What Is The Mystery Of Our Faith--liturgically Speaking?

[genxcathedra]

I prefer the classic one around for hundreds or thousands of years old that says something like "This is the Blood of the new and eternal Testament: shed for you and for many...". Since Vatican 2, I think it says in its stead, Christ has died...Christ has risen...Christ will come again" or "Rising He destroyed our death, rising he restored our life...". That doesn't mean we don't know. There must be a good explanation why they wrote new ones. It doesn't shake my Faith as I have attested to in previous posts, but I would like one knowledgeable on N.O. liturgy or one who heard it before, explain that one.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='genxcathedra' post='1356957' date='Aug 11 2007, 08:56 PM']I prefer the classic one around for hundreds or thousands of years old that says something like "This is the Blood of the new and eternal Testament: shed for you and for many...". Since Vatican 2, I think it says in its stead, Christ has died...Christ has risen...Christ will come again" or "Rising He destroyed our death, rising he restored our life...". That doesn't mean we don't know. There must be a good explanation why they wrote new ones. It doesn't shake my Faith as I have attested to in previous posts, but I would like one knowledgeable on N.O. liturgy or one who heard it before, explain that one.[/quote]
I too find the redactions of the consilium "experts" to be inferior to the Mass that is the fruit of organic development through the ages. I should note that they are both heaven on earth so this "inferiority" does not imply anything on the level of validity or holiness.

This is the pericope in question from the Mass of the Ages.

[i]"This is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal covenant - the mystery of faith - which will be shed [is being shed] for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. As often as you shall do these actions, you will do them in memory of me."[/i]

The ICEL translation of the words of institution [consecration] is pretty unfaithful to the authoritative Latin text of the novus ordo (it banalizes the text) -- Eucharistic Prayer I reads thus:

[i]"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:"[/i]

For those who read Latin here is the official text:

[i]"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."[/i]

And the Latin of the Mass of the Ages:

[i]"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."[/i]

As I understanding it some of the reasoning behind this revision of the canon (I refuse to comment on the ICEL translation) is as follows:

1. A desire to conform more fully to the biblical "institution narratives" which lack the phrase "mysterium fidei".
2. The notion that these words [mysterium fidei] are essentially declamatory and that this takes away from the active character of the words of consecration (thus moving the phrase after the consecration is a logical move).
3. Belief in the bogus hypothesis that the words 'mysterium fidei' had at one point been said after the consecration to indicate to those present (assuming a consecration in a low tone) that the consecration had been completed. This hypothesis then assumes that these words later crept into the midst of the consecration prayers and are thus another whack medieval accretion to be flushed out with merciless scholarly arithmetic.

4. (I separate this one by a line because it is entirely my own conjecture; take it for what its worth) The bifurcation of the Roman Canon in this manner affords an occasion of dialogue even in the peak of the Eucharistic Liturgy, thus taking the "dialogue Mass" to hitherto unseen heights. To completely shatter the traditional approach to the consecration (silent adoration and such) we now have "active participation" (in the completely exterior sense) at the summit of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Reason number one seems to be a fair enough motivation but sadly I must tend toward the view that these kind of motivations have perhaps been excessive in a way that has contributed to what the Pope calls the hermeneutic of discontinuity or the hermeneutic of rupture. In essence this means that many have interpreted the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that followed as a break with tradition and as a new kind of Catholicism that is very much separated from the Pre-Conciliar Church. Many of the principles at work in the new Mass can be linked with the various movements that have been seen as embodying the spirit of Vatican II (the biblical movement, the ecumenical movement, et cetera). In this light the creation of a new Mass and the practical condemnation of the traditional Mass can be seen as the concretization of this new Catholicism.

Reason number three is, as far as I know, simply a highly speculative theory that lacks any real support. Even if it did have serious plausibility, changing the Mass on this basis would still, to my mind, reveal a certain lack of respect for the living, historical organism of the Liturgy. This view of mine is certainly debatable, but what isn't debatable is that this bogus point alone, if it were true, does not explain or justify the radical revision and complete change in character that the canon underwent at the hands of the experts.

Regarding numbers two and four -- the action-declamation paradigm and my related conjecture -- I would mention Saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Saint Paul's account of the words of institution can be seen as the biblical basis of this paradigm of bifurcation. After giving the words of consecration Paul declares, "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he comes."
As we know this text was the direct inspiration of one of the acclamations that we say following the words 'mysterium fidei' (or the ICEL translation anyway).
But the point is that this text has been used to support the idea of an acclamation by the people immediately following the consecration and this may be part of why the English translators of the Mass managed to come up with "let us proclaim the mystery of faith." Never mind that in this letter an Apostle was giving an exhortation to the Church of Corinth; this letter is not an ancient sacramentary and there is in fact nothing about the people exclaiming anything. In my opinion this is just another instance of the historical worship of the Church being put aside in favour of the latest pet idea of the experts. It is my impression that much of the spurious exegetical aspects of the methodology that produced the new Mass can be severely criticized on the basis of authentic liturgical science.


I should note that the questions here have nothing to do with the validity of the Mass which cannot be called into question. What I do consider to be open for questioning are the deeds and principles of those who fabricated the new Mass and who have translated it with such great liberality.

These kind of questions have of course contributed to my devotion to the forma extraordinaria and I tend to believe that part of the Pope's intention when he speaks of "mutual enrichment" is that the new Mass will come to better express a hermeneutic of continuity.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1357208' date='Aug 12 2007, 01:40 AM']1. A desire to conform more fully to the biblical "institution narratives" which lack the phrase "mysterium fidei".[/quote]
We can see a double standard since there were things added that are not found in the biblical narratives. One wee example:

"[i]In the same way, he took the cup, filled with wine. He gave you thanks, and giving the cup to his disciples...[/i]"

The "filled with wine" part is contained in several of the Eucharistic prayers in different forms and is an extraneous appendage on the words of institution found in the bible. Let us remove mysterium fidei and emphasize that this is a cup of wine we're talking about. What is it that Jesus gave to his apostles? -- a cup of wine. Let there be no mistake. I don't get it.
And yes, this really is but one wee example; my illustration below will provide another stark instance of this supposed value being contradicted.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1357208' date='Aug 12 2007, 01:40 AM']4. (I separate this one by a line because it is entirely my own conjecture; take it for what its worth) The bifurcation of the Roman Canon in this manner affords an occasion of dialogue even in the peak of the Eucharistic Liturgy, thus taking the "dialogue Mass" to hitherto unseen heights. To completely shatter the traditional approach to the consecration (silent adoration and such) we now have "active participation" (in the completely exterior sense) at the summit of the Sacrifice of the Mass.[/quote]
The [i]forma ordinaria[/i] as such illustrates this conjecture in my opinion, but I would say that the most vivid example is Eucharistic Prayer for Children II.

[b]Priest:[/b] The night before he died, Jesus your Son showed us how much you love us. When he was at supper with his disciples, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. Then he broke the bread, gave it to his friends, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it;
this is my body which will be given up for you.
[b]All:[/b] Jesus has given his life for us.
[b]Priest:[/b] When supper was ended, Jesus took the cup that was filled with wine. He thanked you, gave it to his friends, 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.
[b]All:[/b] Jesus has given his life for us.
[b]Priest:[/b] Then he said to them: do this in memory of me.

The instructions then go on to say "[i]skip the following Memorial Acclamation[/i]"; in other words the mysterium fidei is not to be said. Why isn't it important for this Eucharist Prayer? Because the dialogue effect has already been achieved I would assume.

Compare this with the canon as it was transmitted through the ages.

[b]Priest:[/b] Similarly, when the supper was ended, taking also this goodly chalice into His holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to You, He blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: "Take and drink of this, all of you,
THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT:
THE MYSTERY OF FAITH:
WHICH IS BEING SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
As often as you shall do these actions, do this in memory of Me."

The instructions go on to say "[i]The Blood of Christ is lifted up for worship[/i]."

[Laudate_Dominum]

But to answer your topic question directly, "What Is The Mystery Of Our Faith--liturgically Speaking?” I would say that in the forma extraordinaria the mysterium fidei is none other than the Eucharistic Mystery, the source and summit of the Christian life. In the forma ordinaria the phrase mysterium fidei is retained in a manner dislodged from the consecration itself and really serves as an intro to what is called the memorial acclamation.

I would say that the impression given is that the content of the various memorial acclamations are suggested as the mysterium fidei by the nature of this arrangement. Acclamation A reads thus: "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." Elements of the paschal mystery are indicated in this acclamation but the effectiveness of this situation presupposes proper catechesis. The full centrality of the Eucharist and that Mystery made present in our midst is not expressed on the surface which is why I believe the traditional canon has greater catechetical value in this regard. I mention this point because this was a common feature of the liturgical reform; namely seeing the liturgy in terms of its functional value. This was an aspect of the introduction of the vernacular and to my mind there are a host of examples that suggest to me that this catechetical imperative has not been adequately realized. These are the kind of reasons behind my association with the "reform of the reform" mentality. It is not idle hair-splitting or an excessively critical and negative spirit; it is a love for the Holy Mass and devotion to the spirit and letter of the Second Vatican Council.

It has long been fashionable in many circles to ridicule and tear down the traditional Mass -- indeed, the liturgical reform after the council included a general disdain toward the Mass of the Ages (hence its sudden and dramatic eclipse). The early reformers of the Liturgy prior to the onset of the spirit of rupture (men like Bouyer, Jungmann, Guardini, Gueranger, Parsch, Gamber) were certainly critical as they saw fit (and none of them were perfect), but they were not cheap propagandists. I think it is fair today to be respectfully critical of the forma ordinaria, and support the reform of the reform, so long as this does not degenerate into an ideological crusade (which I would claim happened in large part against the traditional Mass).

[genxcathedra]

Well, I guess the N.O. versions and the Latin Mass has something to do with Christ dying and his blood saving us (those that have the sanctifying grace, that is) at death. The resurrection, I think, was not needed for us to be saved. Am I wrong?


[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1357232' date='Aug 12 2007, 05:49 AM']But to answer your topic question directly, "What Is The Mystery Of Our Faith--liturgically Speaking?” I would say that in the forma extraordinaria the mysterium fidei is none other than the Eucharistic Mystery, the source and summit of the Christian life. In the forma ordinaria the phrase mysterium fidei is retained in a manner dislodged from the consecration itself and really serves as an intro to what is called the memorial acclamation.

I would say that the impression given is that the content of the various memorial acclamations are suggested as the mysterium fidei by the nature of this arrangement. Acclamation A reads thus: "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." Elements of the paschal mystery are indicated in this acclamation but the effectiveness of this situation presupposes proper catechesis. The full centrality of the Eucharist and that Mystery made present in our midst is not expressed on the surface which is why I believe the traditional canon has greater catechetical value in this regard. I mention this point because this was a common feature of the liturgical reform; namely seeing the liturgy in terms of its functional value. This was an aspect of the introduction of the vernacular and to my mind there are a host of examples that suggest to me that this catechetical imperative has not been adequately realized. These are the kind of reasons behind my association with the "reform of the reform" mentality. It is not idle hair-splitting or an excessively critical and negative spirit; it is a love for the Holy Mass and devotion to the spirit and letter of the Second Vatican Council.

It has long been fashionable in many circles to ridicule and tear down the traditional Mass -- indeed, the liturgical reform after the council included a general disdain toward the Mass of the Ages (hence its sudden and dramatic eclipse). The early reformers of the Liturgy prior to the onset of the spirit of rupture (men like Bouyer, Jungmann, Guardini, Gueranger, Parsch, Gamber) were certainly critical as they saw fit (and none of them were perfect), but they were not cheap propagandists. I think it is fair today to be respectfully critical of the forma ordinaria, and support the reform of the reform, so long as this does not degenerate into an ideological crusade (which I would claim happened in large part against the traditional Mass).[/quote]

[Aloysius]

The mystery of faith in both rites is: "This is the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for many * so that sins may be forgiven"

The ICEL translation makes it seem as if what follows is the mystery of faith. not so, the words in the latin still refer to the consecration even though they are no longer a part of it. L_D posted the Latin of the Novus Ordo, Clearly says "This is the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for many * so that sins may be forgiven... A mystery of faith."

The Ressurection and Ascension were absolutely necessary to salvation. Christ paid for all our sins by His death, but He did not defeat death until the resurection and He did not open the gates of heaven to us until His ascension. Our redemption and forgiveness and restoration of our nature was made possible fully by His death; but our Salvation, that supernatural lifting of ourselves into heaven and the beatific vision, would still not have been possible had Christ not resurrected and ascended into heaven. Had He not resurected, death would not have been defeated... it was His act of resurrection which ended definitively the Limbo of the Fathers; had He not resurrected, the Limbo of the Fathers would still be the natural end of all just souls.

Liturgically speaking, the "mystery of faith" is the consecration; particularly the consecration of the chalice for the remission of sins... tied up in the paschal mystery of how Christ's blood is shed for many unto the remission of sins.

Theologically speaking, it's the whole paschal mystery and the whole gospel.

* Nota Bene: The Vatican has recently insisted that all translations must now conform with the literal latin text (and thusly the literal scriptural text) and the new liturgical books, when they finally make their way through the beaurocracy, will read "for many" and not "for all" which is an incorrect translation. This is why I used "for many"

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thanks Al!! I suppose I should have sought clarification as to the specific nature of the question before rambling on like I did.

Pooh.

[Aloysius]

Your posts are still very good in dealing with how it comes accross in the ICEL translation. I bet not very many Catholics who attend the vernacular forma ordinaria think the words "mystery of faith" are in reference to the consecration of the chalice. I should hope the new translations will eliminate the "Let us proclaim" part... seeing as the new guidelines for liturgical translation insist on much more literalness, I think it likely... hopefully.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1358574' date='Aug 14 2007, 02:46 AM']Your posts are still very good in dealing with how it comes accross in the ICEL translation. I bet not very many Catholics who attend the vernacular forma ordinaria think the words "mystery of faith" are in reference to the consecration of the chalice. I should hope the new translations will eliminate the "Let us proclaim" part... seeing as the new guidelines for liturgical translation insist on much more literalness, I think it likely... hopefully.[/quote]
There are some important aspects of the change that I did not mention in my previous posts. I won't get into all the details or points, but it should be noted that a big impetus in the original discussions was apparently a desire to loosely emulate certain Eastern liturgical traditions (which was ultimately not accomplished in my opinion to say nothing of the question of appropriateness). It seems to be somewhat fashionable to regurgitate absurd and banal accusations such as that the phrase [i]mysterium fidei[/i] was a bogus medieval accretion, but this does not take into account that one can go back to the oldest extant Roman sacramentary (in this case a certain Leonine manuscript) and discover the [i]mysterium fidei[/i] line in exactly the same form as it is in the missal of Pope Pius V a thousand years later. It also fails to take into account the existence of this phrase in a particular Eastern liturgical tradition that shares some ancient (perhaps apostolic) roots with that of the Roman church. In my opinion this subject comes down to archaeoligistic revisionism of the worst kind. I think the fundamental assumption that leads to the bogus theories is that since the phrase is absent in the Scriptural "institution narratives" it must have been a late accretion; as far as I can tell this is simply erroneous and probably stems from a false concept of liturgical tradition in the first place.