Spring 2003 1

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 EditorsFather Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P.

Ronald P. McArthur

Contributors Elizabeth Altham s Matthew M. Anger s Father William Ashley

Father Ignacio Barreiro s Bishop Eugenijus Bartulis Father David R. Becker s James Bemis

Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. s Laura BerquistMarie Siobhan Boland s Patrick Buchanan

Father James B. Buckley, F.S.S.P. s Neri CapponiFrancis Carey s Matthew Childs s John Clark

William Coulson s Thomas J. Craughwell s H.W. Crocker, III Leo Darroch s Michael Davies s Michael de Tar, M.D.Brett Decker s Patrick Delaney s William Doino, Jr. Thomas A. Droleskey s Father Raymond V. Dunn

Alice Thomas Ellis s Father Evaristus Eshiowu s Edwin FaustChristopher Ferrara s Father Sean Finnegan

Father Kevin Fitzpatrick s James K. Fitzpatrick Father Robert Fromageot, F.S.S.P. s John Galvin

Lord Brian Gill s Cecile Bolling von GoetzRichard Cowden Guido s Norris Harrington

Father Brian Harrison, O.S. s Father Ignatius Harrison Kathleen Howley s Kenneth Jones s Father Peter Joseph

Hermann Kelly s Joseph Kung s Susan LloydJames Lothian s Dino Marcantonio

Father Anthony Mastroeni s Thomas McArdleAndrew J. McCauley s D. Q. McInerny s Diane Moczar

Father John Mole, O.M.I. s Thomas MolnarJohn Muggeridge s Anne Roche Muggeridge

Father Gerald Murray s George Neumayr s John NeumayrSteve OBrien s Julia Ann OSullivan s James Patrick

Father John Perricone s Jonathan PetersRobert Phillips s Father Joseph Ponessa s John C. Rao

Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. s Bishop Fernando RifanMichael Rose s Jeffrey Rubin s Claudio R. Salvucci

Msgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz s Msgr. Richard J. Schuler Virginia Seuffert s Janet Smith s Father Russell E. Smith

Thomas Gordon Smith s Joseph Sobran s James Spencer Alfons Cardinal Stickler s Donna Steichen s Duncan Stroik

Robert A. Sungenis s Steven Terenzio s Jeffrey TuckerDaniel Van Slyke s Alice von Hildebrand

Tom J. Walsh, M.D. s Bruce Walters, M.D. s David White Father Alan Wilders s David Williams

Father W. Ray Williams s Charles M. WilsonKieron Wood s John Wooten s 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 0HONE s &AX

Subscription Rates: YEAR n FOUR ISSUES IN #ANADA 53 YEARS n EIGHT ISSUES IN #ANADA 53 YEARS n TWELVE ISSUES IN #ANADA 53Overseas: $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 Mass391 E. Virginia TerraceSanta Paula, CA 93060E-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: Saints Peter and Paul by Jacopo Bassano. The reproduction on the inside back cover is designed for display.

Spring 2003

ContentsFeatures

Roman LandscapeAn Exclusive Interview with Cardinal Medina and Report from Rome by Alessandro Zangrando

12 Loyal to Rome, Faithful to Tradition A London Photo Essayby Michael S. Rose

16 A Pastoral Letterby Bishop Fernando Aras Rifan

24 It is the Mass that Mattersby Michael Davies

30 Hope in Passiontideby Edwin Faust

34 The Traditional Catholic and Liberal Culturesby Joseph Sobran

Departments

40 Liturgy: The Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI: A Reform?by Father Romano Tommasi

44 Scripture: The Bible and Historical Criticism The Second of Two Partsby Robert A. Sungenis

50 History: Revisiting the American Revolutionby Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

54 Ethics: Charitable Surrogacy and Embryo Adoptionby Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P.

Biography: Brass Knuckle Bishop: John Hughes Combative Styleby Steve OBrien

64 Cinema: The Quiet Man: The Catholic Vision of John Fordby James Bemis

70 Education: The Plight of the Catholic History Studentby Diane Moczar

74 Education: To Enjoy Latin, Make it a Hobby!by James B. Spencer

Book Reviews: The Modern Rite: Collected Essays on the Reform of the Liturgy by Klaus Gamber

reviewed by Thomas J. Craughwell Ill Bet my Life on It by Ronald G. Connolly, M.D. reviewed by Father Ignacio Barreiro

Faith and Fortune by Madeleine Beard reviewed by Michael Davies

Homeschooling

The Beauty of Homeschoolingby Laura Berquist

90 What Can You Do with That?by Susan Lloyd

92 Science as a Verbby Marie Siobhan Boland

A Final Thought

94 A Fluent Traditionalistby John W. Blewett

Spring 200340

by Father Romano Tommasi

Liturgy

When arguing with reform-minded liturgists, there exist several strong positions from which one can launch a successful critique explicating the traditionalist view-point. In the past three issues, I have outlined several historical and liturgi-cal arguments that call into question several of the so-called reforms, or at least their mode of restora-tion. Past articles have chal-lenged the notion that the sign of peace, the prayer of the faithful, concelebration, and even the prayers that now follow the Our Father are true historical restora-tions. I have posited that all have been accretions to the Mass or the mere retouching of ancient prayers and rites. The irony, of course, is that the most frequently voiced argument by the liturgical reformers concern-ing the ancient Mass was that it had become filled with historical ac-cumulations and had lost its original purity!

In the case of the Offertory, how-ever, we have the destruction of a set

of prayers that changes the complex-ion of the Mass as a whole. The old prayers were replaced by an entirely new set of compositions explicitly meant to convey a different liturgical theology and a completely new focus for the Offertory ritual. A translation of the old and new Offertory prayers may be helpful:

Mass of Pius V Bread: Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, of-fenses and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise

for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen. Wine: We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, entreating Thy mercy that our offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the sight of Thy divine majesty,

for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.

Mass of Paul VI Bread: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life. Blessed be God forever! Wine: Blessed are You, Lord, God of all cre-

ation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become for us our spiritual drink. Blessed be God forever!

From their inception, the new

In the case of the Offertory, however, we have the destruction of a set of prayers

that changes the complexion of the Mass as a whole. The old prayers were replaced

by an entirely new set of compositions explicitly meant to convey a different

liturgical theology and a completely new focus for the Offertory ritual.

The Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI:

A different slant on the controversial change of the Offertory orations of the Mass

A Reform?

41Spring 2003

LiturgyThe Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI: A Reform?

Offertory prayers were touted as superior, more faithful to the idea of the offertory ritual, and more mean-ingful. In fact, they have often served as the rampart from which the entire liturgical reform has been defended. Rarely has anyone in the post-concil-iar theological establishment ques-tioned these prayers for liturgical and historical reasons. Instead, one has generally heard the classic tradition-alist argument that the new prayers are no longer sacrificial. I will argue that this not the case but, as you will see, my position will not offer any advantage to the reformers.

Before delving into a critique of the new Offertory ritual, it would be helpful to know why the Consilium (the liturgical commission that gave us the post-conciliar liturgy) deemed it necessary to change this part of the Mass. There were experts and churchmen who questioned whether or not the omission of the traditional prayers impoverished the Offertory rite as a whole.1 The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacra-ments, therefore, proffered a rationale for the new prayers:

In no way [are the new prayers impoverishing the Mass]. The former prayerswere not accurate expressions of the genuine meaning of the offertory rites but merely anticipated the meaning of the true and literal sacrificial offering that is present in the eucharistic prayer after the consecration. The new formularies for the gifts bring out the giving of glory to God, who is the source of all things and of all the gifts given to humanity. They state explicitly the meaning of the rite being carried out; they associ-ate the value of human work, which embraces all human concerns, with the mystery of Christ. The offertory rite, then, has been restored through that explicit teaching and shines forth with new light.2

This response is essentially the same as that of the Consiliums secretary, Annibale Bugnini, and of those who shared his ideology.3 They defended the new Offertory paradigm as follows: a) above all the Offertory must avoid a little canon before the actual consecration;4 b) the Offertory should offer to God human labor, represented by its fruits bread and wine;5 c) therefore, Pope Paul VI stated that the active participation of these human laborers (the people present) is essential in the prayer which should be recited aloud, or at least it is greatly desired that these new elements exist;6 d) the new central theme is the giving of glory to God for his gifts to us.

What is supremely important to realize here is that the reform of the traditional Offertory was deemed necessary princi-pally because it was perceived as a little canon; that is, that the prayers were considered as almost like a con-secration of the bread and wine since the priest says that he offers this immaculate host/victim. The experts argued that only the consecrated host can be offered using this language. Further-more, the second part of the prayer offering the bread anticipates, or calls to mind, for what purpose the host will be offered sins, living and dead Christians, etc.7 In conclusion, any new offertory prayer must of necessity not be like a Eucharistic prayer or little canon. This pres-ents a major problem for the liturgi-cal reformers, for the most recent research on Eucharistic prayers and their origins leads us to a very provocative conclusion regarding the

new Offertory prayers! The provocation is centered

upon the discovery of the document called the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. This ancient manuscript contains, according to the predominant opinion among con-temporary liturgists, the first known Eucharistic prayer outside the New Testament:8

[Consecration of Bread] We give thanks to you, O Father, for life and knowledge which you have made known to us through your child Je-sus Christ. Glory to you in the ages! [Consecration of Wine] We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of your child David which you have made known to us through Jesus Christ your child. Glory to you in the ages!9

Many modern scholars argue that this is the consecration of the bread and wine without any words of institution. The text is based on the Jewish prayer called the Qid-dush:10

[Bread consecra-tion] Blessed are you, God, King of the universe who produces bread from the earth. [The bread is then distributed.] [Wine consecration] Blessed are you, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, creating fruit of the vinewho sanctified us in his commandmentsand handed down to us a memorial of the works of creation. You are Blessed, O Lord.11

The reader may note a similar-ity between these prayers and the Offertory prayers of the new Mass.

the reformers have replaced the traditional Offertory prayers, which

they argued were too anticipatory of the

consecration of the bread and wine, with prayers that

theoretically (according to them) were ancient consecratory orations!

Spring 200342

Liturgy The Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI: A Reform?

Yes, these prayers are similar, but the direct link between the new Offertory prayers and the Jewish precursor to the Eucharistic Prayer/Canon is the Birkat Ha-Mazon. It is frequently as-sumed among the liturgical scholars that it was the model for the early Eucharistic Prayers:

Blessed are you, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, nourishing the entire world in goodness, in good-ness and mercy. Blessed are you, O Lord, nourishing all!12

What is disturbing is that these prayers are considered by many experts to be early Christian conse-cration prayers. That is, the structure and vocabulary of these prayers is considered the early Christians ver-sion of the Roman Canon. Although it is contested by some whether or not these are prayers of consecra-tion of the bread and wine in the early Church, the fact is that these prayers are accepted by most of the reformist liturgical scholars to be ancient equivalents of the Roman Canon. Therefore the reformers have replaced the traditional Offertory prayers, which they argued were too anticipatory of the consecration of the bread and wine, with prayers that theoretically (according to them) were ancient consecratory orations! The entire justification for changing the prayers is destroyed! Now, if we use the reasoning of the Consiliums reformers, the Roman Mass is left with a double consecration of the bread and the wine.

The contention of the Consilium and/or the Pope was that it is ap-propriate that the Offertory prayers recognize human labor. So, the question needs to be asked: What is the function of the Offertory orations? Is it, as in the traditional Mass, to articulate the anticipation of sacrifice? Or is it the offering of human labor (fruits of the earth) to

God, as insisted by the proponents of the new rite?

First of all, it would be inac-curate to say that the old Offertory prayers were merely anticipatory of the consecration. They are prayers prefiguring the consecration. Both offering prayers in the traditional rite make obvious references to the Old Testament. The bread offering is reminiscent of Melchisedechs pleasing offering to God of pure bread.13 The offering of the chalice

of salvation is an obvious reference to Psalm 115. These priestly offerings are supremely important since they prefigure the Eternal Priest, Jesus Christ, offering pure bread and wine as a pleasing sacrifice to the Father. Even if the liturgists and biblicists no longer believe in the notion of pre-figurement, the Jews and Christians historically always considered them as Messianic.

Furthermore, it is an anachronism to claim that the true meaning of the Offertory has been restored. The ancient Roman liturgy knew of abso-lutely no specific Offertory prayers. The Ordines Romani of the eighth century relate that the celebrant only bows in silence with the offering at the altar and presumably prays silently.14 There is no restoration of meaning in the new prayers because both the new and the old prayers are merely an expansion of a formerly simple ritual. This entire argument is pure fantasy from a historical point of view.

The third argument for the new Offertory prayers, held by Paul VI, is that active participation is a crucially important element. It permits the people to participate more fully in the offering of their gifts to God. How-ever, as noted above, the most ancient texts of the Roman rite demonstrate no activity whatsoever on the part of the faithful. Even the earliest liturgi-cal texts, whether East or West, do not support anything other than the faithful presenting the bread and wine used for Mass. Simply put, the offertory was a quick transitional practical preparation of the bread and wine by celebrant and deacon(s), nothing more.15

Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned that although these are the main reasons provided as to why the Offertory necessitated change, the final two reasons given were that the prayers were not Roman but Gallican, and that they were not written em-

There is no restoration of meaning in the new

prayers because both the new and the old prayers are merely an expansion

of a formerly simple ritual. This entire argument is pure fantasy from a

historical point of view.

The Mass of Saint Basil by Pierre Subleyras

43Spring 2003

Notes

1 BUGNINI, A. Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75, Collegeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press, 1990 (1st English edition. Trans. Matthew J. OConnell). p. 354.

2 DOCUMENTS ON THE LITURGY 1963-1979, Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts, International Com-mission on English in the Liturgy, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1982. DOL 208. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 48, Query 2.

3 BUGNINI, A. Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, pp. 369, 375.

4 Ibid., p. 375.

5 Ibid., p. 369.

6 Ibid.

7 La riforma conciliare dell. Il percorso storico-redazionale dei riti dingresso, di offertorio e di comunione (BEL, 120), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 2002, pp. 202-203.

8 All translations are from the original Latin text, the English should not be considered a critical product.

9 PREX EUCHARITICA, Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus selecti, Albert Gerhards etHeinzgerd Brakmann (editio tertia), vol. 1 , Universittsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1998. Pp. 66-7.

10 For a book that represents the mainstream thinking on the nature of these prayers and their sacrificial nature see: MAZZA, ENRICO, The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Devel-opment of Its Interpretation, Minnesota, Liturgical Press 1999 (1st English edition). Trans. Matthew J. OConnell.

11 PREX EUCHARITICA, pp. 6-7.

12 Ibid., pp. 89.

13 Genesis 14:18. This is the opinion of Joseph Jungmann. See infra. Mass of the Roman Rite, vol II, p. 98.

14 manuscript LES ORDINES ROMANI DU HAUT MOYEN AGE II, LES TEXTES (Ordines I-XIII), SPICILEGIUM SACRUM LOVANIENSE, ETUDES ET DOCUMENTS FASCICULE 23, cura Universite Catholique et Colleges Theologiques O.P. et S. J. de Louvain, Michel Andrieu, 18, Rue Juste Lipse, Louvain 1971. Ordo I], # s 75-87 (Latin only).

15 Ibid., p. 1-5.

16 For a list of these reasons see: La riforma conciliare dell, p. 203.

Father Romano Tommasi received his Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) from the Pontifical University of San Anselmo in Rome.

ploying the Roman Genius of the Latin language. It has already been abundantly demonstrated in the pre-vious articles of this series, however, that the Consilium produced texts that imitated and copied Gallican elements when they were convenient and spurned them when it bolstered their desire to create change. There-fore this point is without merit.

The final point, referring to the allegation that the composition of the traditional Offertory prayers is not done in the austere, succinct, and generic style of the most pure Roman compositions: suffice it to respond that this criterion was completely ignored when the experts were reforming introductory remarks to rites, solemn blessings, etc.16

ConclusionsIt is appropriate to summarize as follows:

1) Any restoration of the Offerto-rys original meaning and purpose would have led to expunging any and all prayers from the rite, since this would seem to reflect accurately the original practice of the ancient Church.

2) The new offering prayers for the bread and wine violate the prin-ciple of a return to the Tradition of the Fathers (one of the main

reasons offered to justify the entire post-conciliar reform of the liturgy) since they create two real Canons within the Roman Mass (at least according to their gener-ally accepted historical presupposi-tions). The first Canon (the new Offer-tory prayers), therefore, would represent a consecratory formulation similar to those found in at least a few ancient Christian com-munities; the second Canon is found after the Sanctus. Secondly, the new prayers contain acclamations for the faithful, something experts criticized as a duplication of the faithfuls response to the Offer-tory collect. This means that the new prayers are clearly not within the liturgical tradition of East or West.

The destruction of the old Offer-

tory prayers is not so much a crime because of the loss of the prayers themselves (which are not of great ancient origin), nor because of their doctrinal content. The reason

this change is so deplorable is that these prayers imitate the inspired New Testament writers in prefigur-ing the sacrifice of the Cross. The Old Testament prefigures the New Testament realities, and the fore-Mass along with the Offertory (Liturgy

of the Word and Offertory) prefig-ure the sacrifice about to take place by recounting the salvation and sacred history which will

soon be made present on the altar in the unbloody sacrifice. The Church would do well to recapture the Tra-dition of the Fathers and expunge a rite that is foreign to the sacred worship of the Church.

the new prayers are clearly not within the liturgical tradition of

East or West.

LiturgyThe Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI: A Reform?