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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment