THE HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONAL OR TRIDENTINE MASS

Adaptation is of course appropriate under certain circumstances. More precisely, one must not so much consider adaptation as such, but just what one is adapting to. As an example of legitimate adaptation, consider Baptism. In the early Church. In the time of the Apostles Baptism was by immersion patterned on Christ's Baptism in the river Jordan. We have descriptions of how these rites were carried out and one can see the baptismal fonts such as still exist in some of the churches of the Middle East into which a person had to walk. But when the Church found itself in northern Europe, baptism by immersion was no longer advisable - one didn't have to be a member of the polar bear club to enter the Church. The essentials were recognized and as long as flowing water was used, the baptizing individual had the proper intention, and the proper words said, the rite was effective. And so it is with the Apostolic adaptations of the Mass. There are some 83 forms of the Mass used throughout the world - the Traditional Mass which we are familiar with is but one of them. There are Eastern rite Masses, Coptic Masses, Arabic Masses, Ambrosian Masses. There used to be a special rite used in England called the Saram rite. These are all true Masses. Those who have attended Eastern Rite Masses know they are quite different than those we are used to. The rite is carried out behind a curtain and the iconostasis - thus signifying its mysterious nature. In the west the altar rail serves the same function of enclosing the sacred space and distinguishing it from the remainder of the church. The Eucharist is given in a spoon and dipped in the consecrated wine. Similarly, in the Eastern Church, a confessional is not used. Instead the priest and the penitent go up to Christ painted on the Iconastasis. The priest puts his stole over the shoulder of the penitent and the penitent confesses along with the priest to Christ. But the essence of the rite is the same. True Contrition must be expressed and Penance is given by the priest followed by absolution.

What however is remarkable is not how different the various rites of the Church are, but how similar. Latin rite Catholics use unleavened bread as did Christ at the Last Supper. Eastern rite Catholics use leavened bread, said by some to symbolize the risen Christ. But in point of fact, the canons or rules of both rites allow for the use of both forms of bread. The form of the bread used is a matter of Church discipline. The Eastern rite Catholics hold that the consecration is the result of the Epiclesis or prayer said just after the words of Consecration. When the Eastern rite priest, acting in the place of Christ, says this prayer, he covers the Chalice with the Veil and waves it to symbolize the descent of the Holy Spirit. The Roman Church holds that transubstantiation occurs when the priest - acting in the place of Christ - says the words of Consecration. Now theologians can argue as to just when transubstantiation occurs - but what is clear is that Rome has never denied the validity of the eastern rites. What is also clear is that both rites - and indeed, all the valid rites - use the same words of consecration. There are in fact some 17 different Eastern rites ranging from the Rheuthanian to the Malabar rite used in India. But the words of consecration used vary only with respect to one phrase: Mysterium Fidei. Christ did not use these words - but some of the Apostles - tradition says Peter was the first to do this - inserted them in the rite, while others did not. The Church has never held that they were essential. Incidentally, the novus ordo missae not only changed the Words of Consecration, they also dropped the prayer in the traditional Mass which is the equivalent of the Epiclesis.

It is interesting to note that the word Mass, usually said to derive from the dismissal prayer Ita Missa est (Go, the Mass is over), more likely is derived from the Hebrew word misssach, meaning a voluntary oblation (Deuteronomy 16:10), for such is our Sacrifice of the Altar

And so the Mass came to be said in various languages - arabic - Coptic - Greek - Aramaic - Kanarese, etc. But despite this its core or essential parts remained the same. Now, the Church has always held that the ceremonies surrounding a sacrament can be changed if there is adequate reason - but that the core or principle parts must remain unchanged. The core of our Mass is what is called the Canon and above all the Words of Consecration which are part of the Canon. As far as we can tell, the Canon of our Mass goes back to the time of Christ and the Apostles. We believe this on two grounds:

1) the Church teaches that the Canon "was established many centuries ago and is so entirely free of error that it contains nothing that does not eminently inspire reverence and devotion, and raise to God the hearts of those who offer the Sacrifice. For it is composed of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy pontiffs." Such is the declaration of the XII session of the Council of Trent, and as such it is something we must believe - for the Church in its magisterial teaching cannot lie to us. We know what the last phrase - the pious institutions of the holy pontiffs refers to. Pope St. Gregory added 19 words to the prayer Hanc Igitur - diesque nostros in tua pace disponas - at a time when Rome was being besieged by the Lombards and the city was in utmost peril, and the Church has judged it expedient to retain these words ever since. And Pope St. Leo added another four.

2) The second reason we believe this is based on historical evidence. To quote but one source: the Anglican Liturgical Historian Sir William Palmer said, the Canon of the Mass "may have existed from a period of the most remote antiquity, and perhaps there are nearly as good reasons for referring its original composition to the Apostolic Age."

Obviously additions to the central rite were made over time. We have already mentioned those of Sts. Leo and Gregory. Outside of the Canon innumerable changes have been made throughout the ages - mostly in the way of additions. Now additions are a very different thing than deletions and when we come to the Novus Ordo Missae, somewhere between 60 and 80% of the traditional rite has been deleted. Additions are also different from changes in the wording of the rite. What were some of the additions? Well some of the prayers said before and after the Canon were added. For example, the Last Gospel was instituted in the 13th Century. In the 12 century when heretics denied the Real Presence, the Church instituted kneeling when it was said in the creed that "the Word was made flesh." We know that the Gloria was originally said only at the Christmas Mass, but was later extended to all those Masses apart from penitential seasons and funerals. Incidentally, the current official English translation of the Gloria used in the Novus Ordo is false for it grants peace to all men - but peace on earth is only accessible to men of good will. We know that at the Last Supper there were readings taken from Scripture. We know that Sacred writings were read in the earliest liturgies. However, the New Testament Canon of Scriptures was only established in the fourth century, and hence the present cycle of Scripture readings had to be established after that time.

This is an important point to keep in mind. While the Scriptures were written between 6 to 100 years after the death of Christ - scholars argue about the precise dates - the New Testament as such was only established around the year 370. The reason for this was that there were so many spurious Scriptures being promulgated that the Church found it necessary to convene a Council in order to sort out what was really Catholic and what was not. It was at this Council that the Scriptures or New Testament as we know it, were established. Thus it is that those who believe that the Scriptures and only the Scriptures are the basis of Christianity, have to recognize that it is the Church that gave them the Scriptures, and not the other way around. St. Augustine bluntly said that if it wasn't for the Church establishing the Scriptures as such, he would not give them his unconditioned assent. The Protestants should remember this. So should those seemingly Catholic priests who we see on television holding a Bible in their hands and imitating "for all the world" their Protestant brethren. It follows that it was impossible for the Apostles to have brought the Bible with them when they first started to Evangelize the world. It was shortly after the fourth century, during the reign of Pope St. Damasus, that the Church selected the most important Scripture passages which were to be read throughout the year so as to become fixed in the minds of the faithful. In the new mass these Scripture selections were changed and, following the Lutheran pattern, read on a triennial basis. And this is to say nothing of the newer translations which frequently distort the meaning of the text. Consider the word Hell. In the Douay version it is mentioned some 350 times; in the King James Version, over 150 times, but in the New American Bible used in the Novus Ordo it is mentioned but once, and that not in a prescribed reading. How about the translation of a "mess of pottage" as "gimmie some of that red stuff"? Or the Hail Mary as "Greetings most favored daughter..."

Returning to the Mass, the point has already been made that additions are quite a different thing than deletions or changes in the words. Over the course of the centuries, many additional prayers were added to the Mass until, by the time of Pope Saint Pius V, the Mass had become overburdened with accretions to the point of almost obscuring its essential core. Thus it was that Pius V gathered together the best scholars of the time and removed all those accretions that had been added from the fifth century onwards. He allowed all the rites that had been in use for over 200 years to be kept - such changes for example as we see in the Dominican rite - but otherwise ordered that the Church return to the Mass as it had always been since the earliest of recorded history. Since then there have been four very minor changes made in the official Mass he promulgated based either on better scholarship or the revision of typographical errors. Paul VI would have us believe that his reforms were in no way different from those of Pope Saint Pius the Fifth's. That such is a gross distortion of the facts is obvious. And so it is that the core of the Mass as we know it today goes back to the earliest recorded time. As Father Louis Bouyer, a Lutheran convert who was part of the Concilium that created the Novus Ordo Missae and who later regretted his involvement said "The Roman Canon, as it is today, goes back to Gregory the Great. There is not, in the East or in the West, a Eucharistic prayer remaining in use to this day, that can boast of such antiquity. To jettison it would be a rejection of any claim on the part of the Roman Church to represent the True Catholic Church." He felt that the new mass was very much responsible for what he called "The Decompensation of Catholicism."

The Church has been likened to the Ark of Noah which functions to enable us to travel safely over the stormy seas of this world. It is also a title given to Our Lady who bore within her bosom Jesus Christ. Now the Ark was not built according to the whims of Noah's contemporaries - even less according to the whims of Noah himself. It was built according to the instructions of God who Himself sealed its door. And we can say the same for our traditional Mass. Its essential core and nature was established by Christ Himself and embellished by the Apostles. Our Mass is part of Revelation for God Himself instructed the Apostles, ordained them, and instructed them to "to do these things in memory of me." Those of you who are familiar with my book on the Mass know that this phrase means a great deal more than a "memorial" in the sense of remembering something that happened 2000 years ago.[2]

As opposed to this, the Novus Ordo Missae was created by men - or more exactly, by a Concilium of some 200 individuals with the help of Protestants.[3] Lutherans and the creators of the Novus Ordo Missae would have us believe that the Mass was developed by men over a period of time - and that, for some strange reason, it was necessary to bring the Mass into agreement with the Scriptures. Almost certainly, this "strange reason" was to expedite the ecumenical process by accommodating the Protestants who reject Tradition and only accept the [truncated] Scriptures. Now there is no more reason for a Catholic to bring the Mass into line with Scripture, then there is reason to change the Scriptures to bring it into line with our Mass. Let us be clear about this. As I have already pointed out, The first Scriptures were written some 6 years after Christ's Crucifixion and those of St. John some 90 years later. The first Apostles did not go around like the Protestants, bringing the Good News in the form of any written word.[4] The Mass was not something drawn from the Scriptures but existed years before the Scriptures were written. In fact, the Mass was so sacred that no one who was unbaptized was allowed to be present - there is good historical reason to believe that the Canon had to be memorized by heart and was not written down before the third century. It was referred to as the arcana - the secret which could not be disclosed to the profane. The words of Consecration were so sacred that they were likened to the Holy of Holies of the Jewish temple - when they were first written down in the fourth century, they were written in letters of gold. So sacred and holy were the rites of the Mass considered that it is almost certain that the words of Scripture were somewhat altered so as to give the sense but not the exact form used in the Consecration. And so we see that one of the principal excuses used by the new Church to explain changing the words of Consecration is based on a false premise. What is even more extraordinary is that the General Instruction which provides the rubrics for the new mass no longer uses the phrase "Words of Consecration" - in line with the new and false historical perspective, they are now referred to as the "Words of our Lord." And what is even more shocking is that Paul VI in changing the Words of Consecration, in bringing them into line with those used by Lutherans and Protestants, used the phrase "We wish the Words of our Lord to be..." It is a measure of our incredulity that we can even conceive of, much less accept, the Mass established by Christ and the Apostles being altered by men. The true Mass - all of the true Masses throughout the world, regardless of which rite - are based, not on Scripture, but on the words specified - in specie - in precise detail as the traditional texts state - by Christ Himself. When it came to the other Sacraments, he told the Apostles in general what the form or words used had to be, but with the Mass no variation was allowed, and throughout the long course of history, no changes in these precious words were made. Of course there is another reason why the words we consider to be related to the Words of Consecration are now referred to as "the words of our Lord." The reason is that not only these words, but the entire Eucharistic Prayer(s) of the new mass are part of what is called the "narration of the institution" or the retelling of the story of what occurred at the Last Supper. In other words, in the Novus Ordo Missae, the "president" (for that is what the "priest" is called) is telling us the story of what happened 2000 years ago at the Last Supper. In reading the Scripture story, they are indeed the "words of Our Lord," and not the "Words of Consecration." Under these circumstances, to speak of consecration would be inappropriate. The Church has always taught that when a priest says or relates the traditional Mass as a historical event, no consecration occurs.

The second fact to be recognized is that in all 83 rites of the Mass which the Church recognizes and has always recognized as valid, the Words of Consecration are essentially the same. I have already explained to you that it was the Apostles who legitimately added the phrase Mysterium Fidei. Now all 83 rites use the word many. None of them use the word all. This is, as St. Thomas Aquinas and innumerable saints have explained, because, while Christ died for all men, not all are saved, but only those that accept Him. This explanation is incorporated into the Catechism of the Council of Trent which clearly places it within the realm of what is called the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The reason why many was changed to all is because the new Church believes all men will go to heaven. This is why the funeral Mass in the new Church is the Mass of the Angels. What is the Mass of the Angels? It is the Mass said for infants that die after baptism before they have a chance to sin. This is why in the new funeral Mass there are no prayers for the repose of the soul - why pray for a soul that is going to heaven. In the Latin version, the word anima or soul occurs twice in two prayers which are offered as "alternatives." But how often are "alternative" prayers" used? Of course, a priest may add whatever he wants to the service and occasionally one does hear a request for prayers for the repose of the soul - but not often. But returning to the issue of mistranslating multis by all. The new Church would have us believe that there is no word for all in Aramaic. This is a lie. It is a lie first propounded by the Protestant theologian Jeremias in the present century. I call it a lie because the falsity of this claim has been repeatedly demonstrated by scholars of every persuasion. To see the absurdity of such a claim, one only has to change many into all throughout the Scriptures.[5]

A third falsehood is the repeated claim by Paul VI that "nothing has changed in the new mass." How can you delete between 60 and 80% of a rite, change the very Words of Consecration given to us by Christ, and then claim that nothing has changed. One can list a host of other misrepresentations - the new mass - if one can call it a mass at all, is unfortunately based on a host of similar distortions. I have only superficially dealt with the Novus Ordo Missae, because, strictly speaking, it is not the Mass but something entirely different - something created by a Concilium of some 200 people under the supervision of the red bishop Loclario and Annibal Bugnini, a man who Michael Davies has virtually proven to be a Freemason, and who has referred to this service as a "new song." Throughout this paper an attempt will be made to compare various aspects of Our Traditional Mass - created by Christ and embellished by the Apostles - and the new "mass," a quasi-Protestant service created by a Concilium of two hundred modernists assisted by six Protestant theologians.[6]

It will be argued by some that a pope can change what a previous pope established. Now this is true when one is considering such practices as the pope eating dinner alone, or when one is dealing with disciplinary matters such as eating meat on Friday or the length of the Fast before Mass. It is not however true that what is magisterially established in the realm of "faith and morals" by one pope can be changed by another. The reason for this is that whatever is magisterially established, is established by the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost, incapable of "speaking" other than the truth, cannot contradict Himself. Now the form and matter of the Sacraments has been magisterially established since the time of Christ and the Apostles.[7] The Bull Quo Primum is part of the Church's Magisterium as are the various documents - "briefs, encyclical letters, consistorial allocutions, and other Apostolic letters" - whose function is to protect the traditional liturgy of the Church. The traditional Mass, part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is and has always been protected from substantial change. It goes without saying that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church is protected from all error by its very nature. Let us flee in horror from those who so loudly proclaim that this Magisterium is capable of any error. We can argue about what is covered by the Ordinary Magisterium, but not about its infallible character which was always believed and clearly defined at Vatican I

One further point. Many traditional Catholics will point to the Quo Primum as guaranteeing their right to the traditional Mass. They are of course correct. But we must be clear about what this document says. It does not say that the Church cannot offer other forms of the Mass, such as the Eastern Rite, but only that no one can forbid the traditional Latin rite. The new Church does not violate this Bull by allowing for the usage of other. It violates this Bull and incurs the "wrath of Almighty God" by forbidding the traditional rite, by altering it, or by making some other rite "normative." There has been some debate about whether or not the new Church has in fact abrogated this Bull - Michael Davies says it hasn't and further denies that the new Church has forbidden the traditional rite. He is wrong - and I might add, he often is. I have a letter - or a copy of a letter - from the Papal Commission Ecclesia Dei to the All India Catholic Laity Congress which clearly states that Quo Primum has been abrogated. To quote it directly, "the law of the Bull Quo Primum was removed in 1970, at the time established by Pope Paul VI for the obligatory use of his Missal." It is perhaps difficult for some to comprehend what this statement means. Let me reiterate: the traditional rite which sufficed within the Church for almost 2000 years has been forbidden by the new Church. This is an extraordinary act. Imagine Hindus forbidding the reading of the Vedas; or Muslims forbidding the reading of the Koran! Everything is acceptable but the traditional Mass.

***

Before considering the second aspect of the history of the Mass, its historical roots dating back to the earliest of times, let us pause to consider the intrinsic nature and essential character of sacrifice. The word comes from sacer and facere - to make sacred.[8] One can define sacrifice as a two-fold act, the purpose of which is to bring a gift to God, and also to sanctify the person who gives it. Now it may seem cruel to us to sacrifice an animal, but in effect, life is a gift of the Creator, as is everything such as food which goes to maintain life. And so it is that we offer to the creator some part of that which He has given us. Usually this is the best part - the first fruits or the unblemished lamb. Now, as a result of the Fall of Adam, man had to die. In performing a living sacrifice, an animal is offered up in the place of man so that man can, as it were, be returned to the Edenic state in which there is no death. In some of the ancient pagan sacrifices, before the animal was killed, those responsible prayed God to enter the animal; and after the animal was killed, the priest would wear the animal's skin. The animal dies in our place - or we offer up the animal as we should offer ourselves up. As St. Thomas said: "Exterius sacrificium signum est interioris sacrificii - exterior sacrifice is the sign of interior Sacrifice." In the Mass the animal is replaced by Christ Himself. It is in this sense that Christ died for us or died for our sins that we might live. As a result of his Sacrifice, we are said "to put on Christ." By offering ourselves up with Christ - by participating and partaking of this sacrifice we offer up the "old man." This is why we must be baptized with Christ, die with Christ, and be resurrected with Christ into life everlasting.

The admonition to "put on Christ" carries with it yet another implication. Adam was created in "the image and likeness of God." After the fall Adam lost the likeness, but still retained the "image" of Christ. In his fallen state, he recognized that he was naked and was ashamed. As St. Symeon teaches, "he was stripped of that uncorrupt garment and glory, and was clothed in the nakedness of corruption." And before expelling him from Paradise, God clothed him in animal skins which as St. Augustine tells us, was a sign of man's new found corruptibility. Tradition has it that Christ was naked like the first Adam when he was crucified, a condition which we because of our fallen nature see as yet another humiliation. It is the Sacrifice of Christ that reversed the fall of Adam, and we by participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass, cast off our corruptible animal nature and once again "put on Christ."

Again, when a live animal is offered, it is a bloody sacrifice: thus we see how the ancient Jewish sacrifices prefigured the bloody Sacrifice of Christ. Christ is, as St. Paul says, "the first-born of all Creation." (Col. I: 15-16) Now, according to St. Iranaeus, "we offer up the first fruits of creation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice: all creation is recapitulated in Christ and offered to God."

***

We should not be surprised to find the roots of our traditional Mass in the practices of the Old Dispensation, for Christ told us that he did not come to destroy, but to fulfil the law of the Prophets. We know from the Canon that the Mass is closely linked to the Sacrifice of Abel the just, the Sacrifice of Abraham, the Father of our race, the sacrifice of Noah, and that of the high priest Melchisedch who also offered "a victim without blemish." (The reason for the use of bold letters will become clear later.) Now these Sacrifices were precursors of the Mass. As St. Augustine teaches, "in the Old Law the New was hidden, and in the New Law the Old was unfolded," and as St. Paul tells us, the Old Law "contained the shadow of the good things to come." The rites established by the Old Law were incorporated into the Mass and as it were perfected by the Mass. And just as the rites of the Old Law were established on the Mount "in exact detail," as Moses tells us, so also, as we shall see, were the essential rites of the New Covenant. The reason these four sacrifices are specifically mentioned in the traditional Mass is that they in a special manner prefigure the Crucifixion.

The first type of holy sacrifice of the Mass was the sacrifice of Abel who offered a burnt offering of the firstlings of his flock. We learn that this offering - it was a lamb - was pleasing to Almighty God, for Scripture tells us "The Lord kindled Abel's sacrifice," which means that it was a holocaust or a burnt offering where the consuming flames came from above. So it is in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; when the priest has offered the oblation of bread and wine upon the altar, and pronounced the words of consecration over them, the Holy Ghost, the divine fire, descends from heaven and consumes the oblation, changing it into the true body and blood of Christ.[9]

The second type of holy sacrifice was that offered by the patriarch Noah. As we read in Scripture, "Noah built an altar unto the Lord, and taking of all cattle and fowls that were clean, offered holocausts upon the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savor, and said: I will no more curse the earth for the sake of man." We find a third type of sacrifice in Abraham who offered up his son Isaac who carried the wood for his holocaust. It is said in Scripture of Abraham that he "built an altar to the Lord, and called upon His name." The same is likewise said of Isaac and Jacob. The fourth type of sacrifice is that of Melchisedech who, as we know, is a type of Christ.[10]

The sacrifice offered by Aaron and all other priests of the Mosaic law formed a fifth type. One of these was the Rite of the Red Heifer which was referred to by St. Paul in Hebrews, Chapter 13. In Numbers, Chapter 19, we find that this was a rite of purification. The red Heifer had to be ritually clean, without spot or blemish. (Again, bold letters.) And this Heifer had to be brought outside the camp as Galgotha is outside of Jerusalem, and be immolated in the sight of all - immolated by being burnt with cedar wood which is the wood of the Cross.

It is very difficult to specify all the various rituals and sacrifices which the Jews practiced. It would appear that in the law of Moses God appointed three principle kinds of sacrifices to be offered to Him by the whole Jewish nation - primarily in the Temple at Jerusalem - the burnt offering, the peace offering and the sin offerings. The burnt offering was a sacrifice of adoration in recognition of the supreme majesty of God; in this the victim was entirely consumed. The peace offering was in thanksgiving and/or to propitiate the divine favor and appease God's anger; in this part of the victim was burned, another part reserved for the prists, and a third part attributed to those for whom the sacrifice was offered. The sin offering was expiatory, which is to say, to obtain forgiveness of sin and remission of the penalty of sin. These correspond to the four ends of the traditional Mass: a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation, and impetration or petition.

Father Lucas points out that for the attainment of the end ultimately desired, viz., full fellowship with God, it was needful that obstacles should first be removed; and accordingly, in the actual carrying out of the ritual, the sin offering took precedence over the other kins of sacrifice (Lev. Xvi.3). After the sin offering, the holocaust; and then, to put the seal – as it were – upon the reconciliation already effected, came the thank offering or peace offering (Lev. Ix. 8,12,18).

Among the bloody sacrifices, the most important was the holocaust called in Hebrew 'OLA. In this sacrifice the bullock, after having been bled - the blood being sprinkled on the altar, in the sanctuary, and over the people - was entirely incinerated by the fire on the altar - i.e., it was entirely offered up to God. This was the type of sacrifice that Gideon offered up in Judges 6.26; and Samson in Judges 13, verses 15 to 20. This is well described in Exodus: "and they offered holocausts, and sacrificed pacific victims of calves to the Lord. Then Moses took half of the blood and put it into bowls; and the est he poured upon tha altar. And taking the book of the covenant, he read it in the hearing of the people... and he took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people and he said: This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." St. Paul refers to this when he says in Heb. ix, 20 that "Moses sprinkled the blood of calves and goats upon all the people, saying: This is the blood of the testament which God has enjoined unto you." When Christ consecrated the chalice at the Last Supper his words are almost identical: "This is the new testament in My blood." (St. Luke XXII.20). St. Paul adds, in the passage already quoted: "It is necessary, therefore, that the patterns of heavenly things should be cleansed with these: but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." By this he meant to say: the Jewish synagogue, which was a type of the Catholic Church is cleansed by the blood of the Lamb of God. Now in order that anything be cleansed either with blood or with water, it must be sprinkled or moistened with blood or water. Thus, if our souls are cleansed by the blood of Christ in the Mass, they must be sprinkled therewith. Does this happen in our Mass? St. John Chrysostom tells us: "Thou seest that Christ is immolated in the Mass, thou seest that the people present are sprinkled and marked with the crimson blood from His veins." Marchantius, another church father says the same. "The precious blood is shed in the Mass as a holy oblation, and the souls of the faithful who stand around are sprinkled with it." The Beloved Apostle John also tells us that "Jesus Christ hath loved us, and washed - not just sprinkled - us with His own blood." (Apoc. 1.5). Of course, we do not see this blood any more than we see Christ's body - though individuals have been graced with visions in which for example, while holding the host over the chalice, the priest sees drops of blood falling into the chalice.

A second kind of sacrifice was the ZEVAH SHELAMIM, or the Sacrifice of Peace which was performed at the time of great solemnities. In this sacrifice one part of the immolated victim, the blood and the fat, was burnt; the remainder was eaten by the priests and the faithful. It was a sacrifice which prefigured Communion.

A third was called HATTAT and was a rite of purification for the expiation for sin. This is the rite performed at YOM KIPPUR, or the day of atonement. This rite involved two goats, one of which was sacrificed, and the other released into the wilds. The high priest extended his hands over a goat - just as the priest does over the chalice when saying the Hanc Igitur. The purpose of this was to convey the sins of the people and the priest to the goat. This goat was then burnt, the sacrifice ascending to the throne of God in odorem suavitatis. After this the second goat had a scarlet ribbon attached to his neck - scarlet being symbolic of sin - as in the phrase we still use of a "scarlet woman." And then the goat is led out to a deserted place and thrown down from a high precipice. In similar manner, after the scourging, Christ had a scarlet robe placed over his shoulders and tied around his neck by the Roman soldiers. This incidentally is the origin of the word "scapegoat." Christ embodied both aspects of this rite, and was, as St. Paul tells us, "an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness" (Rom. III, 25). This rite is not unconnected with the challenge of Satan in asking Christ to cast himself down from the precipice.[11]

Now the Jewish Pasch belongs to the type of sacrifice in which the animal offered is entirely consumed by men. The offerer was the head of the family and/or the priest, for the sacrifice of the Pasch was offered both in the home and in the temple. This rite was of the greatest importance to the Jews, for it commemorated their liberation from the slavery of Egypt and their entry into the promised land. PESAH signifies "passage" and was the symbol that Christ had only in some way to "vitalize" in order to make it an efficacious sign of the passage from death to life and from darkness into the light. It is by the immolation of the Divine Lamb that we are brought into the kingdom of the Father.

The Sacrifice of Christ incorporated all these previous sacrifices to a greater or lesser degree. As Pope St. Leo tells us, in His one sacrifice Our Lord has united and consummated the ancient rites with all their diversities (Seventh Sunday after Pentecost). St. Augustine tells us that “the Sacrifice which the high priest of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, offers is the sacrifice of His body and blood, and that oblation takes the place of all the old ones which were only a shadow of that which was to be. And we find Christ Himself repeating the words of the thirty-ninth Psalm: ‘Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou has fitted for me’ (Heb. 10:5). An astronomer who read this paper pointed out something very startling to me. He noted that the Jewish calender had been changed several times over the course of history, and that when one combined all these calenders, the dates usually given for the three principle kinds of sacrifice actually could be made to come together at the time of the Crucifixion. Thus for example, it is known that the Essenes celebrated Yom Kippur at the same time as the Jews in Jerusalem were celebrating the Pasch.

In 1 Cor. 5, verses 7-8 St. Paul tells us that "Christ our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed." As St. Ambrose said, “When we offer, Christ is present Christ is offering Himself, for Christ the Easter Lamb, our pasch is sacrificed” (in cap. 26. Mat.).[12] It follows that if we are to understand the Mass one must consider the Paschal meal or Seder in greater detail, for it was this rite which Christ Himself chose for the institution of the Mass. In this rite, before the main meal a form of bread called meze is served. At the same time cups of wine are passed around. Both were blessed. In the Melkite Church this rite is still carried out before dinner on Friday evenings. This "first chalice" at the Lord's Supper is described by St. Luke in XXII: 17. After this the guests washed their hands with perfumed water and the meal itself began. Christ replaced this with the washing of the Apostles feet. The main meal then commenced with the head of the family solemnly breaking bread and saying "Blessed be Thou O Lord, who hath cause the earth to produce this bread." It is undoubtedly at this moment that Christ consecrated the bread. Next different courses were brought to the table and blessed. The main course was the Pascal lamb - and interestingly enough, it was forbidden that any bone should be broken during the cooking or eating of this victim. Cups of wine were served and each guest blessed his own cup. This is sometimes called the "second chalice." At the end of the meal the lamps were carried to the table. The lamp was the Menorah or seven candle stand such as Titus brought to Rome after the destruction of the temple, and which is carved on his triumphal arch. One mustn't confuse this with the currently used Jewish Menorah such as is used in the season of Hanakah, and which significantly has 8 candles. The temple Menorah which is figured on the triumphal arch in Rome was a seven candle stand always lit in the temple. The central candle was not lit because the Messiah had not yet come.[13] Their place in the traditional Mass is represented by the six candles on the altar which are lit for high masses. The seventh or central candle is of course Christ our Lord.

Next there was a second washing of the hands. The table was then incensed following which the third chalice in which water was added to the wine was solemnly blessed by the head of the household or community who said: "Blessed by Thou O Lord... who has created the fruit of the vine." This was accompanied by a great thanksgiving for the material and spiritual blessings that had been received since the time of the exodus from Egypt - hence the name Eucharistica or thanksgiving. It was at this point that Our Lord introduced the Consecration of the Chalice.

The Seder has a fourth chalice which is consumed after the singing of the Hillel Psalms - especially Psalm 21 which foretells and describes the Crucifixion. But Scripture says nothing about this fourth cup or chalice being consumed at the Last Supper. Instead it tells us that after the Consecration of the Third Cup Jesus said "I will not taste again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the Kingdom of God." They then prayed the Psalms and he went out into the night.

No one can deny that the New Testament began at the Last Supper and not on the Cross. On Calvary Christ was dying, and by His death sealed the testament made at the Last Supper. It was on the eve of His final going to Golgotha that He promised the remission of our sins, saying “This is my blood of the new and everlasting testament which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” Nothing like that happened on the Cross.

What happened next?

According to the Scriptures, Jesus then went to the Garden of Gethsemani. Here he fell three times to the ground and cried out "Abba, Father, All things are possible to Thee. Remove this chalice from me. Yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt." What is this cup referring to? It can of course refer to the "cup of wrath" which Isaiah and Jeremiah speak of, the chalice of wrath which the Messiah would have to drink. But it is even more closely related to the fourth cup of the Seder which Christ drank at the Crucifixion. You will remember that Christ was offered wine and myrrh while on the way to Calvary - myrrh is a kind of opiate which was meant to lessen the pain of crucifixion. But Christ refused.

There is a tradition that our Lord, hanging on the Cross, began to repeat- as we know from the Gospels, Psalm 21 - and repeating it and those that follow, gave up His most blessed Spirit when he came to the fifth verse of Psalm 30. Let us consider the 21st Psalm[14]:

My God my God, Why hast thou forsaken me? I am a worm of the earth and not a man the derision of men and the outcast of the people; All that see me laugh me to scorn; They whisper and shake their heads: He hoped in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him save him, since he has complacence in him...

They have dug my hands and my feet I can count all my bones They have divided my garments among them' for my tunic they cast lots.

Here we have then the story of the Crucifixion which is said in the Seder prior to the drinking of the last chalice. And how obliging were those who thought He was calling upon Elias because He cried out Eli, Eli, meaning "My God, my God...". They also fulfilled the Scriptures who derided him by saying "if He is God, let him save Himself," for as Christ said through David's mouth, "All they that saw me scoffed at me: they spoke with their lips and tossed their heads, 'He relied on the Lord, let him deliver him, let him rescue him, since he loves him. This explains the seeming words of discouragement which Christ said on the Cross. But even more important, as Cornelius Lapide points out, in crying "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me, He made it clear that He was indeed the Person of whom the Holy Spirit spoke through the mouth of David. But let us continue with the Psalm:[15]

My throat is dried up like a potsherd of clay; My tongue cleaves to my palate.

At this point Christ on the Cross cries out "I thirst." He did this that "Scripture might be fulfilled." There was a bowl of wine near by - sour wine being vinegar, though many hold it to have been posca, a kind of thin wine which the Roman troops were supplied with when in the field. They put a sponge on a branch of hyssop - the very same plant used by the Jews to sprinkle blood on the door posts so that the angel of death would by pass their homes and their first born would not be taken, the same branch with which we are symbolically sprinkled in the Asperges. And dipping the sponge in the vinegar - actually, sour wine, they gave Christ to drink.[16] After drinking it Jesus said, "it is consummated," a phrase so reminiscent of the phrase Ita Missa Est. St. John ends the story at this point, but Luke and Mark add a further phrase. After this He bowed his head and said "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." This phrase is found in verse 5 of Psalm 30, is also one the priest repeats several times in his evening office.

Scripture tells us that Christ tasted the posca, but did not drink it. The sainted Church Fathers explain the drinking of the forth cup as occurring when the priest (who is an altar Christus) at Mass drinks the consecrated wine, for the priest at this point partakes of the most sacred banquet and is mystically present in the Kingdom of God.

One wonders whether Christ went on praying the Psalms to verse 5 of Psalm 30. One must of course remember that the numbering of Psalms has changed over the centuries. One should also note that Psalm 30 is a Psalm redolent with hope which starts out:

"In thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me never be confounded: deliver me in thy justice. Bow down thy ear to me: make haste to deliver me. Be thou unto me a God, a protector and a house of refuge, to save me. For thou art my strength and my refuge; and for thy name's sake thou wilt lead me, and nourish me. Thou wilt bring me out of this snare which they have hidden for me: for thou art my protector. Into thy hands I commend my spirit: thou has redeemed me, O Lord the God of Truth."

There is another explanation which the fathers give us for Christ's seeming despair. Many, facing death feel abandoned, and Christ concentrated in this moment, the duration of which is unknown to us, that complete despair and unspeakable grief of supreme abandonment. In assuming all our human weakness, he wished to sympathize with the sufferings of the poor human creature who no longer sees anything or knows anything, who counts upon no one, and expects neither remedy, nor solace, nor consolation. This is why I like to think that, after sharing our despairs, He turned to the psalm 30, a psalm of hope. For this is indeed the path which we must follow in our sorrows.

The seamless garment was prescribed for the High Priest in Jerusalem during the Pasch service in the Temple. Once again, this prefigured the true High Priest which is of course Our Lord Jesus Christ. And again, it was said of our Lord that "not a bone shall be broken." It was of course the custom to break the legs of the crucified if they took too long to die - once their legs were broken they hung limply on the cross and could no longer take in an adequate breath. But there is yet another connection. When the sacrificial lamb for the Pasch was examined, if it was found to have a broken bone, it would be discarded and replaced. Once again we see fulfilled St. Paul's words, "Christ our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed."

Now all these events occurred within a 24 hour period; there is a continuity between Holy Thursday and Good Friday, for the Jewish day was from sundown to sundown. And Christ was, in accord with Jewish custom, buried before sundown.

***

Christ didn't die once and for all. His sacrifice is a perpetual sacrifice. The immolation of the lamb is continuous in heaven. It is the priest - or Christ acting in the priest, who once again brings this sacrifice down on earth - on the altar in an unbloody manner - for us and for our salvation. As M. Olier of St. Suplice wrote: "to understand the mystery of the most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.... it is necessary to know that this Sacrifice is the Sacrifice of Heaven... It is the Sacrifice effected in Paradise and which at the same time is offered up here on earth; the only difference is that here below, it is seen under a veiled form." This is the "Lamb, slain but alive" of which St. John speaks in the Apocalypse. Thus the Mass is not a "memorial" in the sense of commemorating something that occurred in the past, but rather a making present in time of something occurring eternally. How pregnant with meaning is the priest's prayer "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us."

The Jewish sacrifice of the holocaust was only performed in the Temple. Now the temple is as it were the center of the world, and in fact, when the Jews held the Pasch they always faced in the direction of the Temple, much like Moslems today face the Kaaba in Mecca when they pray. At the Last Supper the Apostles all sat on the same side of the table facing the temple which could be seen through the portico.. After the destruction of the temple, the first stage of which was the rending of the curtain over the holy of holies, Christians faced the east, for the rising sun is a symbol of the Risen Christ we await at the end of time. There is absolutely no history of the priest facing the people in the early Mass.

But there is a difference in the Church, as was indeed foretold by Malachias, the last of the Prophets: "I have no pleasure in you [referring to the lax sacrifices of the Levites] and I will not receive a gift from your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among the Gentiles and in every place there is offered to My name a clean oblation" (Malachias, 1, 10-11).[17] No longer is the Sacrifice centered in a single place - the temple. Rather wherever the Mass is said becomes the center of the world. As Nicholas of Cusa said, "the center of the world is that point from which all creation is equi-distant." The architectural symbolism of the Church which incidentally parallels that of the temple, placed the altar directly under the dome which was in turn over the center of the cross. That is to say that the Church was built in the form of a cross with a dome over the center - a pattern still followed in the east. In the western church the altar was moved forward into the nave which is as it were half a dome. But to make the symbolism clear, altars were placed under a baldachino. This term is perhaps strange. However, picture the altar in St. Peter's of which we have all seen at least in pictures. There are four pillars surmounted by a dome; the entire structure being under the central dome. The dome symbolizes the heavens while the square structure on which it rests is the created world in which we live. Many of our traditional chapels have a similar structure over the tabernacle. Now every traditional altar must have over it a crucifix. Within the requirements of space, this crucifix is also at the center of creation - as indeed it was in Jerusalem historically. We must all return to this "center" and be centered in Christ. The priest prays daily for conversion - converte nos salutaris noster as he says in Compline. Conversio means to turn towards the center. And every time we make the sign of the cross we are ourselves enacting the same thing symbolically.

We know that the Jews had a high priesthood and rites which were performed only in the temple. But every Jew could not go to the temple for the High Holidays, and so it was that the same rites were also carried out in each family. Remember that the family is as it were, a "mini-Church." The Father in the family is Christ's representative within this structure. Thus it is not without accident that we refer to God as the "Father"; we call the Pope the "holy father" because he is Christ's representative over the whole Church; we call the priest a father, for he is Christ's representative in the community; and we call the head of the family a father because he is Christ's representative in the family. Now Christ and the Apostles at the Last Supper were actually carrying out the Jewish Pasch - and Christ who allowed himself to be circumcised, who declared that He came to fulfill the law, carried out the traditional Jewish rites in the normal manner. As Sister Agreda says, "He observed all the ceremonies of the Law (Exodus 12,3), as prescribed by Himself through Moses." Catherine Emerick goes even farther and points out that one of the accusations brought against Him before Caiaphus was that he had introduced innovations into this rite - a charge Nicodemus successfully defended Him against. During the Last Supper Christ gave the Apostles an understanding of all the ceremonies of the figurative law as observed by the Patriarchs and the Prophets. He showed them how beneath these rites was hidden the real truth, namely, all that He himself was to accomplish as Redeemer of the World." It is not surprising then that the Mass as we know it should encompass all the sacrifices of the Old Law. Catherine Emerick also tells us that the Apostles took notes so as not to forget His instructions as to how the Mass should be said.

It is not surprising then that many of the phrases used in the Mass such as "The Lord be with you" and "Peace be with you" also come from the Jewish ritual. This is also true of the phrase "...and for ever and ever" which is the exact translation of the Hebraic liturgical formula min ha-olem ad ha-olem. The Alleluia and Amens are alse derived from this source. The Alleluia incidentally means "praise God" and is taken from the Hallel psalms sung at the Paschal meal. After each verse of these psalms the people present exclaimed Hallelou-yeh. In the Mass the three Alleluias follow verses taken from the psalms which are sung before the Gospel.

Yet another formula retained from synagogal usage is the solemn prayer used at the start of the Canon in all the liturgies of both East and West - called the Anaphora in the East and the Preface in the west. The phrases sursum corda, oremus and gratias agamus are direct translations of phrases used in the Jewish rite are the various phrases preceding and including the triple Sanctus. Finally, another practice adapted from the Jewish ritual is the repetetive liturgical cycle which annually as well as in each and every Mass renews the cycle of events in our Lord's life, as it does the feasts such as Easter and Pentecoste.[18]

And so we see that our traditional Mass is the culmination and the fulfillment of all the Sacrifices of the Old law. Now it is of interest that the Jews no longer have a priesthood. Rabbis are not priests but scholars who graduate from special schools, often called seminaries. They are not ordained by any rite whatsoever and such is not surprising, for as Daniel prophecized, "when the Holy of Holies has come, anointing will cease." Once the temple veil was torn, the supreme sacrifice, the Mass, was no longer limited to a central temple, but rather every altar became the center. And when we contemplate the close relationship of our Mass - the true Mass, with all that was prefigured in the Old Testament, let us not forget that Daniel also prophecized that "they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation. And such as deal wickedly against the covenant shall deceitfully dissemble: but the people that know their God shall prevail and succeed. What is this abomination but a defective sacrifice? "Thou shalt not sacrifice to the Lord thy God a sheep or an ox wherein there is blemish or any fault; for that is an abomination to the Lord thy God" (Deut. 17.1). This defilement is again referred to in Maccabees where Antiocus set up false altars in Jerusalem and where "there went out of Israel wicked men, and they persuaded many, saying: Let us go, and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us... The Jerome Biblical Commentary speaks of this in the following terms: "Antiochus thought it necessary to foster the process of cultural and religious syncretism that had received such impetus under Alexander." St Matthew, Mark and Luke all refer to this event and add that frightening phrase, "he that readeth, let him understand." For those of us who tend to see the preservation of the traditional Mass as a function of the "Remnant," and who are constantly accused of being in "rebellion," it is pertinent to note that the original Maccabian force rallied precisely around this issue and consisted of some 300 individuals! If this sounds strange, allow me to quote a passage from the introduction to the 22nd Sunday after Pentecost taken from the St. Andrew Missal of a previous era: "One of the most outstanding lessons which may be drawn from the books of the Maccabees, which almost every year are still being read at Matins at this time, is the reverence due to the things of God. What is generally called the rebellion of the Maccabees was in reality a magnificent example of fidelity to God, to His law, and to the covenants and promises that he made to His people. These were threatened with oblivion and it was to uphold them that the Maccabees rebelled."

It logically follows from this that everything that the priest does in the Mass is full of meaning - is symbolic or representative of something divine. - is patterned after a divine archetype - as in heaven, so also on earth.[19] As St. Bonaventura said, "the Holy Mass is as full of mysteries as the ocean is full of drops, or as the sky is full of stars, and as the courts of heaven are full of angels. For in it so many mysteries are daily performed that I should be at a loss to say whether greater or more lofty wonders have ever been accomplished by divine omnipotence." The Mass is in a certain sense a "mini-drama" which recapitulates, not only the entire life of Christ, but the entire history of man's relationship to God. The pious Marchantius writes: "What is the Mass if not a forcible and complete representation, nay renewal, of the incarnation, the birth, the life, the sufferings and the death of Christ, and the redemption that He wrought?" Dennis the Carthusian teaches us that "The whole life of Christ which He led upon earth was one long celebration of Mass, He being Himself the altar, the priest, the victim."

Let us consider the altar. In the consecration of the Catholic altar, reference is made to all the altars set up by the patriarchs of the old testament. The Shekina or divine presence in the temple in Jerusalem was dependent upon the presence of the Ark. The Ark was set upon a stone which was the center of the earth - not in a geographical sense, but in a symbolic sense. You have heard it said that the altar is a symbol of the body of Christ. This is because he is the "rock" under the Ark. He is the rock that Moses "split" and from which poured forth living waters. We are all familiar with Peter being described as the "rock." But Peter is the rock by participation. It is Christ who is the rock as St. Paul makes clear when he tells us in Hebrews XIII: 10 that "they drank of the spiritual rock... and the rock was Christ. It is Christ who is the corner-stone or more precisely, the "angle stone."[20] All our altars are of course of stone - strictly speaking, a wooden altar always encloses a altar stone, and that is the altar. The reason for this has already been explained. It is not without significance that the novus ordo no longer requires an altar stone and insists that the what occurs, occurs upon a "table." As Cranmer said, "the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it; the use of a table is to serve men to eat upon." Our Mass and our Faith is built, not upon shifting sands or corruptible wood, but on solid rock.[21] As mentioned above, the Catholic altar must have a Crucifix over it - the Crucifix is as the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia says, "the principal ornament of the altar... placed [there] to remind the celebrant and the people that the Victim offered on the altar is the same as was offered on the Cross." The novus ordo has dropped this requirement.

Speaking of the Holy of Holies, the place in the temple which held the Arc which in turn contained the Shekina or "presence" of God, has been replaced by the tabernacle fixed on the main altar - or suspended over the main altar in the Eastern churches. The removal of the tabernacles from the altar and their replacement with the Bible - usually one of the badly translated versions aimed at being acceptable to every shade of Christian belief or disbelief, can only be likened to the removal of the Arc of the Covenant and replacing it with poorly translated versions of the Torah.[22]

The traditional Mass is divided into the "Mass of the Catachumens" and the "Mass of the Faithful." The Novus Ordo Missae is divided into the "Liturgy of the Word" and the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" (which word means "thanksgiving"). Now the Mass of the Faithful refers to those that believe in the Real Presence, which is the Mystery of our Faith, "the Word made flesh." The Novus Ordo Missae has shifted the sense of the "Word" to the reading of Scripture, while teaching that the Mystery of the Faith refers to the historical Life, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord. The new mass retains a certain teaching and instructive role (readings from Scripture and the Sermon) but, having deleted every reference to immolation and propitiation, has altered the nature of the sacrifice that follows.[23] The distinction is important if one is to understand how all that we have said manifests itself in the traditional Mass.

Let us take the Catholic ritual in sequence starting with the Asperges, sung prior to the principle Mass on Sunday: "Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, O Lord, and I shall be cleansed; Thou shalt wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." Hyssop was used to place the blood of the Lamb on the portals of the homes of the Jews in Egypt, thus signaling to the angel of death that the inhabitants were protected. Similarly, the High Priest, before entering the Holy of Holies, slew a lamb, dipped his hands in the blood, and used hyssop to sprinkle the blood of the Sacrifice on the congregants. This is a reminder of both the need for purification and of baptism. By the sprinkling of Holy water - once again with a branch of the Hyssop, we are purified and sanctified, which is to say, separated from the impure or "old man." It is an indispensable condition for the offering of and participation in the sacrifice.[24]

The priest, having vested, now approaches the altar.[25] "Out of the Mount of Sion, out of her fullness of beauty, God has shone forth" (Psalm 49). After bowing, making the sign of the Cross, he ascends the triple steps of the altar as Our Lord climbed the slopes at Golgotha, saying "introibo ad altare Dei". Every true sacrificial altar, being "central," is both elevated and set apart. Moses, Lot, Aaron, Abraham and Elijah were all commanded by God to go up to "the mountain of the Lord... His holy place. It was, as Cornelius Lapide points out, on Mt. Tabor that Christ selected the twelve disciples whom he ordained and called apostles. It was on the Mount that he taught that compendium of the new law which is called the Sermon on the Mount. Moreover, the “rock” and the “mountain” are symbolic equivalents which explains why the altar is also considered as the body of Christ. And so it is that the Catholic altar is placed "on high" and draped with the richest of cloths.[26] The priest mounts up above the three choirs of angels, for the Sacrifice is one that occurs perpetually in heaven. The triple steps also remind us of the three stages of the spiritual life which we all must follow - purgative, illuminative and unitive. How unlike the plain and often ugly Novus Ordo table, no longer set apart, but rather placed outside the sanctuary among the people. (Imagine the Jews placing the Arc of the Covenant in the market place!)

During the first part of the Mass - the Mass of the Catachumens, the faithful are confessed and instructed.[27] The prayers at the foot of the altar are extraordinary; they set the tone or proper attitude for both priest and congregation. How appropriate is the recitation of Psalm 42 (dropped in the Novus Ordo) which reminds us of both the last judgment and of the fact that we are in this world, but not of this world. "Judge me O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy; deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man." This text evokes the harsh combat engaged in by the catechumens against the powers of evil in preparation for their baptism. The unjust man is of course "fallen man" as opposed to the "new man." Once again we are reminded of the need to renew our baptismal commitments. Just as we must all constantly return to the senter, so also must we constantly discared the "old man" and "put on Christ."

After all have confessed and received absolution, the priest approaches the altar between two servers symbolizing Christ between the Ancient and New Testaments, or between the prophets of the Old and the Bishops, descendents of the Apostles of the New dispensation. The first thing he does is to kiss the altar stone showing his respect for Jesus Christ, who will soon descend there, and his veneration for the holy martyrs whose relics are deposited there. He accompanies his action with the following prayer: "We beseech Thee, O Lord, through the merits of Thy Saints whose relics are here, and of all Thy Saints, that it may please thee to forgive me all my sins." In placing the relics of martyrs under the table of the altar, the Church on Earth wished to imitate what St. John had remarked in Heaven: "I saw under the altar of the Lamb the souls of them that had been slain for the name of Jesus" (Apoc., VI, 9). Next, In solemn masses the altar is incensed. This also is derived from Jewish custom, for it was used in the temple and God Himself instructed Moses in the preparation of incense (Exod XXX, 34). Incense is not only a symbol of prayer, it also reminds us that we see and understand the mystery of the Mass as through a dark cloud - for God and His ways are obscure. So important is incense that God inspired the Magi to bring it as an offering before the crib - Gold for His royalty; Frankincenses for His Sacred Nature, and Myrrh for his passion and burial. The priest then moves to the Epistle side of the altar, opens the Missal, and says the Introit or entrance prayer. Taken from the Psalms, the Introit represents the cry by which the ancient world called for Our Lord, the Desired of Nations. Next follows the nine-fold Kyrie - said nine times in imitation of the nine choirs of angels, or three times each in praise of each Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Next comes the Gloria, first sung by the Angels at the time of Christ's birth and reminding us how the Mass is a mini-drama of the life of Christ. This is made strikingly clear in the Eastern rite. As Cabasilas explains, in the first stage of the Mass, the oblations represent the Body of our Lord in His youth, because they are not yet consecrated. The hosts are prepared in the following manner. The specially prepared loaf is placed under an open pedestal with a cross over it and within which, from the vertical axis of the cross, there hangs a small star. This is called an astiriskon which the Greek word for a star. When the priest places the asteriskon over the offering he pronounces the words of St. Matthew: "behold the star... come and stood over where the child was." Furthermore, the paten is assimilated to the cradle and the side altar where this ceremony is carried out is called the prosthesis and is assimilated with the grotto of the nativity. Finally the priest covers all this with a veil because, prior to Jesus' public life, His power was hidden.

Recalling for us the need to pray, the priest next returns to the Epistle side of the altar and reads the collects with his hands outstretched in imitation of Our Lord on the Cross. The collects are usually addressed to God the Father, for it is to Him that the Sacrifice is offered. After the Collects the Epistle is read - the Apostles preparing us for the Master's voice which will be conveyed to us through the Gospel. Now, as will be explained below, the transference of the Missal from the Epistle to the Gospel side of the altar represents the transition of Christ's life, which is to say, His "going public." It is a matter of great joy and during the process Responses reflecting the Epistle reading are sung followed in non penitential seasons by Alleluias. In the Eastern rites there is a formal procession of the Gospel called the "Little Entrance." After the antiphons have been sung, the officiant displays the Holy Book to signify the commencement of christ's public life.

Prior to the reading of the Gospel we bless ourselves with the triple blessing - making the sign of the Cross on our foreheads, lips and heart. During the reading of the Gospel we stand, showing respect for Our Lord, for it is His very words we hear. This is followed by the sermon in which the Epistle and or Gospel is explained. This section of the Mass is concludes with the Credo. At this point the catechumens were dismissed, for the Sacrifice which followed was only for those who were baptized.

During the Offertory the priest offers up, not "the work of human hands," as in the Novus Ordo, but rather a spotless host, later referred to in the Canon as an unblemished sacrifice. And this is because it is not the work of human hands, but Christ Himself, prefigured in the unblemished sacrifices of the old testament that the priest offers up.[28] As Father Schouppe, S.J. states, the Offertory represents the history of the world from creation to the Passion of Christ. In the Eastern rite the offering is brought from the side altar or prosthesis, to the main altar. This is done with singing and incensing and symbolizes the triumphant entrance of Our Lord into Jerusalem.

In the Offertory, the priest, after placing the host upon the corporal, goes to the epistle side of the altar and pours wine and water into the chalice. He blesses the water before it is mixed with the wine, praying that by the mystery of this water and wine we may be made partakers of His divinity, Jesus Christ, Who became partaker of our humanity. The wine is not blessed, because it represents Christ, the Eternal Son of the Father, the source of benediction. The water represents our human nature, which stands in great need of blessing.[29] The mixture of wine and water is said by theologians to represent the union of the divine and human natures in Our Lord. But this added water also represents our human natures which we offer up along with Christ. All this is made clear by the prayers accompanying the action: "O God, Who in creating human nature didst wonderfully dignify it, and (by the Incarnation) hast still more wonderfully renewed it, grant that by the mystery of this Water and Wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, Who vouchsafes to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the same Spirit world without end." Then the priest offers the chalice and prays that it may be accepted by God in odorem suavitatis. That the wine represents Christ, the water represents the people, as was said by St. John in the Apocalypse and was confirmed by the Council of Trent: "Aquae populi sunt" (Apoc. XVII, 15).

In the Eastern rite, this union of the faithful with Christ in His offertory sacrifice is expressd in a most viid manner. At the beginning of Mass, the priest, with a small golden lance, divides the bread into several fragments and assigns to each of them, in a special prayer, the part of representing the personages for whom the sacrifice is to be offered up, or for the various members of the Christian community. The first fragment represents Christ; another the Virgin, others the apostles, martyrs, virgins, the saint of the day, and the entire Church triumphant. Next come the fragments reserved for the Church suffering and the Church militant; the supreme Pontiff, the bishops and the faithful who are present. These are then united once again and placed upon the altar to be consecrated.

Intimately tied to the Offertory is Our Blessed Lady. She has been referred to by the Church Fathers as a "spotless host" and an "unblemished sacrifice." In the words of St. Tharasius she is "the clean offering of Abel, chosen out of the firstlings of the flock, a pure sacrifice"(Breviary, Dec. 12). St. Symeon, the New Theologian describes her as "a kind of leaven and a certain beginning from the dough of our nature" (On the Economy of the Incarnation). Michel Scheeban tells us that "the changing of the bread into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit is a renewal of the wonderful act by which, in the power of the same Holy Spirit, He originally formed His body in the womb of the Virgin and took it to His person." As Augustine said, "O truly reverend dignity of the priests, in whose hands the Son of God becomes flesh as once in the womb of the Virgin."[30] It follows from this, as well as from the very nature of Our Lord's Body, that in partaking of the Body of Christ, we also in a manner partake of her body.[31] Further, as the prayer Memento Domine makes clear, we are also meant to offer ourselves along with the "gifts," "for the redeeming of our souls, for our hope of safety and salvation." As St. Ambrose says, "Christ will not be a true victim in our behalf if we do not sacrifice ourselves with Him." If however we are to be worthy of such an offering, it is precisely because, and in so far as we try to adopt the qualities of Our Lady, qualities made clear in her Magnificat, every sentence of which is drawn from the Old Testament. Should we fail to approach the wedding feast - for every soul should be a bride of Christ[32] - united in one flesh - than we risk being cast out into the "outer darkness." As many saints have said, if we would bear Christ, we must become the Blessed Virgin, and As the Pusillum instructs priests: "You resemble the Mother of God when the Son of God becomes present in your hands at the altar. Seek to resemble Mary also in purity. Offer yourself to God as a clean oblation together with the mystic gifts upon the altar."[33]

Father Muller instructs us still further on this point. "many offer to God their prayers, alms, fasts, and mortifications; but few offer themselves, and make an oblation of their hearts. They always secretly reserve to themselves the disposal of their own will. This division is displeasing to God; it is not the sacrifice of Abel, but of Cain, who offered to God the fruits of the earth, but reserved to himself his heart and will, as St. Augustine says. We should remember, therefore, that as we are associated with the priest of Christ in offering the adorable Victim to God, so should we be associated with the divine Victim in the spirit of self-sacrifice; we should offer ourselves to Him; we should lay on the altar the oblation of our soul and body, our memory, will, and understanding; our thought, words, actions and intentions of the day; our life, death and whole being, that all may be sanctified by union with Him who is immolated for the love of us."[34] The replacement of the "spotless host," and "unblemished sacrifice" by "the work of human hands" in the Novus Ordo Missae is highly significant precisely because the absence of a true "victim" precludes the possibility of our self-immolation. The Novus Ordo is but a "Mass of praise and thanksgiving," and such it must be if it is but the retelling of an event that occurred 2000 years ago. If there is no victim and no immolation, than we cannot offer or unite ourselves to Him as a holocaust. We are limited to joining the president in an praise and thanksgiving, worthy acts in themselves, but a far cry from Sacrifice of Christ. Father Olier (of the Oratory) comments on this issue and tells us Abel offered up a living sacrifice to which he joined himself, but Cain only offered up fruits and inanimate objects, without offering himself, and such a sacrifice was unacceptable to God. If the Novus Ordo can be likened to the sacrifice of Cain, will Our Lord find it acceptable? One may be permitted to doubt it.[35]

Scripture and the liturgy further confirm this interpretation. If the faithful share through baptism, in the priesthood of Christ, it is, says St. Peter, that they may "offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (I Pet. II,5). In the Secret of Whit monday and Trinity Sunday we find the prayer "Vouchsafe, O Lord, to sanctify these gifts, and receiving the oblation of this spiritual victim, make us (in Latin, the emphatic Nosmetipsos) an eternal sacrifice to Thyself."[36]

At this point the priest washes his hands, or rather, his fingers. As he has already washed his hands prior to vesting, his action now, as the words of the Psalm he recites make clear, is concerned with inner purity. As St. Cyril of Jerusalem tells us "Do not imagine that this is for the sake of corporal cleanliness. Not so at all. We are not accustomed when entering the church to be in such a state as to need the washing in order to be clean. This washing of hands reminds us that we ought to be free from all our sins because our hands mean our deeds. To wash our hands is nothing else than to purify our works." Moreover, as Gueranger notes, this is a Messianic psalm. “Ego autem in innocentia mea ingressus sum: I have walked in mine innocence, proves this. The Priest, therefore, says it in the Name of Christ, with whom he is but one and the same, during the action of the Great Sacrifice. Up to now the priest has been inviting the faithful to join themselves to him in offering the sacrifice. He makes this clear by the words of the prayers and his frequent turning to the congregation in order to impart blessings. The last time he will do this is when he says the Orate Fratres - Pray brethren that your sacrifice and mine may be acceptable. Now clearly, it is not the acceptability of the Sacrifice of Christ that is in question. What Sacrifice is the priest referring to? It is the sacrifice of himself and of ourselves which is joined to that of Christ's.

From here on, the Mass re-presents the passion of our Lord and His resurrection. The priest will not turn to the faithful till after he communicates. He now enters into the secret of the sanctuary, there to treat alone with God. He can be likened to a Moses climbing the mountain. He now says the Secret, so-called because he says it in a low voice like Jesus Christ Who, in the Garden of Olives, who moved a stone's throw away from His disciples, in order to enter into the silence of recollection and prayer. The Preface follows. The Preface is as it were the introduction to the Canon and invites us to assume the proper attitude for attending the Sacrifice itself. Lift up your hearts. It is truly meet and just. It terminates with the Sanctus, the song of angels, and indeed the bell is rung to remind us that at this point the angels are present.

We have already pointed out that the Canon (which means "rule") is the core and essence of the Mass can be traced back to Christ and the Apostles. It is in the early part of the Canon that the priest prays for the Church and hierarchy as well as "all the orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic faith." Next he mentions the names of the persons and the intentions for which the Mass is offered. It is in the Canon that we find the Diptych or list of saints whose intercession we beseech. In the early Church the names of those whose lives had been especially saintly were incorporated into this prayer, whence it is that we have the term canonize. This prayer, the Communicantes, reminds us of the consoling doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

We now come to the prayer Hanc igitur where the priest extends his hands over the chalice as Aaron did during the HATTAT thousands of years ago. In this action our sins are transferred onto the sacrificial victim who is to die in our place - die that we might live. It is here that the priest asks that we be preserved from the eternal damnation that our sins deserve.

At the Consecration the priest takes the Host into his hands, just as Jesus Christ, at the Last Supper, took the bread and wine into His holy and venerable hands. Then the priest's words cease, his personality disappears (Father Arminjon) and the voice of Jesus Christ replaces that of His minister. It is no longer the priest who speaks or lives: the body of the priest has become the very body of God.[37] Leaning over the Host, the priest does not say "This is the body of Jesus Christ, this is the blood of Jesus Christ," but "This is my body, this is my blood." Some will point to the fact that these words are retained in the Novus Ordo Missae, as in fact they are in the Lutheran and Anglican services. But in the Novus Ordo Missae, as I have already explained they are part of the "narration of the institution" or in plainer English, part of the story of the Last Supper. If a priest were to read you the story of the Last Supper as is found in the Gospels, he would say these same words, but would in no way consecrate. Nowhere in the General Instruction which accompanies the new mass and provides its rubrics, is it made clear that these words are said in persona Christi. If you look at the Eucharistic Prayers in the "Peoples Mass Book" used in the Novus Ordo churches, you will note that the supposed words of consecration are in no way distinguished from the rest of the narration.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is a holocaust. "According to the conception of the ancient liturgies, the Eucharistic act of sacrifice is effected by the fire of the Holy Spirit which called down by the Church, falls upon the bread that represents mankind. From this bread it forms the body and blood of the true sacrificial Lamb as once it formed Him in the womb of the virgin, thereafter to offer Him on the cross and in the resurrection as the perfect holocaust." The Pontificale Romanum specifically refers to the altaris holocaustum, and St. John Chrysostom compares the priest with Elias, who called fire down from heaven to consume the victim.[38]

The two-fold elevation of the Consecrated Host and Chalice was not always the practice of the Roman Church. Before the twelfth century, they were elevated together as in the Greek rite. This is still done in what is called the minor elevation. However, after the attacks on the Real Presence by the heretic Berengarius, the Church decreed that both Consecrated Host and Chalice should be exposed for the veneration of the faithful.

After the elevation the priest directs his prayer to the Real Presence on the altar, the Unde et memores Domine referring to the injunction of Our Lord to "Do this in commemoration of me." In compliance with this charge, Christ's oblation of himself is offered to God by the priest. (nos servi tui) and by the congregation (et plebs tua sancta). The second part, the Supra quae, entreats that the oblation be graciously accepted though offered by sinful hands. If the gifts are to be acceptable, they must be presented with the sentiments of Abel the innocent and just, of Abraham the humble and obedient, and of Melchisedech, dead to the world. Again, these references point to the perpetual nature of the Sacrifice which has been offered in different ways throughout the ages. After this prayers for the Church suffering are offered.

The Nobis quoque peccatoribus is a prayer for the Church militant, that they might have a part with the Church triumphant. The saints here mentioned belong to all the walks of life - an encouragement to all, no matter what their station in life: John the prophet, Stephen the deacon, Matthias the apostle, Barnabas the disciple, Ignatius the bishop, Alexander the pope, Marcellinus the priest, Peter the minorist, Felicitas and Perpetua of the married state Agatha, Lucy, Agnes and Cecilia the virgins, and Anastasis the widow.

After this the priest makes multiple signs of the Cross over the Host and Chalice - the per ipsum - Christ, the God-man is the Mediator between God and man; cum ipso - Christi is one with God; in ipso - Christ is of one essence with God. The signs of the cross indicate that all these effects were accomplished through the original sacrifice of the Cross. All this is said quietly. The priest now raises his voice and says Per omnia saecula saeculorum. the congregation answers with its Amen, as if to say, all that you our sacrificing priest have said and done, we endorse and approve. Up to this point of the Canon, the celebrant has been praying alone. Now the priest and the people are again acting together.

The priest, an alter Christus (another Christ) now extends his hands as did Moses praying for victory; as did Our Lord on the Cross, and likens the sacrifice accomplished to that prefigured by Abel, Abraham and the high priest Melchisedech. This is followed by prayers for the faithful departed, the priest begging admission into Heaven for the dead as well as for those still journeying on the road of life: the Priest asks earnestly for himself and the Faithful the happiness of Heaven.

As the Pusillum[39] points out, the Pater Noster (Our Father) is a splendid summary of ascetics and at the same time a practical guide for wafarers to heaven. Our excessive familiarity with this prayer - despite its being directly provided by the Logos - often leads us to ignore is mataphysical content. The first invocation is addressed to our Father in Heaven and induces a childlike love of God in Heaven, and a brotherly love of our neighbor on earth. The two petitions which follow deal with the objective of our wayfaring: the honor of God and our soul's salvation. For as the same source states, Nomen stands for God himself, in his essence and majesty and the Adveniat regnum tuum for the kingdom of grace here (and as Eckhardt says, primarily in our hearts) and the kingdom of glory hereafter. Next we are introduced to the very best guide for our way through life, doing the will of God. Having provided the principles for the spiritual life, the necessary supplies for the journey are considered Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie (Give us this day our daily bread). We ask for necessary food, for both body and soul. How appropriate that this prayer should just proceed Communion. Next follow the obstacles that beset our journey, Forgive us our sins as we forgive the sins of others. Christ taught us the importance of this repeatedly in the various Gospel parables and finally on the Cross itself. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, or as the French translate it, from the evil one. What better preparation for our souls than to say and believe the contents of this prayer prior to Communion.

One of the seeming inconsistencies of the traditional Mass is that the priest mentions Christ's breaking of the bread prior to consecration, but does not fracture the host until well after the Consecration. The reason for the fracturing of the host after the Pater Noster is that it signifies Our Lord's death. The Sacrifice has occurred. It is followed by placing a particle of the host in the chalice which is significant of the reunion of Our Lord's Body and Blood in the Resurrection.

The Bread of Life is the "Word made flesh." Through the power of the Holy Spirit this earthly bread is remade into the mystical body of Christ - the bread is transubstantiated, re-created as the newly incarnate flesh of the primal victim. But this bread must also be identified with the human being, the sacrificer himself. Man himself is the oblation. In order to truly consume the flesh of Christ, man must first be remade and reformed in the image of Christ. For we are all one body, the body of the Church, of whom Christ is the head. As St. Augustine said, "You have received that which your are; become that which you have received." Man, too, must be transformed -transubstantiated - into the body of Christ, made one with the flesh of the Son. The wheat must be separated from the chaff. As St. Augustine says: "First there is the threshing. Then it is ground, kneaded, baked; in the kneading it is refined, in the baking it becomes solid. Where is your practice of sifting [the flour]? In fastings, in vigils, in exorcisms. Kneading is not done without water: you were baptized. Baking is troublesome but essential. How are you baked? In the fire of temptations which are an intimate part of life" (Sermon on the Day of Easter). Man must be purified and newly formed as a sacrificial offering. In Romans 12:1 St. Paul tells us to "present our bodies as a living sacrifice," and in Corinthians V, 6-7 he writes, "Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new dough." St. Gregory makes this clear: "When a man vows to Almighty God all that he has, all his life, all his knowledge, it is a holocaust"(XX Homily on Ezekiel). Communion follows. St. Leo the Great speaks of Communion in the following terms: "Nothing else is aimed at in our partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ than that we change into what we consume, and ever bear in spirit and in flesh Him in whom we have died, been buried, and have risen" (Sermo 63). St. Cyril of Jerusalem says "in the Eucharist we are made con-corporate, and of the same blood with Christ" (Cateches., 4, Myst). In even stronger terms, St. Symeon the New Theologian says: "when we receive the grace of Jesus Christ our God, we become participants in His Divinity (II Peter 1:4), and when we eat his most pure Body, that is, when we receive communion of the Holy Mysteries, we are of one body with Him, and in truth akin to Him, as also the divine Paul says, For we are members of his body, of His flesh and of His bones (Eph. 5:30), and as St. John the evangelist says, "of His fullness we have all received. Thus by grace we become like unto Him, our man-loving God and Lord, and in soul are renewed from being old, and brought to life from being dead as we were." Mathias Sheeban tells us "Christ is reproduced at the Consecration, that He may unite Himself with individual men in Communion and become one body with them, so that the Logos may, as it were, become man anew in each man by taking the human nature of each into union with His own...we must be overwhelmed with the fullness of the Godhead; we must be deified." Lest the reader think the term deified to strong, consider the declaration of the Council of Trullo: "God, who is offered and distributed for the salvation of souls and bodies, deifies those who receive Him."[40]

Similarly with the wine. Just as Christ Himself so humbled Himself as to be "trodden upon and pressed" in the winepress, allowing the blood to flow from His own side into our chalice, so also man must follow his Lord through the press, threshing out his sins and freeing the Divine within him. After the pressing the skins are discarded. It is Christ who will "lead them, at last to the wine presses where the blood of grapes is poured out (Genesis 49:11). It is this Divine Presence within us that we must press out from our own sinful skins, from out of the raw stalks of our worldliness and pride. In order to truly share the feast of the Eucharist upon the innermost altar of the heart, man must slay the old Adam of self and mingle his blood with the Divine Blood of the true Self, Jesus Christ, for, as St. Augustine points out, "the wine is formed by being pressed, and many individual drops unite in a single flow." Christ dies to the world and gives His blood to man, while man dies to sin and releases the Divine Nature, the spiritual blood, within his own heart. This is a communion wherein the consumer becomes the consumed, the sacrificer becomes the sacrifice, and man and God mingle together as the very water and wine of the chalice.

What follows is the Angus Dei, the Lamb of God. Here the Lamb of God is actually on the altar and the faithful join the priest in yet once again in recognizing the Divine Presence and paying it homage. Subsequent to this the priest thrice declares his unworthyness and communicates.

Communion of the faithful follows, but not before another Confession which implicitly implies a certain atonement. The saying of the Confiteor removes from us the stains of venial sins, and who of us has not let his mind wander during the service. Thus it is that we are allowed to communicate in the purist possible state. Communion literally means "in union with." We are made one with Christ in this act. This brings us back to the essential nature of "at-onement" which is really being made "at-one-with." (Again, atonement also implies being in tune or harmony with.) We actually "partake of God" in order to be born again with Him by means of His life. He has died for us that we might live in Him. "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." The soul's relationship to God is often described by mystics in terms of the Bride and the Bridegroom. This nuptial symbolism is most apt as an expression of communion between the soul and Christ because as it were, we are made one flesh.

As Father Marmion says, "when we assimilate the food of the body, we change it into our own substance, while Christ gives Himself to us as food in order to transform us into Himself. St. Leo teaches us that "participation in the Body and Blood of Christ produces in us none other effect than to make us pass into that which we take. St. Augustine is still more explicit; He makes Christ say: "I am the Food of the strong; have faith and eat Me. But thou wilt not change Me into thyself, it is thou who wilt be transformed into Me." St. Thomas Aquinas also makes this clear: "the principle of arriving at a clear understanding of the effect of the Sacrament, is to judge of it by analogy with the matter of the Sacrament... The matter of the Eucharist is a food; its proper effect must then be analogous to that of food. He who assimilates corporal food transforms it into himself; this change repairs the losses of the organism and gives it the necessary increase. But the Eucharistic food, instead of being transformed into the one who takes it, transforms him into Itself. It follows that the proper effect of the Sacrament is to transform us so much into Christ, that we can truly say: 'I live, not I, but Christ liveth in me'....The efficacy of this Sacrament is to work a certain transformation of ourselves into Christ by means of charity. And this is the fruit proper to It... the property of charity is to transform the one who loves into the object of his love." As St. John said, "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him" (IV,16).

Father Marmion continues: "Without this there is no real "communion". Without this we receive Christ with the lips, it is true, but He means us to be united to Him with mind and heart and will and all our soul, in order that we may share His Divine life in as far as is possible here below, and that, by the faith we have in Him, by the love we bear towards Him, it may be really His life, and no longer our ego that is the principle of our life.... Do not let us lose sight of the fact that Communion is not a human invention but a Divine Sacrament instituted by Eternal Wisdom. Now it belongs to wisdom to proportion the means to the end. If, then, our Divine Savior instituted the Eucharist in order to unite Himself to us and make us live by His life, we may be assured that the Sacrament contains all that is needful to bring about this union" providing we ourselves place no obstacle to its achieving its purpose. This was made clear by Pope Saint Pius X writing on Daily Communion: "Whereas the Sacraments of the New Law, thought they take effect ex opere operato, nevertheless produce a greater effect in proportion as the dispositions of the recipient are better; therefore, care is to be taken that Holy Communion be preceded by serious preparation, and followed by suitable thanksgiving."

Christ gave His body and blood separately at the Last Supper. He did this to signify His death on the Cross, for when the blood is separated from the body, death is certain. That does not mean that actually in themselves the two were separated at the Last Supper, because He was not yet actually dead, only symbolically. For this reason the Mass can be celebrated only under the two species, that both His death and His sacrifice be thereby signified. But the Sacrament can be received under one species. Christ Himself gave His body and blood under one species to the two disciples at Emmaus. While communion was ordinarily distributed under both forms in the early Church, it was administered outside of Mass to the sick and others under the form of bread alone. Infants were given communion only under the form of wine, which is still the practice in some of the eastern Churches. This is of course a disciplinary decision of the Church depending on the needs and various circumstances of the faithful. What is important is that under each species alike is contained the entire Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity.[41]

A brief caveat: the post-Conciliar church frequently proclaims that the Eucharist is a "Sacrament of Unity," meaning by this, the unity of the People of God. It is indeed a Sacrament of Unity, as St. Paul makes clear: For we being many are one bread, one body, all that partakes of one bread" (I Cor. X,17). But this is not a unity of some vague community consisting of Protestants, nominal Catholics and "atheistic Christians." Rather it is, as the Council of Trent makes clear, a unity of the faithful with Christ. As the Council of Trent says: "Our Lord has willed to leave us this Sacrament as a symbol of the intimate union of this mystical body of which He is the Head."

One of the most significant prayers the priest says after communicating is the following: "I will take the Bread of heaven and will call upon the Name of the Lord... What return shall I make to the Lord for all He has given me? I will take the chalice of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord."[42] We have already seen that His Name is an "unblemished sacrifice." Now there is an intimate relationship between the Eucharist and the divine Name - that Name given our Lord when He first shed blood at his Circumcision. (By adding S to the middle of the Tetragammon or Hebrew Jehovah, one gets the name Jesus. This name was so holy that it was forbidden to be pronounced in the Old Dispensation.) The invocation of the Name of Jesus, so often referred to in the Psalms and New Testament, and so frequently on the lips of the saints, is but another way in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is carried forward through our daily lives. The repetition of this Name is itself an oblation, replacing all our wayward thoughts with the divine presence in our hearts.

***

Let us examine some further elements of the Traditional Mass. The chalice symbolizes the heart in which Our Lord's Blood flowed; or according to others, the bitter chalice of his passion; or again, the grave in which he was laid. The pall covering the chalice represents the stone which was rolled across his tomb. The paten represents the vases containing the unguents used to anoint his body. The corporal is the square of fine linen carried in the bursa and placed under the chalice during Mass. It must always be white for it symbolizes the purity of the Virgin from whence Christ drew his terrestrial body. It also symbolizes Christ's passion, for linen acquires its whiteness only after many washings and much travail, as also Christ underwent. It further symbolizes the Church which is the body of Christ present in the world, and finally, the host is placed upon the corporal, and both on the altar, just as the body of Christ united to His divinity was attached to the Cross. It is folded in three, representing the three theological virtues, faith hope and charity, by means of which we are united to God.

The purificator represents the other cloths that were used at His interment; the veil of silk covering the chalice represents the veil of the temple that was torn from top to bottom at the moment of His death; the two cruets represent the vessels which contained the wine and the gall given Him to drink upon the cross. The three altar cloths under the chalice at Mass also represent the shroud in which he was laid - and according to Catherine Emerick there were three cloths used at the time of the Last Supper. Everything on the altar and everything the priest does or says is replete with meaning. Such of course is also true of the novus ordo missae, but in a negative fashion. I say, in a negative fashion, because one must look at precisely those prayers and words which were deleted or changed to understand the nature of this new desacralized rite.

Other symbols used in the Mass that date back to Apostolic times are worthy of mention. Of the sacerdotal vestments: The Amice is symbolic of the linen cloth wherewith in the house of Caiaphas the Jews covered Christ's face, bidding Him in mockery: "Prophesy to us, who is it that struck Thee?"; the alb represents the white garment in which the son of God was mocked in the house of Herod; The linen girdle with which the priest girds himself represents the cord wherewith Christ was bound in the Garden of Olives. The maniple on the priests left arm represents the bonds wherewith Christ was tied to the pillar when he was scourged. The priest takes this off when he leaves the altar to give his sermon because he gives the sermon as Christ's representative - but he services the altar as an alter Christus or another Christ. Or again, it is that maniple of tears intended to wipe away the filth resulting from our attachment to the things of this world. It is not without significance that the novus ordo missae has dropped the use of the Maniple. The stole represents the chains laid upon Our Lord after He was sentenced to death. The chasuble represents, either the purple robe that the soldiers laid upon his shoulder, or the need above all for Charity. It bears upon it the image of the Cross which Our Lord Jesus Christ bore upon His own shoulders.[43]

The colors of the vestments are also significant. White, a symbol of purity and sanctity, is used on festivals of Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin, the Angels, Pontiffs, Confessors, and Virgins. White is of course a symbol of purity. Red which suggests both blood and fire is used to celebrate festivals of the Martyrs. Purple is a penitential color and thus is used in Advent and Lent, and interestingly enough for the death of Kings. Pink is for joy as in the Third Sunday of Advent where the penitential tone is mitigated in anticipation of the birth of Our Lord. Green, which is used for ordinary Sundays and ferias (weekdays) and symbolizes hope, that hope which we have for things unseen. Blue is used for Masses of Our Lady, especially in Latin countries. And Black of course is used at funeral Masses. In the novus ordo black is no longer used.

A word about the magnificence of the priestly vestments. The can be and frequently are worn over the poorest of garments. The Cure of Ars used to spare no expense in decorating the altar or on vestments used in the Mass. One must remember that in wearing them, the priest is an alter Christus. The priest on the altar as an individual is a "nobody." It is Christ who consecrates. In the novus ordo missae, it is the people who consecrate under the presidency of the so-called priest.

***

We have shown then how the Church gathers together all the sacrifices of the Old Testament and incorporates them into the New Covenant. As Father Cochem says: "If our eyes were enlightened by faith, this sacred spectacle of the Mass would fill us with intense joy. For holy Mass is a brief compendium of the whole life of Christ, and a renewal of all the mysteries comprised in it; not, indeed, a fictitious portrayal of past events, but a real and actual repetition of all that Christ did and suffered on earth." Just as Christ is continually sacrificing Himself in heaven for us - perpetually offering to the Father a "clean oblation" of Himself; so also is He continually being born on earth and in us. As one sainted Dominican put it, "it is no use Christ being born on earth, if He is not born in me." At this point it is perhaps useful to consider and provide an example of how one can indeed apply Christ's life to ourselves. According to the Blessed Johannes Tauler, the story of the Flight into Egypt is full of meaning for us. In the Gospel story, the angel warned Joseph that although Herod had died, his son Archelaus had taken the throne and still sought to kill the Christ-child. Tauler viewed this entire drama as taking place within the soul - even though the Herod in our souls is dead as a result of Baptism which engendered the Christ-child within us, Archelaus still continues to live within our souls and still seeks to kill the Christ-child. Thus it is that, that like the Magi, after the encounter with Christ, they had to travel a different path.

Now as we trace the life of Christ in the Mass, let us remember that we must unite ourselves to Him - as Scripture puts it, we must be baptized with Him, must die with Him and must Rise again with Him. As it says in the Epistle for the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." Let us follow the life of Christ in the Mass and see at the same time how the actions of our Exemplar apply to us. Let us remember that our entire spiritual life must be patterned after Him, for he in not only the Truth and the Light, but also the Way. As several saints have put it, "if we would bear Christ, we must become like the Virgin Mary." [44]

As Father Myers puts it, "Christ, head and members, offers the sacrifice, but Christ, head and members, offers himself, and we, in union with our Head are victims too." In this communal meal man and God sacrifice themselves for one another and dwell within one another in a mysterious wedding and divine conjugation. "Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in me." (John XV. 4-5) No wonder then that Christ told us, "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you; he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life... He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him." (John VI. 54. ff).

At this point I think it is obvious that the traditional Mass incorporates all the sacrifices of the Old Testament. It has also been shown - granted in an abbreviated manner - for time and space is limited - how the Mass recapitulates the entire life of Christ, and how by our participation in this rite we are baptized in Christ, die in Christ and are resurrected in Christ. We have also seen how the essence of the Mass was established by Christ and the Apostles, and how every act by the priest, even the smallest detail, is full of meaning, for the rite follows a heavenly model - to use the Scholastic phrase, "as in heaven, so on earth." When we know all this it is obvious that to change the Mass is an inversion - it is to say, that heaven should follow an earthly pattern - it is to say, "as on earth, so we wish it to be in heaven" which is but another aspect of Satan's non serviam. Just as every thing in the traditional Mass is replete with meaning, so also are all the changes. Nothing in the novus ordo is accidental; the elimination of the altar rails, the removal of the tabernacles, the changes in the "form" of the Sacrament, the failure to insist on an altar stone, the changing of the altar into a table with a single covering, the elimination of the Maniple, a president facing the people, communion in the hand with recipient standing - all these things are just as full of meaning as are their contrary in the true Mass. Knowing this, we see how important it is for us to insist on the rite that Christ and the Apostles established, and not some ersatz imitation. Finally, how grateful to God we must be, not only for the priests which continue to provide us with this great sacrament, but also because we have been privileged to persist in being Catholic. With this comes of course the other side of the coin. Much has been given to us; much will be asked of us. It is with fear and trembling that we must approach this most holy of sacraments lest we be condemned along with the man who came to the marriage feast without a wedding garment. We must truly put off the old man and put on Christ.

"Our heart is an altar. On this altar lies the victim: our evil inclinations. The sword destined to slay this victim is the spirit of sacrifice and immolation; the sacred fire which must burn night and day on the altar of our heart is the love of Jesus Christ; the fruitful invigorating breath which inspires and nourishes this sacred fire of love is the Eucharist." Father Arminjon

***

A brief comment on the Catholic practice of making the sign of the Cross. There is of course, nothing in Scripture that speaks to this practice; and it was of course dropped by the Protestants. I have told you how the Mass and Altar are at the center of the world and I have mentioned to you how the priest, and all of us, need to be converted on a daily - even hourly basis. Well, when we make the sign of the Cross, we are as it were lining ourselves up with the Cross and placing ourselves at the center of creation. One should never forget the importance of this act. Let me illustrate its importance by retelling the story of St. Simeon of the Pillar.

St. Simeon was recognized as a great saint by the Christian world of his time. When he died, his body had to be transported twelve miles from his pillar to the Cathedral in Antioch. The crowds of people attending the funeral extended then entire twelve miles from his pillar to Antioch in a column one mile wide - three different histories of his life tell us this. Now St. Simion lived on top of a pillar and was known for the great austerity of his life. He was a wonder worker and the advisor of kings throughout the Eastern world. One day Christ appeared to him on a fiery chariot praising him for his life of prayer and sacrifice and informing him that like some of the saints of the Old Testament, he was to be taken to heaven in this chariot, and that Christ Himself had come to bring this about. St. Simion accepted this without question, opened the gate of his pillar, and was about to step into the chariot. Before doing so however, out of habit, he made the sign of the cross. And much to his surprise, Christ turned into Satan. St. Simion realized that he still lacked sufficient humility and spent the next year standing on one leg as an added penance. Here the habitual making of the sign of the cross saved his soul. How important then it is for us to make the sign of the cross on awaking, or before going to sleep - or for that matter, before initiating any action.

ã R Coomaraswamy, 2001

[1] Some claim that the word priest is not used in the New Testament. This is true. So long, namely as the bloody sacrifices of the Mosaic rites, together with the Aaronic priesthood, the temple of Jerusalem and the various Jewish ceremonies were in evidence, the Apostles discreetly refrained from the use of such words as priest, sacrifice, altar, or church, so that by this contrast they might impress the faithful with the difference between the Jewish religion and the Church of Christ. It was done that no one might think the Apostles were imitating the Mosaic priesthood, abolished by Christ, when the new priesthood had been instituted in its place. But as soon as the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, and the priesthood which could not sacrifice elsewhere but in Jerusalem ceased, the disciples began immediately to use such words as priest, altar, sacrifice. St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, was one of the first to use these words. After him, the erly Fathers of the Church such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Eusebius and Jerome, use the words in all their epistles.

[2] Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, TAN, Rockford, Ill., 1992

[3] "The idols of the Gentiles are silver and gold, the works of the hands of men. They have mouths and speak not: they have eyes and see not" Psalm 113.

[4] Cardinal Manning: "We neither derive our religion from the Scriptures, nor does it depend on them. Our faith was in the world before the New Testament was written." The Temporal Mission of the Church.

[5] The importance of retaining the precise words of Christ relates to their meaning. For example, Christ said “This is my body which is given for you” Christ said that His body is given. He did not say: “It is given to you, “ but “given for you and many others” - not to you, but for you, an offering to God.

[6] Among those responsible is the Jesuit Joseph Jungman. I mention this because many traditional Catholics mistakenly consider him to be orthodox. It is also pertinent that, according to Father Summers, in the black or satanic masses, the priest faces the audience (The History of Witchcraft).

[7] in speciae for the Mass, in genera for the other sacraments.

[8] Novus Ordo theologians actually described the process of creating the new mass as a "desacrelization" and a "dymystification."

[9] Cochem's Explanation of the Holy Mass.

[10] That the sacrifice of Melchisedech was a figure of the Sacrifice of the Mass. St. Paul explains this in his letter to the Hebrews, Chapters VII, VIII, and IX. He expatiates at length on the priesthood of Christ showing that Christ was a priest but not of the order of Aaron, because He was not of the tribe of Levi whose sons alone were ordained to the priesthood. Being of the generation of Juda, from which kings were chosen, Christ was a King and, therefore a priest according to the order of the King-priest Melchisedech. The two priesthoods differed in two things. In the first place, Aaron sacrificed the blood of animals, while Melchisedech offered bread and wine. Secondly, the priesthood of Aaron was temporal and was to terminate, but the priesthood of Melchisedech, or Christ, was eternal, and its institution was sealed with an oath of God concerning which the Psalmist writes: “And the Lord hath sworn and he will not repent. Thou are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech” (Ps. 109:14). St Cyprian tells us “Christ offered that which Melchisedech offere, bread and wine, that is His body and blood” (Lib.2, ca.3). It is of great significance that all references to Melchisedech have been eliminated from the new mass as well as from the new ordination rites.

[11] This sacrifice is described in Levitics, Chapter 16. Actually, two male goats were brought to the high priest. One was sacrificed to the Lord as an offering and the other sent away "living." Origin states that this prefigured Pilate demanding of the Jews that they choose between Christ and Barabbas. It was Barrabas who was sent out into the wilderness bearing with him the sins of the people who cried out and said "crucify, crucify." It was Christ who was offered to God as an offering to atone for sins.

[12] Christ was a priest on the Cross. He is the eternal priest, for He daily makes His offering through the hands of His priests.

[13] The Menorah is "a nine branched candelabra used a Hanukkah commonly referred to as a mannorah, although a more accurate description for it would be "Chanukah". Menorah is actually the word for the candelabra consisting of 6 or 8 branches, which is used in the synagogue. The original temple menorah had seven branches, but the use of seven branches is avoided today so that we might draw a distinction between worship today and worship when the temple was still in existence." Ruth Rosen, Jews for Jesus, A Messianic Jewish Perspective, San Francisco, Calif., 1987.

[14] Rabbi Solomon, a ancient Jewish commentator on the psalms, predicted that the Messiah in the midst of His sufferings would sing this Psalm aloud. (Commentary on the Psalms, Rev. J. Neale and R Littledale, Moseph masters, London, 1884.

[15] St Leo speaks to this in his De Pass. s. 16: by noting that in the Savior’s statement Deus mesu, Deus mesus, ut quid dereliquiste me? (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?) our Savior was not complaining but teaching - Vox ista doctrina est, non querela. “Jesus Christ did not thus speak to the eternal Father to be delivered from death, nor was he speaking of his own abandonment, but of the abandonment of grace, of which all men would have remained deprived if he had not died for our salvation. He was praying then in our name, that we might be delivered from eternal death; in our name also he prayed for his resurrection, to make us also have a share therein. so that he then put himself in our place, and thus prayed not to be abandoned, whilst at the same time he offered up his own death in order to save us from the abandonment that we deserved, and he did not die himself until he had at first made our salvation secure. This is the reason why, towards the end of the psalm, he gives thanks to his Father, and sings the fruits of his victory.”

[16] The English translation of the Third Nocturn for the Feast of the Precious Blood does translate the word acetum (vinegar) as “wine,” and Gerry Metatics in his discussion of the Crucifixion suggests that this is the “fourth cup.” However, others have stressed the fact that this fourth cup was only taken after the Kingdom of God had been established. -donec regnum Dei veniat.. Dionysius the Carthusian commentator points out that Jesus did in fact share food with the Apostles at Emmeus because it was after His resurrection that the Kingdom of God was re-established. The Blessed Olier discusses this at some length and points out that when the priest in Mass consumes the precious Blood, it is Christ who also consumes His own blood, and as the entire Pasque is once again made present, so also is the Resurrection, the establishment of the Kingdom in us ass well as in society. And hence it is here that He partakes of the Fourth Cup.

[17] Unlike the Jewish sacrifices which God often rejected because they were rendered loathsome by the impurity of the offerer, the Sacrifice of Christ is called a “clean” Sacrifice because it cannot be defiled by the sins of the priest.

[18] Gueranger's Liturgical Year, highly recommended by St. Theresa of Liseaux, provides us with the best guide to the recurring liturgical cycles.

[19] It follows that the deletions and changes made to create the novus ordo missae are equally significant.

[20] The "angle-stone" is diamond shaped and placed at the apex of the arch. It is what holds all the other stones of the arch in place.

[21] During the times of persecution the Church did in fact use wooden altars, but whenever possible would say Mass over the tombs of the martyrs as in the catacombs. Altar stones became mandatory from about the middle of the third century. The altar stone may be replaced by a special cloth in which relics are sown. Such is used in the Eastern Churches, in missionary lands, and where priests have to travel distances to say masses.

[22] The Jews rightly have a horror of anything that might distort the meaning of the Torah. thus it is that it is written in Hebrew letters and to even change a letter would be considered a sin. somehow the Jews never felt the need to vernacularize their Torah, much less to mistranslate it in order to bring it into line with "our times." Again, one can look at this in the light of the evening service of Maundy Thursday. Once a year, commemorating the Passion of our Lord, our altars are stripped naked, our tabernacles emptied, and the altar light extinguished. The new Church has made every day a Maundy Thursday It will be argued that the tabernacles have been placed elsewhere in the Church - usually some obscure corner. Even when placed on a side altar, it is n o longer covered with a veil. As on Good Friday, the veil that covered the Holy of Holies has been rent.

[23] It is precisely for this reason that Protestants of every shade of belief can and du use the Novus Ordo Missae in their services and as representative of their beliefs.

[24] The Novus Ordo Missae retains this rite.

[25] Every reference to altar has been removed from the Novus Ordo Missae

[26] As Origin points out, "One should observe in reading the Holy Scriptures how 'to go up' and 'to go down' are employed in each individual passage. For if we were to give diligent consideration, we would discover that almost never is anyone said to have gone down to an holy place nor is anyone related to have gone up to a blameworthy place. These observations show that the divine Scripture was not composed, as it seems to most, in illiterate and uncultivated language, but was adapted in accordance with the discipline of divine instruction..." Homily XV on Genesis

[27] In ancient times the Catechumens were dismissed. Only the baptized could participate in the sacrificial aspects of the rite.

[28] This important point is clarified by Dr. Nicholas Gihr (The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass): "yet the Offertory has not exclusively for its object the mere elements of bread and wine, but also the real object of the Sacrifice, the true and only Sacrifice of the New Law, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ, which by Consecration takes the place of the former substance of bread and wine, and thus becomes present on the altar. The Church, therefore, does not wait until the change of substance has taken place to offer to the Divine Majesty the Divine Victim; - no, she already now offers the real Victim to the Divine Majesty, regarding, as it were, the approaching Consecration of the sacrificial elements as if already passed... From this point of view it can be explained why the Church already designates her Oblation by such names (immaculata hostia, calix salutaris, sancta sacrificia illibata, sacrificium laudis, etc), as in their full sense are applicable only to Christ's sacrificial Body and Blood, - and why by reason of this Oblation she expects as great effects and fruits as can by no means be ascribed to the offering of some bread and wine, but only to the offering of the Divine Victim....From the liturgical prayers of the Offertory, therefore, we may by no means conclude that the offering of the elements of bread and wine is a real sacrifice or constitutes a part of the Eucharistic Sacrifice." In similar manner, the Sacrifice of Christ started from the moment of His conception and culminated on the Cross. Similarly, St. Alphonsus says regarding the Offertory: "the second condition, [for the Sacrifice of the Mass is the] or the oblation, was also fulfilled at the moment of the Incarnation, when Jesus Christ voluntarily offered himself to atone for the sins of men" (The Mass).

[29] It is not blessed during funeral masses because they are said primarily for those in pergatory.

[30] Pope St. Pius X spoke of Mary as "Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament" Mary can truly say: "Come eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you" (Prov. 5, 9), for were it not for Mary, we should not have Him who is present in the Blessed Sacrament..." At the Banquet of Love, "there we are refreshed with the body and blood which He assumed from Mary." Quotes taken from the Pusillum, Saterday, First Week after Pentecost. Finally, St. Alphonse Liguori quotes the Abbot Arnold of Chartres with approval: "Since the flesh of Mary was not different from that of Jesus, how can the royal dignity of the Son be denied to the Mother?" (Explanation of the Salve Regina, TAN publ.)

[31] The "red heifer" has been previously referred to. While it is usually said to prefigure Christ, there are problems with such an interpretation. A heifer is a virginal female cow which is sacrificed - totally immolated - before the high priest. According to Catherine Emerick, when the Blessed Virgin was presented to the Temple, she had a red cap with horns placed upon her head and received the blessing of her father. Josephus tells us that on the night before the temple was destroyed, a red heifer gave birth to a lamb in the temple precincts. Now, it is through the sacrifice of the red heifer that the Aronic (Jewish) priesthood is purified, and indeed, there is talk of the Jews who wish to rebuild the temple reinstituting this sacrifice as it is only by doing so that this "priesthood" could ever by purified. Now, of course, Our Lady's presence at the Cross was a total immolation, and she is the mediatrix of all graces.

[32] Theodoret, In Cant., cap 3 satates: "by eating of the members of the Spouse and drinking of His blood they will attain to nuptual communion with Him."

[33] A Franciscan manual of daily meditations for priests.

[34] The concept of mortification is highly significant, for in mortifying ourselves we becme dead to the world and alive to Christ. The primary means of mortification are fasting and prayer. The old fast from midnight - now reduced in the novus ordo to one hour, was a highly efficacious discipline which prevented many acts that are offensive to God.

[35] In The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (the fourth version of Paul VI's Missale Romanum) promulgated March 27, 1975, the following Query and response is to be found as a footnote to paragraph 1439 (Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979, Litugrical Press): Query: What is the genuine meaning of the offertory rite? The description of the offertory of the Mass, it is point out, speaks only of the preparation of the gifts and of placing them on the altar, of the people's offerings for the church, and for the poor, but nothing about the offering of the sacrifice. Reply: History teaches that the offertory rite is an action of preparation for the sacrifice in which the priest and ministers accept the gifts offered by the people. These are the elements for the celebration (the bread and wine) and other gifts intended for the church and the poor. The preparatory meaning has always been regarded as the identifying note of the offertory, even though the formularies did not adequately bring it out and were couched in sacrificial language. The new rite puts this speciffying note in a clearer light by means of both the active part taken by the faithful in the presentation of the gifts and the formularies the celebrant says in placing the elements for the eucharistic celebration on the altar: Not 6(1970) 37, No. 25. "Query: Does it not seem that the suppression of the prayers that accompanied theoffering of the bread and wine has impoverished the offertory rite? Reply. In no way. The former prayers: Suscipe Sancte Pater... and Offerimus tibi Domine... were not accurate expressions of the genuine meaning of the "offertory" rites but merely anticipated th meaning of the true and literal sacrificial offering that is present in the eucharistic prayer after the consecration, hen Christ becomes present on the altar as victim. The new formularies for the gifts bring out the giving of glory to God, who is the source of all things and of all the gifts given to humanity. they state explicitly the meanig of the rite being carried out; they associate the value of human work, which embraces all human concerns, with the mystery of Christ. The offertory rite, then, has been restored through that explicit teaching and shines forth with new light: ibid. It is indeed sad that for almost 2000 years we used inadequate formularies!

[36] According to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, "Sacred Scripture describes a twofold priesthood, one internal and the other external... Regarding the internal priesthood, all the faithful are said to be priests, once they have been washed in the saving waters of Baptism... Hence we read in the Apocalypse: Christ hath washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father(Apoc. I, 5,6)." This is very different from the "external priesthood" which "does not pertain to the faithful at large, but only to certain men who have been ordained and consecrated to God by the lawful imposition of hands and by the solemn ceremonies of holy Church." This distinction is important because, according to the General Instruction (rubrics) of the Novus Ordo Missae, it is all the faithful who "consecrate" while in the traditional Mass, it is only the (external) priest, acting in persona Christi, who can effect the consecration.

[37] St. Vincent de Paul taught that "the dignity of a priest is so great because a priest, as a priest, has no personality of his own; he leaves it aside to put on that of Christ." (St. Vincent de Paul, Guide for Priests, Rev. Joseph Leonard, C.M.) Similarly, Cardinal O'Connell of Boston has said "there is no such thing as the personality... of a parish priest. Personal qualities are subject to change. These are transient things...(In Mysterious Ways, Random House, 1911). This shows the absurdity of attending a Mass that one likes because of the manner in which a priest says it. As st. Ambrose said, "a priest shall be to thee as one not to be valued for his outward appearance, but for his office" (On the Sacraments). Similarly, when we approach the altar rail, we leave, or should leave behind, not only our passions (anger, envy, etc.), but also our own personalities charming or otherwise. "My God, I am not worthy to receive You. Only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

[38] Matthias Scheeban, The Mysteries of Christianity, B. Herder, 1946

[39] The Pusillum is a well known manual of daily meditations for priests.

[40] Matthias Scheeban, The Mysteries of Christianity, B. Herder, 1946

[41] The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. There are some points of difference between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and Sacrifice. The efficacy of the Sacrifice lies in it being offered, and of a Sacrament in its being received. The Eucharist as a Sacrament increases our merit, and gives to the soul all the advantages that food gives to the body. As a Sacrifice the Eucharist is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction. While the Eucharist as a Sacrament benefits by reason of being received only by the person who communicates and obtains graces and blessings for others only through the goodness of God. As a Sacrifice, the Eucharist is offered for the benefits the whole Catholic Church, and its satisfactory power is extended to all faithful Christians living and dead. Lastly, the chief end of the Holy Eucharist as a Sacrament is our own sanctification, while its chief end as a Sacrifice in the Mass is the supreme worship of God.

[42] dropped from the Novus Ordo.

[43] According to Father Summers, the removal or inversion of the cross on the chasuble is characteristic of a black or satanic mass (The History of Witchcraft).

[44] “If anyone wishes to know how the bread is changed into the Body oif Jesus Christ I will tel him The Holy Ghost overshadows the priest and acts on him as He acted on the Blessed Virgin Mary” (St John Damascene). Again, God, when He descends on the altar, does no less than Hed did when He bacame man for the first time in the womb of the Virgin Mary.” (Both Quoted by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P, The Wonders of the Mass.