Posted on 04/30/2004 7:29:04 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Me either. In fact, my kid (making First Holy Communion next Saturday) hadn't even learned it. I had to teach it to him myself, and then try to explain why he had to memorize a prayer he never hears in church.
I couldn't think of a good reason. (For why he never hears it in church, I mean, not why he had to memorize it.)
Regards,
I never understood this either. On one or two occasions, the retired priest in my former parish opted to use the Confiteor. The pastor NEVER used it.
That also raises the question - why offer the 3 options in the first place? And why the different Eucharistic prayers? How often is Canon I used? Sinkspur? What say you?
Confiteor
I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore, I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints, to pray to the Lord our God for me.
May Almighty God have mercy on me, forgive me my sins, and bring me to everlasting life. Amen.
May the Almighty and merciful Lord grant me pardon, absolution, and remission of all my sins. Amen.
Good question! Here's the history, from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations. Soon after the Council of Nicaea new formulas of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to meet new phases of Arianism. There were at least four before the Council of Sardica in 341, and in that council a new form was presented and inserted in the Acts, though not accepted by the council. The Nicene Symbol, however, continued to be the only one in use among the defenders of the Faith. Gradually it came to be recognized as the proper profession of faith for candidates for baptism. Its alteration into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan formula, the one now in use, in usually ascribed to the Council of Constantinople, since the Council of Chalcedon (451), which designated this symbol as "The Creed of the Council of Constantinople of 381" had it twice read and inserted in its Acts. The historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret do not mention this, although they do record that the bishops who remained at the council after the departure of the Macedonians confirmed the Nicene faith. Hefele (II,9) admits the possibility of our present creed being a condensation of the "Tome" ( Gr. tomos), i.e. the exposition of the doctrines concerning the Trinity made by the Council of Constantinople; but he prefers the opinion of Rémi Ceillier and Tillemont tracing the new formula to the "Ancoratus" of Epiphanius written in 374. Hort, Caspari, Harnack, and others are of the opinion that the Constantinopolitan form did not originate at the Council of Constantinople, because it is not in the Acts of the council of 381, but was inserted there at a later date; because Gregory Nazianzen who was at the council mentions only the Nicene formula adverting to its incompleteness about the Holy Ghost, showing that he did not know of the Constantinopolitan form which supplies this deficiency; and because the Latin Fathers apparently know nothing of it before the middle of the fifth century.
The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
In this form the Nicene article concerning the Holy Ghost is enlarged; several words, notably the two clauses "of the substance of the Father" and "God of God," are omitted as also are the anathemas; ten clauses are added; and in five places the words are differently located. In general the two forms contain what is common to all the baptismal formulas in the early Church. Vossius (1577-1649) was the first to detect the similarity between the creed set forth in the "Ancoratus" and the baptismal formula of the Church at Jerusalem. Hort (1876) held that the symbol is a revision of the Jerusalem formula, in which the most important Nicene statements concerning the Holy Ghost have been inserted. The author of the revision may have been St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386, q.v.). Various hypotheses are offered to account for the tradition that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol originated with the Council of Constantinople, but none of them is satisfactory. Whatever be its origin, the fact is that the Council of Chalcedon (451) attributed it to the Council of Constantinople, and if it was not actually composed in that council, it was adopted and authorized by the Fathers assembled as a true expression of the Faith. The history of the creed is completed in the article Filioque. (See also: ARIUS; EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA)
J. WILHELM
Transcribed by Fr. Rick Losch
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI
Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
This is nothing of the sort. This is just a "new and improved" English translation of the Novus Ordo.
The Novus Ordo has not been changed one iota.
All of the criticisms of the Novus Ordo listed in The Ottaviani Intervention still apply.
All four Eucharistic Prayers have origins in the prayers offered by the early Church. There are also two other specialized Eucharistic Prayers authorized by the Church, one for children's Masses, the other for funeral Masses.
Canon I is probably the least used of the four, since it's the longest.
The work Short Critical Study… contains many statements which are superficial, exaggerated, inexact, impassioned and false. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, qtd. in Bugnini, La Riforma, 285)
Most Reverend Father,
I have received your letter of 23 January and the Doctrinal Note of 29 January. I congratulate you on your work which is remarkable for its objectivity and the dignity of its expression. Such has not always been the case, alas, in this controversy in which one has seen simple Christians, genuinely hurt by the novelties, involved with those who exploit the troubled state of souls to increase the confusion of minds.
For my part, I only regret that my name has been abused in a way that I did not desire, by the publication of a letter which I had addressed to the Holy Father without authorising anyone to publish it.
I rejoiced profoundly on reading the discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the New Ordo Missæ, and particularly at the doctrinal details contained in his discourses at the Public Audiences of 19 and 26 November: after which, I believe, no one can be genuinely scandalised any more. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechetical work must be undertaken in order to remove a few legitimate perplexities which the text can give rise to. In this sense I wish your Doctrinal Note and the activity of the Militia Mariæ a widespread diffusion and success.
Please accept, Most Reverend Father, the expression of my very best regards, which comes with my blessing for all your collaborators and the members of the Militia.
A. card. OTTAVIANI
As a convert friend of mine says much more eloquently than I, if the Novus Ordo project was truly to recapture something primitive -- it was staring them in the eye across the aisle, right there in the Maronite and Chaldean liturgies. NYer posted the English translation of the Words of Consecration -- and if Mr. Annibale B. and company were sincere, they would have taken those ancient Maronite Words and put them as the centerpiece of the Novus Ordo Consecration.
I bow my head to my genius convert friend and now I will step down from my soap box ....
If they are going to go with this translation "Let our hearts be lifted high" (which I cannot abide in English). Then there must be a clearer rhetorical response -- especially with the involvement of children -- I won't go further on that topic -- suffice to say, they must respond with at least "We hold them up before the Lord."
The dynamic upward action of the will must be made clear especially after the dismal passivity of the English Translation of Sursum corda.
The translation has a very definite anti-Priestly bent to it. We have always understood the Priest to be giving the congregation the command and invitation to Lift up their hearts. This has never been a group hallucenogenic "our hearts are rising higher and higher, man..." sort of thing. The shift from "your" to "our" doesn't smell right at all.
They could at least borrow a line from a prayer by the New Zealand Anglicans, "Lift your hearts to heaven." Then they could follow with "We hold them up before the Lord." And at least you have something more sound and more beautiful for mouth to say and ear to hear.
Many of you can put things more elloquently than I. I try to type with a sleeping child in my lap, and probably not too effectively. I hope you who have time and talent will go over this with a fine tooth comb. Please.
:Lift up your hearts.
:We lift them up unto the Lord.
In the original (1549) translation it reads as follows:
Priest. The Lorde be with you.
Aunswere. And with thy spirite.
Priest. Lift up your heartes.
Aunswere. We lift them up unto the Lorde.
Priest. Let us geve thankes to our Lorde God.
Aunswere. It is mete and right so to do.
The Priest. It is very mete, righte, and our bounden dutie, that wee shoulde at all tymes, and in all places, geve thankes to thee, O Lorde holy father, almightie everlastyng God.
The proper for the feast/season follows.
Shakespeare, the King James Bible (the greatest single thing ever produced by a committee), Marlowe, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, Herbert, Milton, Marvell . . . it's almost unbelievable.
The Catholic Church chose wisely to allow the Anglican Use rite so much of its ancient and beautiful book.
Visiting, once again, the Syriac-Antiochene Marionite Rite, this becomes a dialgue between the celebrant and the congregation.
Cel:
May the love of God the + Father, the grace of the only-begotten + Son, and the unity and indwelling of the + Holy spirit be with you, forever.
Cong:
And Also with you.
Cel:
Let us raise our thoughts, our minds, and our hearts.
Cong:
They are raised to you, O God.
Cel:
Let us thank the Lord with fear and worship him with humility.
Cong:
It is right and proper.
An Ottaviani Retraction?
In February 1970 a French clergyman, Dom Gerard Lafond, published a defense of the New Order of Mass entitled Note Doctrinale sur le nouvel Ordo Missae. Among other things, the Note claimed that Cardinal Ottaviani had been the author of certain passages in the New Order of Mass, that these passages were the same ones attacked in the Critical Study, that the cardinal had not approved the Critical Study, and that it is probable that its contents were withheld from him. No proof was given to substantiate these allegations.[20]
The following month Dom Lafond published the facsimile of a letter Cardinal Ottaviani was alleged to have written to him on 17 February 1970. In this letter the Cardinal is said to have stated that: (1) he examined the Note Doctrinale, (2) he not only approved of it but congratulates Dom Lafond on the dignity of its expression, (3) he did not authorize the publication of his letter to Paul VI, and (4) his hesitations over the Novus Ordo have been put to rest by the discourses Paul VI gave on 19 and 26 November.[21]
We have spoken of the 17 February letter as something Cardinal Ottaviani is “alleged” to have written. Is there any reason to suspect the letter’s authenticity?
First, it seems somewhat strange that the Cardinal would have approved of the Note Doctrinale. The work, after all, contained statements which in effect were calumnies against him.[22]
Second, the 17 February letter leaves the impression that the Intervention had been published without the Cardinal’s authorization. This too seems somewhat strange — for on two separate occasions (in October 1969 and again after the 17 February letter was published) the Cardinal did in fact personally authorize two different individuals to publish the Intervention.[23]
Third, in his book on Ottaviani’s diaries, Emilio Cavaterra says nothing about the 17 February letter. Had the letter been authentic, it would have provided Cavaterra, who sought to explain away the cardinal’s hesitations about the New Mass, with an ideal opportunity to show that Ottaviani’s worries had been put to rest.
Cavaterra, moreover, quotes from his interview with Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni, the cardinal’s secretary, who likewise tried to distance Ottaviani from the Intervention. Msgr. Agustoni, too, is silent about the letter, which, had it been authentic, would have supported the monsignor’s contention that the cardinal always maintained “a positive attitude.” towards the liturgical reform.[24]
Fourth, there is the matter of Msgr. Agustoni himself. He himself had signed the Note Doctrinale. It would have been in his interest to secure the Cardinal’s approval as well. A number of traditionalist writers pointed this out in 1970, and noted that, since Cardinal Ottaviani was blind by this time, it would have been child’s play for Msgr. Agustoni to have tricked the Cardinal into signing the 17 February letter.
At first blush the charge seems far-fetched. Since 1970, however, some interesting facts about Msgr. Agustoni have come to light. Consider the following:
• Msgr. Agustoni was a member of Consilium, and also had been responsible (together with Benno Cardinal Gut, Mgr. Paul Phillipe and Mgr. Annibale Bugnini) for approving the final version of the new Eucharistic Prayers[25] — texts the Intervention had denounced as compromising Catholic teaching.
• Msgr. Agustoni by this time also served on the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, the Vatican body responsible for implementing the liturgical reform. He had been appointed to the post on 12 September 1969[26] — the day before Cardinal Ottaviani signed the letter to Paul VI approving of the contents of the Intervention.
• Among the 12 members of Study Group 10, the section of Consilium directly responsible for creating the New Order of Mass, we find a certain Father Luigi Agustoni[27] — the brother of none other than Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni.
• And finally (as they say), the clincher: On 24 May 1966 three members of Consilium sent Paul VI a lengthy and detailed Memorandum proposing a New Order of Mass which was nearly identical to the one he would promulgate in 1969. This proposed Ordo Missae contained all the elements which the Intervention would denounce in 1969. This Memorandum was prepared by Mgr. Bugnini, Mgr Anton Hänggi — and Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni[28]
Msgr. Agustoni, therefore, had much to gain by attempting to disassociate Cardinal Ottaviani from the Intervention. In light of this, it becomes much less difficult to imagine a blind cardinal signing a letter whose actual contents have been misrepresented by his secretary. Stranger things, after all, have occurred in the history of the Vatican.
While the foregoing facts were unknown in 1970, a public dispute over the authenticity of the 17 February letter erupted nevertheless. Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itinéraires, publicly accused Msgr. Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal’s signature by fraud. Shortly thereafter Msgr. Agustoni relinquished his position as the Cardinal’s secretary.[29]
Whatever one may care to surmise from the foregoing, two points are clear: (1) No claim has ever been made that the other signatory of the letter to Paul VI, Cardinal Bacci, ever retracted or modified his position. (2) The Vatican itself ignored the affair of the 17 February letter,[30] and treated the Intervention’s charges as grave enough to warrant yet another response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.