Sometime in the late 50s when the updated version of Denzinger was being compiled, they decided to renumber it to get rid of the appendix which had previously existed, as well as to make the paragraphs smaller. This new edition, called Denzinger-Schonmetzer, is the one which the CCC uses. The Catechetics Online website has the version with the older numbering system.This is confirmed at the same web site, Our Refuge, here: “715 … but in the consecration of the blood, it uses the following form of the words: ‘For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins.’…”
DixitDominus, I’m a bit curious what version of Denzinger’s the CatecheticsOnline.com web site uses, since paragraphs pertaining to the Florentine Council go from the late 600s to the 700s, whereas in your excerpt, it’s found in paragraph 1352.
Thank you! Is the DS available online? The older Denz. is the only one I’ve been able to find, and it really is an incredibly helpful resource.Sometime in the late 50s when the updated version of Denzinger was being compiled, they decided to renumber it to get rid of the appendix which had previously existed, as well as to make the paragraphs smaller. This new edition, called Denzinger-Schonmetzer, is the one which the CCC uses. The Catechetics Online website has the version with the older numbering system.
First, search the Holy Bible and try to find “Mysterium Fidei” in any of the gospel accounts of Our Lord’s institution of the Holy Eucharist or in the words of consecration as presented by St. Paul.
Then take a look at some ancient liturgies and you won’t find “Mysterium Fidei” in the consecration here, either:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.ii.html
coptic.net/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html
The Church teaches that divine relation ended with the apostles. If all the apostles were not teaching that the words “Mysterium Fidei” were necessary for salvation, then their addition cannot be said to be Divine law, but rather by the authority of the Church.
Mysterium Fidei
Catechism Council of Trent
"Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth. Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.
They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus. Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins."
LATERAN COUNCIL III 1179
What is the explaination for the change then…and why you think this change would not lead to a “different understanding” of the term “mystery of faith”?414-415 “You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of the words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the body and blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed. . . . In the Canon of the Mass that expression, “mysterium fidei,” is found interposed among His words. . From the expression, moreover, concerning which your brotherhood raised the question, namely “mysterium fidei,” certain people have thought to draw a protection against error… Yet “mysterium fidei” is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than is believed… Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as is found in, the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them. . . .
There was no explanation given in Missale Romanum of 1969, apart from this: “The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.” Now, strictly speaking, they don’t serve as an introduction, since the words remained as simply “mysterium fidei”, “the mystery of faith”. From the evidence that follows (in another post), the Church has never changed its (received) teaching that mysterium fidei relates to the miraculous event that has taken place on the altar; namely, that the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.What is the explaination for the change then…and why you think this change would not lead to a “different understanding” of the term “mystery of faith”?
You are confining yourself to the English translation. The Latin text did not change from mysterium fidei to anything else, so “Let us proclaim the mystyer of faith” is a poor “translation”. Furthermore, “Christ has died…” is not found in the latest edition of the Latin missal. These two issues have been corrected in the newest English translation of the Missal (due to be used in a couple of years).Within the form of consecration of the Precious Blood it is said, “Mysterium Fidei”…“the mystery of Faith”. This was changed to “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” to which the response is, “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”.
The following are quotes from Magisterial documents:From the evidence that follows (in another post), the Church has never changed its (received) teaching that mysterium fidei relates to the miraculous event that has taken place on the altar; namely, that the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I would say it *is *an introduction but not in the way one might think as in “Now we will say this:” but rather that the priest’s confession is the prelude to an acclamation of the people. The priest confesses, and the people respond by acclaiming.There was no explanation given in Missale Romanum of 1969, apart from this: “The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.” Now, strictly speaking, they don’t serve as an introduction, since the words remained as simply “mysterium fidei”, “the mystery of faith”.
The current English translation detaches it from the consecration and makes it an “intro” to the memorial acclamation; I would hope that what you describe is what the Church intended, that it is a “prelude”.I would say it *is *an introduction but not in the way one might think as in “Now we will say this:” but rather that the priest’s confession is the prelude to an acclamation of the people. The priest confesses, and the people respond by acclaiming.
AJV,I would say it *is *an introduction but not in the way one might think as in “Now we will say this:” but rather that the priest’s confession is the prelude to an acclamation of the people. The priest confesses, and the people respond by acclaiming.
japhy said:“Mysterium fidei! - The Mystery of Faith!”. When the priest recites or chants these words, all present acclaim: “We announce your death, O Lord, and we proclaim your resurrection, until you come in glory”. (2003 - Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 5)
No it isn’t. At least not in the editio typica. The people’s response is:AJV,
The people’s acclamation is, "Christ has died (past), Christ has risen (past), Christ will come again (future).
SFD
“Christ has died” has nothing to do with the sacrifice? And you can’t even get the entire acclamation right. The middle part is “Christ is risen”. Listen, I’m not a fan of the acclamation, but at least be fair and get it right.Acclaiming what? The people’s acclamation is, "Christ has died (past), Christ has risen (past), Christ will come again (future). This has nothing to do with the sacrifice and I can’t see why you can’t see that.
I would think the second coming of the Lord will be far more glorious, objectively, than his presence in the Eucharist. There will be no veils in his second coming. The glory will not be hidden by the forms of bread and wine.This is awful…“until you come in Glory”. What is this a reference to? The second coming or the real presence?
If there had been proper catechesis at the time, and if the ICEL hadn’t butchered the Mass (and been allowed to, how lamentable!), perhaps we wouldn’t be where we are today.I really can’t see how you fellows can defend these things. It is quite clear what the effects of these changes have been. One should not have to do this type of mental gymnastics to arrive at the meaning of something that was formerly so clear and precise.
The phrase “mysterium fidei” was in the words of consecration. These words were changed and were removed from the form and placed elsewhere. You can claim it has the same meaning…but it was removed for a purpose…those who removed it had a reason for doing it. What was that reason?“Christ has died” has nothing to do with the sacrifice? And you can’t even get the entire acclamation right. The middle part is “Christ is risen”. Listen, I’m not a fan of the acclamation, but at least be fair and get it right.
That’s not the question, however. It is irrelevant whether or not the Second Coming is greater that the Real Presence.I would think the second coming of the Lord will be far more glorious, objectively, than his presence in the Eucharist. There will be no veils in his second coming. The glory will not be hidden by the forms of bread and wine.
If? What was done is what was done. It was translated into english and that was used…there were all these “options”…they were allowed and used. They are not “abuses”.If there had been proper catechesis at the time, and if the ICEL hadn’t butchered the Mass (and been allowed to, how lamentable!), perhaps we wouldn’t be where we are today.
Yes, it is Christ is risen. It’s been a while since I’ve heard it. I don’t see how that changes anything, however. This acclamation is entirely different from the mysterium fidei in the very words of the consecration.“Christ has died” has nothing to do with the sacrifice? And you can’t even get the entire acclamation right. The middle part is “Christ is risen”. Listen, I’m not a fan of the acclamation, but at least be fair and get it right.
Oh yes, of course. We have all heard that…the Mass was in English almost everywhere where English was spoken.No it isn’t. At least not in the editio typica. The people’s response is:
“Mortem tuam annuntiámus, Dómine, et tuam resurrectiónem confitémur, donec vénias.”
or:
“Quotiescúmque manducámus panem hunc et cálicem bíbimus, mortem tuam annuntiámus, Dómine, donec vénias.”
or, my personal favorite:
Salvátor mundi, salva nos, qui per crucem et resurrectiónem tuam liberásti nos.
As I understand it, the reason for moving the words “Mysterium Fidei” are that they are not part of Our Lord’s original words of consecration, and instead are actually an expression of what has occurred through the consecration. Therefore, it does seem clearer to place them after the words of consecration.What is the explaination for the change then…and why you think this change would not lead to a “different understanding” of the term “mystery of faith”?
Within the form of consecration of the Precious Blood it is said, “Mysterium Fidei”…“the mystery of Faith”. This was changed to “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” to which the response is, “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”. So the “Mysterium Fidei” is no longer seen as the consecration…but the historical (Christ has died and risen) and the future (Christ will come again). It does not refer to the present (which is happening on the Altar)…oops…there’s no altar either. The imagery of a table says “a meal and no mystery” whilst an altar conjures up images of sacrifice.
SFD
This is all very interesting but fails to address the following, which I quoted earlier:As I understand it, the reason for moving the words “Mysterium Fidei” are that they are not part of Our Lord’s original words of consecration, and instead are actually an expression of what has occurred through the consecration. Therefore, it does seem clearer to place them after the words of consecration.
The fact that some people might associate the words “Mysterium Fidei” with the words that follow, rather than the words that precede it, does not imply sinister motive, as you seem to be saying. There are parts of the traditional mass that can be misleading if one is not educated as to the intended meaning. Furthermore, if someone gets the idea that Christ’s death, resurrection, and second coming are mysteries of faith, well, that’s neither heretical nor incorrect.
You’re kind of getting off topic with the altar comparison, but I’ll bite. First of all, the table used in the Ordinary Form is still properly called an altar. Second, the traditional altar, with its lace and gold and carvings and finery doesn’t really conjure up images of sacrifice for me. Rather, it seems to point upward and draw one’s attention to the risen Christ in heaven. Inspiring, yes, but it’s not really a picture of sacrifice. When I think of sacrifice, I think of a table (yes, a table!) with a slaughtered animal lying on it.
Mysterium Fidei
Catechism Council of Trent
"Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth. Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.
They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus. Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins."
LATERAN COUNCIL III 1179
SFD414-415 “You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of the words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the body and blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed. . . . In the Canon of the Mass that expression, “mysterium fidei,” is found interposed among His words. . From the expression, moreover, concerning which your brotherhood raised the question, namely “mysterium fidei,” certain people have thought to draw a protection against error… Yet “mysterium fidei” is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than is believed… Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as is found in, the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them. . . .
It’s not the Lateran Council but Pope Innocent III. There are in fact, many writings which claim that the words were taught by tradition, or even Apostolic tradition (though, note, that the Catechism of Trent differs from this in that it purposely does not directly state this.). That was how they reasoned that words not in Scripture were in the form. But likewise, they taught that certain other things were apostolic, or speculated on things that happened at the Last Supper, which ultimately turned out not to be so - one can think of, for example, the sacrament of ordination or the controversy of the first consecration by Christ.This is all very interesting but fails to address the following, which I quoted earlier:
SFD