Written in mid-2000, this article from the archives of ‘Catholic’ examines the New Mass. Its author is Father P. D. Mueli, S.T.D., U.J.D., Ph. L., LL.B., Adv. Rotalis, who was a priest of the Diocese of Auckland, New Zealand. At the time of writing, the words of consecration had been changed, something remedied under Pope Benedict XVI in 2006.
Fr. Mueli circulated his article as a discussion paper, inviting refutations of it. He makes the obvious point that the Mass can only be valid if the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is confected validly, and follows with an explanation of a sacrament.
As Silvester Donald McLean, editor of ‘Catholic’ wrote upon publishing the article, “Fr Mueli was highly qualified, and whether one agrees with his thesis or not, it certainly carries some weight.”
This article forms part of our series, Contra Novus Ordo Missae
There are four arguments concluding to the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae – New Order of Mass (NOM). This paper will deal with one of them. Of the four, one is so cogent as to exclude all possibility of refutation. It is watertight. It is as follows:
The Mass is rendered valid when the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is confected validly. Holy Eucharist has been confected validly when there is present, no longer bread and wine, but the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If, after whatever the priest has done, the bread and wine are unchanged, the sacrament has not been confected and consequently, there is no Mass.
How to tell if there are only bread and wine there in front of you or the Body and Blood of Christ? One way is to examine and analyse the steps taken up to the moment when the Body and Blood should be there.
To comprehend quite what that might entail we have to know something about the sacraments. Sacraments are signs. The job of a sign is to signify. It signifies something other than itself.
There is a piece of wood on a post, at the beginning of this road where I am presently typing this explanation. On it is written: ‘Rangiwai Road’. The wood and the writing constitute a sign. It signifies that the strip of tarseal the sign is pointing to is a road called Rangiwai Road.
The sign did not produce Rangiwai Road. Ordinary signs do not produce the things they signify. Ordinary signs do all that is expected of them by simply signifying whatever it is they are designed to signify.
Sacraments are different. They are very special signs that not only signify, but actually produce or effect the thing they signify. They bring into being the very thing they signify, which is a grace of some kind.
On this very matter, the Supreme Pontiff, Leo XIII taught:
“All know that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify. 1
An easily understood example of that is provided by the Sacrament of Baptism. Like all other sacraments, it is a sign. The sign is made up of two things, water and words. The water is called the matter of the sacrament, while the words “I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” are called the form.
All sacraments are made up of matter and form, and these together make the sign which is the sacrament. The application of matter and form to the recipient produces in the recipient the effect which the sacrament is signifying.
In the case of Baptism, the water is poured over the person to be baptised. While the water is being poured, words are said which signify the end or goal intended by the pouring of the water.
The two things together, i.e., the pouring of the water and the saying of the words, signify the cleansing of the recipient.
Because all that is done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, it is clear that we are not dealing with just ordinary ablutions. This kind of cleansing is very special because it cleanses one of sin which blocks our going to heaven. That it does this is clear from Our Lord’s words: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5)
All of the sacraments give a grace that is special to that sacrament and not given by any other. Since there are seven sacraments, that means that there are seven special graces. The special grace of Baptism is, as mentioned above, the cleansing from sin, original sin in a baby, original sin and actual sin in the case of an adult. The term used to describe all that is inward justification.
What I have called a special grace is known by other names too. It is sometimes referred to as the ‘sacramental grace’. Occasionally you might see it referred to as the ‘crowning effect’ of the sacrament, or perhaps the ‘power of the sacrament’ or the ‘virtue of the sacrament’. The grace proper to the sacrament’ is another term used. These terms all amount to the same thing.
Theologians prefer to refer to this special grace as the res sacramenti, two Latin words which may be translated as the reality of the sacrament, which means the grace proper to that sacrament.
The reality of the sacrament is the reason the sacrament was instituted in the first place. The sacrament was instituted to communicate the reality of the sacrament to the recipient. If it does not do that, the ‘sacrament’ is not a sacrament at all. In other words, it is invalid.
There are various ways of rendering a sacrament invalid. One way would be to use invalid matter. If I try to baptise someone with wine in place of water, I will not succeed in baptising that person.
For some years some Dioceses in the United States used invalid matter in confecting the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. They used what was described in the account of it as cookie mixture on the principle that bread is boring, but cookies are liked by everybody. It does not matter what their motive was, though the sheer fecklessness of that particular aberration is downright amazing, it of suffices that they used invalid matter. Cookies are certainly invalid matter. the Astonishingly, the perpetrators of that continuing sacrilege shewed themselves contumacious when Rome intervened – several times.
Another way of rendering a sacrament invalid would be to get the form wrong and to get it wrong in such a way as to alter the meaning.
If instead of saying: I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, I say: I baptise thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and if I intend by that to make our heavenly Mother the equal of God, I am altering the meaning of the form and rendering null null the sacrament I set out to administer.
The Arians, 4th and 5th century heretics who denied that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, used the following as a rite of Baptism: I baptise thee in the name of the Father who is greater and of the Son who is less and of … etc. Anybody who emerged from that ‘Baptism’ emerged unbaptised.
Our concern however is with the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, and specifically as it is mediated to us in the vernacular.
Has anything happened to it to make it invalid so that instead of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being given at the Communion there is, in fact, being given mere bread?
Quite a few things have happened to it since the NOM came in. There is no need to recount the frivolous and repeated tinkering to which this, the most precious treasure consigned into our keeping by God, has been subjected. It suffices to go straight to the original sacrilegious blow dealt this most sacred sacrament in which there is given us the very author of grace, Our Lord Himself.
The original blow was to alter the form to such a degree that it no longer signifies the res sacramenti.
The res sacramenti (i.e. the reality and grace proper to the sacrament, or the effect of the sacrament) of Holy Eucharist is “the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation.” Those are the words of St Thomas Aquinas. This teaching of St Thomas was ratified by the sacred Council of Trent (1545-63). 2
In a chapter entitled “The Reason for the Institution of This Most Holy Sacrament” we read: “He (Christ) wished it (the Eucharist) to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body of which He is head and to which He wished us to be united as members by the closest bond of faith, hope and charity.” 3
Prior to Trent, the Council of Florence (1439) expressed the same doctrine in these words:
“The effect of this sacrament, which is brought about in the soul of him who receives it worthily, is to unite him to Christ…. (T)hrough this grace a man becomes incorporated into Christ and united with His members…” 4
The form of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist is:
“This is my body. This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.”
Both the Councils of Florence and Trent specify the same identical form of words. A change that alters the meaning of the form has been introduced into those words which are said over the wine. Instead of “which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins” we now find the following: “It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”
To comprehend the damage which has been done we must identify in each form precisely what part of the form signifies the res sacramenti, that is to say, what part of the form signifies the unity (or union) of the Mystical Body.
To express that at greater length, what we are looking for is where in the form is the res sacramenti?
What in the form signifies that the person who receives this sacrament worthily becomes incorporated or more strongly incorporated, into the Mystical Body, that thus the bond of the communicant’s union with Christ, the head, is solidified and strengthened?
Similarly, what in the form signifies the strengthening of the close bond of spiritual union that exists between the communicant and every one of the many who are his fellow-members of the Mystical Body? In other words, as in the preceding paragraph, where in the form is the res sacramenti?
The answer to those questions may be found by examining each part of the form. If we take the ancient form first we can see that the first few words “This is the chalice of my blood” do not signify the mystical body or the union of the mystical of a full stop after covenant, the body, but instead the body and blood of Christ, which, when the form is completed, are present really and substantially.
The next few words: “of the new and eternal testament” do not bring out the signification of the Mystical Body either. These words contrast the sacrifices of the Old Law with Christ’s unique atoning sacrifice of the New Law on Calvary, the mystery of mankind’s redemption by the Son of God made man. What these words signify is true propitiation.
The next phrase in the consecration form: “the Mystery of Faith” signifies the doctrine of the real presence, not therefore the Mystical Body.
Next in order, let us look at the words “which will be shed”. These words quite obviously denote sacrifice.
What therefore are we to say of the only words left in the form? The only words left are “for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” The remission of sins is a prerequisite for our initial incorporation into the Mystical Body and the reinstatement as living members, through what is called The Second plank after Shipwreck, viz. the Sacrament of Penance, of those who have lost sanctifying grace.
Consequently, the remission of sins can be said to be the disposing cause of the union of the rnembers of the Mystical Body, which union is effected by the actual reception, not just of grace, but of the very author of grace Himself.
What of the words: “For you and for many?”
These words are to be found, some in Matthew, some in Luke. 5 They serve to declare the fruit of His passion. If we consider the value of the passion we see that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all, but if we look to the fruit that mankind has received from it we shall find that it pertains not to all but to many of the human race.
When therefore Our Lord said “For you”, he meant either those who
were present, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with
whom He was speaking, or those chosen, i.e. the elect, from among the Jewish people. When he added “and for many”, he wished to be understood the remainder of the elect, then, and to the end of time.
In this connnection The Catechism by Decree of the Council of Trent, published by command of Pope Saint Pius V has:
“With reason therefore were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did his Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” 6
If therefore we were to identify, in the consecration form, the words which signify the union of the mystical body, we would be constrained to settle for the words: “for you and for many.”
Let us examine the consecration formula (form) of the NOM as it presents in the vernacular. It reads:
“This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”
There are some obvious differences such as the synonym cup for chalice. There is also the division of the form into sentences with the use of a full stop after covenant, the elimination of the relative pronoun – which, in the immemorial form and a beginning of a new sentence with the words, “It will be …”
That alone is fraught with consequences which will not be treated here, for our concern, presently, is with the res sacramenti, i.e. the grace proper to the sacrament, i.e. the sacramental grace or the special effect. The grace proper to the sacrament must be signified if it is to be effected.
An analysis of the new form reveals that nowhere in it is there to be found signified the res sacramenti. The words “for you and for many” which signified the res sacramenti in the immemorial form have been excised, and other words, viz. “for you and for all”, have been substituted in their place. That substitution was and continues to be an egregious error. As long as it is around it is doing horrendous damage.
It is impossible for the words “for you and for all” to signify the union or the unity of the Mystical Body. It is impossible because “all” are not now, have not been, nor ever will be members of the Mystical Body.
Pope Pius XII instructs us, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, as to who are members of the Mystical Body. It may suffice to make mention of who are not members of the Mystical Body because if there are some who are not, then obviously, not all are.
Unbelievers and unbaptised persons are not members. Pius XII writes:
“Only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority.”
Heretics, schismatics and apostates are automatically excluded, but not sinners. Pius XII writes:
“Schism, heresy or apostasy are such of their very nature that they sever a man from the Body of the Church; but not every sin, even the most grievous, is of such a kind.”
Since this union of the Mystical Body is the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist, it must be signified in the words of the words of the sacramental form. If it is not signified by the words (form) the sacrament, the effect, the res sacramenti, is not had. If the effect is not had, then that which purports to be a sacrament is in fact no sacrament at all. In a word, the ‘sacrament’ is invalid
“That form consequently, cannot be considered apt or sufficient for a sacrament which omits what it must signify.” 7
What started out as bread and wine at the beginning of whatever took place at the altar is still bread and wine at the end of whatever took place at the alar, more appropriately called now, since it bears only bread and wine, a table.
End notes
- Apostolicae Curae, 1896 ↩︎
- Summa Theologica III, Q 73, Art 3. ↩︎
- Council of Trent. Sess. XIII, Ch 2. Decree Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist. ↩︎
- Decree for the Armenians, from the Bull Exultate Deo, November 22, 1439 (Denz. No 698) ↩︎
- Matthew 26:28 and Luke 22:20. ↩︎
- Catechism of the Council of Trent, explanation of the form of the Eucharist. ↩︎
- Decree for the Armenians, from the Bull Exultate Deo, November 22, 1439 (Denz. No 698) ↩︎
Leave a Reply