Canon of the Mass--explanation, please?

[FrancisB]

Japhy,

Thank you for all the corrections and the great research. It s quite illuminating.

I am confused, however, as to your objection to the communion formula. As pretty as the longer form is, the simple formula is of considerably greater antiquity, isn’t it? You acknowledge yourself that it is quite old, and I have heard it used in the Liturgy of St. James the Just, although I do not speak any requisite language to know how ancient the formula is in that liturgy. It seems much of the additions to the Roman Rite under Paul VI came from that liturgy; in truth, I felt more comfortable with the Pauline Missal after I had read through the text of the Liturgy of St. James, and more so after I experienced it.

 

[ProVobis]

Rome, under the Frankish influence, replaced its previous formulae (probably like those above) with a blessing by the priest, dating to the 8th century: “Corpus et sanguis D.n.J.C. custodiat te in vitam aeternam.”

It seems as if this formula is more consistent with the belief that both the Body and Blood of Christ are present under one species. But that’s another thread.

Thanks again for your research. Sounds like an interesting book. Many of us are interested in the visuals surrounding the Mass, not only the text.

 

[japhy]

I am confused, however, as to your objection to the communion formula. As pretty as the longer form is, the simple formula is of considerably greater antiquity, isn’t it?

Oh, I don’t object to “Corpus Christi” as the formula for distribution of Communion. I just think that it would have been possible to slightly alter (sorry, ProVobis… I’ve gone and split an infinitive!) the “Tridentine” formula to enable the faithful to respond to it and in so doing express their faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Let me be so bold as to say that, while I do not expect the formula in the Ordinary Form of the Mass (the Missal as revised under Paul VI) to be changed, I would gladly welcome this particular change to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. It really is quite a small change, one which does not damage the substance of the Mass (in either form), and more explicitly expresses our faith that the Communion we receive is, in truth, the Body (and Blood) of our Lord.

It seems much of the additions to the Roman Rite under Paul VI came from that liturgy; in truth, I felt more comfortable with the Pauline Missal after I had read through the text of the Liturgy of St. James, and more so after I experienced it.

There are elements from many of the older liturgies that have been incorporated into the Ordinary Form of the Mass. At the same time, there are elements from other, not-as-old, liturgies that found their way into the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Whether any particular element is better than another, simply because it is older, is up for debate.

To put it another way, the Missal of 1962 was criticized as containing too many accretions from other times’ and regions’ liturgies, but the Missal of 2010 contains some of those same accretions as well as accretions from other times and regions. This is not to say that either liturgy is poor because of this, just that the presence of accretions is not a sign of a poor liturgy.

 

[japhy]

It seems as if this formula is more consistent with the belief that both the Body and Blood of Christ are present under one species. But that’s another thread.

That depends completely upon how Communion was distributed at the time that formula was used. Again, the 1050 Missal of Troyes has three formulas, one for Communion under the form of bread, one for the form of wine, and one presumably for a commingled reception.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, I don’t object to “Corpus Christi” as the formula for distribution of Communion. I just think that it would have been possible to slightly alter (sorry, ProVobis… I’ve gone and split an infinitive!) the “Tridentine” formula to enable the faithful to respond to it and in so doing express their faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

That’s okay. I resigned my position as an English Grammar Policeman a long time ago. Ever since they mixed (up) the subjunctive with the indicative.

But if I may make a comment on the newer formula… The Latin “Corpus Christi” is passable as it is a clear description of what is about to be received. At least as much as the Tridentine formula anyway. The English however, and I’m sure this has been widely debated, is somewhat ambiguous as what exactly is the “body of Christ,” the congregation, the church, the Real Presence? Perhaps this matter was not forseen in 1964.

 

[japhy]

The Latin “Corpus Christi” is passable as it is a clear description of what is about to be received. …] The English however, and I’m sure this has been widely debated, is somewhat ambiguous as what exactly is the “body of Christ,” the congregation, the church, the Real Presence?

How is the English any less clear than the Latin?

Of course, all three – the faithful, the Church, and the Eucharist – are the “Body of Christ”, though in different ways. The Eucharist is not the “mystical” Body; the faithful are (and the Church is) the “mystical” Body. But I don’t see why the typical English translation is ambiguous where the Latin is not (or is, at least, “passable”).

Is it because in the Latin, “It [this] is” is implied, whereas anything could be implied in the English?

 

[ProVobis]

Is it because in the Latin, “It [this] is” is implied, whereas anything could be implied in the English?

Hmm, I hadn’t thought of that. Not that it will bring me back to the English Mass, but “This is the Body of Christ. Amen.” might work better, although I understand it’s prohibited.

Actually I like the older “Corpus et sanguis…” formula for each or both species to avoid all confusion, but as you pointed out, this may not have been used for each species.

 

[japhy]

“This is the Body of Christ. Amen.” might work better, although I understand it’s prohibited.

For a time, Verbum Domini was translated as “This is the word of the Lord”, instead of “The word of the Lord”, just as Mysterium fidei was embellished.

 

[grandfather]

I would gladly proof read for you and hope your book will be widely read. It could be very helpful. Thank you for your research and efforts.