Texas Catholic Herald, 7/19/11
In his Living Liturgy article David Wood explores the changes in the Mystery of Faith acclamation (formerly known as the Memorial Acclamation) which follows the Institution Narration [which replaced the Consecration].
Here, as immediately recognized and pointed out, attention was withdrawn from what had been a most solemn and essential reality in the traditional Mass at which Christ had become present on the altar, to a future non-sacramental case utterly non-parallel and irrelevant to the occasion. Normally this would be termed a distraction. But in this case it is worth as much as the useless Narration, by which nothing is either accomplished or signified.
David: “In the reform following Vatican II, the statement now includes the acclamation of the faithful who acknowledge the” [imaginary] “presence of Christ now present in the Eucharistic elements and the salvation offered to all as we await the completion of the kingdom when Christ will return” [to complete the sacrifice? A new essential has been introduced!]
David displays the CURRENT TRANSLATION, the NEW TRANSLATION, and the LATIN. Admittedly the NEW TRANSLATIONs are superior. Has the ICEL taken advantage of the further study of Latin now available? Or is the crude CURRENT TRANSLATION so deplorable on purpose?
This comment applies also to David’s further pursuit of this great reform in the next issue (8/9/11), in which he compares two more lines of translation with the Latin. Some are imputed to the “priest,” leaving the eucharistic minister oddly mute. All three versions include a variation from the Mass of a millennium: “Happy (Blessed, Beati) are those who are (omitted) called (qui vocati sunt), to his supper (to the supper of the Lamb, ad cenam Agni).”
“Catholics,” writes David, “are accused of not being well-rooted in Scripture.” [Rheims-Douai? Challoner? Revised Standard Version?] “… many or even most Catholics do not quote Scripture by chapter and verse. … Catholics are very rooted in Scripture because of the Liturgy. … the Mass contains many Scriptural allusions.” [A classic example of the begged question! David grants himself the fiction that the new Liturgy is a Mass, despite their mutually exclusive definitions.
Beyond the intention clearly expressed in the new rite is the clearly implied intention that it replace the true Mass, even if only occasionally, breeding doubt and suspicion, to say the least, even without the insuperable obstacles to validity in the new rite’s origin (not merely human but heretical) and definition in Paul VI’s introduction and implied imposition of the new Liturgy in 1969: “The Lord’s Supper or the Mass, is the sacred assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” This definition, though correct on the authority of its authors, was changed to ambiguity to stop the general outcry, but not a word of the rite it defined was changed.
By contrast we need only consult the Baltimore Catechism as originally published: “The Mass is the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross.”]
More David: “We pray as we believe.” [It seems beyond his grasp that basic changes to our official prayer indicate at least the same basic changes to our belief. All Catholics belong to the Communion of Saints, in which all Catholics of all times and places agree on identical, immutable, revealed morals and doctrine, not subject to re-interpretation or contemporary accommodation – and that proper worship of God is our highest moral obligation.] “and so it is only natural that in praying (as well as in living), our belief will find its way onto our lips.” [How lovely is everything in the garden!] “Just so, the words of the Scripture are part of the Church’s prayer in the Liturgy.”
[In religion what damned error but some sober brow will bless it and approve it with a text? – Shakespeare, I think]
“As the bishops” [by proxy] “translated the third edition of the Roman Missal they sought to make sure these Scriptural allusions would stand out more clearly. The Ecce Agnus Dei is such an example.” [as demonstrated above.]
“Recognizing the Lamb and with our sins removed,” [Via the new non-sacramental Reconciliation? Absolved by an unordained “priest” whose title springs from a new, man-made replacement for the Sacrament of Holy Orders?] “we are properly clothed to be invited into the heavenly banquet. The Eucharistic Liturgy” [this pitiful innovation?] “is a foretaste of this banquet.”
Eventually David comes to reality: “Our response in the Liturgy is an expression of humility as we recognize that we have missed the mark.”