Mysterium Fidei
#11
I believe it. In fact, as far as I see, I'd not be surprised if the bulk of the Roman Canon wasn't handed down from the Apostles. That being said, it's interesting that the eastern rites don't have the Mysterium Fidei. While it was obviously bad to remove it, and quite uncatholic to do so, it would seem to prove that it's not essential to the form, and thus the Novus Ordo (in the Latin, at least, with Pro Multis) is valid.
Reply
#12
DominusTecum Wrote:I believe it. In fact, as far as I see, I'd not be surprised if the bulk of the Roman Canon wasn't handed down from the Apostles. That being said, it's interesting that the eastern rites don't have the Mysterium Fidei. While it was obviously bad to remove it, and quite uncatholic to do so, it would seem to prove that it's not essential to the form, and thus the Novus Ordo (in the Latin, at least, with Pro Multis) is valid.
  
This is nonsense, as is the notion that the Roman Canon has come down to us word-for-word from the time of the Apostles. There is absolutely no evidence that anybody removed anything (for some sinister "uncatholic" reason) from the liturgy of every single Catholic rite except the Roman. It would be just as easy (and stupid) to say that it was "uncatholic" for the Romans to add the words mysterium fidei to their consecration.
Reply
#13
spasiisochrani Wrote:This is nonsense, as is the notion that the Roman Canon has come down to us word-for-word from the time of the Apostles. There is absolutely no evidence that anybody removed anything (for some sinister "uncatholic" reason) from the liturgy of every single Catholic rite except the Roman. It would be just as easy (and stupid) to say that it was "uncatholic" for the Romans to add the words mysterium fidei to their consecration.

 
I think DT was referring to how modernists took out the "mysterium fidei" from the Roman Mass, not to the fact that most Eastern rites do not have "mysterium fidei" in their forms of consecration.
Reply
#14
Kephapaulos Wrote:
spasiisochrani Wrote:This is nonsense, as is the notion that the Roman Canon has come down to us word-for-word from the time of the Apostles. There is absolutely no evidence that anybody removed anything (for some sinister "uncatholic" reason) from the liturgy of every single Catholic rite except the Roman. It would be just as easy (and stupid) to say that it was "uncatholic" for the Romans to add the words mysterium fidei to their consecration.

 
I think DT was referring to how modernists took out the "mysterium fidei" from the Roman Mass, not to the fact that most Eastern rites do not have "mysterium fidei" in their forms of consecration.

 
Oh, that makes sense.  Sorry, DT. I misinterpreted your remarks.
Reply
#15
That's alright, I wasn't as clear as I could have been, it was a hasty comment. And yes, I was referring to the NO and the modernist removal of "Mysterium Fidei." I just found it interesting since often sedevacantists will say that the removal of "Mysterium Fidei" from the consecration, even in the Latin editio typica, automatically renders the consecratory formula suspect. Clearly, however, if the "Mysterium Fidei" is not present in any rite but the Roman, it would indicate that it is nonessential to the form, and thus that the Latin Editio Typica is a valid formula.
 
I don't know whether the TLM canon is of mostly apostolic origin or not, but I haven't seen anything which absolutely establishes that it was not... given that in the 500s the people were horribly upset with Gregory for adding one phrase to the canon, it would seem that it is quite a bit older than his time, which would indicate Apostolic -or at least very close to it, origin. I have not, however, studied the matter, and could easily be wrong if there is documented evidence to the contrary.
 
 
Reply
#16
DominusTecum Wrote:

That's alright, I wasn't as clear as I could have been, it was a hasty comment. And yes, I was referring to the NO and the modernist removal of "Mysterium Fidei." I just found it interesting since often sedevacantists will say that the removal of "Mysterium Fidei" from the consecration, even in the Latin editio typica, automatically renders the consecratory formula suspect. Clearly, however, if the "Mysterium Fidei" is not present in any rite but the Roman, it would indicate that it is nonessential to the form, and thus that the Latin Editio Typica is a valid formula.

I don't know whether the TLM canon is of mostly apostolic origin or not, but I haven't seen anything which absolutely establishes that it was not... given that in the 500s the people were horribly upset with Gregory for adding one phrase to the canon, it would seem that it is quite a bit older than his time, which would indicate Apostolic -or at least very close to it, origin. I have not, however, studied the matter, and could easily be wrong if there is documented evidence to the contrary.


The story of Pope St. Gregory the Great and the riots are mediaevel in origin. I would like to offer the following by St. Gregory the Great himself:

“Orationem vero Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsamsolummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent.  Et valde mihi inconveniens visum est ut precem quam scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus, et ipsam traditione uam Redemptor noster composuit super ejus corpus et sanguinem non diceremus.”

There are varied ways of interpreting this passage and consequently many different interpretations have been attached to it. The most common exposed in the old Catholic Encyclopedia is the view that ‘precem’ is the Canon and that it was composed by (a) ‘scholasticus’ . It refers to Benedict XIV discussing whether it was a learned man or a person of that name.


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)