The problem with this is that others started questioning at what point the consecration occurred within their own rites. It seems now it is unclear whether it’s just the words “This is my body…,” “this is the chalice of my blood” which actually perform the consecration.
I believe that the point that Bl. John Paul clarified was that because of the history of this anaphora its legitimacy and intent cannot be questioned, since it has been the same since the beginning and it has never had the words of institution. He’s saying this, because this was the question on the table. I consider that one more question answered. Now we can move on, rather than start raising questions about the other canons in the West and anaphoras of the East.
Use of vernacular, or at least its partial use, is a longstanding practice in the Eastern & Oriental Churches, and has absolutely nothing to do with a “correction” (I rather that word is totally out of place here, but never mind) or anything of the sort. The related innovation is the total abandonment of ancient and venerable liturgical languages, in imitation of the common post-conciliar practice in the Latin Church.
There is more coming on the languages of the East. I don’t know the details. I only know that I heard the announcement by one of the Eastern Metropolitans.
This is only partially correct. The original recension of the Anaphora of Ss Addai & Mari, as used by the ACoE, does indeed lack an Institution Narrative,
No one ever said that it had one. What has been said is that the intent to consecrate is included throughout the anaphora in a euchological manner and has been the case for more than 17 centuries, along with a valid priesthood and a belief in the Eucharist. Therefore, the words that have been used in the other Catholic and Orthodox Churches have never been present but it is unnecessary to add them.
and it was this recension that was the focus of the decision of the Holy Office. The recension of the Anaphora of Ss Addai & Mari used by the Chaldean Church is nearly identical, but does have an Institution Narrative, that was added by Rome at the time of union in the late 16th century. It’s interesting to note that the Institution Narrative is still there, even after both the aforementioned decision of the Holy Office and the recent liturgical restorations promulgated by the Holy Synod of the Chaldean Church.
No one said that it was not there among the Chaldeans. What was said is that there is finally a clarification or a question answered. Put another way, an apprehension has been corrected. The anaphora is valid with and without the explicit words of consecration. That’s all that’s being said. Noe one has told the Chaldeans who use it to throw out their versiion and go back to square one. On the other hand, some Chaldean dioceses have stopped adding this interpolation, because it is now clear that they don’t need to do so. That was what triggered the need for clarification in the first place, that at least one diocese in the East, maybe more, were using the ancient anaphora without the words of consecration.
The point is that we’re not having reforms of reforms. What we are seeing is what has happened throughout Church history, nothing new. When something changes, there is always a need for follow-up with clarifications, tweeking, and corrections. Too many people are placing unrealistic expectations on this new instruction for the Roman missal and other missals.
Some are hoping that it will turn the clock back before 1962, but as Pope Benedict has said, the Church does not end at 1962. Others are hoping that it will lead into some undefined futuristic version of the liturgy. I’m not sure what this group expects; but that’s not going to happen either. What’s going to happen in the West in parishes run by secular priests, which is most of them, there will be greater clarify on what has to be done, what may never be done and what is allowed, but not mandatory.
In parishes run by the orders, there will be very little change, except those that use the missals in English will use the corrected translation, but their customs will go untouched. They will keep their own calendars, missals, lectionaries, book of the Gospels, collects and liturgy of the mass and hours.
Those orders that had their own rites may reinstate them, with the approval of their legitimate authority within the order, be it the General Council or the General Chapter. Carthusians don’t have general chapters, so this does not apply to them and they don’t allow lay people to witness their mass anyway, with few exceptions. They will vote on this by house.
Finally, at some point in the future, the Extraordinary Form MIssal will be updated with a change in the calendar to include saints and blesseds after 1962. Many people will welcome this, because people have a devotion to certain blesseds and saints. Pio, Maximilian Kolbe, John XXIII, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, Giana Molla, Edith Stein and a few othes are very special to people of different regions. This will not be a real reform, but a revision of the calendar.
Hopefully, the confusion and the nonsense that has been introduced into the liturgy or into people’s heads will disappear. Of course, human beings being what we are, new nonsense will replace old nonsense. Isn’t that always the case?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
