Mysterium Fidei

Omission of the Words “Mysterium Fidei” in the Consecration of the Chalice (Holy Office, Monitum, 24 July, 1958)

A Monitum of the Holy Office:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has learned that in a certain translation of the New Order of Holy Week into the vernacular, the words “mysterium fidei” in the form of the consecration of the chalice are omitted. It is also reported that some priests omit these words in the very celebration of Mass.
Therefore this Supreme Congregation gives warning that it is impious (nefas) to introduce a change in so sacred a matter and to mutilate or alter editions of liturgical books (cf. can. 1399, 10).
Bishops therefore, in accordance with the warning of the Holy Office of Feb.,1958, should see to it that the prescriptions of the sacred canons on divine worship be strictly observed, and they should be closely watchful that no one dare to introduce even the slightest change in the matter and form of the sacraments.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, 24th of July, 1958.
AAS 50-536; Holy Office Monitum, 24 July, 1958

SFD

What’s your point? In 1958 it was against the rubrics. Today it is not. The Pope has the authority to “bind and loose” on matters of discipline and liturgical matters. Pope Benedict may put the words, “mystery of faith” back into the words of consecration. Those words are not essential in the validity of consecration.

The most relevant part is: “it is impious to introduce a change in so sacred a matter and to mutilate or alter editions of liturgical books (cf. can. 1399, 10).”

What did 1917 CIC can. 1399, 10 say?
Can 1399. Ipso iure prohibentur: … Editiones librorum liturgicorum a Sede Apostolica approbatorum, in quibus quidpiam immutatum fuerit, ita ut cum authenticis editionibus a Sancta Sede approbatis non congruant.
Which means: “These are prohibited by the law itself: … the publication of liturgical books approved by the Apostolic See, in which something has been changed, so as not to coincide with the authentic publications approved by the Holy See.” Thus, it is the fact that the Apostolic See did not recognize the change that made it illegal, not the contents of the change, which were later approved by the Church in the Pauline Missal.

What is your source for this statement? This is related to the matter and form of the sacraments…not just “following all of the rubrics”.

[quote=japhy]Thus, it is the fact that the Apostolic See did not recognize the change that made it illegal, not the contents of the change, which were later approved by the Church in the Pauline Missal.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Are you saying that the all of the words of consercation could be eliminated by the Pope? Is he bound by anything? Divine Law maybe?

Yours is an entirely legalistic argument. Are all laws ecclesiastical laws?

SFD

No, he is bound. Whether the presence of mysterium fidei in the words of consecration is part of the Divine Law or not is not a question I know how to answer. Do you?

Believe me, I’d like the words to be back where they were. Barring that, I’d prefer the Sanctus-Benedictus were split in two and the Benedictus were used as the “memorial acclamation”, since it’s a great response to the mystery of faith which has just been made present on the altar.

They were not in the original words of the consecration as instituted by Our Lord, nor are they mentioned in the early accounts of the mass. They were added later by the authority of the Church, not by Divine Law. The Church has both the power to bind and to loose, and can remove words from the mass that she herself added.

How do you know this? This was obviously not the understanding of the Church nor does the mind of the Church support this idea.

What are your sources here?

SFD

Cam100,

Also, the essential form for the rite of consecration of a bishop was settled by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947(after some 40 years of study, if I’m not mistaken).

This was completely discarded less that 25 years later by Paul VI.

SFD

I truly hope the Church hadn’t been doing it incorrectly until then!

It is a serious shame and disappointment that so many rites were restructured.

You misunderstand, japhy; the ESSENTIAL FORM, not the form. There was much debate on what was essential in the form and this was settled by Sacramentum Ordinis.

It is a serious shame and disappointment that so many rites were restructured.

It is HOW they were “restructured”…is the essential form still there? The old form is known to be valid…there can be no question. Does the “new form” express the essential form?

SFD

How do you know this? This was obviously not the understanding of the Church nor does the mind of the Church support this idea.

What are your sources here?

SFD
[/quote]

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.

Pope Pius V used “mystery of faith” in his formula for consecration yet the Council of Florence did not. So, SFD were all consecrations invalid up until Pius V?

Council of Florence
Session 11 –4 February 1442
However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect of the form of words which the holy Roman church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord’s body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s body: **For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins
**catecheticsonline.com/Council_florance.php

No, the words “Mysterium Fidei” were used by the Council of Florence:

“Verum quia in suprascripto decreto Armenorum non est explicata forma verborum, quibus in consecratione corporis et sanguinis Domini sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, Apostolorum Petri et Pauli doctrina et auctoritate firmata, semper uti consuevit, illam praesentibus duximus inserendam. In consecratione corporis Domini hac utitur forma verborum: ‘Hoc est enim corpus meum’; sanguinis vero: ‘Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum’. Panis vero triticeus, in quo sacramentum conficitur, an eo die, an antea decoctus sit, nihil omnino refert: dummodo enim panis substantia maneat, nullatenus dubitandum est, quin post praedicta verba consecrationis corporis a sacerdote cum intentione conficiendi prolata, mox in verum Christi corpus transsubstantietur.” (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1352)

However, the Eastern Rites do not use the words “Mysterium Fidei”.

So is the consecration of the eastern rite invalid?

Let’s not go off on that tangent. Thanks.

double post

Of course not! If the Eastern Rites (which are equally as ancient and venerable as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and a good deal more ancient that the ordinary form) doesn’t have the words “Mysterium Fidei” in their Words of Consecration, than it would be ridiculous to assert that the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, because the words “Mysterium Fidei” are not part of the Words of Consecration, is invalid.

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.

=DixitDominus;4197843]Of course not! If the Eastern Rites (which are equally as ancient and venerable as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and a good deal more ancient that the ordinary form) doesn’t have the words “Mysterium Fidei” in their Words of Consecration, than it would be ridiculous to assert that the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, because the words “Mysterium Fidei” are not part of the Words of Consecration, is invalid./

But this is what SFD is saying. He is trying to make the case that the words of consecration are invalid without the words “mystery of faith” And if you read my posts I disagree with him.

Japhy thanks for that link, my quote from the Council of Florence apparently is for the words of Consecration for the Armenians. Yours quoted above is for the Roman Rite. To answer SFD, isn’t it correct to say that for words of consecration to be infallible and unchangeable, which I assume SFD is saying, the words would have to be binding on ALL rites East and West.?
The different rites have different formulas but all say “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” except for the one ancient rite, Chaldean I believe, that was declared to be valid by Pope John Paul II.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.