A Friend's Opinion of the 'Mysterium Fidei' and 'Memorial Acclamation' in the Mass of Paul VI

A friend of mine, who is trained at the doctoral level in theology and philosophy, has shared some of his thoughts on the Eucharistic Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI (There are actually ten EPs authorised, tho' most people have only heard the first four. The following remarks apply to all of them, because the Words of Institution, et seq. are identical in all ten.)

First, some background. In the Traditional Latin Mass, a/k/a the 'Extraordinary Form', the Words of Institution of the Precious Blood were,

Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei,novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei:qui pro vobis et pro multis effundeturin remissionem peccatorum. Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.

 Which is Englished as,

For this is the chalice of My blood,of the new and eternal testament:the mystery of faith: which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.

In the Mass of Paul VI, a/k/a the 'Ordinary Form', the words 'Mystery of Faith' have been removed from the Words of Institution. Immediately after the words, 'in remembrance of me', the Celebrants chants or says, 'The Mystery of Faith' and the People respond by chanting or saying one of three 'Acclamations':

A - We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.
B - When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.
C - Save us, Savior of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.

The following is in response to a discussion on whether the removal of the words 'Mysterium fidei' from the Words of Institution invalidates the Mass.

Arguably, the removal of "Mysterium Fidei" which is a personal profession of the Priest in the Faith in the Sacrament, but also a theological recognition of one of the central mysteries of the Catholic Faith, does not substantially change either the sufficient expression of the consecration, nor of the Sacrifice. It was also an addition to the Roman Liturgy around the 5th century, so its removal is not per se invalidating, but playing fast and loose with the Form as it has been exactly kept in the Roman Rite for nearly 1500 years should be disturbing.

It's removal to after and a Memorial Acclamation (all of which call into doubt the Real Presence), is the real problem here.

Our Lord has been made present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Then we say something like :

• Christ has died, Christ is Risen Christ will come again ... except he has come again and is right in front of us.

(This Acclamation was removed when Rome cracked down on the US Bishops' 'translation' of the normative Latin Mass, as explained in this article,  We notice that “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” is not among the new acclamations. Why not?)

• Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory ... again, he's right there, and His Resurrection isn't part of the Sacrifice.

• When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory ... again, He's already there, but worse it's not bread or a cup any longer, but the Body and Blood of Christ.

• Lord, by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free. You are the Saviour of the world ... again, the Resurrection isn't part of the Sacrifice.

The question really isn't about the removal of the words, except to question why remove them if they had been used for over 1500 years. One would need to have a real serious reason. The only logical reason given by those involved in the revision was that this phrase is not Scriptural and would not have been used by Our Lord.

The question is, instead, about taking those words, putting them after the Consecration, making them the basis for the faithful entering into a priestly prayer (clouding the distinction between the Ordained priest and the common "priesthood" of the faithful), and then using expressions in this Memorial Acclamation, which question the Real Presence or twist the nature of the Sacrifice.

The Mass and Last Supper are not the same thing at all.

The Last Supper is the pre-presentation of the Sacrifice which will happen the next day. The Mass is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice which happened on Good Friday. The only connection between the two is that Sacrifice on Good Friday. Absent that, there is no real connection.

The Council of Trent definition that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci were speaking of was the definition of the Mass as a Sacrifice. The 1969 definition in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal de facto denies this :
Quote:

The Lord's Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ's promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: 'Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt. 18:20)."

That is the entire, and heretical definition of the Mass. It is heresy by omission (so not a canonical offense). It was so bad that the original edition was recalled and replaced immediately with :

Quote:

At Mass, that is, the Lord’s Supper the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice. For this reason Christ’s promise applies in an outstanding way to such a local gathering of the holy Church: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt 18:20). For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species.

This is still an awful Frankenstein's Monster of error and truth, but at least avoids heresy.

The Mass is infallibly and dogmatically defined as a Sacrifice, not a meal, not a gathering, nor as the "memorial of the Lord".