Sunday, January 02, 2011

De-mystifying the Faith with an Anti-Antiphon

Having coursed through endless tracts analyzing the Ordinary Rite of the Church (Novus Ordo Missae) which seek to contend that the Mass is a false one, something occurred to me.  The Novus Ordo Missae, itself, does not claim any efficacy of its consecration of the bread in the Body of the Lord.

There's no need to troll through didactic texts and interpretations and talk of Councils and what was meant.  The Rite itself does the job. How?

Reading the Eucharistic Prayer II of the Mass from the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides the objective evidence.

It reads: 102.

In the formulas that follow, the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words requires.

At the time he was betrayed
and entered willingly into his Passion,
He takes the bread
and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:
he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
He bows slightly.


TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.


He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it again on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.

103. After this, he continues:
In a similar way, when supper was ended,
He takes the chalice
and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:
he took the chalice
and, once more giving thanks,
he gave it to his disciples, saying:


He bows slightly.


TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,
WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.


He shows the chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration.
No problem so far (they even corrected that persistent error in the consecration of the chalice so that it poured out for the MANY.)
 
But what happens next during the Mass?  
             104. Then he says:
The mystery of faith.


And the people continue, acclaiming:


We proclaim your Death, O Lord,
and profess your Resurrection
until you come again.
Or:
When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup,
we proclaim your Death, O Lord,
until you come again.
Or:
Save us, Savior of the world,
for by your Cross and Resurrection
you have set us free.
Now if the priest had just consecrated the host .... why would the laity be singing "when we eat this bread" ?   Who is eating bread?  Where is this bread? There's not supposed to be any more bread.  Why would the laity be forced to sing about bread?  Presuming that the priest believes that the host has been consecrated into the Body of Our Lord ... why would the laity be forced into this heretical antiphon?

On a side note, who is drinking the cup?  We're supposed to be drinking His Blood.  I suppose one could "drink of the cup." But no, this says drinking the cup, as if the cup were a liquid itself. And since we don't drink the cup (that's impossible) and we don't eat bread at Mass (it was confected perfectly) .... is it true that "We proclaim Your Death."

Seems like, in this Mass which was to guarantee active participation of the laity, they're cut out of all the action.

In conclusion, this antiphon condemns the Mass to error or condemns the laity to error.


Another interesting side note: The online Cambridge Dictionary did not even carry the word ANTIPHON.

1 comment:

Nick Rottman said...

I happened to read this article on your blog. Doesn't it seem more likely that the reason the Memorial Acclamation uses the words "bread" and "cup" is because it’s a paraphrased quotation of 1 Cor. 11:26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes"? I'm afraid that I don't find your claim convincing.