Aug 30, 2005

Commentary on Psalm 22(21) by St. Robert Bellarmine

Exposition of Psalm 22 (21)
St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine


1 “O God, my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my sins.”

David speaks here in the person of Christ hanging on the cross, in the height of his suffering, as appears from Matt. 27, in which we read that the Redeemer, just before he expired, exclaimed: “O God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The words, “Look upon me,” are not in the Hebrew; they were added by the Septuagint, for explanation sake. When Christ complains of having been forsaken by God, we are not to understand that he was forsaken by the Second Person, or that there was a dissolution of the Hypostatic Union, or that he lost the favor and friendship of the Father; but he signifies to us that God permitted his human nature to undergo those dreadful torments, and to suffer and ignominious death, from which he could, if he chose, most easily deliver him. Nor did such complaints proceed either from impatience or ignorance, as if Christ were ignorant of the cause of his suffering, or was not most willing to bear such abandonment in his suffering; such complaints were only a declaration of his most bitter sufferings. And whereas, through the whole course of his passion, with such patience did our Lord suffer, as not to let a single groan or sigh escape him, so now, lest the bystanders may readily believe that he was rendered impassible by some superior power; therefore, when his last moments were nigh, he protests that he is true man, truly passible; forsaken by his Father in his sufferings, the bitterness and acuteness of which he then intimately felt. “O God, my God;” looking upon himself as a mere servant, he addresses the Father as his God, because, at that very moment, he was worshipping him as the true God, offering to him the most perfect sacrifice that ever had been offered, the sacrifice of his body. “Look upon me;” he asks him to behold how he suffers for his honor, to acknowledge, therefore, the obedience of his Son, and to accept the sacrifice so offered for the human race. “Why hast thou forsaken me?” As if he were surprised! Is it possible you could allow your beloved and only begotten Son to be overwhelmed in such an abyss of pain and sorrow? Similar expressions are met in John 3, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son;” and Rom. 8, “He did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” “Far from my salvation are the words of my sins.” Many, afraid of imputing sin to Christ, give a very forced explanation of these words. Some read them by way of interrogation, without any authority whatever. Others explain thus, “My sins,” having none, “are far from my salvation;” that is, are no obstacle to it. Without entering into other interpretations, mere gratuitous ones, inconsistent with the punctuation, the meaning simply is: With justice I said I was forsaken in my sufferings, because my exemption from them would be incompatible with my satisfying for the sins of the human race, which I have taken upon me, and which I mean to wipe away. And that Christ could take the sins of the human race upon himself, as if they were his own, is plainly shown in the Scripture, 1 Peter 2, “Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree:” Isaias 53, “And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all:” and, 2 Cor. 5, “Him who knew no sin he hath made sin for us;” that is, a victim for sin. As a victim for sin, then, must be immolated, in order to cleanse from the sin, so Christ, having undertaken to become the victim for the sins of the world, with much propriety says, “Far from my salvation are the words of my sins;” that is, I cannot avoid death, since the sins of the whole world are upon me to satisfy for them. “The words of my sins” is a Hebraism, meaning the sins themselves. “Are far from my salvation,” are inconsistent with my salvation, and I must, therefore needs suffer.

2 “O my God, I shall cry by day, and thou wilt not hear: and by night, and it shall not be reputed as folly in me.”

He assigns another proof of his being forsaken by God, and without any hope of temporal salvation. Though I may cry out day and night to be delivered from this death of the body, you will not hear me. He alludes to his two prayers, one at night in the garden, the other by day on the cross. “And it shall not be reputed as folly in me.” Though I may cry, and though I know you will not hear me, so far as escaping temporal punishment or suffering is concerned; still, it will “not be folly in me,” because my principal object, the redemption of the human race, will be effected, and I will not be kept in death, but will rise to life everlasting.

3 “But thou dwellest in the holy place, the praise of Israel.”

He proves that it was not folly in him to cry out at night, even though he was not heard by day, and that for four reasons. First, because God is holy and merciful. Secondly, because he is wont kindly to hear those who call upon him. Thirdly, because he is in the greatest straits. Fourthly, because, from his nativity, he has confided in God, and in him alone. The present verse contains the first reason. “You, O Lord, will certainly hear me, for you “dwell in the holy place;” you are all sanctity and piety; malice or cruelty cannot come near you, and therefore, you are “the praise” of thy people “Israel;” both because the people of Israel praise thee, and they are praised on your account. For the greatest praise thy people can have is their having a God so holy in every respect.

4 “In thee have our fathers hoped; they have hoped, and thou hast delivered them.”
5 “They cried to thee, and they were saved: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.”

Reason the second, from the instances of his kindness, numbers of which are to be found in Judges. As often as the children of Israel appealed to him, so often did he send them one of the Judges to deliver them, such as Gedeon, Samson, Samuel, etc.

6 “But I am a worm, and no man: the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people.”
7 “All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have spoken with lips, and wagged the head.”
8 “He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him: let him save him, seeing he delighteth in him.”

The third reason, derived from the straits in which Christ is placed. “But I am a worm, and no man:” I am just now in that position that I am not only “made less than the angels,” but even made less than man. “Despised and the most abject of men,” Isaias 53, nay, even beneath them, when even Barabbas and the robbers were preferred to me, and thus, I am now become so wretched, more “a worm than a man;” “the reproach of men;” at whom men blush, as they would at some opprobrious character; as did Peter, when he swore a solemn oath, “he knew not the man;” and “the outcast of the people;” one so rejected by the very scum of the people, that they called out, “Not this man but Barabbas.” “All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn:” When they saw me in that state they all mocked me, all manner of persons, high and low, priests and laics, Jews and Gentiles; which was fulfilled when, as St. Luke in chapter 23 writes, “And the people stood beholding, and the rulers with them derided. And the soldiers also mocked him.” “They have spoken with the lips, and wagged the head.” This, too, was accomplished, as St. Matthew writes, in chapter 27, “They blasphemed him, wagging their heads, and saying, Vah, thou who destroyest the temple of God.” “He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him: let him save him, seeing he delighteth in him.” St. Matthew testifies in the same place that the Jews made use of the very words, saying, “He trusted in God, let him deliver him now, if he will.” Wonderful prophecy, predicting not only the facts, but the very words that would be used on the occasion.

9 “For thou are he that hast drawn me out of the womb: my hope from the breasts of my mother.”
10 “I was cast upon thee from the womb: from my mother’s womb thou art my God.”

The fourth reason, drawn from the eternal innocence of Christ. The word “For” does not imply consequence; it is very often used in Scripture as a mere copulative; sometimes it is quite redundant. “You are he that hast drawn me out of the womb.” I am thine from my birth; specially so, because I have no been born like others; but, through thy singular favor, have been both conceived and born, my mother’s virginity remaining intact. “My hope from the breasts of my mother.” Not content with having “drawn me out of the womb,” it is you who principally nourished me; for, though apparently on the breast of any mother, I know milk from heaven was supplied by you; and, therefore from her very breasts, I learned to hope and confide in thee. “I was cast upon thee from the womb;” The moment I left my mother’s womb, I fell into thy bosom, where I was cared for with such singular love and affection. “From my mother’s womb thou are my God.” As well as you, from the moment of my birth, so providentially protected me, so I, from the earliest dawn of my life, began to serve and to love you as my God.

11 “Depart not from me. For tribulation is very near: for there is none to help me.”

“Depart not from me,” according to some, is a part of the preceding verse, a matter of no great moment; it means, since “I was cast upon thee from the womb,” since “thou are my God,” I may with justice ask you to “depart not from me,” especially when my most grievous and my last “tribulation is very near;” that is, my death. “For tribulation is very near.” This verse may, perhaps, apply to his agony in the garden, when he was so overwhelmed with fear at the idea of his approaching passion; but, I am more inclined to think it should be understood of his actual passion at hand, both because he uses the perfect tense, when he says, “They have dug my hands and feet.” “They parted my garments amongst them;” and because he, before that, quoted the language of the Jews, boasting of their having nailed him to the cross; and, finally, because the very first verse of this Psalm was quoted by our Savior, when hanging on his cross. According, then, to his expression in the 2nd verse, “it shall not be reputed as folly in me.” I will not cry to thee to deliver me from death, but no to detain me therein.

12 “Many calves have surrounded me: fat bulls have besieged me.”

An account of the cruelty of his enemies, whom he compares to bulls, lions, and dogs. He alludes to the High Priests and Pharisees, who insult him like bulls, goring him, as it were, with their horns, saying, “Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God;” or, like lions with their mouths open, hungering for him; thirsting for his blood, and bellowing, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him;” or like dogs gnawing and biting him when they belied him, saying, “We have found this man perverting our nation;” and again, “If he were not a malefactor we would not have delivered him up to thee:” which calumnies and detractions were the cause of our Lord’s immediate crucifixion; and, therefore, he says presently, “They have dug my hands and feet.” To come now in particulars. “Many calves have surrounded me.” We are not to understand young weak calves, but grown, with horns, almost bulls; for the following, “fat bulls have besieged me,” is only a repetition. The High Priests and Pharisees are called “strong” and “fat,” because they were powerful and rich. Some will have it that by the “calves” he meant the populace; by the “bulls,” the Pharisees; not at all improbable; but I prefer the first explanation.

13 “They have opened their mouths against me, as a lion ravening and roaring.”
The High Priests and Pharisees panting for his death.
14 “I am poured out like water; and all my bones are scattered. My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels.”
15 “My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of death.”

He tells in these verses how he dealt with the cruelty of his enemies. He offered no opposition to their violence, but always exhibited the humility, patience, and mildness, spoken of in Isaias 50, “I have not turned away my face from them that rebuke me and spit upon me;” and by 1 Peter 2, “Who when he was reviled, did not revile; when he suffered he threatened not, but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly.” He, therefore, says, “I am poured out like water;” I made no resistance, allowed myself to be turned, driven in all directions, as one would turn a stream of water. “And all my bones are scattered;” I have lost all my strength, not in reality, but I do not with to exercise it. I let my enemies use theirs, according to Luke 22, “This is your hour and the power of darkness.” I have, therefore, shown myself weak and feeble in my resistance, as if I were flesh entirely; “And all my bones are scattered;” and thus incapable of resistance. “My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels;” I have patiently borne, and meekly borne, all those injuries before man, but I have been also interiorly “humble of heart;” which heart has not been swollen with anger, nor hardened with rage, in a spirit of vengeance, but has been on the contrary, like “melted wax,” in the spirit of affection and love to them, in the spirit of mercy for their blindness, by virtue of which I prayed of you, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” “In the midst of my bowels;” a usual phrase in Scriptures, to express our internal feelings; thus, John 7, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water:” and, Cant. 5, “My bowels were moved at his touch:” “My strength is dried up like a potsherd.” My whole strength has dwindled away, dried up like a brickbat, when I allowed myself to be tied and beaten as if I were incapable of resisting them. “And my tongue adhered to my jaws:” I did not choose to say an offensive word to my enemies, or to complain of their wrongs. “And thou hast brought me down into the jaws of death.” In consequence of their persecutions, and my nonresistance, you have, my God, without whose permission nothing can happen, brought me to my death and burial.

16 “For many dogs have encompassed me; the council of the malignant hath besieged me. The have dug my hands and feet.”
17 “They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked up and stared upon me.”

He tells us how he was “brought to the dust of death:” “For many dogs have encompassed me;” meaning many detractors, namely, the High Priests and Pharisees, who, by accusing me falsely of seducing the people, of refusing to pay tribute, of aiming at the sovereignty, and similar charges, forced Pilate to give me up to the soldiers for crucifixion. “The council of the malignant hath besieged me;” and explanation merely of the last passage; for “the many dogs” are no other than the council; that is, the assembly “of the malignant.” The same malignant set, thought they did not so with their own hands, did it through others. “They have dug my hands and feet.” They drove the nails through. “They have numbered all my bones,” a thing they could easily do, when his blessed hands were stretched out, and the strain on his whole body rendered his ribs and other bones so visible and so easy of counting. “And they have looked and stared upon me.” To add to the punishment of the cross, there was ignominy of his nakedness. They inspected my whole person with the greatest curiosity, there being nothing to cover it.

18 “They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots.”

All which was fulfilled to the letter as may be read in John 19.

19 “But thou, O Lord, remove not they help to a distance from me; look toward my defense.”

He returns to the prayer with which he commenced the Psalm, and to which he recurred again in verses 10 and 11, and now resumes it here. Having gone through the details of his passion, he now prays to God for a speedy resurrection, as it is it that will deliver him perfectly from the persecution of his enemies. “But thou, O Lord, remove not thy help to a distance from me.” My enemies have arrived at the height of their malice, have put out all their strength against me; it is, therefore, your part to look to me now, to defer you help no longer, but kindly to defend me against their machinations.

20 “Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword: my only one from the hand of the dog.”
21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth; and my lowness from the horns of the unicorns.”

He tells the sort of assistance he requires. “Deliver my soul from the sword.” Deliver me from the instrument of death, making use of the word sword for any instrument, a thing common in the Scriptures, 2 Kings 12, “The sword shall not depart from thy house;” Ezech. 33, “And see the sword coming upon the land;” Rom. 8, “Who, then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or persecution? Or the sword?” In like manner, the word soul is used here for life, a thing not uncommon in the Scriptures. “My only one from the hand of the dog;” by “the dog,” he means those dogs he had already spoken of; but he makes use here of the singular number by a figure, to show that the malice of them all appeared to be now concentrated in one, and, therefore, so much the more violent and malignant. “My only one;” he means his own life, which he loved in a singular manner, as being that of the Incarnate Word. “Save me from the lion’s mouth;” that lion of which ver. 13 says, “They have opened their mouths against me, as a lion ravening and roaring;” “and my lowness from the horns of the unicorn.” He said before, “Fat bulls have besieged me.” Unicorns are now substituted for bulls, being much more fierce and wild, to show that the cruelty and ferocity of his enemies, so far from being softened by his many sufferings, was only excited and increased. Now, in all these petitions the Lord does not ask to have his temporal life spared; but, as we have repeatedly explained before, he asks that his life may be repaired quickly, and so repaired that he shall be no longer exposed or subject to the bite of the dog, the claws of the lion, or the horn of the bull or the unicorn.

22 “I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I praise thee.”

He now begins to tell the fruit of his Resurrection, the conversion of the world to God. “I will declare thy name to my brethren:” when I shall have risen, I will send my apostles through the entire world, and through them, “I will declare my name;” that is, I will impart the knowledge of thy name and of thy Godhead to all men through them; all being my brothers, by reason of the flesh I assumed; and thus, “in the midst of the church I will praise thee;” no longer in a corner of Judea, but in the midst of the immense church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, through the mouths of my ministers will I praise thee. St. Paul, writing to the Hebrews, quotes this passage, in chapter 2, “For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church I will praise thee.”

23 “Ye that fear the Lord praise him: all ye the seed of Jacob glorify him.”
24 “Let all the seed of Israel fear him: because he hath not slighted nor despised the supplication of the poor man. Neither hath he turned away his face from me: And when I cried to him he heard me.”

Having said that he would “praise God in the midst of the church,” which was to be effected by getting his faithful to do so, he now exhorts the faithful to praise God, “Ye that fear the Lord;” ye who know and worship him; for fearing God, in the Scriptures, is synonymous with worshipping him; thus, Jonas, then questioned about his people, says, “I am a Hebrew, and I fear the God who made the heavens and the earth;” and Daniel says, “Let all fear the God of Daniel;” and it is said of Judith, “that she feared God exceedingly.” The meaning, then, is: You who know and worship the true God, praise him; and, lest we should imagine this exhortation was addressed to a few, the Jews, for instance, he adds, “All ye seed of Jacob, glorify him. Let all the seed of Israel fear him;” that means, glorify, praise, and fear God, all ye children of Israel, and not only ye who are children in the flesh, but ye who are children according to the promise, namely, all the Gentiles converted to Christianity; “Because he hath not slighted nor despised the supplication of the poor man.” He assigns a reason for wishing God to be praised by all, namely, because he heard the prayer he put up to him for his Resurrection and glory, for his victory over the devil, and for the redemption of the human race. He calls himself “a poor man,” as, in truth, he was, when, in his agony, hanging on the cross, he hung naked, deserted, and suffering from hunger and thirst. “Neither hath he turned away his face from me, and when I cried to him he heard me.” A repetition of the preceding sentences.

25 “With thee is my praise in a great church: I will pay my vows in the sight of them that fear him.”

Having encouraged his faithful to praise God, he now predicts the certainty of it. The praise I will chant to thee through my faithful will not be from a corner, nor from a handful of the Jews, but from the church of all nations. “I will pay my vows in the sight of them that fear him.” Vows here signify sacrifices and oblations, as Isaias 19 has it, “They shall worship him in victims and offerings, and they shall make vows to the Lord, and perform them;” for when Christ saw how agreeable was the holocaust of his death to the Almighty, he promises now that through his ministers he will, in the best manner he can, most frequently renew the same holocaust, which he says, in the words, “I will pay my vows in the sight of them that fear him;” through my ministers, the priests of the New Testament, I will most constantly immolate that most agreeable of all sacrifices to God; “in the sight of them that fear him;” of those that acknowledge, worship him, for the sacrifice may not be performed by infidels.

26 “The poor shall eat and shall be filled; and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their hearts shall live forever and ever.”

Of this sacrifice “the poor shall eat,” when they acknowledge their spiritual neediness and poverty; “and shall be filled,” because they will taste of the good, exceeding all good; “and they shall praise the Lord,” thanking him for such an immense favor: “that seek him;” those that hunger for and eagerly seek him; “their hearts shall live forever.” Such will be the fruit of this reflection, that the hearts nourished by such excellent and noble food will lead to a spiritual life – a life of grace here, and of glory forever; for so the Truth speaketh, in John 6, “Whosoever eateth of this bread shall live forever.” For, as perishable food supports the body for a time, so the imperishable food confers life everlasting.

27 “All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord: and all the kindred of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight.”

He shows how it will happen that he shall have to praise God “in a great church,” because all nations will be converted to God through the merits of the sacrifice of the cross. “They shall remember” their first origin, how they were formed in their first parent, a thing they had quite forgotten, through original sin; and, therefore, they said to the wood and the stones, “Thou art my father, “ Jer. 2. “They shall remember” their first creation, “and all the ends of the earth shall be converted to the Lord;” that is, all the nations on the face of the globe, even to its remotest ends; that is to say, some from every nation. “And all the kindred of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight.” An explanation of the preceding verse; because, “adoring” the Lord, and being converted to the Lord, imply the same thing; namely, the abandonment of idolatry by the whole human race all over the world.

28 “For the kingdom is the Lord’s; and he shall have dominion over the nations.”

They will deservedly be converted to and adore the Lord, because he, not the infernal spirits, being the true and natural king of all, will justly ‘have dominion over the nations.”

29 “All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored: all they that go down to the earth shall fall before him.”

Having stated that “The poor shall eat and shall be filled, and shall praise the Lord;” and that “All the kindred of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight,” for feat any one may suppose it was only the poor and the hungry would be called and converted, he now introduces the rich and the powerful. “All the fat ones have eaten, and have adored.” The very “fat ones” of this world, who abound in its blessings, such as princes, emperors, kings, they, too, shall eat of the Lord’s table, and will adore and praise the common Lord, whose sway is over all nations. In the style of the prophets, the perfect tense is used here for the future. Finally the words “that go down to the earth,” mean all mortals who to earth must return. “Shall fall before him;” shall bend their knees, and adore; and thus the conversion of the Gentiles, the fruit of our Lord’s passion and Resurrection, will be truly general.

30 “And to him my soul shall live: and my seed shall serve him.”

He concludes by saying, that he and his posterity would thence forward live for God’s glory alone, and for his faithful service; the soul is put here for the entire man, which is often done in the Scripture.

31 “There shall be declared to the Lord a generation to come: and the heavens shall show forth his justice to a people that shall be born, which the Lord hath made.”

An explanation of the expression, “My seed shall serve him,” for “the generation to come;” meaning the people, under the new dispensation, will get good news concerning the Lord and his justice, the justice of Faith. “Then shall be declared to the Lord a generation to come;” that means, the generation to come shall get the news; it shall be announced to them, for it is a Greek phrase, like the expression, “The poor have the gospel preached to them;” whereas, literally translated, it would mean, the poor preached the gospel: the meaning, then, is, not that the Lord will be declared to the generation to come, but the generation to come will be declared, as enlisted to the Lord; this is plain from the following, where he says, “The heavens shall show forth his justice to a people that shall be born;” now, “that shall be born,” and “the generation to come,” are one and the same. The Lord, then, will be declared to the coming generation, for the heavens, that holy people, will do it. The justice of faith is called the justice of God, which makes men truly just, and which God gratuitously gives to those who believe in Christ. For the gospel strongly inculcates that we are all sinners, that we cannot be justified of ourselves, but that through faith in Christ we are to expect justice from God alone.

St. Bellarmine, A Commentary on the Book of Psalms, translated by Ven. John O'Sullivan, D.D., Archdeacon of Kerry, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam, NH, 2003.

The Use of the Slavonic Language in the Liturgy

THE USE OF THE SLAVONIC LANGUAGE IN THE LITURGY

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites
December, 18, 1906
(De usu linguae Slavonicae, Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum VI, 4196)

1. Seeing that the Apostolic See has judged it to be fitting now to limit within certain bounds what it before legislated concerning the use of the Glagolitic language in the liturgy, the use of this language ought to be considered and held by everyone to be a local privilege, belonging to certain churches; it should by no means be considered a personal privilege belonging to certain priests. For this reason, those priests who are trained in the use of Old Church Slavonic will not be able to use this language when celebrating Mass in a church which does not have this privilege.
2. Once the index of privileged churches has been compiled and published, it will be allowed to no one for whatever cause or pretext, to introduce the use of Old Church Slavonic into any other church. If any priest, whether secular or regular, does otherwise, or attempts to, he remains ipso facto suspended from the celebration of Mass and the performance of his other priestly duties until he has obtained pardon from the Holy See.
3. In churches which enjoy the privilege, it will be allowed that Mass may be celebrated and office recited according to public and solemn rite, only in Old Church Slavonic. The admixture of any other language whatsoever is excluded (except as is provided for in the eleventh article of this decree).
4. Wherever the people are accustomed to reply to the celebrant or sing parts of the Mass, this also may be done in the privileged churches only in Old Church Slavonic. That this may be done more easily the ordinary may allow for the faithful exclusively the use of a hand missal written in Latin characters, rather than in Slavonic letters.
5. In these aforesaid churches which undoubtedly possess the privilege of the use of the Slavonic language, the ritual, printed in that language, may be used in the administration of sacraments and sacramentals, provided that the ritual is one approved and recognized by the Holy See.
6. The bishops should take care that in their seminaries the studies of both Latin and Old Church Slavonic should be carried on, so that the priests may be ready to serve in either a Latin or Slavonic diocese as necessity may dictate.
7. Unless some other necessity dictates a different course of action, it will be the duty of the bishops, before holy ordination, to designate those clerics who are going to be sent to Latin churches and those who are going to be sent to Slavonic churches; the bishops shall do this after they have looked into the wishes and dispositions of the candidates.
8. If any priest, attached to a church where the Latin language is used, should be assigned to another church, which enjoys the privilege of using Old Church Slavonic, he will be obliged to sing the solemn Mass and the divine office in Slavonic; however, he may celebrate the liturgy privately and fulfill the canonical hours privately in the Latin language.
A priest, however, attached to a church of Old Slavonic, but by chance serving a Latin church, is obliged to celebrate both the solemn and private Mass and also to sing the canonical hours in the Latin language; but he has the faculty of reciting the office privately in Glagolitic.
9. It is likewise permitted for priests, attached to Latin-speaking churches, to celebrate Mass privately in Latin in another church which enjoys the privilege of Old Slavonic. However, priests attached to churches of Old Slavonic may not celebrate in this language even privately in churches where the Latin language is used.
10. In a church of the Latin language, where it is customary to sing at solemn Mass the epistle and gospel in Slavonic after it is sung in Latin, this custom may be preserved. At parish Masses, it is permitted, after the recitation of the gospel, to read it in the vernacular for the instruction of the faithful.
11. In those parishes where the privilege of using Old Slavonic prevails, if one of the faithful so desires, baptism or the other sacraments, including marriage, may be administered according to the Roman Latin ritual, and this may be done publicly. The ritual prayers for the burial of the dead may be in the same language. Priests are severly forbidden to oppose such a desire in any way.
12. In preaching the word of God or in other acts of cult which are not strictly liturgical, the vernacular Slavonic language may be used for the convenience and welfare of the people, but the general decrees of this Sacred Congregation of Rites must be observed.
13. The bishops of those regions where the language in use is a vernacular language should seek to provide for a uniform version of prayers and hymns in which the people participate, so that when they move form one diocese or parish to another there may be no conflict in any of the prayers or hymns.
14. Devotional books in which there is a vernacular edition of liturgical prayers issued for the private use of the faithful, are to be authorized and approved by the bishops.

R. Kevin Seasoltz, The New Liturgy: A Documentation, 1903 to 1965, Herder and Herder, New York, 1966.

On the Use of Chinese in the Mass

THE USE OF CHINESE IN THE MASS

Decree of the Holy Office
April 12, 1949
(Canon Law Digest 5, 429)

Prot. No. 3/49
Cardinal Constantini in Ultime Foglie, 376-377.

In the plenary session of Wednesday, March 9, 1949, the eminent fathers of this Supreme Sacred Congregation examined the question of granting a broader permission to use the Chinese language in the sacred liturgy, in view of the benefits which may be hoped for from it for the evangelization of the infidels in that vast country . . . . As for the celebration of holy Mass, a missal may be composed for the Chinese people, in which are printed in literal Chinese all those parts which occur from the beginning of the Mass up to the beginning of the canon, and from the postcommunion to the end of the Mass. As for the canon, it should remain in Latin, except for those parts which are recited aloud (Pater noster, Pax Domini and Agnus Dei).

The Holy Father, in the audience of Thursday, March 10, 1949, deigned to approve this resolution, and ordained that the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith shall, through its proper departments, provide an exact translation of those texts of the Mass which are to be said in the Chinese language.

Note: The above decree of the Holy Office has remained relatively unknown and entirely unused because of the tardy translation of the texts and the supervening disturbances in China.

R. Kevin Seasoltz, The New Liturgy: A Documentation, 1903 to 1965, Herder and Herder, New York, 1966.

Aug 12, 2005

Memento Etiam

Missale Romanum 1962

Memento etiam, Domine, famulorum, famularumque tuarum N. et N. qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei et dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis, ut indulgeas, deprecamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Be mindful, O Lord, also of thy servants and handmaids, N. and N., who have gone before us with the sign of faith, and rest in the sleep of peace. To these, O lord, and to all who sleep in Christ, we beseech Thee to grant, of Thy goodness, a plce of comfort, light, and peace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.1

Be mindful also, O Lord, of Thy servants N. and N., who have gone before us with the sign of faith and who sleep the sleep of peace. To these, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.2

Remember also, O Lord, Thy servants and handmaids, N. and N., who have gone before us with the sign of faith, and sleep the sleep of peace. To these, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, of light, and of peace. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.3

Missale Romanum 1970

Memento etiam, Domine, famulorum, famularumque tuarum N. et N. qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei et dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis, ut indulgeas, deprecamur. (Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)

Remember, Lord, those who have died and gone before us marked with the sign of faith, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. May these, and all who sleep in Christ find in your presence light, happiness, and peace. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)4

“The Church neither offers nor prays for the reprobates in hell, nor for the blessed in heaven, but only for the suffering souls who, amid the pains of purgatory, await their final and complete redemption. Corresponding to this intention, the formula of the Church in the Memento for the Dead is so constituted that it suits only the inmates of the place of purification.”5 “A monumental commentary on these prayers and, at the same time, a proof of their great antiquity is established by the ancient Christian epitaphs, the various forms of which (acclamations, salutations, wishes, petitions) contain principally the words refrigerium—lux—pax, by which the bliss of heaven, under different aspects is expressed. In the ‘lapidary prayers’ of these tumular inscriptions the survivors wish to their departed, v. g., refreshement, light, peace, admission into paradise and the communion of saints, life in God, in Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Entirely similar expressions are met with in the prayers of the Sacramentarium Gelasianum, for example, locus lucidus, locus refrigerii et quietis—refrigerii sedes, quietis beatitudo, luminis claritas—lucis et pacis regio.”6

“The distinction between the ecclesiastical Memento for the Living and the Memento for the Dead must be carefully observed. From the former are excluded merely the Excommunicati vitandi, because for them not even a direct application may be made; from the second, on the contrary, in general all that have died separated from the Church (unbelievers, heretics, schismatics, excommunicated persons): for these—in case they are suffering in purgatory—the Church prays not by name, but only in general, as is the case in the Memento (omnibus in Christo quiescentibus). As a private individual and in his private intention, the priest may in both Mementoes make intercession for all without distinction.”7

“By the sign of faith (signum fidei) is here to be understood, in the first place, the indelible character imprinted on the soul in the Sacrament of Baptism, and whereby the faithful are distinguished from unbelievers. Baptism is, indeed, called the Sacrament of Faith; by it men become united to Christ and incorporated with the Church. Furthermore, by the sign of faith the profession of faith is also to be understood, that is, the profession by word and deed, by a Christian life, by devotion to the Church, by the reception of the holy Sacraments. Faith received in holy baptism must necessarily be a living faith and be persevered in unto death, if it is to lead unto salvation. All who have passed into eternity with such faith and its profession, “sleep the sleep of peace” (dormiunt in somno pacis), that is, they died in peace with the Church, united interiorly and exteriorly to the Church, in communion with the Church.”8 “In pace—vixit in pace – vitam duxit in pace – in pace morienti – decessit in pace fidei catholicae – credidit fide, dormit in pace – requiescit in pace – requiescit in somno pacis – these and similar formulas on ancient Christian graves prove that the departed lived in the orthodox faith and in the communion of the Church, or at least departed therein. This applies especially to places in which a heresy or schism prevailed.”9

In the ICEL translation they have chosen ‘those’ for ‘famulorum famularumque tuarum’. I find this an interesting fact since the translations cannot be for reasons of inclusive language. Famulorum means male servants and famularum means female servants, hence the translation servant and handmaids (tuarum means Your). Further they translate dormiunt in somno pacis with the single word died. This not only lacks elegance but also separates this liturgical phrase from its scriptural allusions and to its antiquity in use among the Fathers. “In Holy Writ, the Fathers and the liturgy, death (of the just) is often called dormitio, somnus, and the dead are called dormientes. That death is but a passing sleep, is also signified by the name coemeterium (dormitorium, place of slumber), by which the Church from the most ancient times designates the (blessed) burial place…as the Lord Himself said of the departed daughter of Jairus: Non est mortua puella, sed dormit (Matth. 9, 24).”10

Indulgeas…deprecamur should be translated as grant…we beseech. ICEL uses a rather odd combination of words that have no basis in the original text: May…they find. Indulgeas is a command whose tone is softened by deprecamur (we beseech). Further, the English construction of this sentence really only hopes that in the presence of Christ the dead will find light, happiness and peace. Where else are these to be found but in the presence of the Lord? The real meaning of the prayer is obscured by this text. The Church does not pray for those in the presence of Christ but for those in purgatory, who have not the beatific vision. “The suffering souls enjoy, indeed, peace and rest, inasmuch as they are removed from the discord and turmoil of this sinful and deceitful world; but as long as they must remain at a distance from the vision of God in a place of silent suffering, their peace and rest are still imperfect; therefore, we implore for them full and eternal peace, full and eternal rest – in heaven. When the just soul has reached purgatory, she sees before her but two objects – the excess of her suffering and excess of her joy. The greatest bitterness is there mingled with the most serene peace. These souls are full of pure and strong love of God, full of patient contentment, full of touching resignation to God’s holy decrees. In a manner inexplicable to us, they are at one and the same time filled with holy suffering and holy joy. Suffering is not unhappiness. In contrast with the painful exile of purgatory, heaven is indeed a blissful place of refreshment, of light and of peace.”11

ICEL has improperly translated refrigerii as happiness, which as the preceding paragraph shows is absurd. “Refrigerium here denotes a twofold refreshment. In the first place it signifies (from refrigerare, to make something cold, to cool it) the ceasing of poena sensus; that is, the extinguishing of the heat of purgatory. Refrigerium also frequently denotes refreshment by food and drink, with a meal. Therfore, we may here understand the remission of poena damni, that is, the cessation of the temporal exclusion from the visio beatifica by the granting of beatitude. Heavenly bliss is often represented under the figure of a nuptial celebration and a joyful banquet.”12 Likewise, our prayer for light and peace is also a prayer that all who sleep in Christ be released from purgatory and admitted to the Beatific Vision.



1 My Sunday Missal, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1961, pg 54.

2 The New Roman Missal, Fr. F. X. Lasance, Christian Book Club of America, 1993, pg. 785.

3 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, Rev Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 6th edition, B. Herder Book Co, 1924, pg. 668.

4 Daily Roman Missal, Fr. James Socias, ed., Midwest Theological Forum, 2003, pg. 760-61.

5 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Rev. Dr. Gihr, pg. 669.

6 Ibid., pg. 669, footnote 1.

7 Ibid., pg. 670, footnote 1.

8 Ibid., pg. 670-71.

9 Ibid., pg. 671, footnote 1.

10 Ibid., pg. 671, footnote 2.

11 Ibid., pg. 672.

12 Ibid., pg. 672-73, footnote 4.

Jul 11, 2005

Supplices Te Rogamus

Missale Romanum 1962

Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae: ut quotquot, ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui, Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Most humbly we implore Thee, almighty God, bid these our mystic offerings to be brought by the hands of Thy holy Angel unto Thy altar above, before the face of Thy divine majesty; that those of us who, by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar, shall receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.1

We humbly beseech Thee, almighty God, to command that these our offerings be borne by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thine altar on high in the presence of Thy divine Majesty; that as many of us as shall receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace: Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.2

We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these to be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the presence of Thy divine Majesty, that as many of us as shall, by partaking at this Altar, receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with all heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.3

Missale Romanum 1970

Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae: ut quotquot, ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui, Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. (Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)

Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)4

As Dr. Gihr points out there is "no question of a local transfer of the Body of Christ from the altar to heaven."5 The meaning therefore is mystical for "in this that the petition for a favorable acceptance of the gifts of the altar is not simply repeated, or continued, but presented under new aspects, that is, given greater scope and strengthened."6 "To the words "Do ye this in remembrance of Me," the ancient liturgies join a prayer mentioning the memory of the passion, resurrection and ascenscion, as likewise an oblation prayer. That in the fifth, or already in fourth century, the Supplices te Rogamus was considered , not as an invocation, but as an oblation prayer is clear from the writing De sacramentis, in which the first prayer of the Canon after consecration is worded as follows: Ergo memores gloriosissimae ejus passionis et ab inferis resurrectionis et in coelum ascensionis offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum et calicem vitae aeternae et petimus et precamur, ut hanc oblationem suscipias in sublimi altari per manus angelorum tuorum, sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel et sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abrahae et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech (1.4,c.5,n.27)."7

"The text of the Canon recalls a celestial vision of St. John (Rev 8:3-4): 'And another Angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer the prayers of all saints (Christians) upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God (super altare aureum quod est ante thronum Dei). And the smoke of the incense of, the prayer of the saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the Angel (de manu angeli coram Deo)." ... "[T]hese sacrificial gifts (haec), which are to be carried up from the earthly to the heavenly altar, [are] not only the mystical Body of Christ, that is, the faithful with all they are and have - with their prayers and concerns, labors and sufferings, struggles and combats-, but, moreover, the Eucharistic Sacrificial Body and Blood of our Lord, inasmuch as we offer them."8 "To bring our offerings up to God, to raise them up to heaven, where He may receive them, or to cause them to reach His throne, means in the ordinary language of Scripture, to present them in such a manner and with so pure a conscience, that they may be pleasing to Him."9

"But then this will be the case only if the eye of God detects nothing displeasing in them who offer - but, on the contrary, beholds them so pure and so holy, as to deserve to be united and to be presented along with the Most Holy Sacrifice of Christ. Yet our life is not so blameless, nor our heart so pure, nor our dispositions so perfect." ..."The blessed vocation of the heavenly spirits consists in glorifying God by praise and in assisting man to attain salvation. Now where could this twofold object be better fulfilled than is actually done during the holy Sacrifice? Hence hosts of angels collect about the altar to procure for God honor on high and for man peace on earth. Between the angels and the Holy Eucharist there exist, undoubtedly, intimate relations, which , indeed, to our weak vision here below remain always shrouded in a mysterious obscurity. Christian tradition speaks not only of the presence of angels at the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, but it often, moreover, mentions in a determinate manner, a certain angel specially commisioned to carry our prayers and sacrifices before the throne of God."10

"St. Ambrose writes, that we cannot doubt that "an angel assists" (assistere angelum), when Christ is sacrificed on the altar. Thus the text of the Canon also mentions but one angel. Does it not appear from this that the Church herself would thereby indicate that God intrusts an angel with the special mission of bringing the oblation of the priest and people into His presence? More minute and accurate information relative to this Angel of the Sacrifice of the Mass (Angelus assistens divinis mysteriis - S. Thom. III, q. 83, a. 4 and 9) is not granted to us. Many saints and servants of God had a particular devotion to the angel here mentioned, without being able or willing to decide as to his name. Some beleive him to be the guardian angel of the church and the altar, or that of the priest, who most effectually assists, directs and enlightens him during the celebration of the Holy Mysteries. Others suppose, and this appears probable, that it is St. Michael, who is honored as the guardian angel of the Eucharist and of the Church Militant. It is not easy to judge correctly of the value of such pious opinions. The majority of them have their foundation in divine things which can more readily be conjectured than explained. With the above named angels, multitudes of other blessed and heavenly spirits unite in faithful co-operation; hence many perceive in the petition of this prayer of the Canon for the angel's service a supplication to obtain the assistance of the angels in general."11

ICEL once again uses a flat and banal translation which loses much of the mystery of the original Latin. They translate supplices te rogamus as simply pray, which denudes the varied expressions given by other translators as humbly beseech or humbly implore. Benedictione coelesti becomes simply blessing instead of heavenly blessing. The worst omission of translation is that of jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui. Jube which means command is not translated at all; haec becomes this sacrifice which loses the sense of the passage; perferri becomes take instead of to be brought to or conveyed to; per manus is not translated which destroys the scriptural allusion to Rev 8:3-4 (de manu angeli); and finally sancti is not translated so that we now say your Angel instead of your holy Angel.

According to the syntax, it is true that the heavenly blessings and grace implored for are for those who participate in the feast of the Body and Blood from the altar. Fr. Stedman in his translation has supplied words not in the text but that give a truth as well. There are two means of participation in the Holy Mysteries: spiritually and sacramentally. It is true that the superior participation is that of one who, being properly disposed, communicates. Nevertheless, he who cannot, for grave reasons and in accordance with Church discipline, communicate at Mass still by reason of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, participates in the grace procured at least as means towards repentance. In this case, ICEL has followed a strict translation of the text. If only this were the translation philosophy that they followed throughout.

The worst of the translations and omissions in this prayer is that of the little word haec (these). Instead of following Fr. Stedman (these mystic offerings), Fr. Lasance (these our offerings), or the literal rendering of Fr. Gihr (these), ICEL chose to supply an incorrect translation of this and joined it with the addition of the word sacrifice. In so doing, they obscured the polyvalent meaning of the text. It is Christ, who through the ministry of the priest, offers up the Eucharistic Sacrifice and as such it is always acceptable and pleasing to God the Father because of the holiness of Him who offers: His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord. Haec refers to two things: the Eucharistic elements in so far as we offer them and to our own particular offerings which are united to those of Christ and offered in union with the Eucharistic elements. Hence, it is important that it be translated in the plural so that both meanings are given. In the ICEL translation, it seems as if we are asking God to accept the one sacrifice of Christ renewed on the altar at the hands of His Angel. Yet, as we have already discussed, there can be no actual question of the gifts being transferred locally to the heavenly altar. For Christ ever lives and reigns to make intercession for us - He is enthroned in heaven at the right hand of God the Father (sedet ad dexteram Patris). We offer in the present, that which was once offered at Calvary, the same sacrificial Lamb which is ever present in heaven before the Father (agnum stantem tamquam occisum12, Rev 5:6, a Lamb standing, as it were slain13).



1 My Sunday Missal, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1961, pg 54.

2 The New Roman Missal, Fr. F. X. Lasance, Christian Book Club of America, 1993, pg. 785.

3 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, Rev Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 6th edition, B. Herder Book Co, 1924, pg. 647.

4 Daily Roman Missal, Fr. James Socias, ed., Midwest Theological Forum, 2003, pg. 760-61.

5 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Rev. Dr. Gihr, pg. 660.

6 Ibid., pg. 661.

7 Ibid., pg. 661, footnote 1.

8 Ibid., pg. 661.

9 Ibid., pg. 661. footnote 3, from Bossuet, Explication de quelques difficultes sur les prieres de la Messe.

10 Ibid., pp. 661-2.

11 Ibid., pg. 663.

12 Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, editionem quartam emendatam, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1994, pg 1886.

13 Scriptours Online Douay-Rheims Bible, www.scriptours.com, 1999-2000 Ableware.

Jun 9, 2005

Vernacular in the Liturgy

Here's some musings on the use of the vernacular for liturgical worship. I'll return to this later.

1. Isn't Latin actually the vernacular use of Rome? At least that's how it got started. Didn't the Apostles write their letters and the Gospels in Greek because that was the vernacular? (Except for Matthew who wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. Of course, didn't he choose Aramaic instead of Hebrew because that was the Jewish vernacular?) How about the Roman Rite being said in Slavonic for centuries? When Sts. Cyril and Methodius translated the Greek Byzantine Rite into Slavonic shortly after the Roman Rite was also translated into Slavonic.1 Why? Because it was the vernacular.

For the Roman Rite Latin has a universality not in that it was in all places the mother tongue but in that it provides for a continuity across many centuries of writings of the Church Fathers, the Magisterium, and the Saints. The reason I so often am reminded of for the value of Latin is that it is a 'dead' language meaning that its meanings stay static so that a word means today what it meant in earlier times. This is true in a sense but as any good dictionary (cf. Lewis and Short) the etymology given for particular words show that this is not absolutely the case. However, the Latin language is static when compared with any modern vernacular. For example, in English the word peruse is almost always used improperly. Its original meaning is to read carefully yet modern English speakers invariably use to word to denote skimming instead of attentiveness.

A far better point in favor of retaining Latin especially in the liturgy is Gregorian Chant. The methods of singing liturgical texts in the Roman style retain their character properly when sung in Latin. This isn't to say that English can't be chanted in Gregorian style but that the chant itself must be changed in order to fit the English translation. Admittedly, there are various examples where this has been done well. Still, there are certain texts and chants that have been sung a certain way for centuries and I''m not sure that the advantages of the vernacular override those of a universal chant. For example, Tantum Ergo is sung a certain way which can be easily learned by almost anyone. I'm not exactly a musical virtuoso and yet with practice and diligence it only took me about a week to learn it. When this text is translated into various languages the rythymn of the text becomes different among the various languages (Italian, German, English, Spanish, etc.) This means that if the text is sung it will be sung differently in each language even if it is chanted according to the Gregorian style.

An argument that I've come across lately against the use of Latin in the liturgy is that it ought to be in the vernacular and should not be in Latin because the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council called for "full, conscious, and active participation" of the people in the liturgy. This argument is as pedantic as they come and shows a deep misunderstanding of both the liturgy and the conciliar documents. I have attended the reformed liturgy in various languages: Spanish, Italian, English, Vietmanese and French. I speak only English. If the principle advanced that one cannot participate in a full, conscious, and active manner because they language of the Holy Mass is not in one's mother tongue were true then the actual achievement of using the vernacular has been to limit my participation in the Mass anywhere that it is not said in English. In fact, by this argument I would have had to learn multiple languages in order to participate fully in the Holy Mass in diverse places. Even if we were to concede the faulty interpretation of the phrase, Latin would remain advantageous in that it requires only learning one additional language.

Quotes on the use of Latin:

In the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy the Council stated,
36. § 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
§ 2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
§ 3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, § 2, to decide whether and to what extent the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Instruction on the Liturgy, Congregation of Rites, 16 October 1964
59. Pastors of souls shall carefully see to it that the faithful, more particularly the members of lay religious associations, also know how to say or to sing together in the Latin language those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertains to them, especially with the use of simpler melodies.
47. According to the Constitution on the Liturgy, while particular laws remain in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." However, since "the use of the vernacular may often be of great advantage to the people" "it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority to decide whether, and to what extent, one should use the vernacular, their decrees being approved—that is, confirmed—by the Holy See." In observing these norms exactly, one will therefore employ that form of participation which best matches the capabilities of each congregation.

Instruction on Music in the Sacred Liturgy , Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 March 1967
Pastors of souls should take care that besides the vernacular "the faithful also know how to say or sing, in Latin also, those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."
When the bishops asked for the entire Mass in the vernacular, Pope Paul VI granted this, but continued to insist on the people being able to pray the "ordinary parts" (that is, those that remain the same in every Mass, such as the dialogues "Dominus vobiscum" "Et cum spiritu tuo," Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei etc.) in Latin and ALSO according to the simple Gregorian chant modes. Thus,
Iubilate Deo, Preface, Pope Paul VI, 14 April 1974

"General Instruction on the Roman Missal ," Roman Missal, 1975, 3rd ed. The Roman Missal or Sacramentary is the altar missal of the priest.
19. Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the profession of faith and the Lord's Prayer, set to simple melodies.

The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation , Congregation for Divine Worship, 25 January 1994.
40. Music and singing, which express the soul of people, have pride of place in the liturgy. And so singing must be promoted, in the first place singing the liturgical text, so that the voices of the faithful may be heard in the liturgical actions themselves. . . (84)
Footnote 84: Cf. Vatican Council 11, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 118; also n. 54: While allowing that "a suitable place be allotted to the language of the country" in the chants "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them" especially the Pater noster; cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio generalis, n. 19.

Finally, in an address tailored to the needs of the United States, the Holy Father summed up the position of the Church when he spoke to American bishops who were in Rome for their ad limina visit. He stated, "The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman Rite, should be wholly abandoned." Fidelity to Doctrinal Foundations Must Guide All Liturgical Renewal , Address to US Bishops, 9 October 1998.


Pope Pius XI, Officiorum Omnium, 1922 "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei "The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine."

Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia , 1962 "The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic and non-vernacular."

Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1963 #36 "The use of Latin, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin Rites." #54 "Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, 1966 "The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety... we must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers which were your glory for centuries."

John Paul II (27, Nov. AD. 1978, AAS 71 (1979) 45.) Ad iuvenes ergo imprimis convertimur, qui hac aetate, qua litterae Latinae et humanitatis studia multis locis, ut notum est, iacent, hoc veluti Latinitatis patrimonium, quod Ecclesia maxime aestimat, alacres accipiant oportet et actuosi frugiferum reddant. Noverint ii hoc Ciceronis effatum ad se quodam modo referri: "Non ... tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire". Omnes autem vos, qui hic adestis, et socios, qui vobis opitulantur, adhortamur, ut pergatis nobilem laborem et attollatis facem Latinitatis, quae est etiam, licet arctioribus quam antea finibus circumscriptum, vinculum quoddam inter homines sermone diversos. Scitote beati Petri in summo ministerio apostolico successorem incepti vestri felices exitus precari, vobis adesse, vos confirmare. Cuius rei auspex sit Apostolica Benedictio, quam vobis singulis universis libentissime in Domino impertimus.

John Paul II (26., Nov. AD. 1979, AAS 71 (1979) 1524. Macte virtute et ingenio estote! Linguam Latinam, Romana maiestate et breviloquentia insignem, quasi ad sculpendum verum et rectum idoneam, ad acriter et logice cogitandum impellentem, diligenter colite et meditatis consiliis quoquoversus provehite! Contendite, ut, antiquorum praecepta secuti, semper dilucide et plane et, cum res fert, ornate et numerose, apte et congruenter dicatis Latine atque scribatis. Denique divina auxilia vobis precantes, Benedictionem Apostolicam amantissime impertimus.

Code of Canon Law
Can. 249 - Institutionis sacerdotalis Ratione provideatur ut alumni non tantum accurate linguam patriam edoceantur, sed etiam linguam latinam bene calleant necnon congruam habeant cognitionem alienarum linguarum, quarum scientia ad eorum formationem aut ad ministerium pastorale exercendum necessaria vel utilis videatur.

Can. 249 - The program for priestly formation is to make provision that the students are not only carefully taught their native language but also that they are well skilled in the Latin language; they are also to have a suitable familiarity with those foreign languages which seem necessary of useful for their own formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

Can. 928 - Eucharistica celebratio peragatur lingua latina aut alia lingua, dummodo textus liturgici legitime approbati fuerint.

Can. 928 - The Eucharist is to be celebrated in the Latin language or in another language provided the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.





1. Slavonic Language and the Liturgy, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight.

May 6, 2005

Supra Quae

Missale Romanum 1962

Supra quæ propítio ac seréno vultu respícere dignéris: et accépta habére, sícuti accépta habére dignátus es múnera púeri tui justi Abel, et sacrifícium Patriárchæ nostri Abrahæ: et quod tibi óbtulit summus sacérdos tuus Melchísedech, sanctum sacrifícium, immaculátam hóstiam.

And this do Thou deign to regard with gracious and kindly attention and hold acceptable, as Thou didst deign to accept the offerings of Abel, Thy just servant, and the sacrifice of Abraham our patriarch, and that which Thy chief priest Melchisedech, offered unto Thee, a holy sacrifice of thanks, and a spotless Victim. 1

Alternate translations:

Upon which do Thou vouchsafe to look with favorable and gracious countenance, and accept them, as Thou did vouchsafe to accept the gifts of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which Thy Highpriest Melchisedech offered unto Thee, a holy Sacrifice, an unspotted Victim.2

Vouchsafe to look upon them with a gracious and tranquil countenance, and to accept them, even as Thou wast pleased to accept the offerings of Thy just servant Abel and the sacrifice of Abraham, our patriarch, and that which Melchisedech, Thy high priest, offered up to Thee, a holy sacrifice, a Victim without blemish. 3

Missale Romanum 1970

Supra quæ propítio ac seréno vultu respícere dignéris: et accépta habére, sícuti accépta habére dignátus es múnera púeri tui justi Abel, et sacrifícium Patriárchæ nostri Abrahæ: et quod tibi óbtulit summus sacérdos tuus Melchísedech, sanctum sacrifícium, immaculátam hóstiam.

Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech. 4

Of the most striking importance of this prayer is what I found conveyed by it in Rev. Dr. Gihr's explanation: "sanctam sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam is not in apposition with supra quae gramatically and therefore it refers not to the Eucharistic sacrifice but to quod ... obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech."5 This prayer refers to the Old Testament prefigurement of the Eucharistic Sacrifice - the offering of bread and wine which Melchisedech offered at the foot of Mt. Moriah. This entirely astounded me, given as I was according to my understanding of the text in the Father Lasance missal and the My Sunday Missal translations as understanding these same phrases as referring to the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

There are three prefigurements given in this prayer. Abel offered a lamb and was himself innocently slain. Abraham offered Isaac, whose blood was not shed. Spiritually he sacrificed Isaac but from God Abraham received him from death for a parable (Heb 11:19) that is, as a figure of the Risen Savior who offers himself as a Lamb as it were slain (Abel) (Rev 5:6) upon the altar in an unbloody manner (Isaac) under the species of bread and wine (Melchisedech).

Mistakes given in the ICEL translation are plentiful. They translate summus sacerdos tuus as 'your priest' instead of 'your high priest'. This obscures the fulfillment of typology between Melchisedech and Christ. This fulfillment is one of the main arguments which St. Paul uses in the Epistle to the Hebrews where he argues for the efficacious sacrifice of the Cross by the High Priest Jesus Christ who ever-liveth to make intercessions for us before God the Father. This symbolism is rich in scripture and tradition upon which the Church Fathers have drawn inspiration for many commentaries. The translation of Patriarchae nostri as 'father in faith' while indicative of scriptural allusions is not literal and as in previous texts I prefer the literal. In the translation for sanctum sacrificium, hostiam immaculatam the ICEL has chosen 'the bread and wine' apparently in an attempt to make a more visceral connection to the actual offering of Melchisedech. However, such recourse to avoid the confusion of previous translations serves also to obscure how Melchisedech's offerings were sacrificial and hence how our own spiritual sacrifices and offerings are as well. We offer to God the Father the one Victim of the Cross and also our own spiritual sacrifices in union with the priest and the One both offering and offered through the priest's ministry. Neither were any of the sacrifices offered in the Old Testament of any worth except as they were accepted in looking forward to the one true sacrifice of the Cross. Similarly our own daily sacrifices are not things which are worthy of God but which still delight him with regards to the rememberance of the one true sacrifice of the Cross and especially during the Mass where that one sacrifice is made mystically present upon the Altar.




1 My Sunday Missal, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman Director of the Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1961. page 52-3.

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 647.

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 784.

4 Daily Roman Missal, Rev. James Socias, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003, pages 760-61.

5 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Gihr, pg. 660, footnote 1.

Yet Again Another URL Change!

I've recently begun taking ecclesiastical latin lessons from a parishoner in my dioceses. After looking over my site Dr. Zoritas has informed me that the site should be sanctaliturgia instead of sanctamliturgiam. Apparently it is more proper to give as the title the words in the nominative case. Therefore, I am changing the web-page to sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com

Jan 17, 2005

Orientation of Prayer

I’ve recently finished reading or rather listening to an audio series edition of Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s book, "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: It's Problems and Background." While I’m immediately impressed with some of the golden historical liturgical nuggets to be gleaned from within it’s pages (cassettes in this case), I have some difficulties with his interpretation of the data. His interpretation is that the orientation of the celebrant of the reformed liturgy versus populum (turned to the people) was originated through inaccurate assumptions by liturgical experts that versus populum was the ancient and earliest posture of the priest. He traces the roots of this opinion to Martin Luther. Some liturgists based this assumption on the orientation of the Roman Basilicas where mass was celebrated versus populum long before the reformed liturgy.

He also believes that the impetus behind the change of orientation is due to the overemphasis of the Eucharistic community within what he calls the new theology of the Mass. He equates the orientation of versus populum with the theological innovation that the Mass is primarily a communal meal. It is here where it seems to me that he has forced a theological meaning onto a topological orientation. While it remains true that there are those who assign priority to the communal meal and deemphasize the teaching of Trent that the Mass is preeminently a sacrifice, it is not true that versus populum orientation has an inherent theological context of such.

Historically the orientation to the east is a modification of the Jewish custom of prayer posture. The Jews turned towards the temple in Jerusalem to pray. Therefore, we may presume that the Apostles and early Christians did the same. Early on Christians continued to attend the Synagogue services of the Jews. While they celebrated the Eucharist in private only among believers. One would expect that they maintained many of their Jewish liturgical customs. At a later date, the significance of their posture was modified to be towards the east or the rising of the sun, interpreted as a symbol of Christ the Light of the world or of the risen Christ. Early alignment was semi circle open towards the east with the altar at the center point of the imaginary completed circle. In Basilicas such as St. Peter's and San Clemente, the orientation was in the opposite direction from the altar. The open end of the semi-circle was still towards the east while the priest was 'behind' the altar in the vertex of the semi-circle. St. Basil lists praying towards the east as among the kergyma of the Church which deserves equal reverence as Scripture. (Jurgens: The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 2, 954)

The Eastern Liturgical Rites have maintained this posture with its symbolic significance. The Western Liturgical Rites on the other hand deviated from this practice through what may be considered an innovation in architecture. Churches were no longer built with the apse facing east. They continued, however, to maintain their traditional orientation in the same direction as the priest, though in many places this meant that they were no longer facing true east. This led to the phenomenon of orientation facing ‘liturgical east’ or versus apsidem. This liturgical orientation began to be explained as orientation ad Altare Dei. The latter is a term that has caused great confusion in modern times.

In the former Missal, indeed even in the original 1570 Missale Romanum, there are instructions for the celebration of the Mass versus populum. Msgr. Gamber notes this but fails to draw the necessary conclusion. The direction is found in the instruction appended to the front of the missal Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, V, 3: "Si Altare sit ad Orientem, versus populum, Celebrans versa facie ad populum, non vertit humeros ad Altare, cum dicturus est Dominus vobiscum, Orate, fratres, Ite, Missa est, vel daturus benedictionem…" This instructs those celebrating the Mass versus populum to disregard the rubrics in the missal to turn around at certain points because these celebrants are already facing the people. Msgr. Gamber makes note that the qualifying point is that of the preceding words ad Orientem, so that the mass was celebrated versus populum only in those places where that orientation was also towards the east.

The break with the traditional custom of facing to the east came about by an architectural deviation. Churches began to be built without consideration for their alignment along an east-west axis. The liturgy celebrated within these churches began to be celebrated oriented towards the apse without regard for the liturgical custom of facing east. So the distinction must be made, at least since the construction of the Roman Basilicas that were built by the Roman Emperor St. Constantine, that the physical orientation of the celebrant at mass though it admits of symbolic interpretation is more topological than theological.

The theological meaning of liturgical orientation is one that is primarily an interior disposition rather than an exterior posture, for in the celebration of all masses in any church the celebrant and the people are, or should be, interiorly turned towards God. It may be argued that the Mass at these places was so celebrated versus populum in order to maintain the ancient Christian practice of praying towards the east. While that remains true of these particular churches, the break with tradition does not occur with the 1970 Missale Romanum, but rather with the loss of meaning behind praying towards the east. I cannot be sure of the exact time frame in which churches were designed without regard for the orientation of the apse, but I am certain that it was long before Vatican II and the promulgation of the 1970 Missale Romanum.

The further development of posture versus populum without regard for facing east is an outgrowth of the loss of meaning behind liturgical posture. Cardinal Ratzinger has lamented that the damage to recovering the essence of meaning of liturgical posture is already done. It is probably impossible to restore the former practice. If in the times preceding the liturgical reform the orientation of the priest came to be understood as the priest having his back to the people or praying to the wall, then to return to this practice would likely result in even more confusion. It could be done through catechesis, but Cardinal Ratzinger suggests re-orienting liturgical posture as focused upon the altar crucifix. Another opinion is to return to the practice of Rome, where although celebrated ad Orientem versus populum, the candelabra and other decorative features of the altar obscured in some way the view of the altar. Still we must strive to renew an understanding of liturgical posture that recognizes its true meaning of versus Deum. This can be done within the framework of the current orientation.

Today, the priest and the congregation are facing the Altar, albeit from opposite sides. It is therefore erroneous in my opinion to attempt to prove that celebration of today as it is normally done is a deviation theologically, though it must be admitted that it is change with regards to former practice. Still I cannot shake the feeling that the former practice is more expressive of the interior orientation than the current practice. The former practice is also the current practice of the other liturgical rites. However, as Cardinal Medina would have us remember, "There is no need to give excessive importance to elements that have changed throughout the centuries. What always remains is the event celebrated in the liturgy: this is manifested through rites, signs, symbols and words that express various aspects of the mystery without, however, exhausting it, because it transcends them. Taking a rigid position and absolutizing it could become a rejection of some aspect of the truth which merits respect and acceptance." Therefore, even within the current liturgical practice let us remember the admonition "Conversi ad Dominum" and turn ourselves towards the Lord.

Dec 20, 2004

Unde et Memores

Missale Romanum 1962

Unde et memores, Domine, nos servi tui sed et plebs tua sancta, eiusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis, nec non ab inferis resurrectionis, sed et in caelos gloriosae ascensionis: offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam † puram, hostiam † sanctam, hostiam † immaculatam. Panem † sanctum vitae aeternae et Calicem † salutis perpetuae.

Mindful, therefore, O Lord, not only of the blessed passion of the same Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, but also of His resurrection from the dead, and finally His glorious ascension into heaven, we, Thy ministers, as also Thy holy people, offer unto Thy supreme majesty, of Thy gifts bestowed upon us, the pure Victim, the holy Victim, the all-perfect Victim: the holy Bread of life everlasting and the Chalice of unending salvation.1

Alternate translations:

Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, His resurrection from the grave, and His glorious ascension into heaven, offer up to Thy most excellent majesty of Thine own gifts bestowed upon us, a victim which is pure, a victim which is holy, a victim which is stainless, the holy bread of life everlasting, and the chalice of eternal salvation.2

Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy servants, and likewise Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed Passion of the same Christ Thy Son, our Lord, together with His resurrection from the grave, and also His glorious ascension into heaven, offer unto Thy excellent Majesty, of Thy gifts and presents a pure Victim, a holy Victim, an immaculate Victim: the holy bread of eternal life, and the chalice of everlasting salvation.3

Missale Romanum 1970

Unde et memores, Domine, nos servi tui sed et plebs tua sancta, eiusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis, nec non ab inferis resurrectionis, sed et in caelos gloriosae ascensionis: offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam. Panem sanctum vitae aeternae et Calicem salutis perpetuae.

Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.4

This prayer actually forms together with the next two preceding prayers a single liturgical prayer of oblation. The consecration of the elements has essentially completed the liturgical sacrifice by the making present of the Body and Blood of Christ upon the Altar. For we hold by faith that the sacrifice of the Altar is the re-presentation to the Father of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Therefore the making present of the Sacrifice of the Cross already completes the essential sacrificial action. However, the Church wishes to present these holy gifts together with those spiritual gifts we have offered in union with the one sacrifice of Christ. She does so with supplication that they be accepted and finally asks for the blessings of grace to be abundantly poured out upon all who participate in the holy sacrificial action.

Dr. Gihr points out that the plural “Thy servants” is a left-over from a time when the concelebration of the priests with the bishop was still in practice. This points to two things, first it proves the ancient tradition in the Roman Church of concelebration which dwindled in frequency until it remained only for the ordination of priests and bishops. Secondly, it proves the antiquity of the prayer itself.5

“At this offering priest and people are at the same time “mindful also of the blessed passion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ,” and that, because the Lord Himself commanded it. It is to this above-mentioned and previously stated command of Christ (in mei memoriam facietis) [hoc facite in meam commemorationem] that the words Unde et memores refer. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the living commemoration and mystical accomplishment of the entire work of redemption (opus redemptionis nostrae exercetur); Christ, as Highpriest and as Victim, is present on the altar with all the fruits and merits of the redemption. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass not only His passion and death, but also the life of His glory is mystically (in mysterio) represented and renewed. Three great mysteries are here principally made prominent: before all, the sufferings of Christ in His sacrifice and death on the Cross, as the essence and center of the work of the redemption; then the joyful resurrection and glorious ascension, which constitute the conclusion, crown and completion of the work of the redemption.”6

The ICEL text, as seen in previous prayers, is not a literal translation. They do not translate the triple hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, instead opting for a paraphrase of this holy and perfect sacrifice. It is part of the character of the Roman Canon, that in places things are repeated in triplicate and in seems that in these cases, the translators opted not to carry this distinctive characteristic into the English translation. Secondly, they refuse the translation of hostiam as victim, rendering it instead as sacrifice. It remains true that in all sacrifices a victim is offered. It seems plausible that the scholars responsible for translation thought it best to underscore this interconnection for those of the faithful who might not have understood the interconnection between victim and sacrifice. Remaining consistent to my previous criticism, I prefer a literal translation to an interpretive one, regardless of the appropriateness or quality of the translation. Due to the rendering of victim as sacrifice some have criticized the translators of being intentionally unfaithful to the catholic ethos of the text. I see no reason to presume that is the case. They have drawn a sufficient interconnection between the passion, resurrection and ascension of Christ into glory and the holy and perfect sacrifice offered sacramentally: the bread of life and cup of eternal salvation.

The wording they chose to translate ‘offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis’, fails to draw out the double meaning of the Latin text. The chosen translation represents only a reference to the earthly elements offered as ‘from the many gifts you have given us.’ A better choice in my opinion is the use of the prepostion ‘of’ rather than ‘from.’ The gifts now offered are not merely the eucharistic elements of bread and wine, for this offering was accomplished at the Offertory. The offering done here is more significant in that it comes after the consecration is completed. This echoes the Byzantine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: “Remembering therefore this precept of salvation and everything that was done for our sake, the Cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand, the second and glorious coming again, we offer Thee Thine own of what is Thine own, in all and for sake of all.”7

As I have seen numerous times throughout the ICEL texts, wherever they have decided to simplify the structure of a prayer, or elucidate a particular meaning of phrases in order to instruct the faithful, they succeeded mostly in obscuring the richness of our tradition while simultaneously stripping it of its literary beauty. Still, what remains is orthodox and with a little study of the original text nothing is lost to the faithful who desire to know the mind of the Church.





1 My Sunday Missal, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1961, pp.. 37-38.

2 The New Roman Missal, Fr. F. X. Lasance, Christian Book Club of America, 1993, pg. 784.

3 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, Rev Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 6th edition, B. Herder Book Co, 1924, pp. 646-647.

4 Daily Roman Missal, Fr. James Socias, ed., Midwest Theological Forum, 2003, pg. 758-759.

5 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Rev. Dr. Gihr, pg. 649.

6 Ibid., pg. 650-651

7 The Divine and Holy Liturgy of our Father among the Saints John Chrysostom, Kyr Joseph-Archibishop Raya, Alleluia Press, pg. 67.

Dec 17, 2004

In Perpetuity?

Changes to the Roman Missal brought about by Cum Sanctissimum (1604 Clement VIII)

1570 Roman Missal: Rubric directing the celebrant upon entering the church to kneel and recite a verse from Ps. 65: Introibo in domum tuam; in holocaustis reddam tibi vota mea, quae distinxerunt labia mea, before reciting the further antiphon, Ne reminiscaris, and the five psalms in preparation for Mass.

1604 Roman Missal: First antiphon suppressed (omitted).

1570 Roman Missal: The prayer of St. Ambrose, Summe Sacerdos, is not divided into parts.

1604 Roman Missal: The Summe Sacerdos is divided into sections for various days of the week.

1570 Roman Missal: The general rubrics are not numbered. Within the general rubrics there is no mention of ringing a bell, incense or torchbearers.

1604 Roman Missal: The general rubrics are numbered. Ringing a bell, incense and torchbearers are included in the rubrics along with additions such as RG XX describing the preparation required for the altar.

1570 Roman Missal: After the Confiteor the words “all sins” appear in the absolution rite. (Misereatur...omnibus peccatis; Indulgentiam ...omnium peccatorum)

1604 Roman Missal: The words “all sins” do not appear in Clement VIII’s Missal.

1570 Roman Missal: At High Mass the verse Dirigatur Domine ... is to be said by the celebrant while he incenses the altar before saying the Introit and again when the altar is incensed during the Offertory.

1604 Roman Missal: This rubric is suppressed in the Missal of Clement VIII.

1570 Roman Missal: The Kings name is mentioned in the Canon.

1604 Roman Missal: This rubric suppressed.

1570 Roman Missal: The words “As often as you do these things...,” (Haec quotiescumque) are said while the celebrant elevates the chalice.

1604 Roman Missal: The rubrics order the above words to be said after the elevation instead of during.

1570 Roman Missal: At the end of High Mass, the celebrant is directed to impart three blessings not one: one at the epistle corner, one in the center, and one at the gospel corner of the altar. (“In missa solemnia... ter benedicat populo, primo a cornu Epistolae dicens, Pater, secundo ante medium altaris dicens, Et Filius, tertio a cornu Evangelii dicens, Et Spiritus Sanctus...”)

1604 Roman Missal: This rubric suppressed and triple blessings reserved for prelates.

Source: Paul Cavendish, in an article for Altar No. 1, 1994 "The Tridentine Mass". Cites Missale Romanum, Paris, 1572, British Library Catalogue 1475.bb. 15; Pontificale Romanum, Venice, 1572, British Library Catalogue C132.h.50.

Also of note is the suppression by the 1570 Roman Missal of a proper Mass entitled the “Immaculate Conception” for December 8th. Most pre-Trent missals have this Mass formula and give the introit Egredimini and the same collect as in the Mass proper Pius IX was to authorize three centuries later. In Pius V’s missal no mention of “immaculate” appears and in most of the early editions of the missal a proper is not even printed on December 8th for Our Lady’s Conception instead a rubric directs the celebrant to use the formulary given for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin on September 8th and change the word “nativity” to “conception” in the collect. (Missale Romanum, Venice, 1481, British Library Catalogue IA19880; Missale Romanum, 1572, loc. cit).

Pope St. Pius V's missal lasted only 34 years in it's entirety before revision. Clement VIII's missal lasted only 30 years after that. There doesn't seem to be substantial differences in Urban's missal, mainly a re-wording of the rubrics for clarity and a change in the calendar. Of course this missal was again modified by Benedict XV, which incorporated the changes of Pius X revision's to the calendar and rubrics (e.g. the color of vestments within octaves, the number of Masses to be sung in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches when a feast and major feria coincided, rules regarding the choice of preface, and the choice of Mass formulary in Lent et al.) The major change brought about by this revision is the familiar green vestments on Sunday. Before this revision when Sunday's and feasts coincided, the Sunday was commemorated in the festal Mass the color of the vestments therefore being red or white.

Pretty much the same development occured with the Breviary. The Bull establishing the Tridentine Breviary Quod a nobis called down the same wrath of the Apostles Peter and Paul upon any who dared to omitt, add, or change the Breviary of Trent in any manner whatsoever. On that score alone, the argument used for the 'perpetuity' of Quo Primum Tempore would cause us to reject the development to the Breviary in the same manner that the some use Quo Primum Tempore to reject the later revisions to the Roman Missal. Clearly we don't reject the Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Pius X/Benedict XV, Pius XII (except some fringe sedevacanist groups) or the John XXIII (again some sedevacanists do) revisions to the Roman Missal. Since we accept the revisions of the Breviary and Missal up to this point, it's simply arbitrary to not accept those revisions brought about by the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II. Indeed, Quo Primum Tempore simply does not and cannot mean what some claim it to in their protestations of the Vatican II era revisions given their practice of accepting all of the above mentioned reforms.