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.

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.

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

New URL

I'll be changing the name of this blog to www.sanctamliturgiam.blogspot.com by the end of the week

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.

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.

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.

Veni Veni Emmanuel

Taking the time to study the propers and readings for the Masses of Advent is quite edifying. Both the current missa normativa and the 1962 editio typica do not in fact spend most of their time contemplating the Nativity of our Lord primarily. In fact, the season itself is one with a penitential character. The focus is on not only preparing and remembering for the historical event of the Virgin Birth, but has an eschatological meaning in the preparing and waiting for the glorious Second Coming.

The scripture texts in the 1962 Missal are: Rom 13:11-14, Luke 21: 25-33 (First Sunday); Rom 15:4-13, Matt 11:2-10 (Second Sunday); Philip 4:4-7, John 1:19-28 (Third Sunday); 1 Cor 4:1-5, Luke 3:1-6 (Fourth Sunday).

The scripture texts in the current Missal are: Is 2:1-5, Ps 122:1-9, Rom 13:11-14, Matt 24:37-44 (First Sunday); Is 11:1-10, Ps 72:1-2, 7-8, 12-13, 17, Rom 15:4-9, Matt 3:1-12 (Second Sunday); Is 35:1-6a, 10, Ps 146:6-10, Jas 5:7-10, Matt 11:2-11 (Third Sunday); Is 7:10-14, Ps 24:1-6, Rom 1:1-7, Matt 1:18-24 (Fourth Sunday).

In both missals what is underscored for the liturgy is a remembrance of the promises of redemption in the Old Testament, a celebration of the Nativity as a historical event, and the looking forward to the advent of our Saviour in the end times. The First Sunday reminds us at the Postcommunion prayer that the coming celebration is the celebration of our Redemption.1 The Communion prayer of the Second Sunday reminds us to rejoice with Jerusalem as the prophets had extolled her for the joy which comes from God.2 The Third Sunday captures the underlying idea behind the Advent Season: God will save us. This message is expressed throughout the season in the readings and especially on the Third Sunday in the Collect and the Communion prayer.3 The Fourth Sunday builds to the celebration coming and expresses it's joy and expectation in the Introit, while begging for forgiveness in anticipation of the Nativity/Second Coming in the Alleluia.4.

The study of liturgical texts bears the fruits of contemplation, giving the individual to understand the communal celebration of the Church. She bears witness to the Faith in and through her liturgy. This season is one of penance in reparation for failures and in anticipation of salvation. It is a season of joy, recalling the God who is faithful to his promise and with Fatherly love gives to us every good thing: expressing it in the humbling of the Second Person who deigns to take upon himself our human nature for the salvation of those whom he loves so perfectly. Let us recall this event, amend our lives, and look forward with joy to this forthcoming celebration: remembering always that he has kept his promises and will keep his promise to return.

Allelúia, allelúia. Excita Dómine poténtiam tuam et veni: ut salvos fácias nos. Allelúia.

Alleluia, alleluia. Stir up Thy might, O Lord, and come: that Thou mayest save us. Alleluia Ps 79:3

---

1. Postcommunion: May we in the midst of Thy holy temple, O Lord, receive of Thy mercy, who seek with fitting honour to welcome the coming festival of our Redemption. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

2. Communion - Bar. 5:5; 4:36: Arise, O Jerusalem, and stand on high: and behold the joy that cometh to thee from thy God.

3. Communion - Is. 35:4: Say, ye faint-hearted, take courage, and fear not: behold our God will come and will save us. Collect: Bow down Thine ear, we beseech Thee, O Lord, to our prayers; and by the brightness of Thine Advent lighten the darkness of our minds. Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

4. Introit: Is. 45:8; Ps. 18:2: Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just; let the earth be opened and bud forth a Saviour. Ps: The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of His hands. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. Alleluia: Alleluia, alleluia. Come O Lord, and tarry not: forgive the sins of Thy people Israel. Alleluia.

Incidentally it is also the Fourth Sunday of Advent in the 1962 Missal which uses the text that we know as the first half of the Hail Mary: Offertory: Luke 1:28, 42: Hail Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Rubrics for Holy Communion during Mass

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 26, 1960, AAS 52, 596: Promulgation of the New Rubrical Code.
Motu proprio Rubricarum instructum, Pope John XXIII, July 25, 1960 (Novum rubricarum breviarii et missalis romani corpus approbatur, AAS 52, 593-595)

Part 3, Chapter 8, I. 502-503:

502. The proper time for distributing holy communion to the faithful is within the Mass, after the communion of the celebrating priest, who himself distributes it to those who seek it, unless it is appropriate by reason of the great number of communicants that he be helped by another priest or priests.
It is altogether improper, however, that holy communion be distributed by another priest, outside of the proper time of communion, at the same altar at which Mass is being celebrated.
On the other hand, it is also permissible for a good reason to distribute holy communion immediately before or after Mass, or even outside of the time of Mass. In such cases the form prescribed in the Roman ritual [Rituale Romanum], tit. 5, ch. 2, nos 1-10, is used.

503. Whenever holy communion is distributed within the Mass, when the celebrant has consumed the most sacred Blood, the Confiteor and the absolution [Misereatur et Indulgentiam] are omitted, but the celebrant says the Ecce Agnus Dei and says the Domine, non sum dignus three times, and then proceeds immediately to the distribution of the holy Eucharist.

Source: The New Liturgy: A Documentation 1903 to 1965, R. Kevin Seasoltz, 1966, Herder and Herder New York 16, N.Y.

[insertions in brackets are mine].

Simili Modo (Consecration of the Chalice)

Missale Romanum 1962
Simili modo, postquam coenatum est, accipens et hunc praeclarum Calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas: item tibi gratias agens, benedixit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite, et bibite ex eo omnes.

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

Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.

In like manner, when supper was done, taking also this goodly chalice into His holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye all and drink of this:

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.

As often as you shall do these things, in memory of Me shall you do them.1

Alternate Translations:

In like manner, after supper, taking also this excellent chalice into His holy and venerable hands: and giving thanks to Thee, He blessed, and gave to His disciples, saying: Take, and drink ye all of it: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which will be shed for you, and for many, unto the remission of sins. As often as you do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of Me.2

In like manner, after He had supped, taking also into His holy and venerable hands this goodly chalice again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye, and drink ye all of this: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins. As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in memory of Me. 3

Missale Romanum 1970
Simili modo, postquam cenatum est, accipens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, item tibi gratias agens benedixit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens:

Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

Mysterium fidei.

All:
A. Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.
B. (Not an option in Latin)
C. Quotiescumque manducamus panem hunc et calicem bibimus, motem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, donec venias.
D. Salvatur mundi, salva nos, qui per crucem et resurrectionem tuam liberasti nos.

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:

All:
A. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
B. Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.
C. When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.
D. Lord, by your cross and resurrection you have set us free. You are the Savior of the world. 4

Mozarabic ( Missale Mixtum from Patrologia Latina Volume 85): 5
HIC EST: CALIX : NOVI : TESTAMENTI : IN : MEO : SANGUINE : QUI : PRO : VOBIS : ET : PRO : MULTIS : EFFUNDETUR : IN : REMISSIONEM : PECCATOREM.
This is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

Divine Liturgy of St. Basil: 6
P: He tasted, and gave it also to his own holy disciples and saintly apostles saying "Take, drink of it all of you. For this is my Blood for the new covenant which shall be shed for you and many, to be given for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me."
C: This is also true. Amen.

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:7
P: Drink of this all, THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.
C: Amen.

Syriac Antiochean Maronite Liturgy (Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles): 8
Ho-no den ee-tow dmo deel dee-ya-tee-qee hda-to dah-lo-fy-koon wah-lof sa-gee-yeh meh-teh-shed ou-meh-tee-heb lhoo-so-yo dhow-beh wal-ha-yeh dal-o’-lam ‘ol-meen.
This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed and handed over to you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

De Sacramentis: 9
Hic est enim sanguis meus.
For this is My Blood.

In the prayer over the Chalice, the prayer of consecration has been changed (as also in the prayer over the bread) but this by not an addition but a relocation of the phrase: mystery of faith (mysterium fidei). This phrase is not found in the context of the words of consecration in other liturgical Rites that are conceded to be also valid. "[T]he mystery of faith . . . indicates the unsearchable depth and obscurity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. That the God-Man did shed His Blood for us on the Cross, and that He again sheds it for us in a mystical manner on the altar – is an adorable divine achievement which includes in itself that sum of the most unheard-of wonders, all of which can be acknowledged and believed as true only in the light and the power of faith."10

His Holiness Pope Paul VI wrote in his Encyclical Mysterium Fidei that, "The Mystery of Faith, that is, the ineffable gift of the Eucharist that the Catholic Church received from Christ, her Spouse, as a pledge of His immense love, is something that she has always devoutly guarded as her most precious treasure . . ." The words therefore refer to and encapsulate what has taken place on the Altar. It is the greatest mystery that transcends time to bring the people of God to the foot of the Cross and the act of our redemption. It transcends the purely physical world wherein heaven and earth become one and we are brought into the presence of the Most High God, Jesus Christ.

In the ICEL translation the phrase moved out of the consecratory formula is placed within the context of proclamation (Let us proclaim the mystery of faith). Some might mistake the proclamation that follows as being the mystery of faith, but the proclamation is a response to the mystery of faith that has already taken place, the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. It follows on St. Paul’s exhortation in his first letter to the Corinthians that "as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes." 1 Cor 11:26 In our acclamation which follows the consecration we profess by our words and through our deeds (that of sacramental or spiritual reception) that we believe with St. Paul that the death of our Lord on the Cross has just been made present to us.

The consecratory formula is “this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” The words ‘for all’ are used in the vernacular instead of the literal translation of ‘for many’. There are those who see in this an insertion of a heretical teaching into the holy liturgical rite of the Catholic Church. Without getting into a drawn out discussion on sacramental theology, it suffices to put forth the explanation that because the sacrifice of the Altar is the self-same sacrifice of the Cross, we cannot consider it a heretical proposition that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered objectively for the salvation of the world (i.e. all men). (See Does For All Invalidate the Consecration?, The "Pro Multis" Question (9/21/03))

I refer the reader to check this Zenit file, which addresses this particular issue from the linguistic and scriptural point of view. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has always taught the objective redemption of all as found in her liturgical rites: for our salvation and the salvation of all, that is on this day...(pro nostra omniumque salute pateretur, hoc est, hodie) is inserted into the Qui pridie on Holy Thursday.11 In addition to this text, the offertory prayer of the Chalice offers the Chalice with the express intention of being ‘for our salvation and that of the whole world’ (pro nostra et totius mundi salute). If these examples do not suffice to convince the inquirer to the truth that this is the constant teaching of the Church, perhaps the problem is not theological but attitudinal.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
The Mystery of Faith!
R. 1: We proclaim your death, O Lord, and we profess belief in your resurrection until at length you come!
R. 2: As often as we eat this bread and drink this chalice, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until at length you come!
R. 3: Save us, O Savior of the world, who freed us through your Cross and resurrection!12

In the case of these prayers, I don't see a substantial difference between the translations. The first is a looser translation that seems to convey the general meaning of the Latin text. The second is a literal translation that is more accurate to the authoritative Latin text. I prefer the second for several reasons. The language is more dignified. My experience at English vernacular celebrations of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy has completely debunked (at least for me) the excuse that a literal translation is not as easily proclaimed. Many of the invocations in the Byzantine tradition are quite formal and hence in my opinion are far better used for proclamation of the sacred mysteries. In following more closely the original Latin the unity of our profession of faith in the various approved vernacular languages will be more clearly demonstrated. It is with great hope that I await the fruition of the decrees of Liturgiam Authenticam, wherein our liturgy will be returned in many points to agreement with the original texts.

The acclamations which follow have an eschatalogical dimension. They speak our faith in the return of the Lord at the end times. Within this same context St. Paul acclaims that in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, our Paschal feast, we proclaim these same beliefs by keeping the feast. The 1970 Missale Romanum makes this aspect of our participation explicit.

With the prayer Simili Modo, we must overcome several objections to validity. We have shown above that there is no heresy involved in the for many/for all alteration. Further, that the removal of the phrase mystery of faith does not invalidate the consecration because it is also not present in valid Eastern anaphora in the context of the words of institution. The Church has approved the formulas for use in the original Latin text and in the approved vernacular translations therefore we are sure of their efficacy.

---

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

2 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Litugically and Ascetically Explained, Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 1877 1st edition, 1897 6th edition, translated from German ©1902, printed 1924, page 638.

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 783.

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

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

6 Divine Liturgy of St. Basil

7 Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

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

9 De Sacramentis, St. Ambrose.

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 641.

11 Missale Romanum editio princeps, pg. 238 Libreria Editrice Vatticana, Citta del Vaticano, 1998. Fr Lasance, The New Roman Missal, pg 453.

12 The translation is provided by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf with permission. His scholarly articles appear in the Wanderer and at his website What Do The Prayers Really Say? I highly encourage anyone interested to peruse either his site or his articles in the Wanderer.

Update:
Oct. 12, 2005: Added link - Does For All Invalidate the Consecration?
Oct. 14, 2005: Added link - The "Pro Multis" Question from rerum-novarum.blogspot.com

Confiteor Deo

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

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

P/S: Amen.

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

S. Amen.

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

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

P/S: Amen.

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

S.Amen.

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

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

C: Amen.

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

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

C: Amen.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Prayers at the foot of the Altar

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Participation of the Faithful - 1962 Missale Romanum

Changes in the rubrical code:

References:1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this more perfect participation there are four stages:

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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