Bellarmine Forums

Sede Religious Orders & una cum discussion
Page 5 of 5

Author:  Vince Sheridan [ Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pax Christi !

Dear Bar Jonas,

I must also agree with Brogan. Fr. Cekada is famous for his wit, and this appears to be an example.

In Xto,

Author:  BarJonas [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:39 am ]
Post subject: 

Dear Brogan and Vince,

Thanks for lending your perspective to this. I'll attempt to put the best construction on this and at the risk of sounding puritanical, it's still appears rather unseemly for me especially given the somber times we are all faced with. Humor has its place, no doubt, but I would not suspect it to be the balm that will heal the sad wounds that Traditional Catholics have inflicted upon themselves.

On another note, our family will be attempting to relocate in the very near future so that we can avail ourselves of all the graces that flow from the True Mass and Sacraments and from the much needed spiritual direction from authentic Catholic priests. There will be no small amount of risk involved in this move, so we solicit your prayers with much longing and gratefulness.

Pax Christi,


Author:  eliz carroll [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, I'll bet something's up.

Father has probably been doing secret Olympic training, and he's ready for the Marathon.

I'll bet his heart stress rate has never been better, and he's ready to make a lot of money!

Author:  Penrod Schofield [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

John Lane wrote:

In the context it means "and also for" as in "We offer this Mass for the Church and also for her chief members, the pope, bishop, etc."

I think all are clear on this now. Even Bp. Sanborn, the original publisher of the notion that "una cum" means "offer together with" the pope etc., now accepts that this is an incorrect understanding.

John, I'm afraid I don't think all are clear on this. I asked a certain priest about it, and he said that if one knows his history of the Mass, he knows that the prayer immediately after the "Te igitur" is a more recent prayer, and originally the "Communicantes" came directly after that, so that the entire prayer used to say, "Una cum ... [the pope and bishop] communicantes ..." "Communicating with the pope and the bishop..."

That is certainly an interesting claim that the "una cum" clause only means "praying for" someone, but I'm not sure how that can be supported from the basic grammar of the sentence, given the "una cum" means "along with".

This is not to get into the question of whether one can assist at a Mass that is "una cum" Ratzinger, (I agree with your position on that), but I'm not sure about your thesis that it only indicates prayers for the intention of the pope.

Wishing you and all the good people on this list a very blessed and grace-filled Holy Week.

Author:  John Lane [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:01 am ]
Post subject: 

Penrod Schofield wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Even Bp. Sanborn, the original publisher of the notion that "una cum" means "offer together with" the pope etc., now accepts that this is an incorrect understanding.

John, I'm afraid I don't think all are clear on this.

Dear Penrod,

Back in the mid-nineties then-Father Sanborn answered an article entitled "Una Quicum" in which this point was covered. In his response Bishop Sanborn conceded the point. You'll be able to find the article in Catholic Restoration if you have it there. I have it somewhere but I'm not sure where at this stage.

Penrod Schofield wrote:
I asked a certain priest about it, and he said that if one knows his history of the Mass, he knows that the prayer immediately after the "Te igitur" is a more recent prayer, and originally the "Communicantes" came directly after that, so that the entire prayer used to say, "Una cum ... [the pope and bishop] communicantes ..." "Communicating with the pope and the bishop..."

Sounds like he's been reading Gihr or Fortescue. I will quote some texts later when I have more leisure. And you might check the Summa. St. Thomas actually tells us what each part of the Canon means, if memory serves.

Penrod Schofield wrote:
That is certainly an interesting claim that the "una cum" clause only means "praying for" someone, but I'm not sure how that can be supported from the basic grammar of the sentence, given the "una cum" means "along with".

Well, check your authorities. The grammar supports me, actually (which surely is why I could't find a translation - in layman's missals, for example - which suggested the alternative interpretation). Even de la Taille, who appears to argue your way (although for several reasons I am not sure) actually states that the pagan emperors were in former times named in that same place. I don't suppose he considered how likely it was that the Church prayed "we offer together with Caligula" but it isn't our problem, it's his.

Author:  John Lane [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Dear Penrod,

Below is an old Sede List post addressing this question. Apart from the bolding, it is unchanged. Fr. Vaillancourt took the opposing position and employed precisely one source on this particular question - de la Taille. If you can find any others, please post them.

Yours in Our Lady,

-----Original Message-----
From: Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2001 7:58 AM
To: SedeList
Subject: Una cum

Dear Larry,

The literal meaning of the words, "una cum" is "one with" or "together with" and in this place it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the words is to add the name of the pope to that of the Church, both of which are being prayed FOR. It is as though the text read "for the Church... 'and' the Pope."

Hence the Te igitur says, "Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of Thee and entreat Thee through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord. Hold acceptable and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unspotted oblations which, in the first place, we offer Thee for Thy Holy Catholic Church. Grant her peace and protection, unity and guidance throughout the worlds, together with Thy servant (name), our Pope, and (name), our Bishop; and all Orthodox believers who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic Faith."

In my layman's missal (Fr. Lasance) the words "together with" are replaced by "and also for" which makes the meaning clearer, but either translation will do, obviously, just so long as the meaning is correctly understood.

Pope Benedict XIV, in "Ex quo," refers to the commemoration of the pope in the following words. "So in the great church of Constantinople (whose example was doubtless followed by the other lesser churches of the east) the name of the Roman pontiff was in the sacred diptychs; therefore it must be asserted that he was PRAYED FOR by name during the celebration of Masses.

"Acacius is described as the first to erase this name and his deed was on this account particularly punished since, without any precedent, he committed a new sort of outrage till then unheard of, even though in former times there had been no lack of offence and disagreements between the Roman pontiffs and the bishops of the imperial city. It is thus abundantly proved that long before the time of Acacius and so in the early centuries, the name of the Roman pontiff was written in the sacred diptychs of the Greeks and thus it was customary to PRAY FOR him during the celebration of Mass."

Numerous other references can be cited, from the same papal source. For example, "Moreover it suffices Us to be able to affirm without peril that at whatever time the practice of praying by name FOR the Roman pontiff at Mass was finally accepted by the Greek Church, this practice was definitely in force in Greek churches many centuries before schism broke out, and was only broken off after the fatal separation."

And, "He urged him to see to it that the name of the Roman pontiff 'was proclaimed in the diptychs and that the whole Greek church prayed FOR him expressly and by name, as was the former practice of men who were pleasing to God, both patriarchs of Constantinople and emperors.'"

And if this is not yet absolutely clear, here is a text which can leave no possible room for quibbles. "In reply to the bishop of Orense who enquired how the Pope commemorated himself during the celebration of Mass, Innocent III, in a letter not yet published but preserved in the Vatican archives (bk. 9, no. 33) replied as follows: 'You have also asked to be instructed as to the words used by the Roman Pontiff at the place in the canon of the Mass where a priest of lower rank says 'together with our Pope,' since the Pope is then obviously praying for himself and is subordinate to no bishop. Our reply to your devotedness is this: at that place We say 'together with me your unworthy servant.'" (Benedict XIV, Ex Quo.)

I ask, in light of this, do the popes "offer the Mass in union with themselves," by this prayer? Such a view is ridiculous.

Of the authors whom I have consulted on the meaning of the Te Igitur, the following teach unequivocally that it is a prayer FOR the pope: Gihr, Cochem, Kearney, Fortescue, O'Callaghan, Lallou, Martindale, and Pope Benedict XIV; the manifold ancient authors quoted by Benedict (including St. Robert Bellarmine), by Fortescue, and by some of the others. I have been able to discover TWO who seem to think that the Te igitur involves "offering the Mass in union with" the pope. These two are De la Taille and Gaspar Lefebvre (De la Taille is singularly difficult to follow on the question).

Whatever might be thought of De la Taille and Lefebvre's "weight", or indeed that of the other authors I have cited, I cannot see any way of avoiding the plain teaching of Pope Benedict XIV, which is that this prayer is a prayer FOR the pope (and others).

Larry, the authors cited, along with three friends of mine who are competent in Latin, are my "Latinists."

I referred to "half a dozen" authors, not "a dozen," although a dozen would probably be easily cited, even if I only employed those in the books referred to here.

You might also like to ponder the following text, in the context of your earlier comments about being bound to communion with whomever the priest happens to name in the Canon: "The silent recitation of the Canon betokens the consecration and sacrificial act to be an exclusively priestly function.
... The silent recitation of the Canon is in contrast to the loud recitation of the preceding prayers. Whereas the loud tone of voice invites those present to join with the priest, and reminds them that the prayers are said in common, the silent recitation appropriately indicates that here is a mystery, which the consecrated priest alone can accomplish, not the people."
(Gihr, pp. 623, 624.)

In other words, Gihr is saying quite directly that this prayer (indeed, the whole Canon) is not something we can be truly said to participate in, because it is per se the act of a priest. And we aren't priests. St. Thomas says the same thing, which is where Gihr got the idea. See S. Th. III, Q 83, Art. 4, ad. 6, where St. Thomas contrasts the silent prayers with those which the people are (silently) joining in with (i.e. the prayers outside the Canon).

As a "recent convert", Larry, you have exceedingly strong opinions about disputed matters. Please tell us: When you decided to find out what the Church teaches about this, prior to when you anathematised those who assist at so-called "una cum" Masses, which Catholic books did you diligently seek information in, and which of those whom you have anathematised did you consult about the question, so as to ensure that you were acting justly and charitably?

That is NOT a rhetorical question.

Yours in JMJ,
John Lane.

Author:  csibf [ Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:59 am ]
Post subject: 

Te igitur says, "Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of Thee and entreat Thee through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord. Hold acceptable and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unspotted oblations, which, in the first place, we offer Thee for Thy Holy Catholic Church. Grant her peace and protection, unity and guidance throughout the worlds, together with Thy servant (name), our Pope, and (name), our Bishop; and all Orthodox believers who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic Faith."

May I know what the SV priests like CMRI or SSPV say in place of the names?


Author:  Vince Sheridan [ Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Pax Christi !

May I know what the SV priests like CMRI or SSPV say in place of the names?

There is a standard rubric in Holy Mass for those times that a see is vacant, the sede clergy follow this rubric.

In Xto,

Author:  csibf [ Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:18 pm ]
Post subject: 


So what are the rubrics. I mean is there another form of the Te igitur? What are words


Author:  wroll [ Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

So what are the rubrics. I mean is there another form of the Te igitur? What are words?

According to Fortescue, Adrian, Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (1918), page 52, "At the words una cum famula tuo Papa nostra N... If the Holy See is vacant at the time, he omits this clause altogether. At the words et antistite nostro N... If the see is vacant he omits this clause."

Author:  csibf [ Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:31 am ]
Post subject: 


Thank you very much for the enlightenment.


Author:  brogan [ Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:31 am ]
Post subject: 

Would you all agree to this?

If a Catholic who understands that the chair is presently empty can assit at a mass where Benedict is not mentioned, he must do so. It would be wrong for a sedevacantist who has, say, Bishop Dolan's parish and an SSPX parish in his city, as we do here in Cincinnati, to go to the SSPX mass just becuase he preferred something about it.

Basicially what I'm saying is dosen't everyone at least agree that a sedevacantist should attended a "non-una cum" mass if he has the opportunity to do so. It's seems pretty clear that it would be better to go to a mass where this heretic was not named as if he were Pope.

But if we agree to this wouldn't it also follow that one should move close enough to a "non-una cum parish" if he is able to do so.

I'm still not ready to buy the argument that one should stay at home if they have no other choice besides an "una cum Benedict mass". But honestly, couldn't pretty much anyone find a new job and move closer to a Parish that doesn't pray with or for this heretic as pope. Perhaps it would take years to save the money and find new employment but I doubt a move like this would be impossible for most people.

And I have another question on this issue. We are assisting at mass and not merely attending. Hanc igitur oblationem servitutus nostrae sed et cunctuae familiae tuae quaesumus, Domine, ut placatus accipias. So then even if when we say that the words "una cum" are just indicating a prayer "for" Benedict instead of "in union with" what about the words right after una cum; "famulo tuo Papa nostro". Wouldn't we then be then praying with the preist "for Benedict our Pope."

It must be wrong for us to stand there with the priest and pray for "Benedict our Pope". How can I willfully assit in this error? Can I also sit down with an SSPX priest and say 10 Hail Marys for "Benedict who is the Pope". How can I publically or privately pray for "Benedict my Pope" when he I know he is not?

Author:  John Lane [ Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:23 am ]
Post subject: 

brogan wrote:
Would you all agree to this?

Dear Brogan,

No, I don't. We're not praying WITH Benedict, nor are we offering Mass "in union with" him. The priest, who thinks Benedict is the pope, is praying FOR him. That is what is happening. Bishop Sanborn, for example, agrees with this. So, I suspect, does Fr. Cekada.

What Bp. Sanborn says is that the priest's acknowledgement of Benedict as pope is objectively wrong, and by being present we are in some sense cooperating with this acknowledgement, which, since we know better, is wrong. I think that's a fair summary.

What I say is that an uncondemned heretic being named in the Canon as pope (or bishop, for that matter) is a non-issue as far as assisting at such a Mass is concerned. If it were important, some authority would have dealt with it. But they haven't, in two thousand years. Read Pope Benedict XIV (not "XVI"!) "Ex quo." ... 4exquo.htm

Benedict XIV states unambiguously that there is no divine law covering this question, and that therefore it comes down to the law of the Church. It can be argued - and is argued by Gihr and de la Taille - that it would be against the law of the Church to name an "excommunicate" in the Canon. This refers, obviously, to somebody excommunicated by name, not to somebody who incurs an ipso facto excommunication. Indeed, there was a law promulgated by one of the early councils forbidding any cleric from omitting the name of his patriarch from the Canon unless and until there was a formal judgement issued. Frankly, that is the only law I can find which even deals directly with this matter.

Since only a certain law obliges, there is no binding law on this matter, period.

I have laid all this out publicly in a lengthy article on the subject. Nobody has ever tried to answer the arguments put. Nobody can cite any law in their favour. I invite you to ponder why this is so.

Emotionally, you may prefer a Mass offered by a man who agrees with you on the pope question. I certainly understand that. I am all for assisting at Mass offered by a priest I agree with on the maximum number of things. But there are things equally important to the pope issue. Indeed, there are things which are of vastly greater importance - for example, every single thing which has been decided by Holy Mother Church is MORE important, in one very clear sense a least, than the pope issue.

Author:  John Lane [ Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:45 am ]
Post subject: 

brogan wrote:
It must be wrong for us to stand there with the priest and pray for "Benedict our Pope". How can I willfully assit in this error? Can I also sit down with an SSPX priest and say 10 Hail Marys for "Benedict who is the Pope". How can I publically or privately pray for "Benedict my Pope" when he I know he is not?

You cannot and should not.

When somebody has an argument which demonstrates that the layman in the pew is deemed to cooperate with the choice of the priest in naming Benedict, an uncondemned heretic, then please let me know. I recall that this was the point at which certain parties became rather irritable many, many, pages back in this thread. It is the sore point precisely because there is no evidence for this idea, and if there were, somebody in two thousand years would have noticed. Here is John Daly's exposure of the point: ... ?p=420#420

You will notice the absence of any cogent response, and the consequent frustration on the part of our would-be condemners.

Of course, there are some who hate the SSPX for various reasons, or consider that all priests who think that Benedict is pope are thereby non-Catholics. Both kinds of people avoid Masses offered by the SSPX priests. These people often enter into arguments over the "una cum" clause as though the "una cum" clause was in any way relevant to their own position, which it isn't. We should keep our minds clear on these distinctions.

On the other hand, the "una cum" argument is actually the only reason some men decline to assist at Masses offered by SSPX priests. Such men do not hate the SSPX, and do not think the SSPX priests are non-Catholics. They do not favour schism by fomenting anger and ill-will towards fellow traditional Catholics. Such men do not employ harsh language for those who disgaree with their opinion, knowing that it is, after all, only their opinion. Thus, even if (as I think) they are wrong, such men will be compared with St. Cyprian, whose praise St. Augustine sang so famously. St. Augustine wrote, "if, in common with the Church at large, I entertain any doctrine more true than his, I will not prefer my heart to his, even in the point in which he, though holding different views, was yet not severed from the Church throughout the world. For in that, when that question was yet undecided for want of full discussion, though his sentiments differed from those of many of his colleagues, yet he observed so great moderation, that he would not mutilate the sacred fellowship of the Church of God by any stain of schism, a greater strength of excellence appeared in him than would have been shown if, without that virtue, he had held views on every point not only true, but coinciding with their own."

If, on the other hand, we consider those who DO "mutilate the sacred fellowship of the Church of God by any stain of schism" by elevating their personal judgements into shibboleths for membership in the Church, and thus turn and rend those of us who fail to sit at their feet, the comparison is both clear and odious.

Author:  John Lane [ Sun May 13, 2007 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Meaning of the Te igitur and Memento

This is interesting as an explanation of the meaning of the Te igitur and Memento, but also for the comments regarding the Holy Sacrifice being taken away by Antichrist.


The initial letter of the first Prayer of the Canon is T, which is equivalent to the Hebrew Tau, and which, by its very shape, represents a Cross. No other sign could better be placed as a heading to this Great Prayer, in the course of which the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed. Thus it was, that when those magnificent Sacramentaries were first of all written, ornamented with vignettes and rich designs of every kind, this Tau was lavishly treated in decoration, and at length came the happy idea of painting a figure of Christ on this Cross, supplied by the Text itself. By degrees the design got enlarged, until it ended in becoming a representation of the entire scene of the Crucifixion; still, large as it was, it continued to be merely an adjunct to the initial letter only of the Prayer Te igitur. But at length, a subject of so great importance, was deemed worthy of being treated quite independently of this, and the result was a separate picture. So that now, there is no complete Missal without an engraving of Christ on the Cross, placed on the leaf facing that on which the Canon begins. And this can be traced to the simple fact of this little vignette which ornamented the Ancient Sacramentaries.

As to the importance of the Tau itself, we hear mention of it even in the Old Testament; for Ezechiel says, speaking of the elect, that the blood of the Victim being taken, all those whom God had reserved to Himself should be marked therewith on the forehead with the sign of the Tau, and that the Lord had promised to spare all those thus marked (Ezechiel, ix. 46.). This is explained by the great fact that we are all saved by the Cross of Jesus Christ, which was made in the form of the Tau. In confirmation also the Bishop marks the Tau with Holy Oil, on the forehead of those whom he confirms. Our Lord’s Cross was in the shape of a Tau, thus: T. Above it a piece of wood was placed as a support to the Title affixed, and thus is completed the shape of the cross such as we now have it; for we learn, in St. John, that the cause of Our Lord’s death was placed above the cross: Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus, et posuit super crucem (S. John, xix. 19).

Notice of what high importance is this one letter which commences the Great Prayer of the Canon.

Te igitur, Clementissime Pater, per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus ac petimus.

After the Sanctus, the Priest extends his arms upraised, then joining his hands, he raises his eyes to Heaven, but casts them down again immediately. Then, bowing profoundly, with his hands joined and leaning them upon the altar, he says: Te igitur, Clementissime Pater. These words Te igitur serve as a link to the one great idea; they express that the Priest has but one thought, that of the Sacrifice. It is as though he were saying to God (for all these prayers, as we see from the outset, are addressed to the Father), seeing that I am Thine, seeing that the Faithful have now placed all their desires in my hands, behold, we come before Thee, in the name of this very Sacrifice; then he kisses the Altar, in order to give more expression to the earnestness of his petition, and continues: uti accepta habeas et benedicas, here, he joins his hands and then prepares to begin the sign of the cross which he is to make thrice, over the oblation, whilst adding these words, haec dona, haec munera, haec Sancta sacrificia illibata; yea, this Bread and Wine which we have offered to Thee are truly pure; deign then to bless them and receive them; and bless them, not inasmuch as they are mere material Bread and Wine, but, in consideration of the Body and Blood of Thy Son, into which they are about to be changed. The sign of the cross here made by the Priest over the Bread and Wine is especially to show that he has Christ Himself mainly in view.

Again stretching out his hands, he thus continues: in primis quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica. The first interest at stake, when Mass is said, is Holy Church, than which nothing is dearer to God; He cannot fail to be touched, when His Church is spoken of. Quam
pacificare, adunare et regere digneris toto Orbe terrarum. The word adunare gives us here God’s own intention regarding her; He wishes her to be One, as He himself says in Holy Writ: una est Columba mea (Cant. vi. 8).

Entering into His Divine views, we too implore of Him to keep her always One, and that nothing may ever succeed in tearing the Seamless Garment of Christ. As in the Pater the very first petition that Our Lord bids us make, is that This Name may be hallowed: Sanctificetur nomen tuum, thereby teaching us that God’s Glory and Interests must take precedence of all others; so here, just in the same way, This Glory is put forward, in what regards His Church, in primis. And our prayer for her is that she may have peace; we ask that she may be protected, that she may be indeed One, and well governed throughout the entire world.

The Priest next adds: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis, atque Catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus. So, there is not a Mass offered, but it benefits the whole Church; all her members participate therein, and care is taken, in the wording of this Prayer, to name them in particular. First of all comes the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth; and when His name is pronounced, an inclination of the head is made, to honour Jesus Christ, in the person of his Vicar. The only exception to this, is when the Holy See happens to be vacant. When the Pope himself is saying Mass, he here substitutes these words: Et me indigno servo tuo. ... The Bishop does in like manner, in his own case, for next after the Pope, the Missal makes mention of the Bishop, in whose Diocese the Mass is being celebrated, so that in all places, Holy Church may be represented in her entirety. At Rome, there is no mention made of a Bishop, because the Pope himself is Bishop of Rome. In order that all her members without exception may be named, Holy Church here speaks of all the Faithful, calling them fidelium, that is to say, those who are faithful in observing the Faith of Holy Church, for to be included in those mentioned here, it is necessary to be in this Faith; it is necessary to be Orthodox, as she takes care to specify, omnibus orthodoxis, which means, those who think aright, who profess the Catholic Faith, - the Faith handed down by the Apostles. By laying such stress on these words: omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus, Holy Church would have us see, that she excludes from her prayer, on this occasion, those who are not of the household of the Faith, who do not think aright, who are not orthodox, who hold not their Faith from the Apostles.

The terms in which Holy Church expresses herself, throughout, show very clearly how far Holy Mass is alien to private devotions. She, then, must take the precedence of all else, and her intentions must be respected. Thus does Holy Church give all her members a participation in the Great Sacrifice; so true is this, that were the Mass to be done away with, we should quickly fall again into the state of depravity in which pagan nations are sunk: and this is to be the work of Antichrist: he will take every possible means to prevent the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, so that this great counterpoise being taken away, God would necessarily put an end to all things, having now no object left in their further subsistence. We may readily understand this, if we observe how, since the introduction of Protestantism, the inner strength of Society has materially waned. Social wars have been waged one after another, carrying desolation along with them, and all this solely, because the intensity of the Great Sacrifice of the Mass has been diminished. Terrible as this is, it is but the beginning of that which is to happen, when the devil and his agents let loose upon the earth, will pour out a torrent of trouble and desolation everywhere, as Daniel has predicted. By dint of preventing Ordinations, and putting Priests to death, the devil will at length prevail so far as that the celebration of the Great Sacrifice will be suspended, - then will come those days of horror and misery for our earth.

Nor must we be astonished at this, for Holy Mass is an event in God’s Sight, as well as for us; it is an event which directly touches His Glory. He could not despise the voice of this Blood more eloquent a thousand times, than that of Abel; He is obliged to regard it with special attention, because His own Glory is there at stake, and because it is His own Son Himself, the Eternal Word, Jesus Christ, who is there offering Himself as victim, and who there prays for us to His Father.

In the Holy Eucharist there are three things for us ever to hold in view: Firstly, the Sacrifice whereby Glory is given to God; secondly, the Sacrament which is the Food of our souls; thirdly, the Possession of Our Lord personally in His Real Presence, so that we are able there to offer Him that adoration which is the consolation of our exile.

This mere Possession of Our Lord, whereby a means is given us of adoring Him there really present, is the least of these Three Great Things, - it is less than the receiving of the Sacrament in Holy Communion; again, if Holy Communion is less than the Sacrifice, because, there, we alone are in question; but when all these Three are unitedly realised, then the whole Mystery is complete, and that which our Lord willed in instituting the Eucharist is brought to pass. Verily, had it been given us but to be permitted to adore the Lord present in our midst, it would indeed have been a wondrously mighty Gift, but Holy Communion far surpasses this; and the Sacrifice transcends, beyond all thought, both of these great Favours: Lo! by the Sacrifice, we act directly on God Himself, and to that act He cannot be indifferent, else He would thereby derogate from His own Glory. Now, as God has done all things for His glory’s sake, He must needs be attentive to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and must grant, under some form or other, whatsoever is thereby asked of his Divine Majesty. Thus never is one Mass offered without these four great ends of Sacrifice being fulfilled: adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation, and impetration; because God has so pledged himself.

When Our Lord was teaching us how to pray, He told us to say: Sanctificetur nomen tuum, - this is a bold petition, one that very closely touches the interests of God’s great Glory, - but in Holy Mass, we go further still, we poor creatures may there tell the Mighty God Himself; that He may not turn away from this Sacrifice, for it is even Jesus Christ Who is offering It; that He may not refuse to hearken, for it is Jesus Christ Himself who is here praying.

In former times, at this place in the Canon, the name of the king was mentioned after that of the Bishop: et rege nostro N. ... but since St. Pius V. issued his Missal for general use, this has been omitted. St. Pius the Fifth’s decision on this point was owing to the difference of religion found amongst Princes, since the introduction of Protestantism. Rome alone can give particular permission to name any king in the Canon. Spain petitioned for this favour in the reign of Philip II., and it was granted. In France the Parliament of Toulouse and that of Paris, taking umbrage at the omission of the king’s name in the Missal of St. Pius V. when it first appeared, prohibited the printing of the said Missal. In 1855 Napoleon III. asked and obtained of the Pope authorisation for his name to be mentioned in this part of the Mass.

There is neither the usual form of conclusion, nor the Amen, to either the first or second Prayer of the Canon.

Memento, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N. ... and the Priest, joining his hands, recalls in secret, those whom he wishes to recommend to God. Thus has the Priest first of all prayed for the whole Church in general, for the Pope, the Bishop, and all Orthodox Catholics, that is to say, all who are of the Faith of Holy Church. But this great Sacrifice, the fruits of which are infinite, operates in a more particular manner on all those, for whom special prayer is made; therefore the Priest is allowed here to mention those whom he wishes to recommend to God more especially. We learn from Tradition that in all ages, the Priest has been free thus to pray more expressly for those in whom he was interested, because the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice can be applied to them in particular, without prejudice to the principal intention.

Again stretching out his hands, the Priest continues his prayer, saying: Et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio. ... The Priest prays for all those who are present around him, because their faith has urged them to leave alone everything else, and to come gathering about the Altar, and for this reason, they deserve a special share in the Holy Sacrifice. See here, how good it is to assist at Mass as often as possible. But if we do so, it must be with faith and devotion, for the Priest particularly says: quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio. It is quite clear that the Priest could never speak thus to God in behalf of such Christians as conduct themselves no differently in Church than they would anywhere else, who are in no way preoccupied with what is going on at the Altar, and who seem to have nothing else to do, but to distract themselves as far as they can, more or less respectably. So then of those who are present it is only such as assist with faith and devotion that can participate in the fruits of Holy Mass. As to those who are absent, they too can participate of the Sacrifice, by uniting themselves spiritually thereunto, and by desiring to assist thereat, with faith and devotion, were it in their power to come. If such be their dispositions, they do really share in the fruits of the great Sacrifice, how far soever distant they may be. Observe from all that has been said, how the Priest can have no mere personal idea, when approaching the Altar to offer Sacrifice. He then holds the whole Church in his hands, and he prays with outstretched arms, like Christ Himself, offering Sacrifice for all men.

The Priest here adds further instance to his prayer, singling out before God, those divers persons for whom he is offering the Holy Sacrifice: pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc Sacrificium laudis. The Church here uses this term Sacrifice of praise (though more properly applied to the Psalmody), because Holy Mass is likewise for the praise and honour of God; besides, this is a Scripture phrase, often to be met with, elsewhere.

For whom is the Sacrifice being offered The Priest, still speaking of those whom he has mentioned, continues his thought, adding: pro se, suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae. Thus does the Holy Sacrifice embrace all, extend to all. The soul holds the first place in this enumeration; and we have here come across that petition, so frequently found in Foundation-Charta of the Middle Ages, namely, pro redemptione animarum suarum, &c. The Church next occupies herself with the bodily needs of her children; she begs of God to keep the body safe and sound amidst all the perils by which it is surrounded. Finally, the Priest concludes by offering to the living God, the desires and wants of all the Faithful, in these words: tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo vivo et vero.

The Priest cannot here pray either for Jews or for infidels, no more than he can for heretics, who by the very fact of heresy alone, are excommunicates, and consequently out of the pale of the holy Catholic Church. Neither can he pray for such as, without being heretics, are excommunicated for other causes; it would be a profanation to utter the names of any such in the midst of the Holy Sacrifice. They may be prayed for in private, but not in official prayers. They are excluded from the Sacrifice, as they are out of the Church; consequently, it is impossible to mention them during the Sacred Celebration.

Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group