A Critique of the Traditional Roman Canon

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

matt1618.freeyellow.com/palm.html

This man’s opinion of the Canon is very low, and in fact, talks about how the New Mass is perfectly in line with tradition, and is not a newly created liturgy, and well, some things I disagree majorly as a “traditionalist,” as we are called. I guess I am asking anyone’s opinion here.
Q. Is there anything terribly wrong with the Roman Canon?

and a quote from the page a little more than half-way down the page in brown:
“Hence those who cling to the “Tridentine Missal” have a faulty view of the historical facts.”
Let’s here your opinions.

 

[RomeoCharlie]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong. The beauty and long history of the Tridentine Mass not withstanding, isn’t the current Mass more in line with what the early Christians were doing in the catacombs? The Tridentine Mass, again though it’s very beautiful and inspiring, is not the original Mass. Am I wrong?

 

[diggerdomer]

matt1618.freeyellow.com/palm.html

This man’s opinion of the Canon is very low, and in fact, talks about how the New Mass is perfectly in line with tradition, and is not a newly created liturgy, and well, some things I disagree majorly as a “traditionalist,” as we are called. I guess I am asking anyone’s opinion here.
Q. Is there anything terribly wrong with the Roman Canon?

and a quote from the page a little more than half-way down the page in brown:
“Hence those who cling to the “Tridentine Missal” have a faulty view of the historical facts.”
Let’s here your opinions.

I would not agree with a low opinion of the Roman canon.

I would agree that the Catholic Mass (i.e. Missal of Paul VI) is in line with tradition.

No, of course there’s nothing terribly wrong with the Roman Canon! I would even say there’s NOTHING wrong with it!

That being said, I think a better way to understand what I (charitably) think the author of the link you posted was getting at is that in light of liturgical scholarship over the centuries following the Missal of Pius V, the Church has learned so much more about Eucharistic worship, including the variety and forms of Eucharistic prayers (canons, anaphoras). With the advantage of this increased learning, which was not available in the 16th-17th centuries, the Church recognizes that a few common features of a variety of Eucharistic prayers (anaphoras) were not present in the Roman Canon. So, when the Missal was revised according with the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II, the Roman Canon along with the other approved Eucharistic Prayers was revised.

 

[shuzo1189]

The Mass of Paul VI is in line with Tradition, what is not in line with Tradition is a complete creation of a new liturgy from scratch. The Tridentine Rite as we call it was an organic development made slowly but surley for the better part of sixteen hundred years.

Yes the Pauline mass could be said to be closer to the Catacombs, but that really isn’t surprising given that your dealing with a persecuted christianity. As soon as it gained legal status in the Roman Empire and with Constantine’s funding of Churches we could go “All out” on our celebration of the Mass

 

[larousser]

The “traditional” Roman Canon is also Eucharistic Prayer Number 1 in the Novus Ordo, so by bashing this ancient prayer he is also bashing the Novus Ordo. Furthermore the decision to create new eucharistic prayers was because of progressivist agitation which Pope Paul VI had to guard against: “I once again strongly urge the Congregation for Divine Worship to try to control the tendency to multiply Eucharistic Prayers” (Pope Paul VI).

Liturgical historian Josef Jungmann has critiqued his analysis. Some of the arguments and history are found here:
adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html

 

[dixibehr]

isn’t the current Mass more in line with what the early Christians were doing in the catacombs?<<

The early Christians in the catacombs also had to deal with imminent martyrdom, high infant mortality, women dying in childbirth, and abdominal surgery without anesthetic.

Do you want to bring them back, too?

And I would say that the lifestyle of “the early Christians in the catacombs” bears little resemblance to that of rich, comfortable, spoiled, American suburban Christians of anybody’s church.

 

[diggerdomer]

The “traditional” Roman Canon is also Eucharistic Prayer Number 1 in the Novus Ordo, so by bashing this ancient prayer he is also bashing the Novus Ordo. Furthermore the decision to create new eucharistic prayers was because of progressivist agitation which Pope Paul VI had to guard against: “I once again strongly urge the Congregation for Divine Worship to try to control the tendency to multiply Eucharistic Prayers” (Pope Paul VI).

Liturgical historian Josef Jungmann has critiqued his analysis. Some of the arguments and history are found here:
adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html

I’m confused, it looks to me as though the link is to an article by a certain “Father Folsom” (whoever he is) not Jungmann.

And, that article makes the ludicrous claim that “This was not always so, however. For some 1600 years previously, the Roman rite knew only one Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman canon.” That is obviously historically not true.

I agree, anyone bashing the Roman Canon is bashing Eucharistic Prayer I and so imho is bashing both the Masses of Paul VI and Pius V.

 

[diggerdomer]

what is not in line with Tradition is a complete creation of a new liturgy from scratch.

Yes, of course. Thankfully the Masses of Paul VI and Pius V are of course no such thing.

 

[Famule]

What I would like to know is where such things as the priest facing the people and mass being entirely in the vernacular came from. These did not come from Vatican II. I would think that both canons are fine, but both should be celebrated in Latin. No permission was given for all vernacular.

 

[AJV]

I’m confused, it looks to me as though the link is to an article by a certain “Father Folsom” (whoever he is) not Jungmann.

And, that article makes the ludicrous claim that “This was not always so, however. For some 1600 years previously, the Roman rite knew only one Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman canon.” That is obviously historically not true.

Actually it is and very well backed up with evidence. I don’t know of any scholar who debates it, though plenty of them have widely divergent theories on what it was before that time (the one fashionable in the 60’s was that it was something like the Anaphora of Hippolytus. Several scholars of all denominations building on views voiced even then have now called that assertion more into question)

From roughly the time of Gregory the Great to the Missal of Paul VI, there is no evidence of the Roman Church having used any other prayer than the Roman Canon in almost the same words that we have it today (later centuries having introduced certain *small *variations in the lists of saints, the Hanc igitur and the Mementos, that in some cases remained and in others didn’t). This is amply supported textually e.g. the Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries, the Ordines Romani, various ordinals, etc…

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually it is and very well backed up with evidence.

What, exactly, are you referring to? Sorry I’m just not sure.

I don’t know of any scholar who debates it, though plenty of them have widely divergent theories on what it was before that time (the one fashionable in the 60’s was that it was something like the Anaphora of Hippolytus.

Again, I’m sorry, I’m just not clear on what you’re referring to? What is the “it” you say scholars don’t debate? Surely you’re not saying that the Roman Canon was the only form of Eucharistic prayer the Church knew since 300 or 400 A.D.?

Regarding Hippolytus, Eucharistic Prayer II was based on the prayer found in the Apostolic Tradition which is attributed to Hippolytus (ca. 215 A.D.). No doubt there (and hardly an occasion of inventing something new with no precedent).

From roughly the time of Gregory the Great to the Missal of Paul VI, there is no evidence of the Roman Church having used any other prayer than the Roman Canon

But wait…the Council of Trent specifically said other forms of the Mass (meaning…other Eucharistic Prayers) were specifically aborgated unless they could demonstrate they had been in use for a long period of time (it was either 100 or 200 years…I forget…something we can easily look up). So obviously the Council of Trent recognized that the ONLY form of Eucharistic worship was NOT what came to be known as the Roman Canon. This does nothing of course to detract from the importance and significance and worth of the Roman Canon.

Maybe your point is limited to the “Roman” rather than the broader “Catholic” Church?

By the way, it was Gregory who, unfortunately imho, removed the Prayer of the Faithful (General Intercessions) from the Mass. Thankfully, Vatican II restored this ancient practice.

 

[AJV]

What, exactly, are you referring to? Sorry I’m just not sure.

“For some 1600 years previously, the Roman rite knew only one Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman canon” - which was the statement you took issue with.

Again, I’m sorry, I’m just not clear on what you’re referring to? What is the “it” you say scholars don’t debate? Surely you’re not saying that the Roman Canon was the only form of Eucharistic prayer the Church knew since 300 or 400 A.D.?

No, but it is the only;y one known by the Roman rite since the time of Gregory the Great. I suppose being strictly accurate would make it approx. 1450 years but the extra 150 can certainly be inferred form other documents like De Sacramentis.

Regarding Hippolytus, Eucharistic Prayer II was based on the prayer found in the Apostolic Tradition which is attributed to Hippolytus (ca. 215 A.D.). No doubt there (and hardly an occasion of inventing something new with no precedent).

I’m not fully sure whether the “no doubt” referred to the link between EP II and the Apostolic Tradition, or the AT and Hippolytus.

If it is between EP II and AT, then it is only partially true. In the first place, the text of AT was adapted, not taken verbatim or mostly verbatim, for various reasons (e.g. removing the reference to Jesus as an “Angel” which may have confused modern users. Consider the text- I’ve highlighted those portions which bear similarity to EP II (note that it is still not verbatim)—[this is Cumming’s translation]

We render thanks to you, O God, through your beloved child Jesus Christ, whom in the last times you sent to us a saviour and redeemer and angel of your will who is your inseparable Word, through whom you made all things, and in whom you were well pleased.You sent him from heaven into the Virgin’s womb; and conceived in the womb, **he was made flesh **and was manifested as your Son, being born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin.Fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands when he should suffer, that he might release from suffering those who have believed in you.

And when he was betrayed to voluntary suffering that he might destroy death, and break the bonds of the devil and tread down hell, and shine upon the righteous, and fix a term, **and manifest the resurrection, he took bread and gave thanks to you, saying "Take, eat; this is my body, which shall be broken for you." ** Likewise also the cup, saying, "This is my blood, which is shed for you; when you do this, you make my remembrance."

**Remembering therefore his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, giving you thanks because you have held us worthy to stand before you and minister to you. **And we ask that you could send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy Church; that, gathering it into one, you would grant to all who partake of the holy things to partake for the fullness of the Holy Spirit for the strengthening of faith in truth, that we may praise and glorify you through your child Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you with the holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Consider that over half of the non-verbatim text is in the Preface, which may be, and frequently is in the special seasons, replaced with another preface. Thus we are basically left with the following parts in EP II inspired by the AT (and even here, things like the Words of Institution differ):

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: “Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.”

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, 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 men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving Bread, this saving Cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

If you were speaking about the second, the association of the AT with Hippolytus…there is actually some doubt about the author of Hippolytus. If you are interested in reading them, I can suggest a few books and/or articles in liturgical/pastoral journals.

But wait…the Council of Trent specifically said other forms of the Mass (meaning…other Eucharistic Prayers) were specifically aborgated unless they could demonstrate they had been in use for a long period of time (it was either 100 or 200 years…I forget…something we can easily look up). So obviously the Council of Trent recognized that the ONLY form of Eucharistic worship was NOT what came to be known as the Roman Canon. This does nothing of course to detract from the importance and significance and worth of the Roman Canon.

Trent said nothing of the kind. In fact, it was St. Pius V who did, when he codified the missal. But the bull clearly lays out what it speaks about. It is the “in Missae celebratione alias caelemonias, vel preces” that it codifies. The exemption granted is “vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus”. It is clear that the “celebration of Masses” refers not to the Eucharistic Prayer but to all the prayers and ceremonies in those missals. Moreover, examination of missals of that time period in the West, show that while they differed in Propers and other prayers, the Canon was largely the same as the Roman Canon, which several centuries earlier had already ousted others like the Gallican.

By the way, it was Gregory who, unfortunately imho, removed the Prayer of the Faithful (General Intercessions) from the Mass. Thankfully, Vatican II restored this ancient practice.

He actually did not remove it - he merely ordered that on certain ferial days, the intercessory litany at the beginning (which some, but not all, scholars associate with the Prayers of the Faithful, theorizing that they may have been moved to the beginning of the Mass) be shortened to the Kyrie eleison- Christe eleison only.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong. The beauty and long history of the Tridentine Mass not withstanding, isn’t the current Mass more in line with what the early Christians were doing in the catacombs? The Tridentine Mass, again though it’s very beautiful and inspiring, is not the original Mass. Am I wrong?

Actually the New Mass is full novelty, and is a mish-mash of various sources, including the Eastern Rites and Jewish Prayers (Mass of Creation, for example). It does not in anyway harken back to the Last Supper, the catacombs or anything else as may be the claim. How Christ said the First Mass, published by TAN, would be good reference on this. Though I do feel the new right is valid, it has little to do with the ancients, and you will find the Tridentine is actually the same ancient, though more accentuated, version of the “original” Mass. The New mass claims this, but I can name few thing in it of true antiquity.

 

[AJV]

Actually the New Mass is full novelty, and is a mish-mash of various sources, including the Eastern Rites and Jewish Prayers (Mass of Creation, for example). It does not in anyway harken back to the Last Supper, the catacombs or anything else as may be the claim. How Christ said the First Mass, published by TAN, would be good reference on this. Though I do feel the new right is valid, it has little to do with the ancients, and you will find the Tridentine is actually the same ancient, though more accentuated, version of the “original” Mass. The New mass claims this, but I can name few thing in it of true antiquity.

“How Christ said the First Mass” is a popular, not a scholarly, book and full of inaccuracies with much of the Traditional Mass sometimes superimposed over the Last Supper. Some of it’s parallels are interesting and some may find it useful for meditating but it should not be taken as a scholarly work.

 

[Aramis]

The issues with the Trent missal are simple and straightforward:

1. does not use the whole of the new testament (Solved with the Pauline lectionary)
2. No provision for the vernacular outside of the Balkans (Solved by papal instruction to reread the readings in the vernacular several years after trent; later reduced to reading the readings in the predominant language of the local area.)
3. Does not provide significant body of old testament readings (Again, solved with the Pauline lectionary, since vespers and matins are not a routine part of lay worship in the Roman Church since the 1400’s)
4. Does not permit priestly concelebration (All other Major Rites in the Catholic Church do, and Rome used to… Solved with the Pauline GIRM… )

The issues with the trent missal could have been solved by adding an old testament reading, and adopting a multi-year lectionary calendar, and using the same rubrics for concelebration as are in the 1972 GIRM… and the 2003…

The lack of Old Testament readings could have been solved by ordering public matins to be said before every mass, and attended under pain of sin… but it is far simpler to just add the OT reading back to the missal.

Then again, 6 other canons were permitted to remain in use by Trent: The Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite, Bragan, Ambrosian and Mozarabic.

 

[diggerdomer]

Though I do feel the new right is valid, it has little to do with the ancients, and you will find the Tridentine is actually the same ancient, though more accentuated, version of the “original” Mass. The New mass claims this, but I can name few thing in it of true antiquity.

The Mass, under whatever form, maintains its connection to how the Church has always prayed. If you can only name a few things of “true antiquity” in the Mass of Paul VI then it seems there’s a great opportunity for you to learn. If your parish has a library, or someone there could recommend some good books that’s where I’d start. Or, your diocese. Or if you want recommendations I’m sure people here would have some good ideas on reliable, widely respected sources for historical studies of the liturgy.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Diggerdomer,

I’m interested in any response you can provide to AJV’s post #12.

Thanks,
VC

 

[diggerdomer]

Diggerdomer,

I’m interested in any response you can provide to AJV’s post #12.

Thanks,
VC

My response would be “thanks for the clarification, information, and thorough response.” I thought it was a really helpful posting.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thank you.

And thanks to AJV for another informative post.
VC

 

[EnchantedEve]

“How Christ said the First Mass” is a popular, not a scholarly, book and full of inaccuracies with much of the Traditional Mass sometimes superimposed over the Last Supper. Some of it’s parallels are interesting and some may find it useful for meditating but it should not be taken as a scholarly work.

Forgive me, but a work in which the author had a Doctorate in Divinity from Pope Leo XIII and was head of the Christian Press Association appeared to have a least some pretext of being scholarly, nor does it appear to be designed for “meditation.” While I may not necessarily disagree with you there may be inaccuracies, I would appreciate you pointing them out, since just saying it has inaccuracies helps no one here in their research.

The Mass, under whatever form, maintains its connection to how the Church has always prayed. If you can only name a few things of “true antiquity” in the Mass of Paul VI then it seems there’s a great opportunity for you to learn. If your parish has a library, or someone there could recommend some good books that’s where I’d start. Or, your diocese. Or if you want recommendations I’m sure people here would have some good ideas on reliable, widely respected sources for historical studies of the liturgy.

By saying there is little in the New Mass from antiquity, I meant anything “new.” Pardon if I was unclear. Most of what was from antiquity in the New Mass was merely carried over from the Old. Most innovations, such as facing the people and vernacular, were speculated as being ancient at the time but there is reason now to believe this is not the case. There is also much in the prayers which is a departure. The assertion “There’s a great opportunity to learn” is blithe, but you fail to point out exactly what can be learned. Please tell me what in the New Mass (not carried from the old) is truly of the ancients?

For those who desire scholarly pretensions, please share a source showing ancient roots for the New Mass innovations, as diggerdomer rightly recommends. I always enjoy new material.

I will take the opportunity here, if you will indulge me, to quote my favorite encyclical:

"But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn." (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947)

Hope to hear from you all!