Fall 2003Publisher: Keep the Faith, Inc. Editor-in-Chief: Father James McLucas Managing Editor: John W. Blewett Associate Editor: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Art Director: Ronald W. Lawson Contributing Editors Father Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P. Ronald P. McArthur Contributors Elizabeth Altham º Matthew M. Anger º Father William Ashley Father Ignacio Barreiro º Bishop Eugenijus Bartulis Father David R. Becker º James Bemis Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. º Laura Berquist Marie Siobhan Boland º Patrick Buchanan Father James B. Buckley, F.S.S.P. º Neri Capponi Francis Carey º Matthew Childs º John Clark William Coulson º Thomas J. Craughwell º H.W. Crocker, III Leo Darroch º Michael Davies º Michael de Tar, M.D. Brett Decker º Patrick Delaney º William Doino, Jr. Thomas A. Droleskey º Father Raymond V. Dunn Alice Thomas Ellis º Father Evaristus Eshiowu º Edwin Faust Christopher Ferrara º Father Sean Finnegan Father Kevin Fitzpatrick º James K. Fitzpatrick Father Robert Fromageot, F.S.S.P. º John Galvin Lord Brian Gill º Cecile Bolling von Goetz Richard Cowden Guido º Norris Harrington Father Brian Harrison, O.S. º Father Ignatius Harrison Kathleen Howley º Kenneth Jones º Father Peter Joseph Hermann Kelly º Thaddeus Kozinski º Joseph Kung Susan Lloyd º James Lothian º Dino Marcantonio Father Anthony Mastroeni º Thomas McArdle Andrew J. McCauley º D. Q. McInerny º Diane Moczar Father John Mole, O.M.I. º Thomas Molnar John Muggeridge º Anne Roche Muggeridge Father Gerald Murray º George Neumayr º John Neumayr Steve O’Brien º Julia Ann O’Sullivan º James Patrick Father John Perricone º Jonathan Peters Robert Phillips º Father Joseph Ponessa º John C. Rao Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. º Bishop Fernando Rifan Michael Rose º Jeffrey Rubin º Claudio R. Salvucci Msgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz º Msgr. Richard J. Schuler Virginia Seuffert º Janet Smith º Father Russell E. Smith Thomas Gordon Smith º Joseph Sobran º James Spencer Alfons Cardinal Stickler º Donna Steichen º Duncan Stroik Robert A. Sungenis º Steven Terenzio º Jeffrey Tucker Daniel Van Slyke º Alice von Hildebrand Tom J. Walsh, M.D. º Bruce Walters, M.D. º David White Father Alan Wilders º David Williams Father W. Ray Williams º Charles M. Wilson Kieron Wood º John Wooten º Alessandro Zangrando The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture is published quarterly in March, June, September and December by Keep the Faith Inc. Donations to The Latin Mass are tax-deductible in the United States. Simply make out a check to Keep the Faith, Inc., and write The Latin Mass on the memo line. The views expressed by The Latin Mass contributors are not necessarily those of the publisher, the editors or Keep the Faith, Inc. Please address all subscrip- tion requests or questions to: The Latin Mass – Keep the Faith, Inc. 50 So. Franklin Turnpike, Ramsey, NJ 07446-2546 Phone (201j 327-5900 º Fax (201j 327-7618 Subscription Rates: 1 year - $28.95 (four issuesj in Canada $50.00 U.S. 2 years - $57.90 (eight issuesj in Canada $85.00 U.S. 3 years - $86.95 (twelve issuesj in Canada $125 U.S. Overseas: $50.00/year (U.S. dollars) Single copy price: $7.25 (includes first class postage) Letters and articles: Address all editorial mail, submissions, letters to the editor, advertising inquiries to: The Latin Mass 391 E. Virginia Terrace Santa Paula, CA 93060 E-Mail:
[email protected] Manuscripts should be submitted in manuscript and if pos- sible in electronic format as a Microsoft Word document. We do not return unsolicited manuscripts. Letters to the editor may be edited for length or clarity. Copyright © 2003 Keep the Faith, Inc. On the cover and inside the back cover: Rest on the flight into Egypt by Luc Olivier Mer- son. The reproduction on the inside back cover is designed for display. Fall 2003 Contents Features 4 Roman Landscape by Alessandro Zangrando 6 A Catholic Witness to History An Interview with Michael Davies 10 Vatican II Renewal: Myth or Reality? by Kenneth C. Jones 16 Building Goddess Paganism by Donna Steichen 26 Friendly Advice from Aelred by Edwin Faust 32 The Incarnation and Western Civilization by Thaddeus Kozinski 37 Sacred Tradition: A Many Splendored Thing (Part 1) by Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. Departments 42 Liturgy: The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy by Father Romano Tommasi 48 Sermon: “Lead Me in the Way of Old” by Father Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P. 50 History: The Monks and Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 54 Saint for the Season: The Disconcerting Sanctity of Thomas Becket by Diane Moczar 58 Architecture: Treasures of Tradition in the World’s Most Tragic City by Michael S. Rose 62 Literature: Visible Man: The Story of H.G. Wells by Matthew Anger and Edward G. Lengel 66 Biography: General Sherman’s Relentless Battle by Steve O’Brien 72 Cinema: Alfred Hitchcock: Spiritual Director? by James Bemis 78 Book Review: Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II by Michael Davies; reviewed by Father Edmund A. Castronovo Homeschooling 82 Motivation and Homeschooling by Laura Berquist 86 In Praise of the Lowly Baltimore by Susan Lloyd 88 Singing with Angels by Arlene Oost-Zinner and Jeffrey Tucker A Final Thought 92 Riches Above, Riches Below by John W. Blewett Fall 2003 42 by Father Romano Tommasi Liturgy U ndoubtedly, that which charac- terizes the Mass of the Roman Rite above all other things is the Roman Canon. 1 When speaking of the Mass of the Roman Rite one must of necessity be speaking of the classic formulation of the Mass, which began its development circa 380, following the transla- tion of the Mass into Latin from its original Greek us- age. 2 It seems to be true, furthermore, that it was the Roman Canon that emerged as the pre-eminent prayer that surpassed all others in representing that which was specifically Roman. 3 To distinguish one liturgical family from another (e.g., the Syrian liturgical family from the Alexandrian), liturgists principally look at the Eucharistic prayer(s) upon which the Mass ritual in question depends. Thus, the Ro- man Canon is the principal means by which we distinguish the Roman rite from those of the East or even from those of other Western traditions. The Roman Canon and the Col- lects (opening and closing prayers) of the Mass (along with the prayer over the people during Lent) make up the basic skeleton upon which the “Roman-ness” of the Mass depends. 4 So powerful was the influence of this Canon that it was adopted by not only the Italian peninsula but was also increasingly adopted in Franco-Ger- without talking about the ancient Anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) of Saint Basil, or its shortened version by Saint John Chrysostom, 8 so on the other hand one cannot speak about the Roman rite without reference to the Roman Canon. The Anaphora of Basil/Chrysostom is the centrifugal point around which the ritual of the current Byzantine lit- urgy revolves; 9 the same can be said of the Roman Canon for the Roman rite. In both these ritual churches, and not a few others, the rite of Mass is principally defined by its prayer of pristine patristic usage, known as its Eucharistic prayer. In the West (Rome), the Roman rite underwent considerable transition not only by gradual development but especially by the reforms of ancient popes. Yet during all these early pa- pal reforms the rock of Gibraltar, so to speak, in the Roman rite was un- doubtedly the substantial text of what is referred to as the Roman Canon. The most important reformer-popes to consider for the Roman rite in the The principal means by which heresies began to be checked in worship was by the imposition of a standard written text for Mass that came to be known in the West as the Canon, or Eucharistic prayer. The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy T h e L a s t S u p p e r b y D i e r i c B o u t s t h e E l d e r man (Gallican) texts and in others, including Orientals, especially after about 750. 5 This same Canon was either adapted from a third-century Alexandrian (Egyptian)-like Eucha- ristic prayer originally in Greek, 6 or perhaps even originated on the Italian peninsula, the prayer itself being ven- erable also within the ancient Church of Milan, known as the Ambrosian rite, after its founder, Saint Ambrose (c. 380). 7 In the East, just as one cannot speak of the Byzantine liturgy 43 Fall 2003 Liturgy The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy patristic Church are Innocent I (c. 415) and Gelasius (c. 495), followed by Vigilius (c. 550) and Gregory the Great (c. 590). 10 (As we shall see, it will also be necessary to include a singular contribution of Pope Saint Leo the Great [c. 450] for the pur- pose of critiquing another so-called “reform” of the Roman rite by the Consilium of Paul VI, which intro- duced new Eucharistic prayers into the Roman Mass.) These popes were all very interested in preserving the apostolic tradition as it was known to them, while simultaneously reform- ing the celebration of the Roman liturgy in order to promote not only a vigorous and harmonious liturgy, but especially to combat heresies or deficiencies that were rife among the people of their own day. The principal means by which her- esies began to be checked in worship was by the imposition of a standard written text for Mass that came to be known in the West as the Canon, or Eucharistic prayer. By the end of the fourth century written Eucharistic prayers had become a normative means of guarding the sacred myster- ies of the Mass from the arbitrary, trite, and erroneous thoughts of less than capable priests who were often an occasion of scandal in their cel- ebration of Mass. 11 It was also about this time, as noted above, that the liturgies of the Roman Empire and elsewhere began to diverge into what we call “rites” or different rituals. The Roman Canon is still consid- ered unique since it is a Eucharistic prayer – much like the figure of Melchisedech, whom the Canon itself invokes as an exemplar – without known parentage or origin; nor is there another comparable Eucharistic prayer to it in all of Christendom. 12 It stands as one long, unique interces- sion through Christ and His saints, which is not meant to be so much a text of practical religious instruc- tion as it is a spiritual and symbolic prayer of intercession. 13 Even today the prayer remains mysterious in origin. Some scholars are cur- rently attempting to draw a close link between the Roman Canon and a Eucharistic prayer of Alexandrian origin. Undoubtedly there existed excellent communications between the sees of Alexandria and Rome in the second and third centuries. It was not uncommon for Alexandrian bishops to celebrate Masses in Rome with the pope present. 14 However, if these contacts were indeed the inspiration for the Ro- man Canon, they can only emphasize the reverence shown to and authentic tradi- tion of such an ancient text, whose origins would thereby be dated to the third century. With all this being said, at the beginning of the reform of the liturgy it was supremely important that whatever work the Consilium did, it was for- bidden to touch the Roman Canon; 15 even a translation of the vener- able text was initially thought to be unthink- able. 16 Later, the Pope unambiguously called for the Canon to remain “immutable,” but this instruction apparently did not mean that Signs of the Cross could not be omitted, or that now the Per ipsum and the consecration could not be said aloud, along with a host of other innovations. 17 By contrast, the venerable Canon was considered inauthentic and impoverished by the Consilium’s secretary, Father An- nibale Bugnini. “The decision to add other Eucharistic Prayers to the Roman Liturgy,” he wrote, “was not an ‘intolerable audacity’ but a return to authentic tradition and a rejection of the deplorable impoverishment that had been a typical result of centuries of liturgical decadence.” 18 Amazingly, immediately prior to these remarks Fr. Bugnini had mentioned that the original and oldest books of the Roman rite had histori- cally possessed many more prefaces that came before the Sanctus; more than the Tridentine missal of Pius V. The pre- Pius V missals also contained a plethora of inserts into the Canon that were in com- mon use until the Tridentine Missal was published. The old missal could easily have been “enriched” with these historical and authentic prefaces and inserts (Communicantes and Hanc igiturs for feasts, etc.) by The Roman Canon is still considered unique since it is a Eucharistic prayer – much like the figure of Melchisedech, whom the Canon itself invokes as an exemplar – without known parentage or origin; nor is there another comparable Eucharistic prayer to it in all of Christendom. The Sacrifice of Melchisedech - mosaic, altar antependium Fall 2003 44 Liturgy The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy reintroducing them into the Roman Canon. Modern advances in print- ing could finally have allowed for an expanded treasury of ancient texts to enrich the Missal of Pius V further without necessitating that the Missal be divided into two volumes (a very real fear and excessive burden). However, instead of restoring authentic and non-intrusive texts to the Missal, Father Bugnini here refers to some sort of “authentic tradition” as the source of his reform-mind- edness. As we are aware, if by “authentic tradi- tion” he means Roman tradition, there is only one Eucharistic prayer that is historical and demonstrable from the earliest days of the Latin rite. It seems that he must instead be referring to a tradition from the period before the formation of the Roman rite, when no Church (east or west) had set a standard text for Mass. This ancient period, then, does not really have a tradition properly speaking; rather it represents a forma- tive stage of Church history, lacking a textual tradition of even (in many cases) written Eucharistic prayers as a norm. Sheer logic compels me to call Father Bugnini’s statement above little more than a bald-faced lie. Furthermore, in pushing the reform of the Roman Canon, the Consilium tried to shift the focus from defin- ing the identity of the Roman rite as a liturgy dependent on the Roman Canon and Roman Collects to a ritual that is merely dependent on the “Ro- man Genius.” This “Roman Genius” is that sober and spare style of Latin composition that exists in the major- ity of traditional Roman liturgical texts. No longer does the Consilium talk of being faithful to the ancient texts of the authentic Roman Liturgy (whether collects, admonitions, or blessings); rather it talks about com- posing entirely innovative prayers that are valid and licit because they are merely in the “spirit of the Ro- man liturgy.” 19 Among the saddest innovations within the Canon itself, however, was that of the removal of the words “the Mystery of Faith” from the words of Consecration of the chalice. The most ancient sacramentaries that we possess in the Roman rite, reflect- ing the authentic Roman rite as celebrated by even Gregory the Great himself, contain not only the Roman Canon, but also, at the consecration of the chalice, the very words: “This is the chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal covenant – the Mystery of Faith – which will be shed for you and for many….” 20 However, follow- ing Vatican II, the Consilium issued a series of objections to the formula Mysterium Fidei: (1) it is not bibli- cal; (2) it is found only in the Roman tradition; (3) its sense is not clear; (4) it interrupts the flow of the words and takes too much emphasis away from the words of institution. 21 First of all, it is important to note that, strictly speaking, the major- ity of eastern and western liturgies’ consecration formulae are not precisely biblical. There is often mixing of accounts from the Gospels, or equivalent vocabulary words, that are not found verbatim in the biblical texts. There are even spliced sentences and omissions of biblical accounts, including the account of the so-called Hippolytus of Rome. 22 Thus it is puzzling as to why a strict biblical reproduction of the words of consecration was deemed necessary, since the Gospels themselves vary in the exact words Jesus used at the consecration. 23 Interestingly enough, a common hypothesis to explain the origin of the words of institution and their variations in the diverse rites of the Church has often been to account for these varying formulae through considering them consecration formulae that are much older than their written form found in manu- scripts. Thus each formula could take its origin from the Roman imperial period, when for the most part only orally transmitted Eucharistic prayers existed. Each of these differing accounts of the words of institution could be considered a unique and valuable tradition originating from the ancient genius of a local com- munity. 24 Second, the Mysterium Fidei is, according to the Consilium, found only in the “Roman tradition.” It is truly stunning that the “experts” responsible for returning the liturgy to its pristine usage, as in the days of the Fathers, would not consider the Mysterium Fidei a precious Roman pearl, since it is unique to the Roman liturgy alone. 25 It is the inheritance of the Latin Church uniquely. It is Among the saddest innovations within the Canon itself, however, was that of the removal of the words “the Mystery of Faith” from the words of Consecration of the chalice. 45 Fall 2003 patristic in its origin, contained in all ancient Latin sacramentaries, and is peculiar to our rite. Thus it is nonsense to delete something so spe- cifically Roman. The fact that it is found only in our tradition strength- ens, not weakens, the argument for its retention. Thirdly, it was further lamented that the sense of the words was not clear. 26 Obviously, whatever the strict meaning of the words “Mystery of Faith,” they are meant to describe the Blood. The Blood of Christ is the “Mystery of Faith.” 27 It doesn’t take a genius to figure out in what ways the Blood of Christ is a mystery for our faith. Whether talking about its redemptive value or its otherworldly character to forgive sins and over- come evil, clearly the application of these words here is true, accurate, and not given to heretical or errone- ous interpretation. Furthermore, recent studies have helped scholars possibly pinpoint its mean- ing even more precisely. The most recent leanings in the scholarly world tend to regard the words Mysterium Fidei as an addi- tion to the words of consecration by the preeminent doctrinal champion of the Church, Saint Leo the Great. It seems that in fighting against Manicheism, he inserted the words to emphasize the world-saving character of the consecrated chal- ice. 28 Heretics at the time denied the efficacy of wine to be changed into the Blood of Christ, since wine was considered evil, or at least the cause of evils (as in the extremes of the temperance movement, along with Mormons and certain Prot- estants). Lastly, the phrase was denounced for di- recting too much emphasis away from the words of consecration by having the em- phasis on the last words: “which will be offered for you and for many unto the remission of sins….” If it is accepted that Mysterim Fidei is an addendum to the words “this is the cup of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament,” it seems that rather it continues almost to over-emphasize the consecration above and beyond any other part of the phrase. It is not just the “chalice of my Blood” but rather Blood of the “new covenant.” Not merely Blood of the “new covenant,” but Blood of the “new and everlast- ing covenant.” Not even this is enough: it is, furthermore, Blood of the “new and everlasting covenant,” the same covenant that is the “Mystery” of the Christian “Faith.” It seems difficult to posit that the words Mysterium Fidei draw emphasis toward anything but the nature of the Blood poured out for sinners. It should be emphasized that the problem of the reformers removing the words Mysterium Fidei from the consecration formula is not one of sacramen- tal validity. It is a puerile theol- ogy that calls into question the Church’s power to change any non- essential words in the consecration formula. Even before Vatican II, the Magisterium had been teaching that the only words necessary for validity were nothing more than “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood.” 29 To settle this argument more authori- tatively, one need only refer to the official response of the Holy See on the essential words of consecration in order to perform the Sacrifice of the Mass. Again the essential words do not include mentioning either the chalice, the Mystery of Faith, etc., but only “this is my Blood.” 30 Pius XII closes any doubt as to this question in his Constitution Sac- ramentum Ordinis, in which he refers to the differences between the Greek Church and the Roman Church when it comes to the priestly ordination ritual. Since the Roman Church has always recognized the validity of Greek sacraments, it is necessary to conclude that the essential elements of any sacrament are found in those essential words and actions that were instituted by Christ the Lord Himself. This is the minimal condition for va- lidity. The infallible Council of Flor- ence declared that Greeks observe their ordination rituals, even though they didn’t have the same ritual as It is truly stunning that the “experts” responsible for returning the liturgy to its pristine usage, as in the days of the Fathers, would not consider the Mysterium Fidei a precious Roman pearl, since it is unique to the Roman liturgy alone. It is the inheritance of the Latin Church uniquely. It is patristic in its origin, contained in all ancient Latin sacramentaries, and is peculiar to our rite. The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy Liturgy Pope Pius XII offering a private Mass. Fall 2003 46 Liturgy the Romans (e.g., handing the Gospel over to the deacon, a paten and chalice to a priest, etc.). The conclu- sion was that the Romans and Greeks have the common tradition of laying on of hands and invocation of the Holy Spirit, and that therefore this is the only essential part of the sacra- ment. However, the Roman Church has the power to require additional ceremonies for validity by power of the Keys of Peter. In the case of the words of institu- tion in the Mass, the situation is analogous. All churches (East and West) share the essential necessity of needing a priest (with right intention) to repeat the words of our Savior over the natural elements of bread and wine. The addition of the Mysterium Fidei was an additional requirement for validity in the Roman rite until the Pope exercised the Keys of Peter to reduce the formula of consecra- tion to a more basic and minimal formula. 31 The problematic question here is, again, not one of validity but is rather one of asking: “How does removing the Mysterium Fidei do any- thing ben- eficial for the Roman rite?” Whether speaking merely in historical or liturgical terms the reform is an absolute aberration. In fact, it was only through the auspices and force of Paul VI’s personal efforts that the Mysterium Fidei was even allowed into the Novus Ordo. Yet it was allowed only by way of removing it from the conse- cration formula and introducing after it the acclamation: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” It is no exaggeration to say that Pope Paul VI arbitrarily introduced an anti-liturgi- cal practice, 32 against the advice of his hand-picked experts, 33 purely for the motive of having the faith- ful verbally make an acclamation in imitation of those that exist in the majority of the eastern liturgies. 34 Yet for all this Paul VI’s aberrant act was excused by some experts since it at least promoted “active participation.” 35 It is puzzling to see so much effort spent by the Consilium in expunging Gallican prayers (e.g., the priest’s silent prayers in the Mass) from our liturgy only to adopt other prayers in imitation of eastern rites. The Gallican prayers are considered influenced by the eastern churches’ liturgies; therefore the Consilium expunged them as being against the spirit of the Roman liturgy, while now eastern-like practices are adopted with the post-consecration acclamation. Is logic a part of the liturgical reform? First of all, the idea of using the Mysterium Fidei to introduce an acclamation by the faithful was the idea of liturgical amateurs whose opinions were not even respected by the Consilium itself. 36 Second, the Pope enthusiastically pushed for the acclamation to be inserted into the Canon. 37 The Consilium rightly pro- tested that the placing of the Mysteri- um Fidei after the consecration would (1) be an innovation found in no other rite or church; (2) disrupt the action of the Mass and the flow of the Canon at its apex; (3) change the entire mean- ing of Mysterium Fidei – no longer referring to the chalice, as before, but to Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and future com- ing. 38 The original acclamation pro- posed was: “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” The actual literal translation is, “We announce your death, O Lord, and we confess your resurrection, until you come again.” This is still found in the newest edition of the Missal of Paul VI. It has been purported that this invocation is in imitation of the venerable and ancient rendition of the Roman Canon as found in the rite of Saint Ambrose, or Ambrosian rite of Milan. To a certain extent this is true. When all was said and done, these facts remained: no tradition was restored to the Canon, no problems were solved, and no renewal took place. The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy The Last Supper, central panel, by Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen 47 Fall 2003 Liturgy Father Romano Tommasi received his Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) from the Pontifical University of San Anselmo in Rome. Notes 1. SCIENTIA LITURGICA, Manuale di Liturgia, ed. professori del Pontificio Istituto Liturgico S. Anselmo, 5 vol., Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1998. Edizione Italiana. (vol 3, p. 65). 2. Neunheuser, Burkhard di. Storia della liturgia attreverso le epoche culturali, Centro Liturgico Vincenziano-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1999 (3a Edizione), pp. 58-59. 3. MILLER, JOHN H., Fundamentals of the Liturgy, Notre Dame, Indiana, Fides Publishers 1962 (2nd edition), pp. 54-55. The substance of the Roman rite is found in the ancient text, all of which have only the Roman Canon, and certain types of prayers for seasons throughout the year. 4. Ibid., p. 75. 5. Vogel, Cyril. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources. The Pastoral Press: Washington D.C., 1986. pp. 73-75 (revised edition in English). 6. Perhaps the Roman Canon is closely linked with Alexandria, Egypt. See: MAZZA, ENRICO, The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation, Min- nesota, Liturgical Press 1999 (1 st English edition). Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell, pp. 62-66. 7. PREX EUCHARITICA, Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus selecti, Albert Gerhards et Heinzgerd Brakmann (editio tertia), vol. 1 , Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1998, pp. 421-422. 8. SCHULZ, HAN-JOACHIM, The Byzantine Liturgy, New York, Pueblo 1986 (1 st English Edition). Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. Pp. 142-144. Here the entire liturgy is reduced to a discussion of the anaphora. 9. Historically, of course, the anaphora of Saint James is of great importance as well. 10. SCIENTIA LITURGICA, pp. 130-131. 11. Synod of Hippo (AD 393), canon XXIII is the begin- ning of a long line of western legislation to prevent abuses. 12. SCIENTIA LITURGICA, p. 65. 13. MAZZA, ENRICO, The Celebration of the Eucha- rist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation, p. 270. Here he laments this point, instead of praising the unique features of our ritual. 14. JUNGMANN, JOSEPH, The Mass of the Roman Rite: its origins and development, 2 vol. New York, Benzinger Brothers, 1951 (1 st English edition. Trans. Francis A. Brunner). vol. 2, p. 32. 15. BUGNINI, A. Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75, Col- legeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press, 1990 (1 st English edition. Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell), pp. 450, 462. 16. Ibid., pp. 105-113. 17. La riforma conciliare dell’<<Ordo Missae>>. Il percorso storico-redazionale dei riti d’ingresso, di offertorio e di comunione (BEL, 120), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 2002, pp. 356-358. 18. BUGNINI, A. Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75, Col- legeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press, 1990 (1 st English edition. Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell), p. 549. 19. Ibid. Fr. Bugnini admits that the Consilium when well beyond the parameters of Vatican II in Sacro- Sanctum Concilium. See The Reform of the Roman Liturgy 1948-1975, p. 110 20. LIBER SACRAMENTORUM ROMANAE AECLESIAE ORDINIS ANNI CIRCULI (Cod. Vat. Reg. Lat. 316/Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, 41/56) (SACRAMENTARIUM GELASIANUM), Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, cura Pontificii Athenaei Sancti Anselmi de Urbe Edita Moderante L.C. Mohlberg, Series Maior Fontes vol. 4, Casa Editrice Herder, Roma 1960. Capitulum [XVIII], # 1249 (Latin only). 21. La riforma conciliare dell’ <Ordo Missae>, p. 489. 22. JUNGMANN, JOSEPH A., Mass of the Roman Rite, 194-202 23. In fact, initially, the words in the Roman Canon were the same as always. Only the 3 new Eucharistic prayers had different words of consecration. This allowed pressure to be put on the Pope to change the Roman Canon so that it would agree with the newly created Eucharistic prayers. See Fr. Bugnini’s Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, p. 180, 382. 24. Ibid. 25. Excepting the Ambrosian rite, of course. 26. In an embarrassing feigning of concern for orthodoxy, Fr. Bugnini records that another serious concern is that Mysterium Fidei could be translated “a sign of our faith.” He is frantic to protest that these words might lead one to think of the Mass as a sign and not sacrifice; that is using his loaded and inaccurate translation. Apparently, however, there is no problem using pagan Indian vedic scriptures to replace Mass texts in order to “inculturate” the liturgy. See Reform of the Liturgy, pp. 272, 454. 27. ECCLESIA ORANS. MYSTERIUM FIDEI AND ST. LEO THE GREAT (440-461), Estratto da Ecclesia Orans-Anno XV-1198-3, Cassian Folsom, Pontificio Istituto Liturgico, Roma, 1998, p. 292. 28. Ibid., pp. 289-302. 29. Papal Teachings, The Liturgy, St Paul Editions, ed. The Benedictine Monks of Solemnes, Boston, 1962, pp. 508-509. Pius XII, Papal Allocution: “Sacred Liturgy and Pastoral Action” (808). 30. ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM, ed. H.Denzinger, H., -P. Hunermann, Herder, ed., Freiburg i. Br 1991. See #3928: Decr. S. Officii, 8 Mart. (23 Maii) 1957…De valida concelebratione. 31. ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM, ed. H. Denz- inger, H., -P. Hunermann, Herder, ed., Freiburg i. Br 1991, See #3857-3859. 32. Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, p. 370. 33. Ibid., p. 371. Three serious official rejections can be found by the Consilium. 34. Ibid., pp. 454-455. 35. Ibid., p. 372. 36. Ibid., pp. 351-352. 37. Ibid., p. 365. 38. La riforma conciliare dell’ <Ordo Missae>, pp. 610-611. 39. Mandans quoque, et dicens ad eos: Haec quoties- cunque feceritis in meam commemorationem facietis, mortem meam praedicabitis, resurrectionem meam annunciabitis, adventum meum sperabitis, donec iterum de coelis veniam ad vos. (Missale Ambrosia- num, 1962). Remember that Paul VI had been in the See of Milan before becoming Pope. Couldn’t he be simply suggest- ing here an ancient practice dating to the days of Saint Ambrose? Absolutely not. A perusal of the Ambrosian rite Mass text makes apparent the following two observa- tions. First, the Mysterium Fidei is found exactly in accord with that of the Missal of Pius V before Vatican II. The words Mysterium Fidei were later removed from the ancient words of consecration only after Vatican II. Second, in the Ambrosian rite, after the consecration of the chalice, the priest alone declares: “Also [Jesus] ordering and saying to them: ‘Howev- er often that you’ve done these things, in my memory will you do [them], you will preach my death, you will announce my resurrection, you will hope for my arrival, until again I shall come to you from the heavens.’ ” 39 This is a clear and unambiguous reference to the fact that the priest explains that when the faithful do “these things” (eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ) they preach his death and resurrection while waiting on Him to come. The most important objection is that the new acclamation interrupts the flow of the Mass. This innovation has brought us back into yet another vicious circle. One of the initial rea- sons for taking the Mysterium Fidei out of the words of consecration in the first place was that it interrupted the flow of the narrative! Now, in order to save the narrative from being inter- rupted, the Canon as a whole is split into two. When all was said and done, these facts remained: no tradition was restored to the Canon, no problems were solved, and no renewal took place. The Roman Canon: Prescription Against Heresy