Fall 2003

Publisher: 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 Matthew M. Anger Father William Ashley
Father Ignacio Barreiro Bishop Eugenijus Bartulis
Father David R. Becker James Bemis
Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. Laura Berquist
Marie Siobhan Boland Patrick Buchanan
Father James B. Buckley, F.S.S.P. Neri Capponi
Francis Carey Matthew Childs John Clark
William Coulson Thomas J. Craughwell H.W. Crocker, III
Leo Darroch Michael Davies Michael de Tar, M.D.
Brett Decker Patrick Delaney William Doino, Jr.
Thomas A. Droleskey Father Raymond V. Dunn
Alice Thomas Ellis Father Evaristus Eshiowu Edwin Faust
Christopher Ferrara Father Sean Finnegan
Father Kevin Fitzpatrick James K. Fitzpatrick
Father Robert Fromageot, F.S.S.P. John Galvin
Lord Brian Gill Cecile Bolling von Goetz
Richard Cowden Guido Norris Harrington
Father Brian Harrison, O.S. Father Ignatius Harrison
Kathleen Howley Kenneth Jones Father Peter Joseph
Hermann Kelly Thaddeus Kozinski Joseph Kung
Susan Lloyd James Lothian Dino Marcantonio
Father Anthony Mastroeni Thomas McArdle
Andrew J. McCauley D. Q. McInerny Diane Moczar
Father John Mole, O.M.I. Thomas Molnar
John Muggeridge Anne Roche Muggeridge
Father Gerald Murray George Neumayr John Neumayr
Steve OBrien Julia Ann OSullivan James Patrick
Father John Perricone Jonathan Peters
Robert Phillips Father Joseph Ponessa John C. Rao
Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. Bishop Fernando Rifan
Michael Rose Jeffrey Rubin Claudio R. Salvucci
Msgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz Msgr. Richard J. Schuler
Virginia Seuffert Janet Smith Father Russell E. Smith
Thomas Gordon Smith Joseph Sobran James Spencer
Alfons Cardinal Stickler Donna Steichen Duncan Stroik
Robert A. Sungenis Steven Terenzio Jeffrey Tucker
Daniel Van Slyke Alice von Hildebrand
Tom J. Walsh, M.D. Bruce Walters, M.D. David White
Father Alan Wilders David Williams
Father W. Ray Williams Charles M. Wilson
Kieron Wood John Wooten 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 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 rst 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: jwblewett@msn.com
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 ight 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 Worlds 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 Shermans Relentless Battle
by Steve OBrien
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
specically 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 inuence 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 dened 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
deciencies 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 gure 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
Consiliums 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 gure 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 Sacrice 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 nally 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 Bugninis 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 den-
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, reect-
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 ow 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-
cically 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 doesnt take
a genius to gure 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
ghting against
Manicheism, he
inserted the words
to emphasize
the world-saving
character of the consecrated chal-
ice.
28
Heretics at the time denied the
efcacy 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 difcult
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
Churchs 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
ofcial response of the Holy See on
the essential words of consecration
in order to perform the Sacrice 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 didnt 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-
ecial 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 VIs
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 VIs 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 priests silent prayers in the Mass)
from our liturgy only to adopt other
prayers in imitation of eastern rites.
The Gallican prayers are considered
inuenced 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 ow 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 Christs 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 Pontical University of San
Anselmo in Rome.
Notes
1. SCIENTIA LITURGICA, Manuale di Liturgia,
ed. professori del Ponticio 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. OConnell, pp. 62-66.
7. PREX EUCHARITICA, Textus e variis liturgiis
antiquioribus selecti, Albert Gerhards et Heinzgerd
Brakmann (editio tertia), vol. 1 , Universittsverlag
Freiburg Schweiz, 1998, pp. 421-422.
8. SCHULZ, HAN-JOACHIM, The Byzantine Liturgy,
New York, Pueblo 1986 (1
st
English Edition). Trans.
Matthew J. OConnell. 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. OConnell), pp.
450, 462.
16. Ibid., pp. 105-113.
17. La riforma conciliare dell<<Ordo Missae>>. Il
percorso storico-redazionale dei riti dingresso, 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. OConnell), 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 Ponticii
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. Bugninis
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 sacrice; 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,
Ponticio 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. Ofcii, 8 Mart. (23 Maii)
1957De 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 ofcial 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. Couldnt 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 youve 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 ow 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
rst place was that it interrupted the
ow 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