Hic est enim Calix Sánguinis mei, novi et ætérni Testaménti, mystérium fídei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum. Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis.
For 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. As often as ye do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.
Porque éste es el Cáliz de mi Sangre, nuevo y eterno Testamento, misterio de la fe: que será derramada por vosotros y por muchos para la remisión de los pecados. Cada vez que esto hiciereis, lo haréis en memoria mía.
St. Ambrose of Milan (+397), that great Father of the early Church, bishop, theologian, good pastor of the Lord’s flock (and who baptized Augustine of Tagaste) wrote an important two-part treatise on the sacraments: De Mysteriis and De Sacramentis.
The Catholic Encyclopædia presents its first part, On the Mysteries, thus:
The writer explains in the commencement of this treatise that his object was to set forth, for the benefit of those about to be baptized, the rites and meaning of that Sacrament, as well as of Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. For all these matters were treated with the greatest reserve in the Early Church, for fear of profanation by the heathen, and it was the custom, as in the case of the well-known Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, to explain them to the catechumens during the latter part of Lent.
Treatises of this kind possess therefore a special interest, as in them we find clearly stated the full teaching of the Church at the time when those addresses which have come down to our times were drawn up.
St. Ambrose goes through and explains the greater part, first of the rites usual at the time of solemn Baptism, pointing out the deep truths and mysteries underlying these outward things. He then treats Confirmation, referring to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; and lastly, speaks of the Holy Eucharist, especially setting forth the doctrine of the Real Presence.
We would do well to harken to the voice of the early Church Fathers, whose doctrine is so abundant, so unambiguously clear, and so pious!
The Latin word, sacraméntum / sacrament, is of Greek origin, mystérion / mystery. They are actually synonymous in meaning, and are therefore theologically interchangeable. Though the use of the word mystérion is much more common in Eastern Christianity whereas in Western Christianity the word sacraméntum has been more prevalent.
But the fact of the matter is that both terms essentially consider the same reality: that of God’s merciful interventions in history in order to redeem a fallen mankind. This is precisely what in theological terms we call salvation history.
And yet, not all liturgical actions celebrate sacraments, but they always celebrate the divine mysteries. For this very reason, therefore, we can likewise affirm that indeed, not all liturgical actions celebrate one of the seven sacraments per se, yet they are always sacramental in nature, precisely because the divine mysteries are always celebrated.
The various liturgical traditions of celebrating the Divine Office—organization of and chanting of antiphons and the 150 psalms, hymns, readings from Sacred Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, etc., is the primary example of this. Other sacred actions, such as the various blessings of persons, items, places, etc., are other examples of sacramentals, without actually celebrating the sacraments.
Another way to say it would be to affirm that not all sacramentals are sacraments, but all sacraments are sacramental, and both celebrate the divine mysteries.
So, the mysteries or the sacraments indeed are of divine-apostolic origin, liturgical sacred signs that communicate—each mystery or sacrament in a particular way—the grace of redemption. But said grace of redemption is not dispensed in a spatial vacuum, but rather in history.
It’s precisely through the celebration of Christ’s mysteries or sacraments in the sacred liturgy, that salvation takes place in history, hence the term salvation history.
This same reason is also what makes the liturgy so vitally and decisively important: we are objectively redeemed and saved through the divine mysteries or sacraments dispensed in the liturgy.
In other words, we are saved liturgically, in a manner of saying. To underestimate the absolutely crucial importance of the Church’s sacred liturgy, whereby the grace of Christ’s redemption is dispensed to us, poor sinners, is nothing less than diabolical.
That being said… best to watch out for and be wary of “liturgical reforms” that objectively suppose a rupture with the Church’s authentic liturgical traditions, Eastern or Western…
In Eastern Christianity, the divine mysteries are celebrated in beautiful, elaborate, and quite solemn Divine Liturgy rites—such as the Byzantine liturgy or the liturgy of Ss. Basil and John Chrysostomos—which stress the dynamic nature of the sacraments, that is, they are celebrated not in some static conception but rather with pious commemoration of the redemptive interventions of God in history.
And so for example, during the consecration in Eastern rite liturgies, the celebrant will chant or recite three times: Lord, send us the Holy Spirit at this Third Hour of Apostolic glory. So merciful Thou art, do not withdraw Him from us, but restore us, I implore Thee.
In this way, at the consecration of the Eucharistic species in which the Real Presence of Christ is upon the altar of Sacrifice, Eastern Divine Liturgy dynamically commemorates the liturgical Hour of Tertiam (Terce), when according to the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and the Apostles at Pentecost.
It is most fitting since, as in Western rites, it’s the power of the Holy Ghost which performs the miracle of transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Real Presence of Christ’s sacrificed Body and Blood.
In Western Christianity, in the various traditional Western rites, the divine mysteries or sacraments are likewise celebrated in beautiful, elaborate and indeed solemn liturgies. The venerable traditional Roman rite (up to the 1962 books, since after 1969 Paul VI introduced a new rite), the Ambrosian rite, the Benedictine rite, the also ancient Visigothic-Mozarabic rite proper to Spain, the Dominican rite, etc., each in their own rich diversity, celebrate the same Catholic faith.
It is perhaps in the Prefaces for Mass where the dynamic nature of the divine mysteries or salvation history is more perceivably present in the Western rites.
For example, the beautiful Preface for the Feast of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the traditional Roman rite:
Specifically, where it says Who with the Oil of gladness didst anoint Thine only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, as Priest forever and King of all: that by offering Himself on the altar of the Cross a stainless Victim to appease Thee, He might accomplish the mysteries of man’s redemption…
Thus we come to salvation history’s summit. A particularly beautiful and dynamic description of the mysteries of man’s redemption is, precisely, presenting the Holy Mass as a sacramental Sacrifice:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Anointed eternal High Priest by the Father, with the Oil of gladness, a representation of the Unction of the Holy Ghost as prefigured in psalm 44, who offers Himself as the sacrificial Lamb or Victim, taking away the sins of the world on the altar of the Cross.
Let the dear readers ponder very carefully—and very gratefully—this perfect and sublime expression: the altar of the Cross. This is precisely what the Mass essentially is.
This is precisely the reason that the Catholic notion of Mass cannot be equivalent to the Lord’s Supper, as the General Instruction of the (Novus Ordo) Roman Missal clearly states in no. 27: In the Mass or the Lord’s Supper…
Sorry, but no. And to think that this expression, in different numbered paragraphs throughout the years, has been consistently present—without correction—since 1969!
What is more, the sacramental Sacrifice of the Cross, or the Sacrifice of the Mass, is always celebrated theologically towards God (versus Deum) and never towards the people (versus populum), even if the altar (or Novus Ordo table-altar) is physically facing the congregation.
And yet, for all the sublime realty that is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven, it’s vitally important to stress—though it may take us by surprise—that what redeems us, poor sinners, is not properly the Mass in and of itself, but rather the divine mystery of Christ’s priestly, self-giving Love as a most Holy Sacrifice on the Cross, of which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is its most august sacrament.
In other words, the divine mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross is what objectively redeems us: God, the eternal Word and Son, Made Man in history, his sacred Human nature painfully sacrificed for us and for our salvation on the Roman Cross, though suffering Personally as God.
But the Mass, strictly speaking, is not absolutely necessary if Our Lord had not willed it, any more than creation was not necessary, indeed, that nothing is necessary in God.
If God wills something, it’s because He is Charity or Love, and because it is good. God is absolutely free and has no need nor is obligated to anything.
If Our Lord, on the evening of Holy Thursday, willed to institute the most Holy Eucharist as a sacrament of the Real Presence of the divine mystery of his priestly and most Holy Sacrifice on the Cross—his Body to be given up, his Blood to be shed for many—He did so, not because He had to, but because he freely, full-willingly, and lovingly wanted to, for our sake.
Thus, the mystery of faith celebrated on the altar is not only what Our Lord did for us on the Cross, but also why he did so: the indescribable depths of his merciful Love for us.
Mystérium Fídei!
And so we come, again, to the ever crucially important lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi / the law of prayer is the law of belief, and the law of living that belief. In the traditional Roman rite, during the consecration of the wine to Blood, the words mystérium fídei are inserted within the very words of consecration:
Hic est enim Calix Sánguinis mei, novi et ætérni Testaménti, mystérium fídei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum. Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis.
For 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. As often as ye do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.
The phrase mystérium fídei was added to the Lord’s words of consecration of the wine in the Chalice at some time before the VI century, perhaps by Pope St. Leo I, the Great (440-461) and possibly in reaction to the denial by dualistic gnostic Manichaeism of the goodness of material things, as an expression of the Catholic Church’s most firm belief that salvation comes through Christ’s material Body and Blood, and thus through participation in the sacrament which makes use of a material element.
But to insert it immediately after the Chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal Testament, manifests that indeed, the mystérium fídei of Christ being the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, of all things.
Through Him, with Him, and in Him, the divine revelation has reached its plenitude, that all other divine mysteries of faith—Old and New Testaments—are present in Him, precisely because He is really present on the altar of the Cross.
In the Novus Ordo Missæ introduced by Paul VI in 1969, the phrase mystérium fídei was taken out of that precise context and placed afterwards.
Various and ever more numerous memorial acclamations of the faithful that follow the consecration and the recontectualized mystérium fídei—deemed to increase active participation—suggest that the mystery of faith refers, in its new postconciliar context, to the entire mystery of salvation through Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension, which is made present in the celebration of the Eucharist.
This conception of the Eucharist may be interpreted correctly, since it is a reflection of what in John 20:28 refers to Christ as risen and as still bearing the indelible marks of his Passion.
Fine. But why make needless distinctions in the liturgy between the mystérium fídei of Christ’s Real Presence with all the other mysteries of redemption?
Interestingly, an alternative memorial acclamation authorized in Ireland, My Lord and my God, was disapproved of by Paul VI for seemingly concentrating on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, rather than on Eucharistic sacrifice as a whole. Again, why make needless distinctions?
The ironic thing in all this tampering with the Church’s sacred liturgy, by taking out of traditional context the mystérium fídei, is that in and of itself, there is in principal nothing erroneous nor heretical in having done so. In fact, it’s keeping with the traditional Eastern rite dynamic conception of the divine mysteries of faith, as mentioned above. And not at all foreign to Western rites, as we have seen.
But paradoxically, this tampering with mystérium fídei has proven to be pastorally highly imprudent. Why?
Because it has displaced the traditional Roman rite context—that of the Real Presence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross, in the august Eucharistic sacrament of Christ’s Body given up and Christ’s Blood shed for many, for the remission of sins—thereby providing a de facto open door to a different—and un-Catholic—understanding of transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine, indeed, of the liturgy itself.
Moreover, other anthropocentric liturgical novelties have contributed to a lessening of belief in the mystérium fídei of the Real Presence of a sacrificed Christ.
In the Novus Ordo Missæ, with the mystérium fídei placed after the consecration of the wine to Blood, with the faithful’s various acclamations—yes, though allusive to the most important mysteries of salvation, Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension—as far as I am aware, none of those popular acclamations include a reference to Christ’s Real Presence on the altar of the Cross.
And, lest we forget, the orientation of the altar in the Novus Ordo is no longer ad Oriéntem / towards the East, from whence Christ the King—at Christmas and on the Last Day of Universal Judgement—through the bowels of the mercy of our God, in which the Orient from on high hath visited us (cf. Benedíctus at Lauds).
So, celebration is no longer versus Deum / towards God, it is no longer towards the Crucifix in the center, but rather versus pópulum / towards the people, alas, celebrating their wonderful selves.
It is therefore presented less an altar of sacrifice than it is a community meal on a table. Protestants will find this much more appealing, and unwary Catholics will no longer be able to discern what they are really being deprived of at… the Eucharist.
For starters, the Novus Ordo rubrics, in an quasi-obsession for elimating ritual gestures deemed too repetitive, bid the priest to first show the consecrated Host and consecrated Chalice to the people, before he himself genuflects only once for each Eucharistic specie. The people of God (alas, sometimes more “people” than “of God”) in first place, God in a respectable second place: anthropocentric liturgy.
In the traditional Roman rite, the rubrics bid the priest to first genuflect in adoration immediately upon consecration of each Eucharistic specie, then show each to the people, and then genuflect again. God in first place, the people of God in second place: theocentric liturgy.
Ever so subtle, yet nonetheless…
Of course, it certainly doesn’t contribute to belief in the traditional conception of the mystérium fídei, the Real Presence of Christ sacrificed in the Eucharistic Bread and Wine upon the altar of the Cross… if the faithful are bidden to proclaim, for example, that the mystery of faith they are celebrating is: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again!
The most commonly used acclamation in Spain is: Anunciamos tu muerte, proclamamos tu resurrección, ¡ven, Señor Jesús! / We announce your death, we proclaim your resurrection, ¡come, Lord Jesus!
All perfectly true, indeed! But…
What about the mystérium fídei of Christ’s sacrificial Real Presence already on the altar of the Cross? Is He not already here among us, on the altar, even if not manifested in all his kingly glory and majesty, as will be on the Last Day? To bid that He come (again) when He is already really present on the altar seems a bit awkward…
And, oh yes, by prohibiting—in practice—kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue, we must not forget the abusive imposition as well of… Communion in the hand while standing! That ruthlessly imposed liturgical practice which alone has done the most harm to progressively erode belief in the Real Presence of Christ sacrificed in the Eucharist for our sins.
With the kind patience of readers that have gotten this far, it is nonetheless quite reasonable to ask: so? So what if there has been imprudent liturgical tampering? What of it?
Very well, here’s what of it. If we do not celebrate what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes in the divine mysteries of faith, then we celebrate something else. A curious form of Gnosticism…
If we really believed the mystery of faith in the Real Presence, i.e., if the Real Presence is for real, then how can one possibly celebrate anything else?
What, Christ’s redemptive Sacrifice isn’t enough, that we have to abuse his liturgy in order to celebrate our thing?
I mean, if Christ himself isn’t really present on the altar—or even if He is objectively present due to a valid celebration of the Mass, but is not subjectively present in the minds and hearts of the faithful—then we have, in either case, a “reformed” understanding, you see, of the transubstantiation…
Bread and Wine transubstantiated, as it were, into ideologies: political, social, economic, gender, you name it.
Paraphrasing one of G.K. Chesterton’s brilliant expressions is very easily applicable here: when we no longer celebrate the divine mysteries of our redemption—because we no longer believe in the One and Triune God—then we celebrate just about anything.
Problem is, celebrating just about anything is not going to redeem us and save us from sin and death…
It’s similar also to what St. Augustine said: Outside the Catholic Church you can find anything, except salvation… That’s likewise applicable, of course, to the Catholic liturgy and the Catholic faith.
Hence Novus Ordo ethnic liturgies, with popular ethnic or secular music, complete with antics. Or liberation theology solidarity eucharists, complete with new litanies of saints, including mixing John XXIII along with Ché Guevara. John XXIII may have imprudently convoked the Second Vatican Council, but equating him with the South American revolutionary is a bit of a stretch…
Or the infamous portraying of Our Lord as a sort of 1960s hippy social revolutionary, in the form of a “Wanted” by the authorities poster.
Or revindicating liturgies of, say, a feminist agenda, i.e., female diaconate, priesthood, etc. Not to mention pro-gay agenda “welcoming liturgies.” And all sorts of ideological infestations, ad nauseam.
Given what has transpired since the postconciliar liturgical “reforms,” can anybody honestly deny that the Church’s sacred liturgy, at large, has been ideologically manipulated?
Recalling the Ad Limina Apostolorum visit of the Czech bishops to Rome in 2015, when a very open Francis told them of how puzzled he was at the rivival of the Traditional Latin Mass, of how young people surprisingly were attracted to these old forms, of how this was only a mere passing fad—the Roman Mass of All Ages, mind you!—and of his concern that the Old Rite was being ideologically manipulated… (!)
Oh, really?
And yet Francis, in the Novus Ordo Holy Thursday washing of the feet, dares to “make more clear” the Lord’s gesture of washing the feet of his Twelve Apostles, while conferring on them a sublime participation in his eternal Priesthood!
He not only changes—and therefore manipulates—the meaning of the Lord’s gesture, to a universal service to men, women, Catholic or otherwise, Muslim, etc., he even prescribes in new rubrics what had been a serious liturgical abuse since 1969.
Oh, the irony is beyond staggering…
And so, to sum it all up and put it another way: if we, in the liturgy, do not celebrate the specific mystérium fídei of the Lord’s Real Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist…
If we do not celebrate the mystérium fídei as a sacrament of his most Holy and Priestly Sacrifice on the Cross…
If we do not celebrate the mystérium fídei of the Eucharist, whereby all the other divine mysteries of our redemption are really and truly present at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, precisely because He is really and truly present…
Then we no longer gratefully celebrate semper et ubíque / always and everywhere, with uplifted hearts, what God does for us, to redeem us… but rather what we do ourselves, for ourselves, perhaps occasionally letting God in on things.
Is not this tantamount to the liturgical equivalent of the Fall of Adam and Eve? Instead of celebrating the mystérium fídei, are we not celebrating rather the mystérium iniquitátis / the mystery of iniquity, the perfect description of sin, as the Apostle St. Paul describes it?
Not even an encyclical called Mystérium Fídei by Paul VI (03-IX-1965) could remedy the theological errors brewing at that time, what liturgically was being dismantled in those very years, under his watch.
In conclusion, these clairvoyant words of +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, steadfast defender of the Traditional Latin Mass and Catholic Priesthood, taken from his Spiritual Journey:
We must recognize that proper place is not always given, even in the teaching of the Church, in catechisms, to the Sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated on our altars. There is a tendency to give all recognition to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to make but an accidental allusion to the Sacrifice. This is a great danger for the faith of the faithful, especially in face of the violent attacks of the Protestants against the Holy Sacrifice. The devil is not mistaken when he is out to make the Sacrifice disappear. He knows that he attacks the work of Our Lord at its vital center, and that any lack of esteem of this Sacrifice brings about the ruin of all Catholicism, in every domain.
Excellent article, thank you!
Thank you, Father. I weep for me and my children for all that was lost.
“We must recognize that proper place is not always given, even in the teaching of the Church, in catechisms, to the Sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated on our altars. There is a tendency to give all recognition to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to make but an accidental allusion to the Sacrifice. This is a great danger for the faith of the faithful, especially in face of the violent attacks of the Protestants against the Holy Sacrifice. The devil is not mistaken when he is out to make the Sacrifice disappear. He knows that he attacks the work of Our Lord at its vital center, and that any lack of esteem of this Sacrifice brings about the ruin of all Catholicism, in every domain.”
For those who don’t believe that the intent of the Novus Ordo was to “give all recognition to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to make but an accidental allusion to the Sacrifice” are either willfully ignorant or agree with it. Not only that, but the intent of the Novus Ordo was to offend God by making the liturgy a worship service orientated towards man in order to lay the foundation for the rejection of the true faith necessary for the rise and reign of the Antichrist.
The main problem that I have with the NO mass is the movement of the Mystery of Faith to right before, Christ has died – Christ has risen – Christ will come again. Any and all PROTESTants can say and agree to that. A Catholic can also say and agree to this but, it is not what the Mystery of Faith applies to. The Mystery of Faith applies to TRANSUBSTANTIATION which PROTESTants do not believe. It is sad to think that there are not a few priests who think along these lines. When Christ said, Eat My Body and Drink My Blood many walked away because it was a hard saying. Could this also be the reason that the Last Gospel was removed because, “He came unto His own and they received Him not”.
Dearest Fr. Campo,
Thank you for your beautiful movement in the understanding of the Sacred Mysteries, by virtue of your deeply explanatory use of language. In humility, please allow for the attempt at a Thomistic, metaphysical approach to firstly this paragraph which you wrote:
“I mean, if Christ himself isn’t really present on the altar—or even if He is objectively present due to a valid celebration of the Mass, but is not subjectively present in the minds and hearts of the faithful—then we have, in either case, a “reformed” understanding, you see, of the transubstantiation…”
It is, as it can only be, that our “understanding” of Transubstantiation flows from the objective reality of precisely that which is occurring, as the priest offers his words of Consecration to the Almighty Triune Godhead. “That which is occurring” is ordered precisely, with its very being as metaphysical act, and placed thus within temporal reality, as it is precisely requested by the priest, as he offers “the words of Consecration”, at the behest of the Beloved Son, to the Almighty Father, by the power of the Holy Ghost. In this understanding of, “the words of Consecration”, we know with certitude, that Saint Pope Pius V proclaimed with his Apostolic authority and in his Apostolic Constitution, “Quo Primum”, in July of 1570, which unequivocally commanded from his immanence as the Successor of Peter, that not one word could be omitted nor one word added, to his Roman Missal, until the end of time. In charity, as you well know, he allowed for any ancient rites of the Holy Liturgy that were a minimum of 200 years old, to remain in praxis. There was the penalty of latae sententiae, excommunication, levied to any printers of the text, located “in other parts of the world”, outside the dominion of the Holy See, that would alter in any way, that which he himself commanded in “Quo Primum”, as the Vicar of Christ Jesus with no peer on this earth. This penalty was invoked, “… in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors…”. Addressing the profane attempt of “Paul VI” in, “Missale Romanum”, April, 1969, to somehow indirectly and imprecisely subjugate the Apostolic Authority of Saint Pope Pius V in “Quo Primum”, is an entire argument unto itself, not to be addressed here.
To use a metaphor now, which demonstrates the implacable import of not an addition, nor an omission, of the very words of Consecration, not to mention anything else of the Holy Roman Missal as invoked with the Apostolic authority of Saint Pope Pius V, at the behest of the Council of Trent in “Quo Primum”, the very idea of the meaning of the combination of numbers invoked to open the lock on a safe will be used. As is commonly understood, not only the precise series of numbers themselves, but their combination of placement in an implacably precise order, is required to open the safe. How much more then, of infinite import can it be, that the words of Consecration of the bread and wine, by virtue of the divine Act of Transubstantiation, into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God be, than invoking the proper order of specific numbers to open the lock on a safe? In applying the Thomistic law of non-contradiction, we know with certitude that being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect. The “same respect” here applies to the valid Consecration of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ. If the very words of Consecration, which were implacably placed into time and space by virtue of the Apostolic authority of Saint Pope Pius V, with such tenacity that he invoked the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication for any iota of alteration to the Roman Missal in its totality, are as they are codified in “Quo Primum”, in July of 1570, then they cannot also be, as they were alluded to be in the so called, “Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI”, “Missale Romanum”, in April of 1969, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect. “Same time” here meaning, “now and forever”, as Saint Pope Pius V ordered in “Quo Primum”. To quote “Pope Paul VI” from “Missale Romanum”—
“The words Mysterium fidei have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation.”—
Giovanni Batista Montini, as “Paul VI”, actually and precisely states, “The words Mysterium fidei HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CONTEXT of Christ’s own words…” (emphasis mine). When we remove, “from the context of Christ’s own words…”, and place elsewhere those very words which emanate from the very Mouth of the Eternal Word Himself, our Lord and our God–the Logos–He Who imparts meaning in being to all else that is, we have altered the order of the series of numbers of the combination to the lock, which yields our very own eternal salvation, and as thus this murderer of Truth, Giovanni Batista Montini, who masqueraded as the Vicar of Christ Jesus, leads us to eternal perdition, as the door to eternal salvation thus, remains locked. The Holy Roman Pontiff cannot lead souls to eternal perdition, as if he can, the gates of hell have prevailed, contrary to the command of our Lord and our God in Matthew 16:18. As the “five virgins” returned late with the oil for their lamps and knocked at our Lord’s door, as He answered them in admonishment, but I don’t know you. The consecration of “Paul VI” remains as a consecration but it is not, with metaphysical certitude, the Consecration imparted in time and space, by the Son of God made Man, and codified into being by His true Vicar, Saint Pope Pius V, not to be altered one iota, “forever”.
In closing, to briefly address your closing commentary Fr Campo, you are now quoted again:
“Is not this tantamount to the liturgical equivalent of the Fall of Adam and Eve? Instead of celebrating the mystérium fídei, are we not celebrating rather the mystérium iniquitátis / the mystery of iniquity, the perfect description of sin, as the Apostle St. Paul describes it?
Not even an encyclical called Mystérium Fídei by Paul VI (03-IX-1965) could remedy the theological errors brewing at that time, what liturgically was being dismantled in those very years, under his watch.”
Indeed, Fr Campo, as you clearly state in query,
“are we not celebrating rather the mystérium iniquitátis / the mystery of iniquity, the perfect description of sin, as the Apostle St. Paul describes it?”,
this is precisely what Giovanni Batista Montini created in his false church and that is the celebration of the “Mystery of Iniquity”. Montini as Paul VI, given the preternatural gifts of his father, the Father of Lies, crafted “Mysterium Fidei”, as a near perfect deception using the “Synthesis” of Hegel’s dialectic as his weapon, whose object is the deception of the near perfect application of the “double entendre'”, all invoked to distract and divert from the ontological reality, as reality, that Montini could simply not have been the Vicar of Christ, as the wolf that he was, in spite of his blood tinged sheep’s clothing. Montini, after his conferrer Roncalli–the first imposter who invoked the false council–created a new church, the “conciliar church”, which holds a new religion as the religion of man, preaching a new gospel as the gospel of man in the flesh, and it therefore holds a new faith, the faith in man. All this in preparation for the revelation of the person of the Antichrist, as we know with certitude from Saint Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 2, 3-11, that the “great apostasy” must come first. As Saint Paul clearly stated in that Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 2, and now quoting from the Dewey Rheims copy, verses 3-11:
“3 Do not let anyone find the means of leading you astray. The apostasy must come first; the champion of wickedness must appear first, destined to inherit perdition.[2] 4 This is the rebel who is to lift up his head above every divine name, above all that men hold in reverence, till at last he enthrones himself in God’s temple, and proclaims himself as God.[3] 5 Do not you remember my telling you of this, before I left your company? 6 At present there is a power (you know what I mean) which holds him in check, so that he may not shew himself before the time appointed to him;[4] 7 meanwhile, the conspiracy of revolt is already at work; only, he who checks it now will be able to check it, until he is removed from the enemy’s path. 8 Then it is that the rebel will shew himself; and the Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of his mouth, overwhelming him with the brightness of his presence. 9 He will come, when he comes, with all Satan’s influence to aid him; there will be no lack of power, of counterfeit signs and wonders; 10 and his wickedness will deceive the souls that are doomed, to punish them for refusing that fellowship in the truth which would have saved them. That is why God is letting loose among them a deceiving influence, so that they give credit to falsehood; 11 he will single out for judgment all those who refused credence to the truth, and took their pleasure in wrong-doing. ”
There is simply no one else as an human person, which the “he” that St. Paul refers to as the masculine, third person, pronoun, “he”, that “he” can be, other than the authentic, Holy Roman Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ in this world who has no peer, over the past 20 centuries in Apostolic succession, holding in “check” the spirit of Iniquity from bringing forth the person of the Antichrist, that is until the time when St. Paul prophetically and inerrantly stated, “…until he is removed from the enemies’ path.” Again, the “he” whom St. Paul speaks of here is the same, “he”, which holds the spirit of Iniquity from bringing forth the very person of the Antichrist. St. Paul also then inerrantly proclaims that after, “…he is removed from the enemies’ path.”, “Then it is that the rebel will shew himself;…”, and he (the “rebel”) will receive, “…all Satan’s influence to aid him; there will be no lack of power, of counterfeit signs and wonders;…”. Lastly, St. Paul inerrantly speaks of the, “deceiving influence” which those who do not love the Truth will receive, such that they believe the lie as the Truth. Amen. Alleluia. I pray this helps. In caritas.
There are few things more mundance and ‘ugly’ than seing a televized Novus Ordo. Symbols and actions are 95% of communication and with the volume off it is clear to see that this rite is not Catholic in form, philosophy, or theology.
Its more than just Transubstantiation at stake here with the NO. The purpose of the NO was to demphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The Mysterium Fidei not only points to transubstantiation, it points to the mystery of Christ’s salvific action on the Cross. All of which is lost at even the most reverent NO “mass.”
The movement of the Mystery of Faith from it’s proper place in the consecration of the Chalice to afterwards, and by doing so giving the phrase a different meaning altogether, is astounding. Mysterium Fidei expresses both the Priest’s and the Church’s faith in Transubstantiation.
As Patrick Omlor pointed out, it is a display of diabolical genius to deny one truth by boldly affirming another in it’s place.
I think it’s necessary to point out that your quote is NOT from the Douay-Rheims edition of the Bible.
Dear pearl87,
Thank you for your correction. My reference for the Holy Scripture text is NewAdvent.org. Since the download version of the Holy Bible is the Douay-Rheims copy from that site, I assumed that the working version of the Bible at the site was also, but I see that it is the Knox translation. In comparing the text of Second Thessalonians, chapter 2, the context seems to be consistent between Douay and Knox. In caritas.
Thank you, Fr. Campo. This movement of the words “Mystery of Faith” from the proper place to AFTER the consecration of the Chalice was to me one of the most disturbing abuses of the NO Mass. When, by the grace of God, I began to have the veil lifted from my eyes in order to discover the Truths of our Holy Catholic Faith this was one of the profound realizations of diabolical influence in the NO Mass,
a real wake-up call for me.
Even as a young girl going to NO Mass, I remember thinking, “If this is ‘the mystery of faith’ why is it changing at every mass?” Sometimes we would say one response, next time another. “Truly,” I thought, “THE MYSTERY OF FAITH should be something more permanent and unchanging.” My child-like faith was correct.
Thanks be to God for His Mercy and His Mother. Where would we all be without Her?! I shudder to think.
Thank you for your excellent explanation.
Thank you, one and all, for your comments. Yes, the fundamental flaw in displacing the mystérium fídei, when accompanied by optional, numerous, and ever-changing popular acclamations, lies in ignoring THE esencial mystery of faith of Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, specifically as THE sacrament of his priestly Sacrifice.
If this mystery of faith is in any way obscured or denied in practice (if not formally), then all other mysteries of faith are irrelevant. If HE is not really and truly present, then nothing is there but ordinary bread and wine. And all that implies…