editions indeed do differ, but these differences are negligible in my opinion. Both versions include a statement of confession to God first of all, and then to the Church for our faults. In the older rendition certain saints were explicitly named that are omitted in the newer missal. This does not imply anything different theologically, because our confession is to God first, and then to the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church. Who can object to the older use in that the Priest represented not only the alter Christi (to whom our confession has already been directed) and also as representative of Holy Mother Church and the local eccesial community who also belong to the Mystical Body of Christ through baptism into the same. Who then can object to the revised version which makes confession also to God and to the local eccesial community (which by default includes the Priest) there as members of the Mystical Body of Christ? The revised form of the prayer was indeed simplified in the first half, and happily the place of the Blessed Mother retained as well as a general request to the angels and saints for intercession on our part.

There can be no real objection to this change other than simply love for the older version. Otherwise you are in a position where you have to criticize the Rite of the Dominicans whose Confiteor names the Blessed Mother, St. Dominic, and the saints in general (omitts mention of angels, but included by implication in the allocution of 'saint') in the confessional half but does not include any in the request for intercession!2 Indeed the locution of 'et omissione' (and failed to do: sin of omission) is found also in this Rite, most probably under the influence of the even older Gallican Rite. The same is true of the Carthusian Rite. According to their liturgical texts that predate Vatican II and the 1970 Missale Romanum.

It seems to be clear is that the change is more probably explained as a simplification of the prayer itself that relied on other forms than the Roman Missal. If some like the older version better, I don't blame them- it's beautiful and theologically sound. Though it cannot be denied that the addition of 'et omissione' is an improvement theologically as well as having a fine liturgical tradition in the Gallican Rite and in the Holy Monastic Orders of both Dominicans and Carthusians. You'll also notice that the 1970 Roman Missal made concessions in it's rewriting of the Confiteor, neither simply replacing the traditional Roman version with Gallican or other those of other Rites, but instead blending the historical liturgical use of the Latin Rite traditions (hence retaining the mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, though the ICEL's translation makes this fact invisible).

It is not required that certain specific words be spoken before the approaching of the Altar of God, but rather that each individual prepare themselves to either celebrate or assist at the Holy Mass (whichever is proper to their role). Hence the laity enter the Church, genuflect to the tabernacle, and by immemorial custom kneel and pray to God as they prepare for the Holy Mass. The lack of preparation for serving at the Altar isn't really due to the newer missal but rather to a lack of catechesis.

1 The Priest says the Confiteor first, the Server replies with the Misereatur, the Priest replies Amen. Then the Server says the Confiteor, the Priest replies with the Misereatur, the Server replies Amen.
2 P: Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, et beatae Mariae semper virgine, et beato Dominico patri nostro, et omnibus sanctis, et vobis, fratres (S: et tibi pater), quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, locutione, opere et omissione, mea culpa; precor vos orare pro me. See the Ordo Missae Dominicae

Prayers at the foot of the Altar

The first portion of the 1962 Missale Romanum is referred to as the ‘Iudica me’. It is the forty-second Psalm. It begins with the Antiphon Introibo ad altare Dei (I will go to the altar of God). These prayers are omitted in the 1970 Missale Romanum. The Antiphon is also found in the liturgical texts of the Mozarabic Rite (with the Psalm) at the foot of the altar and again before the Illatio (the Preface). The Milanese Liturgy has in the prayer at the foot of the Altar merely the Antiphon Introibo without the Forty-second Psalm.1 The Carthusians, Dominicans and Carmelites never use the Forty-second Psalm in the prayers at the foot of the altar.2 Indeed even in the 1962 (and 1958) Missale Romanum the Iudica me is omitted in all Requiem Masses and in all Passiontide Masses from Passion Sunday to Holy Saturday, though the Antiphon Introibo is retained.

Certainly the ‘Iudica me’ is a holy and proper prayer before ascending to the altar, and it warrants no criticism on my part. Everyone should before going to assist at Mass (Catholics do not merely attend, but in a real and spiritual sense, we assist at the Holy Mass), offer prayers to God to prepare themselves for participation in the sublime and most holy mysteries of the Sacrifice of the Mass. What is pointed out above is merely that the ‘Iudica me’ is not of itself essential to the Sacrifice of the Mass.The use of the Psalm varies much more greatly than proponents of the Classical Roman Rite will generally lead others to believe. At the same time, one can certainly appreciate the expression of love for this Psalm from those who have a special attachment to the older liturgy. It cannot be considered a theological aberration to omit or to include the Forty-second Psalm. Its omission cannot justify the claim that the 1970 Missale Romanum has been protestantized for then we must hold the same to be objectively true for those rites wherein it is not used.

These Introductory prayers (The Antiphon, Psalm Forty-two, the Confiteor and two prayers at the end) were the last developed of the various portions of the preparatory part of the Mass. They are first mentioned from the eleventh century. Preparatory prayers were indeed recited at a much earlier period; but they were not so rigorously prescribed, and did not belong strictly to the Mass liturgy, as they were generally said in the sacristy or on the way to the altar, while the choir sang the Introit Psalm. All known liturgies begin with a kind of confession of guilt. In former times the formulas differed greatly: the classic Roman form for the Confiteor appears to have been in general use since the thirteenth century.3 The very fact that some of the preparatory prayers are omitted and that various forms of the others are used; verifies my assessment that they are not per se required in the liturgy for validity but their long historical development and traditional uses also establishes for them a place of honor and they properly belong to the older Roman Missal.

1 Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, Pg. 353 Cf. footnote 1.

2 Ibid, Pg. 356 Cf. footnote 2, cites Romsee, T.I., Opera liturgica. Mechlinae 1838.

3 Ibid, Pg. 346 Cf. footnote 1. “The assertion that Pope Celestine I. (422-432) gave the Psalm Iudica its present position, is entirely untenable. Cf. Bona, Ioann., Cardinalis, Ord. Cist., Rerum liturgicarum libri duo. Studio et labore Rob. Sala. Augustae Taurinorum 1763.”

Sep 26, 2004

Participation of the Faithful - 1962 Missale Romanum

Changes in the rubrical code:

References:1

Novum rubricarum brevarii et missalis romani corpus approbatur, AAS 52, 1960, 593-595. Moto proprio of Pope John XXIII July 25, 1960 (Rubricarum instructum)
De musica sacra, AAS 50, 1958, 630-663. Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites September 3, 1958.
Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 26, 1960, AAS 52, 596

The Moto Proprio of Pope John XXIII, referred to as Rubricarum Instructum promulgated a new code of rubrics for the Missale Romanum. The new rubrical code was published the next day by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. I found the following section interesting.

DSCR: no. 272:
272. Of its nature the Mass demands that all those present take part in it, after the manner proper to them.
A choice must be made, however, among the various ways in which the faithful may take part actively in the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, in such a way that any danger of abuse may be removed, and the special aim of the participation may be realized, namely a fuller measure of worship offered to God and of edification obtained for the faithful.
This active participation of the faithful has been dealt with at greater length in the Instruction, Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy, given by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on September 3, 1958.

The referenced document De musica sacra lays out the following interesting items, those proposed (one could even say encouraged) in no. 31 exceptionally so:

28. In the case of the read Mass, too, special care must be taken that the faithful are present “not as outsiders or as silent spectators” (apostolic constitution Divini cultus, December 20, 1928: AAS 21, 1929, 40), but in such a way that may exercise that kind of participation which is demanded by such a great mystery and which yields such abundant fruits.

29. The first way in which the faithful can participate in the low Mass is when each participates on his own initiative, whether his participation is internal, through devout attention to the principal parts of the Mass, or external, according to the various approved local customs. They deserve special praise who use a small missal suitable to their understanding and pray along with the priest in the very words of the Church.
But, all are not equally capable of understanding properly the rites and formulas, and spiritual needs are not the same and do not always remain the same for any individual. Hence, there are easier and more suitable ways of participating for some, such as “piously meditating upon the mysteries of Jesus Christ, or performing other devotional exercises, or reciting prayers which, though they may differ in form from the sacred rites, are nevertheless in keeping with them by their nature” (Mediator Dei, AAS 39, 1947, 560-561).
Furthermore, it should be noted that if the practice prevails in some places of playing the organ during a read Mass, and if, after stopping this practice, the faithful would participate either with common prayers or with singing, then it is necessary to disapprove the uninterrupted playing of the organ, harmonium or other musical instrument. Such instruments must therefore remain silent:

a) after the priest celebrant has reached the altar until the offertory;

b) from the first verses before the preface up to and including the Sanctus;

c) where the custom exists, from the consecration up to the Pater noster;

d) from the Lord’s Prayer up to the Angus Dei inclusive; during the Confiteor before the people’s communion; while the postcommunion is being said: and during the blessing given at the end of the Mass.

30. A second form of participation is when the faithful take part in the Eucharistic sacrifice by offering up prayers and song in common, provided, above all, that the prayers and song are suited to the individual parts of the Mass, observing what has been noted in no. 14-c.2

31. Finally, the third and most perfect manner of participation is had when the faithful give the liturgical responses to the celebrant, taking part, as it were, in a dialogue with him, and saying aloud the parts that belong to them.

In this more perfect participation there are four stages:

a) In the first stage the faithful give the easiest liturgical responses to the celebrant, which are: Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Deo gratias; Gloria tibi, Domine; Laus tibi, Christe; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est, and Sed libera nos a malo.

b) In the second stage the faithful give those responses which the acolyte must pronounce according to the rubrics, and if holy communion is given during the Mass, also recite the Confiteor and the triple Domine non sum dignus.

c) The third degree is that in which the faithful recite parts of the ordinary of the Mass with the celebrant, namely: Gloria in excelsis Deo, the Credo, the Sanctus-Benedictus and the Agnus Dei.

d) The fourth and final degree is that in which the faithful also recite with the celebrant part of the proper of the Mass: the introit, gradual, offertory and communion. This last degree can be practiced with fitting dignity only by select and well trained groups.

32. In read Mass, the entire Pater noster, an appropriate and ancient prayer in preparation for communion, may be recited by the faithful, but only in Latin and with all joining in the Amen. Its recitation in the vernacular is strictly forbidden.

1 The New Liturgy: A Documentation, 1903-1965, R. Kevin Seasoltz, Herder and Herder NY, 1966.

2 14-c: It is strictly forbidden to say aloud the parts of the proper, ordinary and canon of the Mass together with the priest celebrant, in Latin or in translation, and this applies both to the faithful and to a commentator, with the exceptions laid down in No. 31

Sep 19, 2004

Qui Pridie (Consecration of the Host)

Missale Romanum 1962

Qui pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas, ac venerabiles manus suas: et elevatis oculis in caelum ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens, benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: Accepite, et manducate ex hoc omnes.
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.

Who the day before He suffered, took the bread into His holy and venerable hands: and having raised His eyes to heaven, unto Thee, O God, His Father almighty, giving thanks to Thee, blessed, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye all and eat of this:
FOR THIS IS MY BODY!1

Alternate translations:

Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and with eyes lifted toward heaven, unto Thee, O God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, did bless, break and give unto His disciples, saying: Take, and eat ye all of this: For this is My Body.2

Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and having lifted up His eyes to heaven, to Thee, God, His almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye and eat ye all of this: For this is My Body.3

Missale Romanum 1970

Qui, pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, et elevatis oculis in caelum ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis dicens: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur.

The day before he suffered, he took bread in his sacred hands, and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.4

Mozarabic (First Sunday of Advent):
Hoc est Corpus Meum quod pro vobis tradetur.5
This is My Body, which will be given up for you.

Ambrosian:6
Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis confringetur.
For this is My Body, which will be broken for you.

Divine Liturgy of St. Basil:7
P: “...For this is My Body, which shall be broken for you and for many, to be given for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me.”
C: This is true. Amen.

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:8
P: Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY, which is broken for you for the remission of sins.
C: Amen.

Syriac Antiochean Maronite Liturgy (Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles):9
Ho-no den ee-tow faghro deel dah-lo-fy-koun wah-lof sagee-yeh meh-teq-seh ou-meh-tee-heb lhoo-so-yo dhow-beh wal-ha-yeh dal-‘o-leen ‘olmeen.
This is My Body, which is broken and delivered for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

There are several translation errors by the ICEL. The phrase ‘holy and venerable hands’ (sanctas ac venerabiles manus) is translated as ‘sacred hands’. This translation is surely orthodox in that it introduces nothing contrary to the Catholic faith. The traditional and literal translation of the terms has significant meaning. Sacred does not convey the fullest understanding of the phrase alone. Holy is a synonym with sacred, but neither sacred or holy are synonyms with venerable. That which is venerable is also respected, august, esteemed, honored, revered and admired. Dr. Gihr writes, “Holy and sanctifying, venerable and adorable beyond all expression are the hands of Christ. How often has He raised them in prayer to His Father, and extended them over men to bless them! How these hands were transpierced on the Cross with the most intolerable heat of pain!”10

The word blessed (benedixit) is omitted in the ICEL translation. The blessing at this point does not effect the consecration. That Christ blest the bread is sure, but our sacramental theology is sure that the words of consecration do not consist of this blessing but rather of the words following: “For this is My Body.” The omission therefore is not one that is grave, but still contributes to the inadequacy of the translation. We do not know how or by what ritual Christ imparted the blessing in specifics.11 “Christ did indeed adhere to the Old Testament Paschal rite, as to the selection of time for the institution and the matter of the Eucharist, as also to its breaking and distribution, and as to the thanksgiving and blessing, but He gave this thanksgiving a more sublime meaning and to the blessing a more exalted end, inasmuch as He thanked His Heavenly Father for the benefits bestowed on His holy humanity and on the entire human race in general, as well as in particular for the great grace of the Most Holy Sacrament, decreed and prepared from eternity and now to be instituted by Him, -- and inasmuch as by blessing the bread and wine, He prepared both for the sacramental Consecration at hand, and that, indeed, in this wise, that as Man and Highpriest He prayed for this wonderful Consecration, which He as God, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost, was about to perform.”12

The phrase ‘to You, God, His almighty Father’ (ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem) is translated incorrectly as ‘to you, his almighty Father’. Certainly we know that the Father almighty is God, as evidenced just preceeding the Liturgy of the Eucharist by the recitation of the Creed wherein we profess belief in “God the Father almighty” (Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem). And other various places in the liturgy such as the Gloria and also in the Preface.

Quite apart from the issue of translation, we have at the words of consecration an addition to the Canon of the words “which will be given up for you.” It is a fact that various formulas have been used throughout the history of the Church continuing on until today where the various rites have found their own happy expressions to this great mystery. I’ve provided a few of them (and there are many more). The one most significant is from the Mozarabic Rite celebrated in Toledo, Spain. Our consecratory formula of the bread now expressly follows that of this missal. The Mozarabic liturgy existed from before the time of the Arab conquest of Spain in 712 A.D. It was the liturgical rite celebrated by several great saints, notably St. Isidore.13

1 My Sunday Missal, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman Director of the Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1961.

2 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 633.

3 The New Roman Missal, Rev F. X. Lasance, Christian Book Club of America, 1993 “Faithful reprint of the 1945 Copyright edition of the Fr. Lasance New Roman Missal with appendix and changes of feasts promulgated under the pontificate of His Holiness Pope Pius XII, page 780.

4 Daily Roman Missal, Rev. James Socias, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003, pages 755-756.

5 Since the Middle Ages the Gregorian-Carolingian Roman Rite formula has been used. Text given as taken from Patrologia Latina Volume 85. Mozarabic Missale Mixtum

6 Ordo Missae Ambrosianum

7 Divine Liturgy of St. Basil

8 Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

9 Syriac Antiochean Maronite Liturgy; select The Twelve Apostles from the Anaphora drop down box.

10 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 635.

11 Ibid.

12 Die eucharistiche Wandlung und Epiklese der griechischen und orientalischen Liturgien, Dr. Jos. Theod. Franz, Wurzburg 1880, as found in Dr. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, page 636.

13 The Mass of the Western Rites, Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol

Quam Oblationem

Missale Romanum 1962

Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, ad†scriptam, ra†tam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus, et San†guis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi.

Do Thou, O God, deign to, bless what we offer, and make it approved, effective, right and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may be for our good the Body, and the Blood of Thy dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.1

Alternate translations:

Which oblation do Thou, O God, we beseech Thee, vouchsafe to make in all things blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable: that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.2

And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless, consecrate and approve this our oblation, to perfect it and to render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for us the body and blood of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.3

Missale Romanum 1970

Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus, et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi. (Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)

Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and truth Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son our Lord. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)4

The often repeated criticism of the ICEL translation of this prayer that it somehow expresses Protestant theology of the Eucharist is completely unfounded. The implication by detractors of the phrase “for us” does not take into account that this is the same translation of Rev. Dr. Gihr, Fr. Lassance, and Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman. In fact it is the literal translation of the latin phrase “nobis” which means exactly “for us”. Given that fact, there can be no criticism of the ICEL translation on this point. The additions of “an offering in spirit and truth” are interpolations in that text which seem to me to allude to the prayers which preceeded especially “In spiritu humilitatis”.5 Again I see no reason to oppose this interpolation on purely theological grounds.

“If the oblation is so constituted as to be conformable to Holy Scripture, to the will and command of Christ (Hoc facite), then necessarily it is also an “oblatio rata”6, that is, a true or valid sacrifice 7; for with this presupposition all the features and elements are at hand requisite for the existence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.The contents of the above three words (benedicta, adscripta, rata) are now stated more correctly and emphatically, in this that the Sacrifice is called a “spiritual”, or “reasonable oblation” (oblatio rationabilis). In the liturgies the Eucharist is often designated as a “spiritual sacrifice” (hostia spiritualis) or as “a reasonable and unbloody worship of God”. This expression is borrowed from Holy Scripture; in its liturgical use it refers as well to the way and manner of offering, as to the sacrificial gift, and characterizes it as endowed with life, spirit and reason, in contrast with the Old Testament offerings of irrational animals and inanimate things. The Eucharist is therefore a “reasonable oblation”, because on the altar the living Lamb of God, the God-Man Jesus Christ, is sacrificed, He who is, indeed, the eternal reason, in uncreated and personal wisdom of God.

If the Eucharistic Sacrifice has these four qualities, it is then infallibly and in the highest degree also “pleasing to God”, dear, precious and acceptable to the Heart of God (oblatio acceptabilis). The explanation of the obscure antecedent clause follows or lies in the concluding words, “that it may be made for us the Body and Blood of Christ,” (fiat=transeat in), which denote and implore unequivocally the change of the substance of the matter of the sacrifice. The little word nobis (“for us”), moreover, adds a new idea; for it proves that the Body and Blood of Christ take their place of bread and wine, that is, become presentunder their appearances for us, for our sake, for our salvation and blessing and advantage. For us the Saviour offers Himself on the altar, to us He gives Himself in Holy Communion. Totus mihi datus (Dominus) et totus in meos usus expensus est.8 In like manner the angels announced to the sheperds: “This day is born to you a Savior” (Luke 2, 11)."9

Not only does Rev. Dr. Gihr concur with the implicit sense in which the oblation is an offering in spirit and in truth, so that the ICEL interpolation makes explicit what before only liturgists may have understood, but also debunks totally any pretension of the phrase “for us” bearing a Protestant connotation of the theology of the Eucharist; for him, these words in fact prove that transubstantiation takes place.

1 My Sunday Missal, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman, 1962

2 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 627.

3 The New Roman Missal, Fr. Lassance, 1993 reproduction of the 1945 edition, page 779.

4 Daily Roman Missal, Rev. James Socias, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003, pages 754-755.

5 In spiritu humilitatis et in animo contrito suscipiamur a te, Domine; et sic fiat sacrificium nostrum in conspectu tuo hodie, ut placeat tibi, Domine Deus. (ICEL translation: Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.)

6 Ratus (from reor) = intended; transferred to = determined, valid, true’ legal. – Quod nostro geritur ministerio, ratum habeas, ac si sine nobis manibus tuis idem ageretur (Robert. Paulul. De offic. Eccles. 1, 2, c. 31).(Because we have carried out our office, consider valid, and in fact if without us your hands therefore have tilled.) Translation mine.10

7 Praeterea postulatur, ut per consecrationem fiat rata, i.e. vera; non enim est haec vera sacrificalis oblatio, nisi consecratio valida sit et efficax; quomodo dicere solemus, sacramentum esse ratum, quando vere factum (Suarez 1.c.). (Moreover, we ask, in order that for the consecration to be valid, i.e. true: by no means can we be sure these are true sacrificial offerings, except the consecration be effecacious and valid; in what way are they called perfect, the sacrament to be valid, when truly made?) Translation mine.10

8 Your All for me is given, O Lord and Your All is to my advantage paid out. St. Bernard, translation mine.10

9 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 629.

10 I may have been both too loose and too rigid in my translations, but should have been able to get the main gist of the latin across.

Sep 18, 2004

Hanc Igitur

Missale Romanum 1962

Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae, sed et cunctae familiae tuae, quaesumus Domine, ut placatus accipias: diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi, et in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari: Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Graciously accept, then, we beseech Thee, O Lord, this service of our worship and that of all Thy household. Provide that our days be spent in Thy peace, save us from everlasting damnation, and cause us to be numbered in the flock Thou hast chosen. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.1

Alternate translations:

This oblation, therefore, of our service, and that of Thy whole family, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to accept and to dispose of 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. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.2

Wherefore, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to receive this oblation which we Thy servants, and with us Thy whole family, offer up to Thee: dispose of our days in Thy peace; command that we be saved from eternal damnation and numbered among the flock of Thine elect. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.3

Missale Romanum 1970

Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae, sed et cunctae familiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine, ut placatus accipias: diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi, et in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari: (Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)

Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen: (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)4

The ICEL translation is fairly muddled but still retains the general sense of the Latin text. Among the erroneous translations of terms are: Father for Domine, offering for oblationem, final for aeterna. There is however as sense in which each of these translations can be taken to be correct. The Lord to whom we are offering the oblation is the Father (as understood by the Canon being a continuation of the Preface which is addressed to the Father). An oblation is an offering, in fact oblatus is listed as a past participle of offero by Dr. Traupman in his ‘New College Latin and English Dictionary’.5 Oblation is an english ‘latinism’ which I find preferable because it carries a more easily understood connotation of the sacrificial. Nevertheless, the sacrificial connotation of the prayer is just as easily understood from the context in which it used and the action that is taking place upon the altar. Eternal damnation is quite final because it is damnation without end. Final damnation must also be eternal, the case is closed, judgement is without appeal, is the judgement cannot be repealed then it is everlasting. I still prefer the traditional wording in this instance.

On the meaning of the prayer there seems to be various view points. Dr. Gihr and the 1962 Sunday Missal understand it in one way while the ICEL and Fr. Lasance seem to understand it in another way. The latter grouping seems to understand ‘oblationem servitutis nostrae’ or at least the oblation therein mentioned as referring to the gifts of the altar. Whereas the former, and in my opinion more insightful opinion, understands the term more literally as the ‘oblation of our servitude’. Dr. Gihr explains it thus: “The expression ‘oblation of our servitude’ may be applied to those who are present, that is, to those who most intimately take part in the celebration of Mass; the addition ‘as also of Thy whole family’ to all the others, who are absent. Or we may consider the first clause as especially designating the consecrated ministers of the altar, that is, the priests, or all clerics, in which case by the family of God the believing people are to be understood, but in particular those faithful who by actual participation unite in the celebration of the Mass. However, this does not exhaust the full sense: it says ‘the oblation of our servitude’, (oblatio servitutis nostrae), which would signify more than ‘the offering which we Thy servants (nos servi) present,’ which is the expression used immediately after the Elevation. The holy Mass is called ‘the oblation of our servitude,’ that is, the offering that we and all the members of the Church make, in order to acknowledge the absolute dominion of God over all that is created, and to express our profound submission to it.6

Dr. Gihr goes on further to explain that the oblation here spoken of is the ‘veneration, homage and acknowledgement’; that ‘worship which is due to Him alone’ because ‘sacrifice is the chief act of religion, or, what amounts to the same thing, of divine worship’. Now if I understand Dr. Gihr correctly then while this prayer more literally concerns the sacrifice of the people of God and not only in reference to the gifts of the altar themselves; it is here where the faithful are urged in explicit terms to join their own particular sacrifice of self to that of the perfect Sacrifice of Calvary about to be made present on the altar at the consecration of the gifts. Understood in this fuller sense, the oblation is of both, but foremost of the only perfect offering made to the Father through the complete Self-sacrifice of His Son upon the Cross. I find this explanation much more satisfying, though perhaps far to liberal with the literal meaning of the text. Given the explanation of the prayer it seems to me that none of the English translations really captures the fullest meaning of the Latin prayer, and yet all are capable of such a mystical understanding, which does not contradict the literal sense of the vernacular.

Sep 17, 2004

Communicantes

Missale Romanum 1962

Communicates, et memoriam venerates in primis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae, Genitricis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi: sed et beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri et Pauli, Andreae, Iacobi, Ioannis, Thomae, Iacobi, Philippi, Bartholomei, Matthaei, Simonis et Thaddaei, Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Ioannis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damianis: et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis, precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protentionis tuae muniamur auxilio. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

In the unity of holy fellowship we observe the memory first of the glorious and ever virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and God, Jesus Christ; next that of blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin, and of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus; of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all Thy saints, by whose merits and prayers grant that we may be always fortified by the help of Thy protection. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.1

In communion with and honoring the memory, especially of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our Lord Jesus Christ; as also of Thy blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Xystus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and all Thy Saints; by whose merits and prayers grant that we may in all things be made secure by the aid of Thy protection. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.2
Having communion with and venerating the memory, first, of the glorious Mary, ever a virgin, mother of Jesus Christ, our God and our Lord: likewise of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus; of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all Thy saints: for the sake of whose merits and prayers do Thou grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of Thy protection. Through the same Christ, our Lord.3
Missale Romanum 1970

Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes, in primis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae, Genertricis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi: sed et beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petru et Pauli, Andreae, (Iacobi, Ioannis, Thomae, Iacobi, Philippi, Bartholomaei, Matthaei, Simonis et Thaddaei: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Ionnis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damiani) et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio. (Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)

In union with the whole Church we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph her husband, the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian) and all the saints. May their merits and prayers gain us your constant help and protection. (Through Christ out Lord. Amen.)4
In this case I find the ICEL translation rather a good one, with the exception of the omission of ‘glorious’ (gloriosae) in reference to the Blessed Virgin. Other terms not translated into English but necessarily implied in the passages are those of ‘primis’ and ‘concedas’ (first, grant). That we honor Mary first of all is implied by her place as the first of whom we honor in the list of saints. That God grant us our pleas should be understood from the prayer itself for the merits and prayers of the saints to result in gaining for us the constant help and protection of God. The other differences are that those words enclosed in parenthesis may be omitted at recitation. This shortens or simplifies the list of the saints and removes the doxology (Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.) In the former instance this serves to 'save time' though I can't see any obvious reason as to why the choice for exclusion was made after the name of St. Andrew. In the latter instance (omission of the doxology), I assume this is to remove the sense of format that the preceeding prayers (Te Igitur, Memento Domine, Communicantes) form one prayer instead of being a cohesive unit with all of the following prayers and as such unifying the whole Eucharistic prayer. My opinion is that this is simply stylistic nonsense, a decade of a Rosary is made up of 12 prayers (1 Our Father, 10 Hail Mary's, 1 Glory Be) each prayer is seperated from the others with the conlusion of "Amen," yet the decade consists in a single prayer of contemplation. However, these changes are fully orthodox and in no way affect the efficacy of the prayers.

Memento Domine

Missale Romanum 1962

Memento, Domine, famulorum, famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se, suisque omnibus: pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis, et incolumitatis suae: tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo, vivo et vero.

Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants and handmaids N. and N. and of all here present, whose faith is known to Thee, and likewise their devotion, on whose behalf we offer unto Thee, or who themselves offer unto Thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves and all their own, for the good of their souls, for their hope of salvation and deliverance from all harm, and who pay Thee the homage which they owe Thee, eternal God, living and true.1

Alternate translations:

Remember, O Lord, Thy servants and handmaids, N. and N. and all here present, whose faith and devotion are known to thee; for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee this Sacrifice of praise for themselves and all pertaining them, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and safety, and who pay their vows unto Thee, the eternal God, living and true.2

Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, N. and N., and of all here present, whose faith and devotion are known to Thee, for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise, for themselves, their families, and their friends, for the salvation of their souls and the health and welfare they hope for, and who now pay their vows to Thee, God eternal, living, and true.3

Missale Romanum 1970

Memento, Domine, famulorum, famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificiam laudis, pro se, suisque omnibus: pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae: tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo, vivo et vero.

Remember, Lord, your people, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. Remember all of us gathered here before you. You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you. We offer this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us. We pray to you, our living and true God, for our well-being and redemption.4

This prayer seems substantially represented by the ICEL translation. Though it is not an entirely literal rendition of the prayer, the English does carry much of the same meaning so far as purpose is considered. There are however some wording choices that are better demonstrated by a more literal translation. Especially, the phrase pro redemptione animarum suarum which is better translated as ‘for the redemption of their souls’. A second phrase that is simply not rendered at all in the ICEL text is tibique reddunt vota sua, ‘and who pay their vows to Thee’. The ICEL text has ‘We pray to you’, which captures the truth of the action, but not it’s interconnection with what has been previously said in the Momento. In my estimation the 1962 text of the represents the idea of the passage better even than Dr. Gihr or Fr. Lassance. The idea is intimately united with what has gone before pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis. The vow of which Fr. Lassance and Dr. Gihr have understood from vota, carries with it the idea that through baptism a vow was made (either by ourselves or in our name, subsequently taken up at our confirmation) which obligates us to the Eucharistic sacrifice and offering thereof at the Altar of God. "Votum does not always in the strict sense of the word signify a vow, but it has in liturgical language a far more comprehensive meaning ... Already at baptism we receive precious gifts and glorious promises, and in return we solemnly vowed to die to the world and to sin, to live only for God and heaven. These holy vows we pay at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, inasmuch as we offer not only the Eucharistic Victim, but in union with it we offer ourselves also, our body and our soul, our prayers and our homage, our labors and trials, our sufferings and our joys, as gifts due to the Lord."5

1 My Sunday Missal, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman, 1962.

2 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 587.

3 The New Roman Missal, Fr. Lassance, 1993 reproduction of the 1945 edition, page 777-778.

4 St. Joseph's Sunday Missal, 2003.

5 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, pages 604-605.

Te Igitur

Missale Romanum 1962

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas, et benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N., et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of Thee and entreat Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord to deem acceptable and bless, these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unspotted oblations. which we offer unto Thee in the first instance for Thy holy and Catholic Church, that Thou wouldst deign to give her peace and protection, to unite and guide her the whole world over; together with Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our bishop, and all true believers, who cherish the catholic and apostolic faith.1

Various renderings of the Te Igitur:

Therefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world; as also for thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.2

We, therefore, humbly pray and beseech Thee, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, that Thou wouldst accept and bless these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which, in the first place, we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church, which Thou mayst vouchsafe to pacify, guard, unite and govern throughout the world: together with Thy servant N., our Pope, N., our Bishop, as also all orthodox believers and promoters of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.3

Missale Romanum 1970

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N., et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.

We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son, Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice, We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles. 4

This is the first prayer of the Roman Canon, referred to as the Te Igitur. Notice immediately that the difference between the two versions is not in the official Latin, but rather in the translation into the vernacular. A couple of points might be mentioned here with regards to this translation. First, it was traditional in the Altar Missal and even most missals for the laity to decorate this prayer with the ‘T’ of Te igitur, as a cross. This was a visual aid to recognize the action that was being intended, the making present of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This artistry could have been retained, had the traditional translations of the Latin-English missals been used which begin this prayer with ‘Therefore’. Secondly, the English version changes the tone of the prayer. The ICEL text draws a continuation from the praise and thanksgiving of the Preface, while the Latin original actually changes the mood to one of supplicants who are humbly begging and pleading the most merciful Father for acceptance and blessing of the gifts being presented for consecration. According to ICEL notes, the reason for their translation was, “To translate clementissime directly would violate English usage, which rarely attaches an adjective to a vocative; the meaning of clementissime is carried into the English by the tone of the first two lines.”5 “Both of these claims are, in fact, untrue. English usage is actually most hospitable to adjectives attached to vocatives, since nearly every letter written in the language begins with one: "Dear so-and-so." The "tone of the first two lines" is dominated by thanksgiving in ICEL’s text; there is no allusion to God’s mercy or a suggestion that we might need it. While the English translation seeks to establish continuity between the Canon and what immediately precedes, the Latin begins with a change of mood. In the Preface we have thanked and praised God for his goodness already shown to us and, in consequence (igitur, "therefore"), we find ourselves able in the Canon to implore his mercy for the present and future.”6

The reason for the differences are from a viewpoint of style. Now I disagree with this principle, because I think that the Roman style should be allowed to show through in the translation, because as Latin Rite Catholics, the mood, rhythms and stylistic devices of the Latin are a part of our Catholic heritage. Let me note again, that while I disagree with the principle of translation used, I see no reason to impugn the inaccuracy of this translation with denials of any theological distinctions. Imploring is asking, oblations are gifts that are offered though the preciseness of translation is what will convey the mood of the original.

The differences in tone and preciseness of translation do not necessarily point to a doctrinal deficiency. With regards to the theological and doctrinal value of humility and supplication to a merciful God the ICEL version of the Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI is not lacking, though not as repetitive as the older missal. The humility with concern to the priest's and the faithful's disposition is supplied in the prayer of the offertory "Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.". Thus we see that the offering that is continued in the Te Igitur is one of humbleness and contrition. That mercifulness is an attribute of God's is well known and also supplied in the ICEL translation in earlier prayers, especially as part of the Penitential Rite: 'May almighty God have mercy on us...' The very purpose of the Penitential Rite is to prepare ourselves for the sacrifice that takes place in the Mass, and to ask forgiveness for our shortcomings from our God who is merciful. This further demonstrates how the ICEL's english version should be understood in light of orthodox theology, though it does not alleviate the fact that the ICEL's translation is not a precise or accurate work, which can and should be improved upon.

To that end, with the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam, the latest ICEL translation submitted (but not yet approved) gives this rendering of the same verses: “Most merciful Father, we therefore humbly pray and implore you through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, to accept and bless + these gifts, these offerings, these holy and undefiled sacrifices...”7 This certainly goes a long way in satisfying my personal tastes, though for some who simply do not wish for the liturgy to be said in English, I’m sure it won’t please them. Though to make one final point, the English translation of the Te igitur in my grandfathers 1962 My Sunday Missal isn’t precisely accurate either, though it is certainly superior to that of our current ICEL text in conveying the character, tone, and meaning of the Latin original.

Supplementary Data: 8

igitur: then, therefore, accordingly

clementissime: most gently, most mildly, most kindly, most compassionately

supplices: kneeling, on one's knees, in entreaty, humble, submissive, suppliant

rogamus: to ask, ask for, beg, request

petimus: to demand, require, exact; to ask for; to claim, lay claim to, sue for; to beg entreat etc.

habeas: to have, to hold, to posess

dona: gift, present; votive offering, sacrifice

munera: to reward, honor, present

illibata: undiminished, unimpaired, intact

1 My Sunday Missal, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman

2 The New Roman Missal, Fr. Lassance, 1993 reproduction of the 1945 edition, page 777.

3 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 586-587.

4 The New Roman Missal, Rev F. X. Lasance, Christian Book Club of America, 1993 “Faithful reprint of the 1945 Copyright edition of the Fr. Lasance New Roman Missal with appendix and changes of feasts promulgated under the pontificate of His Holiness Pope Pius XII, pages 746-747.

5 The Roman Canon in English Translation Together with their Notes on the Text (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1967), 28. (As found in www.liturgysociety.org Antiphon Volume 5, Number 2, Bruce Harbert).

6 Antiphon Volume 5, Number 2, Ancient Rhetoric and Modern Prayer: The Case for the Roman Canon, Bruce Harbert.

7 Roman Missal Translation Update: Bishops Receive ICEL Missal Texts; Translation Norms, Online Edition - Vol. X, No. 1: March 2004, Helen Hull Hitchcock, Adoremus Bulletin Vol. X, No. 1: March 2004

8 The New College Latin & English Dictionary, Revised and Enlarged, John C Traupman, Ph.D., 1966 and Revised 1995.

Preliminary Remarks on the Roman Canon

The difference between the Latin versions of the Roman Canon and Eucharistic Prayer I are minimal. There is the change in the prayer of consecration and an additional response immediately afterwards. The prayer over the bread takes a form that is restorative of various traditions (Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites, as well as the primitive Roman Rite according to St. Hippolytus). The prayer over the chalice has the words ‘mysterium fidei’ removed from within the context of the consecration. These words are said after the consecration, to which the people respond according to one of the various options.

The arguments set forth by detractors can be summarized into these categories: intention, authority and orthodoxy. On the basis of these arguments opponents to the 1970 Missale Romanum intend to establish the invalidity, doubtful validity, or valid but sacrilegious character of this order of the Mass. The prime answer to each of these objections is that of papal primacy. That Pope Paul VI is the principal author of intent for this revision of the Roman Rite is certain. He commissioned the study and subsequent revision of the Mass. He approved the consequent text and promulgated this Ordo Missae into ecclesiastical law. Therefore, all Catholics may be certain of the intent and authority of the promulgation of this text for Church use because the Pope has final juridical power on all matters of discipline for the universal Church, and especially for that of the Roman Church, his patriarchal territory. As to orthodoxy, we may be certain also of this due to the charism of infallibility granted to the See of Peter, at least as regards the sacramental formula, which is the essence of the Mass.

As regards the inaccuracy of the translation and the obfuscation of certain texts, that must be readily admitted. It has been remarked by liturgical historians and various experts that the distinguishing characteristics of the Roman liturgy are its brevity, conciseness, solemnity, etc. With the exceptions of texts that were newly added (i.e. Eucharistic Prayers II-IV, Prefaces and various other texts), there was already a long-standing tradition of translations from the use of Latin-English Missalettes. To be sure these translations varied in many instances from that of Fr. Lassance’s 1945 Daily Missal to that of the 1962 My Sunday Missal. As regards the updating of the language used, there are at least two things to be considered. In every instance where the Catholic Church has commissioned the use of the vernacular for the celebration of the Liturgy, the vernacular has become over time a sacralized language. The principle of conservation is demonstrated in the Greek (which was the first vernacular language of the Church after Hebrew and Aramaic), Latin (which was also a vernacular language introduced after a couple centuries of the Greek liturgy), especially it is demonstrated in the Slavonic liturgies which Church Slavonic now bears little resemblance to modern spoken Slavonic.

To understand this principle, we need only look at how most of us who speak English still pray the Lord’s Prayer: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy name.” The principle of conservation has kept many of us from modernizing this prayer to its modern day equivalent “Our Father, who is in heaven, holy is Your name.” In the time immediately following Vatican II and especially with the permission to celebrate the Mass entirely in the vernacular, there was a rush to modernize everywhere it was allowed. I only hope for the rediscovery of our many traditions, especially coinciding with a more authentic translation of the Latin Mass into English and a restoration of devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which so many of us as parishioners have obscured in our own hearts.

Preface

The Preface is an introduction to the Eucharistic Prayer. After the salutation of the Priest "The Lord be with you," the congregation responds "And also with you". Here we have an incorrect translation of the Latin text "Et cum spiritu tuo." More literally rendered the text should read "And with your spirit." I have great hopes that this will come to fruition because of the document Liturgiam Authenticam1 and the subsequent rejection of the English translation of the 4th edition of the Roman Missal by the Holy See. Nonetheless, it is observed that the vernacular translations of the Liturgy are to be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.2 At the words “Sursum corda” the Priest uplifts his hands "expressing the longing for that which is exalted above us, that is, for the heavenly and eternal."3 "The meaning of the words is most comprehensive: they signify that we should withdraw all the faculties of our soul from what is earthly, and consecrate them exclusively to intercourse with God and divine things."4 St. Cyril of Jerusalem teaches, "No one should be present in such a manner, that, although he may say with the lips: ‘We have lifted our hearts to the Lord’, his thoughts are directed to the cares of this life. We should indeed think of God at all times; but if this be impossible, on account of human frailty, we should take it to heart most especially at least during the Holy Sacrifice."5

As previously noted, the Roman Liturgy has contained various numbers of Prefaces throughout its history. From the time of St. Pius V it has contained a total of eleven, and of these they date to St. Gregory the Great, except that of the Blessed Virgin Mary which dates to Urban II. Eastern liturgies on the other hand have maintained but a single Preface in their liturgies. "In addition to the ordinary Preface, the Roman Missal contains ten others which have a special festal character, since sundry mysteries of the ecclesiastical year are therein prominently set forth as special motives of praise and thanksgiving. In the liturgy of the Church is conspicuously set forth the love of gratitude toward God; the sentiment of fervent thanksgiving for the salvation given us by Christ, for the grace of faith, for the glory of the redemption, for the blessed hope of heaven, day after day finds its touching expression, as beautiful as it is joyful, in the Preface of the Holy Mass. But when on the great feasts of the ecclesiastical year, the mysteries of sacred history, the great deeds and benefits of divine love seem to reveal themselves more lively and brightly to the soul and to move the heart in the fullness of their beauty and glory, -- then it is that the hymn of thanksgiving and praise rises to the greatest heights of enthusiasm and jubilation.”6

From this understanding of the Preface the Church in our times has added many additional Prefaces. “The reason why so many Prefaces are included in the Roman Missal is that they set forth in different ways the motives of the thanksgiving expressed in the Eucharistic Prayer; also they bring out more dearly various aspects of the mystery of salvation."7

For these texts I do not have their Latin originals. I count for the first Eucharistic Prayer a total of 48 possible Prefaces. They are two for Advent, three for Christmas, one for the Epiphany of the Lord, one for the Baptism of the Lord, two for Lent in General, one each for the Sundays of Lent (proper), one for Palm Sunday, one for Holy Thursday, five for Easter, two for the Ascension, one for Pentecost Sunday, eight for Sundays in Ordinary Time, one for the Holy Trinity, one for the Triumph of the Cross, two for the Holy Eucharist, one for the Presentation at the Temple, one for Christ the King, one for the Dedication of St. John Lateran, one for the Blessed Virgin, one for the Assumption, one for Sts. Peter and Paul, one for All Saints, five for Christian Death.8

One of my favorites is for Holy Eucharist I (P47):

“Father, all-powerful, and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks through Jesus Christ our Lord. He is the true and eternal priest who established this unending sacrifice. He offered himself as a victim for our deliverance and taught us to make this offering in his memory. As we eat his body, which you gave for us, we grow in strength. As we drink his blood, which he poured out for us, we are washed clean. Now, with the angels and archangels, and the whole company of heaven, we sing the unending hymn of your praise:"9

Also for comparison with the 1962 Roman Missal, the English translation of the Preface for the Feast of the Holy Trinity (P43):

“Father, all-powerful and ever-living God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks. We joyfully proclaim our faith in the mystery of your Godhead. You have revealed your glory as the glory also of your Son and of the Holy Spirit: three Persons equal in majesty, undivided in splendor, yet one Lord, one God, ever to be adored in your everlasting glory. And so, with all the choirs of angels in heaven we proclaim your glory and join in their unending hymn of praise:"10

I will close our contemplation of the Preface with the words of the GIRM (1970): “[One of the constituent parts of the Eucharistic Prayer is that of thanksgiving] this finds its clearest expression in the Preface, wherein the priest, in the name of all the people of God, offers praise and thanksgiving to God the Father for the whole work of redemption or for some particular aspect of it, according to the day, feast, or season."11

1 Liturgiam authenticam, Sacred Congregation For Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, May 7, 2001. Of particular interest is the instructions given concerning the translation and approbation of sacramental formulae, as found in Chapter 3, Section 3, Nm 85. 85. “As regards the translation of the sacramental formulae, which the Congregation for Divine Worship must submit to the judgement of the Supreme Pontiff, ...” This has been the de facto process involved in the translation of sacramental formulae from the approved Latin text into vernacular translations where the vernacular in some way deviates from the Latin text. See note below. Cf. SCDW, 25 October 1973: AAS 66 (1974) 98-99; SCDW 5 June 1976: Notitiae 12 (1976) 300-302.

2 Insauratio Liturgica, 25 January, 1974, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (SCDF). This is especially noted with regards to sacramental formula hence the SCDF declared, “When a vernacular translation of a sacramental formula is submitted to the Holy See for approval, it examines it carefully. When it is satisfied that it expresses the meaning intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it be understood ... et seq (see above text). Further more in the publication Notitiae (a monthly publication of the SCDW) it is noted that translations of the essential formulae of the sacraments are submitted to the Holy Father himself for approval. Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post-conciliar Documents, Gen. Ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. 1981 edition.

3 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 555.

4 Ibid., page 555.

5 Ibid., page 556, quoting St. Cyril in his Mystag. Catechism n.4.

6 Ibid., page 569. The Prefaces for the 1962 Roman Missal are the Nativity, the Epiphany, the Quadragesima, the Passion and Cross, the Paschate, the Ascension, the Penetcost, the Feast of the Holy Trinity, the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Feast of the Apostles.

7 General Instruction on the Roman Missal, Ch VII, Art II, Nm 321. (1970 edition).

8 Daily Roman Missal, Rev. James Socias, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003, pages 694-745.

9 Ibid., page 722.

10 Ibid., page 719.

11 General Instruction on the Roman Missal, Ch II, Art. II, Sec C, Nm 55(a) (1970 edition).

Offertory Prayers

In the Offertory of the 1962 Missal the priest offers the bread and wine to God referring to them already as the ‘immaculatam hostiam’ and ‘calicem salutaris’ before the consecration has taken place. In point of fact, they are as of yet only bread and wine, though many theologians have justified these terms as properly looking forward to the consecration. The Carthusian Ordo Missae is entirely missing any of the prayers of offering. It begins simply with the prayer of preparation of the Chalice (mixing of water and wine) and continues straight to the washing of the hands. The single prayer of offering seems to be composed of ‘In spiritu humilitatis, et in animo contrito suscipiamur a te Domine: et sic fiat sacrificium nostrum, in conspectu tup hodie, ut placeat tibi, Domine Deus.’ The Dominican Ordo Missae has the offertory in a shorter form than the 1962 Missal.1

“The priest stands at the altar as the representative and authorized agent of the Church, therefore he offers the Host, as well as the Chalice, in the name of all the faithful, and they, especially those who are present, offer in conjunction with the priest. St. Cyprian says, that the Christians assemble in common with the brethern and celebrate with the priest of God the Divine Sacrifice (in unum cum fratribus convenimus et sacrificia divina cum Dei sacredote celebramus. De Orat domin. C 4.) Already the Apostle (1 Cor 10:16) writes “The chalice of benediction which we bless,” that is, consecrate; in this the faithful are included, who assist at the Sacrifice, and, by the Amen they say, make the prayers of the priest, as it were, their own.”2

This theological point (which has always been believed) is made more prominent by the procession of the gifts to the altar that takes place at the hands of the faithful in the 1970 Missal. For “in ancient times the Church permitted the faithful in general to bring bread and wine to the house of God and to place them on the altar, and the priest accepted them as well for the Sacrifice as for his daily support.”3 This is made clear in the Offertory of the 1970 Missal by the term ‘offerimus’ used in the offerings of both the bread and the wine. Whereas in the 1962 Missal this point had to be explicated in catechesis, it is now made apparent in the text itself.4 In the 1970 Missal, the ancient tradition of the Church is without doubt restored to the Roman Rite.

“The preparation of the offering, that is, the pouring of the wine into the chalice and the mixing of the water in it, took place, in the Middle ages, usually before the prayers at the foot of the altar, that is, immediately after the priest had ascended the altar, and also the bread and the wine were then offered to God not one after the other, but both together by a single prayer. (Cf. Dominican Rite)”5

The prayers Orate, fratres and Suscipiat Dominus said by the priest and the faithful respectively are the same in the 1970 and 1962 Missals. The Dominican Rite includes the Oratre, fratres, but with no prescribed response from the faithful, and a different form.6 The Carthusian Rite, however, completely changes the intent of the prayer that asks not that the Lord accepts the Sacrifice from the hands of the priest, but rather that the faithful pray for the sins of the priest.7 The Carthusian Rite also omits any prescribed response from the faithful.

The prayer Veni Sanctificator is entirely missing in the 1970 Missal as also with the Carthusian and Dominican Rites. The prayers for the washing of the hands are different between all these mentioned Rites. In the final analysis, the forms of blessing before the actual Canon in the 1970 Missal bear striking resemblance to the Jewish Sabbath meal. The blessing of the bread was said in this manner: “Blessed be thou, Lord our God, who bringest forth the bread from the earth” and that of the wine: “Blessed be thou, Lord our God, who hast created the fruit of the vine.”8 The prayers of benediction in the 1970 Missal seem also to draw upon the Didache as a source document9, though because of a lack of resources I am not certain on either of these points, but merely offering similarities between the texts.

Either way, Rev. Dr. Gihr concludes that “this preliminary sanctification of the Eucharistic elements, if not essentially necessary, is yet in the highest degree just and proper.”10 For this position he quotes Dionysius Carthusianus from Expos. Missae Art 18, the text of which appears in a footnote in the original Latin therefore I have provided it in hopes that someone may be able to translate it accurately.11 I’m inclined to agree with the position here on the basis of the omission of certain texts in approved rites, that while ‘just and proper’ these prayers are not essential to the Sacrifice.

It is also my opinion that the 1970 Missal in all probability restores to the liturgy a closer resemblance to ancient Church tradition, if not several of the texts and ceremony of the Offertory itself, then at least a clearer manifestation of the significance of the teaching that the faithful assist at Mass. However, to be fair to the 1962 Missal, the clear statement of intention of offering sacrifice signified in the words ‘hostiam’, ‘calicem salutaris’, ‘oblationem’, and ‘sacrificium’ is not present with the same repetitiveness which leaves no doubt as to the intention of the offering. This belief can be shown in the 1970 Missal, for the ‘offerimus’ must refer to the ‘panis vitae’ and the ‘potus spiritalis’. In the latter case it is explicit that through ‘mystery of the water and wine’ we come to share in the divinity of Christ. Similarly both these gifts are truly ‘sacrificium nostrum’, ‘meum ac vestrum sacrificium’ and ‘sacrificium de manibus tuis’. So that it cannot be interpreted in any other manner that the gifts of the altar are a sacrifice offered by the faithful at the hands of the priest. In either Missal we are left with points that must be thoroughly explained by catechesis. Though in neither do we find either of these two beliefs of the Church absent.

1 P: Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Taking up the chalice with the paten and host thereon, he says: Calicem salutaris accipiam et nomen Domini invocabo. And then: Susipe sancta Trinitas.... Dominican Ordo Missae, 1948.

2 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 525 and footnote 1.

3 Ibid., page 506.

4 The 1962 Missal has Offero – I offer- for the offering of the Host and Offerimus – We offer- for the offering of the Chalice.

5 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 514 footnote 1. The blessing follows a simple form. The server says Benedicte (Bless) and the priest responds “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti” and the server responds, “Amen.”

6 Oratre fratres, ut meum ac vestrum pariter in conspectu Domini sit acceptum sacrificium.

7 Oratre fratres pro me peccatore ad Dominum Deum nostrum.

8 Gerhard Rauschen, Ph.D., S.T.D., Eucharist and Penance: In the First Six Centuries of the Church, 1st ed 1908, 2nd ed 1910, Translated from German 1913, page 107.

9 Didache, c. 10.; “...but us thou hast blessed with spiritual food and drink...” as found in Raschen, page 101.

10 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 514, in reference to the Missal of Pius V, though the same position would certainly hold true for the 1970 Missal as well.

11 “Per prolationem sacrorum verborum et sigua crucis panis et vinum aptantur et quasi meliorantur, ut sint condigna materia, quae in corpus et sanguinem Christi convertatur. Si enim vestes et templum ac vasa ecclesiae benedicuntur et sanctificatur, ut sint apta instrumenta divini obsequii, quanto rationabilius est, panem et vinum ante consecrationem benedici, ut sint apta materia transsubstantiationis supermirabilis atque diviniae. Nam et aliorum sacramentorum materiae propter reverentiam sacramenti ante usum suum sanctificatur, ut aqua baptismi vel chrisma seu oleum.” Ibid., page 514.

Sep 16, 2004

Traditionalism?

There are many items pointed out by tradionalists against the Mass of post-Vatican II. They point to a lack of authority on the parts of the Council and Popes involved to actually effect changes in the Rite of the Mass. They list also numerous errors in translations, and omissions in the Latin, that they purport renders the Modern Roman Rite invalid. Many books have been written on this controversial subject both in the positive and negative and to touch on all such concerns would be impossible in a discussion such as this, much less in a singular post.

I believe that the major issues are the legality of the Modern Roman Rite and the validity of the Eucharistic Sacrament therein. This is not an issue that should be lightly approached by anyone, as it may be an occasion of grave concerns and scandal on the parts of some, and thereby cast doubts upon the Catholic Faith. Let me state clearly, that there is no cause for any to worry on this matter. The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith stands as it always has, undefiled and complete- once for all delivered to the Saints.

We, who remain in communion with the Holy See of Rome, stand our grounds with the Fathers in maintaining and proclaiming that same faith. We count on our side St. Jerome, who though not of sure mind on the Deuterocanonical Scriptures, placed his trust in the Bishop of Rome and included them in his Latin translation. We count also St. Augustine, who placed his faith in the very scriptures themselves, upon the authority of the Catholic Church. Indeed, everyone who remains in communion with Rome stands with a litany of saints on their side. Faithful investigation of the matter and prayerful reflection will always lead to Rome, the guarantor of the Doctrines and Dogmas which she proclaims to be binding on the conscience of all the faithful.

The first objection to the Modern Roman Rite is the document Quo Primum of Pius V, promulgated on 14 July, 1570. The basic argument is that the Bull promulgates the Tridentine Rite of the Mass in perpetuity (forever) and allows for no changes or modifications whatsoever to the Missal as promulgated. The facts of history show that no succeeding Pope ever took the Bull to be binding on their own Apostolic authority in the way traditionalist understand it. Following are documents by Popes who did change the Missal in various ways. This is enough to prove that the force of Quo Primum was that no one except the reigning Pope might make such changes.

Cum Sanctissimum, Clement VIII, 7 July 1604
Si Quid Est, Urban VIII, 2 Sep 1634
Divino Afflatu, Pius X, 1 Nov 1911
Rubricarum Instructum, John XXIII, 25 July 1960

There are those who prefer the Classical Roman Rite to the Modern Roman Rite. They claim that they have the right to celebrate or assist at the mass according to the previous rite in ‘perpetuity’. Currently under Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II has granted and encouraged permission for them to celebrate the right under indult from their Bishop. This, however, is another argument and does not pertain here. What is particular to this discussion is that after the promulgation of Quo Primum, several Popes did change the Rite in varying degrees, and that therefore the invalidity of the Modern Roman Rite as to it’s legal right to be promulgated cannot be maintained upon the Bull of Pius V, Quo Primum. And further evidence in this conclusion is given by the Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapter 2 – the very council for whom Pius V promulgated the Classical Roman Rite. The Council claims for the Catholic Church the right, in the dispensation of the sacaraments, to determine or change whatever she may judge most expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments; and “this power has always been hers.”

The second objection is that the sacrament of the Eucharist confected in the Modern Roman Rite Mass is invalid. This objection comes in various forms. That the Latin version is invalid because of omission of certain words. That the English version is invalid for improper translations. Some will tell you that the Modern Roman Rite consecration is definitely invalid, some that it is probably invalid, and still others that it is possibly invalid, and some will only cast aspersions upon it as somehow dubious.

The technical matters of whether a sacrament is confected have to do with form, matter, and intent. Form according to the previously cited session of the Council of Trent is what the Church says it is. The matter is laid out according to instructions and is not of itself due to the Modern Roman Rite as to whether it is licit or valid. The Classical Roman Rite of itself enjoys no more protection against invalid matter than the Modern Roman Rite. Intent is of itself due to the celebrant, who if faithful to what the Church intends, then does properly confect a sacrament.

On the subject of form, traditionalists will point out that the English translation of the consecration of the wine translates pro multis as ‘for all’. Here I will provide for you the corresponding texts of the Classical Roman Rite and the Modern Roman Rite.

Classical:
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 COVENANT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

Modern:
HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINES MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI,QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.

THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WIIL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL (*MEN) SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN
* Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation II includes this word.

Detractors of the I.C.E.L. translation immediately point to the translation of pro multis as ‘for all (men)’ as invalidating the consecration. Several points can be made on this:
The translation is not necessarily heretical in that the translation 'for all' can be explained as referring to the objective redemption, whereas a translation reading ‘the many’ would have to be explained as referring to the subjective redemption.

The objection raised that pro multis is more properly translated as ‘the many’ means that the addition to the consecration formula ‘for all (men)’ invalidates the consecration because of the addition to the formula of words that Christ did not speak. This line of reasoning invalidates the consecration formula in the Classical Roman Rite as well for the addition of the words mysterium fidei.

The objection that the omission of the words in the Latin, mysterium fidei, invalidate the consecration, is answered that these words are not part of the essential formula for valid consecration. This is obvious in that Eastern Rites do not include these words.
Change of the words do not ipso facto invalidate the consecration, unless changed outside of the approval of the Church. There are experts that find that the words ‘This is my body’/’This is my blood’ are all that is essentially needed for consecration. Again, it is enough that the Church approves the Latin and the various translations for consecration. We are therefore sure that the form is correct.

This is made abundantly clear when one considers the various approved rites other than the Modern Rite: Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Ethiopian, Chaldean (Syro-Malabar), Assryian, Byzantine, and the valid consecrations of the Eastern Orthodox.

In conclusion I will put forth the words of Paul VI in an address given on 19 Nov, 1969. “But let us be clear on this point: none of the substance of our traditional Mass has been changed. Some might get the wrong impression from a particular ceremony or rubric that has been added, as if this involved or implied an alteration or diminution of the truths that have been acquired once for all and authoritatively sanctioned as part of the Catholic faith. They might think that the correspondence between the law of praying, lex orandi, and the law of believing, lex credendi, has been compromised as a result. But that is definitely not the case- first of all, because the rite and its rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate.”

Now let me be clear, Catholics celebrate only one Mass. The offering to God the Father on all altars in the Catholic world of the hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam (a pure Victim, a holy Victim, an unblemished Victim). It is this offering of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, made present to the Father that makes the Catholic Mass united and one with all other celebrations across the world, regardless of the rite in which this offering is made.

Sancta Liturgia