Preliminary Remarks on the Roman Canon

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

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

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

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

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

4 Ibid., page 555.

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

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

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

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

9 Ibid., page 722.

10 Ibid., page 719.

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

Offertory Prayers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

3 Ibid., page 506.

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

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

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

7 Oratre fratres pro me peccatore ad Dominum Deum nostrum.

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

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

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

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

Traditionalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classical:
HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Indult for 1962 Roman Rite

Quattor Abhinc Annos,Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, October 3, 1984:

The link above will give you the full text. The pertinent text is below:

"Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:

a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases."

According to the above text, the Supreme Pontiff has placed certain restrictions upon the use of the Indult, and only provides for it's possibility which rests upon the decision of the diocesan bishop.

Ecclesia Dei - Pope John Paul II, Motu Proprio, July 2, 1988

"c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

Ecclesia Dei exhorts a wide and generous application of the directive already issued (i.e. Quattuor Abhinc Annos) for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

Therefore it is clearly manifest that permission from the diocesan bishop is absolutely mandatory according to current ecclesiatical law for the licit celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. As such, no priest has the right to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal without the permission of the diocesan bishop. All celebrations of the Missal of 1962 not in accord with these directives are illicit (illegal) if obstinate, done without dispensation from the above, and further more are an occasion of sin for the Priest who so celebrates.

Liturgical Vestments

Here are the official documents regulating the choice of vestments:
Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia,2001 :
This document includes the adaptations of the USCCB as approved by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 17, 2003.

346. As to the color of sacred vestments, the traditional usage is to be retained: namely,

a. White is used in the Offices and Masses during the Easter and Christmas seasons; also on celebrations of the Lord other than of his Passion, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Holy Angels, and of Saints who were not Martyrs; on the Solemnities of All Saints (1 November) and of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist (24 June); and on the Feasts of Saint John the Evangelist (27 December), of the Chair of Saint Peter (22 February), and of the Conversion of Saint Paul (25 January).

b. Red is used on Palm Sunday of the Lord's Passion and on Good Friday, on Pentecost Sunday, on celebrations of the Lord's Passion, on the feasts of the Apostles and Evangelists, and on celebrations of Martyr Saints.

c. Green is used in the Offices and Masses of Ordinary Time.

d. Violet or purple is used in Advent and of Lent. It may also be worn in Offices and Masses for the Dead (cf. below).

e. Besides violet, white or black vestments may be worn at funeral services and at other Offices and Masses for the Dead in the Dioceses of the United States of America.

f. Rose may be used, where it is the practice, on Gaudete Sunday (Third Sunday of Advent) and on Laetare Sunday (Fourth Sunday of Lent).

g. On more solemn days, sacred vestments may be used that are festive, that is, more precious, even if not of the color of the day.

h. Gold or silver colored vestments may be worn on more solemn occasions in the dioceses of the United States of America.

347. Ritual Masses are celebrated in their proper color, in white, or in a festive color; Masses for Various Needs, on the other hand, are celebrated in the color proper to the day or the season or in violet if they are of a penitential character, for example, no. 31 (in Time of War or Conflict), no. 33 (in Time of Famine), or no. 38 (for the Forgiveness of Sins); Votive Masses are celebrated in the color suited to the Mass itself or even in the color proper to the day or the season.

Now this is in reply to questions concerning Mediator Dei and the implications of No 62. I qoute:

"Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path...were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments."

It is quite plain according to the official document of the GIRM with the authorized adaptations for use in the dioceses of the United States that black as a color for liturgical vestments has not been excluded, cf. above GIRM No. 346(e).

Picture

Keith Kenney