Spring 2003

1
Publisher: Keep the Faith, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief: Father James McLucas
Managing Editor: John W. Blewett
Associate Editor: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Art Director: Ronald W. Lawson
Contributing Editors
Father Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P.
Ronald P. McArthur
Contributors
Elizabeth Altham Matthew M. Anger Father William Ashley
Father Ignacio Barreiro Bishop Eugenijus Bartulis
Father David R. Becker James Bemis
Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. Laura Berquist
Marie Siobhan Boland Patrick Buchanan
Father James B. Buckley, F.S.S.P. Neri Capponi
Francis Carey Matthew Childs John Clark
William Coulson Thomas J. Craughwell H.W. Crocker, III
Leo Darroch Michael Davies Michael de Tar, M.D.
Brett Decker Patrick Delaney William Doino, Jr.
Thomas A. Droleskey Father Raymond V. Dunn
Alice Thomas Ellis Father Evaristus Eshiowu Edwin Faust
Christopher Ferrara Father Sean Finnegan
Father Kevin Fitzpatrick James K. Fitzpatrick
Father Robert Fromageot, F.S.S.P. John Galvin
Lord Brian Gill Cecile Bolling von Goetz
Richard Cowden Guido Norris Harrington
Father Brian Harrison, O.S. Father Ignatius Harrison
Kathleen Howley Kenneth Jones Father Peter Joseph
Hermann Kelly Joseph Kung Susan Lloyd
James Lothian Dino Marcantonio
Father Anthony Mastroeni Thomas McArdle
Andrew J. McCauley D. Q. McInerny Diane Moczar
Father John Mole, O.M.I. Thomas Molnar
John Muggeridge Anne Roche Muggeridge
Father Gerald Murray George Neumayr John Neumayr
Steve OBrien Julia Ann OSullivan James Patrick
Father John Perricone Jonathan Peters
Robert Phillips Father Joseph Ponessa John C. Rao
Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. Bishop Fernando Rifan
Michael Rose Jeffrey Rubin Claudio R. Salvucci
Msgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz Msgr. Richard J. Schuler
Virginia Seuffert Janet Smith Father Russell E. Smith
Thomas Gordon Smith Joseph Sobran James Spencer
Alfons Cardinal Stickler Donna Steichen Duncan Stroik
Robert A. Sungenis Steven Terenzio Jeffrey Tucker
Daniel Van Slyke Alice von Hildebrand
Tom J. Walsh, M.D. Bruce Walters, M.D. David White
Father Alan Wilders David Williams
Father W. Ray Williams Charles M. Wilson
Kieron Wood John Wooten Alessandro Zangrando
The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture is published
quarterly in March, June, September and December
by Keep the Faith Inc. Donations to The Latin Mass are
tax-deductible in the United States. Simply make out a
check to Keep the Faith, Inc., and write The Latin Mass on
the memo line. The views expressed by The Latin Mass
contributors are not necessarily those of the publisher, the
editors or Keep the Faith, Inc. Please address all subscrip-
tion requests or questions to:
The Latin Mass Keep the Faith, Inc.
50 So. Franklin Turnpike, Ramsey, NJ 07446-2546
Phone (201j 327-5900 Fax (201j 327-7618
Subscription Rates:
1 year - $28.95 (four issuesj in Canada $50.00 U.S.
2 years - $57.90 (eight issuesj in Canada $85.00 U.S.
3 years - $86.95 (twelve issuesj in Canada $125 U.S.
Overseas: $50.00/year (U.S. dollars)
Single copy price: $7.25 (includes rst class postage)
Letters and articles: Address all editorial mail,
submissions, letters to the editor, advertising inquiries to:
The Latin Mass
391 E. Virginia Terrace
Santa Paula, CA 93060
E-Mail: jwblewett@msn.com
Manuscripts should be submitted in manuscript and if pos-
sible in electronic format as a Microsoft Word document.
We do not return unsolicited manuscripts. Letters to the
editor may be edited for length or clarity.
Copyright 2003 Keep the Faith, Inc.
On the cover and inside the back cover:
Saints Peter and Paul by Jacopo Bassano.
The reproduction on the inside back cover is
designed for display.
Spring 2003
Contents
Features
8 Roman Landscape
An Exclusive Interview with Cardinal Medina and Report from Rome
by Alessandro Zangrando
12 Loyal to Rome, Faithful to Tradition A London Photo Essay
by Michael S. Rose
16 A Pastoral Letter
by Bishop Fernando Aras Rifan
24 It is the Mass that Matters
by Michael Davies
30 Hope in Passiontide
by Edwin Faust
34 The Traditional Catholic and Liberal Cultures
by Joseph Sobran
Departments
40 Liturgy: The Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI: A Reform?
by Father Romano Tommasi
44 Scripture: The Bible and Historical Criticism The Second of Two Parts
by Robert A. Sungenis
50 History: Revisiting the American Revolution
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
54 Ethics: Charitable Surrogacy and Embryo Adoption
by Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P.
58 Biography: Brass Knuckle Bishop: John Hughes Combative Style
by Steve OBrien
64 Cinema: The Quiet Man: The Catholic Vision of John Ford
by James Bemis
70 Education: The Plight of the Catholic History Student
by Diane Moczar
74 Education: To Enjoy Latin, Make it a Hobby!
by James B. Spencer
78 Book Reviews:
The Modern Rite: Collected Essays on the Reform of the Liturgy by Klaus Gamber
reviewed by Thomas J. Craughwell
Ill Bet my Life on It by Ronald G. Connolly, M.D.
reviewed by Father Ignacio Barreiro
Faith and Fortune by Madeleine Beard
reviewed by Michael Davies
Homeschooling
86 The Beauty of Homeschooling
by Laura Berquist
90 What Can You Do with That?
by Susan Lloyd
92 Science as a Verb
by Marie Siobhan Boland
A Final Thought
94 A Fluent Traditionalist
by John W. Blewett
Spring 2003 40
by Father Romano Tommasi
Liturgy
W
hen arguing with reform-
minded liturgists, there exist
several strong positions from which
one can launch a successful critique
explicating the traditionalist view-
point. In the past three issues, I have
outlined several historical and liturgi-
cal arguments that call into question
several of the so-called reforms, or at
least their mode of restora-
tion. Past articles have chal-
lenged the notion that the
sign of peace, the prayer of
the faithful, concelebration,
and even the prayers that
now follow the Our Father
are true historical restora-
tions. I have posited that all
have been accretions to the
Mass or the mere retouching
of ancient prayers and rites.
The irony, of course, is that
the most frequently voiced argument
by the liturgical reformers concern-
ing the ancient Mass was that it had
become lled with historical ac-
cumulations and had lost its original
purity!
In the case of the Offertory, how-
ever, we have the destruction of a set
of prayers that changes the complex-
ion of the Mass as a whole. The old
prayers were replaced by an entirely
new set of compositions explicitly
meant to convey a different liturgical
theology and a completely new focus
for the Offertory ritual. A translation
of the old and new Offertory prayers
may be helpful:
Mass of Pius V Bread: Accept, O
Holy Father, Almighty and eternal
God, this spotless host, which I,
Thine unworthy servant, offer to
Thee, my living and true God, to
atone for my numberless sins, of-
fenses and negligences; on behalf
of all here present and likewise
for all faithful Christians living
and dead, that it may prot me
and them as a means of salvation
to life everlasting. Amen. Wine:
We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the
chalice of salvation, entreating
Thy mercy that our offering may
ascend with a sweet fragrance in
the sight of Thy divine majesty,
for our own salvation, and
for that of the whole world.
Amen.
Mass of Paul VI Bread:
Blessed are you, Lord, God
of all creation. Through your
goodness we have this bread
to offer, which earth has
given and human hands have
made. It will become for us
the bread of life. Blessed be
God forever! Wine: Blessed
are You, Lord, God of all cre-
ation. Through your goodness we
have this wine to offer, fruit of the
vine and work of human hands.
It will become for us our spiritual
drink. Blessed be God forever!
From their inception, the new
In the case of the Offertory, however, we
have the destruction of a set of prayers
that changes the complexion of the Mass
as a whole. The old prayers were replaced
by an entirely new set of compositions
explicitly meant to convey a different
liturgical theology and a completely new
focus for the Offertory ritual.
The Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI:
A different slant on the controversial change
of the Offertory orations of the Mass
A Reform?
41 Spring 2003
Liturgy The Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI: A Reform?
Offertory prayers were touted as
superior, more faithful to the idea of
the offertory ritual, and more mean-
ingful. In fact, they have often served
as the rampart from which the entire
liturgical reform has been defended.
Rarely has anyone in the post-concil-
iar theological establishment ques-
tioned these prayers for liturgical and
historical reasons. Instead, one has
generally heard the classic tradition-
alist argument that the new prayers
are no longer sacricial. I will argue
that this not the case but, as you
will see, my position will not offer
any advantage to the reformers.
Before delving into a critique of
the new Offertory ritual, it would be
helpful to know why the Consilium
(the liturgical commission that gave
us the post-conciliar liturgy) deemed
it necessary to change this part of
the Mass. There were experts and
churchmen who questioned whether
or not the omission of the traditional
prayers impoverished the Offertory
rite as a whole.
1
The Congregation
for Divine Worship and the Sacra-
ments, therefore, proffered a rationale
for the new prayers:
In no way [are the new prayers
impoverishing the Mass]. The
former prayerswere not accurate
expressions of the genuine meaning
of the offertory rites but merely
anticipated the meaning of the true
and literal sacricial offering that
is present in the eucharistic prayer
after the consecration. 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 meaning of the
rite being carried out; they associ-
ate 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.
2
This response is essentially the
same as that of the Consiliums
secretary, Annibale Bugnini, and of
those who shared his ideology.
3
They
defended the new Offertory paradigm
as follows: a) above all the Offertory
must avoid a little canon before the
actual consecration;
4
b) the Offertory
should offer to God human labor,
represented by its fruits bread and
wine;
5
c) therefore, Pope Paul VI
stated that the active participation
of these human laborers (the people
present) is essential in the prayer
which should be recited aloud, or at
least it is greatly desired that these
new elements exist;
6
d) the new
central theme is the giving of glory to
God for his gifts to us.
What is supremely important to
realize here is that the reform of the
traditional Offertory was deemed
necessary princi-
pally because it
was perceived as
a little canon;
that is, that the
prayers were
considered as
almost like a con-
secration of the
bread and wine
since the priest
says that he offers
this immaculate
host/victim. The
experts argued
that only the consecrated host can be
offered using this language. Further-
more, the second part of the prayer
offering the bread anticipates, or
calls to mind, for what purpose the
host will be offered sins, living and
dead Christians, etc.
7
In conclusion,
any new offertory prayer must of
necessity not be like a Eucharistic
prayer or little canon. This pres-
ents a major problem for the liturgi-
cal reformers, for the most recent
research on Eucharistic prayers
and their origins leads us to a very
provocative conclusion regarding the
new Offertory prayers!
The provocation is centered
upon the discovery of the document
called the Didache or Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles. This ancient
manuscript contains, according to the
predominant opinion among con-
temporary liturgists, the rst known
Eucharistic prayer outside the New
Testament:
8
[Consecration of Bread] We give
thanks to you, O Father, for life and
knowledge which you have made
known to us through your child Je-
sus Christ. Glory to you in the ages!
[Consecration of Wine] We give
thanks to you, our Father, for the
holy vine of your child David which
you have made known to us through
Jesus Christ your child. Glory to
you in the ages!
9
Many modern
scholars argue
that this is the
consecration of
the bread and
wine without
any words of
institution. The
text is based on
the Jewish prayer
called the Qid-
dush:
10

[Bread consecra-
tion] Blessed are you, God, King
of the universe who produces bread
from the earth. [The bread is then
distributed.] [Wine consecration]
Blessed are you, O Lord, our God,
King of the universe, creating fruit
of the vinewho sanctied us in
his commandmentsand handed
down to us a memorial of the works
of creation. You are Blessed, O
Lord.
11
The reader may note a similar-
ity between these prayers and the
Offertory prayers of the new Mass.
the reformers have
replaced the traditional
Offertory prayers, which
they argued were too
anticipatory of the
consecration of the bread
and wine, with prayers that
theoretically (according
to them) were ancient
consecratory orations!
Spring 2003 42
Liturgy The Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI: A Reform?
Yes, these prayers are similar, but the
direct link between the new Offertory
prayers and the Jewish precursor to
the Eucharistic Prayer/Canon is the
Birkat Ha-Mazon. It is frequently as-
sumed among the liturgical scholars
that it was the model for the early
Eucharistic Prayers:
Blessed are you, O Lord, our God,
King of the universe, nourishing the
entire world in goodness, in good-
ness and mercy. Blessed are you, O
Lord, nourishing all!
12
What is disturbing is that these
prayers are considered by many
experts to be early Christian conse-
cration prayers. That is, the structure
and vocabulary of these prayers is
considered the early Christians ver-
sion of the Roman Canon. Although
it is contested by some whether or
not these are prayers of consecra-
tion of the bread and wine in the
early Church, the fact is that these
prayers are accepted by most of the
reformist liturgical scholars to be
ancient equivalents of the Roman
Canon. Therefore the reformers have
replaced the traditional Offertory
prayers, which they argued were too
anticipatory of the consecration
of the bread and wine, with prayers
that theoretically (according to them)
were ancient consecratory orations!
The entire justication for changing
the prayers is destroyed! Now, if we
use the reasoning of the Consiliums
reformers, the Roman Mass is left
with a double consecration of the
bread and the wine.
The contention of the Consilium
and/or the Pope was that it is ap-
propriate that the Offertory prayers
recognize human labor. So, the
question needs to be asked: What
is the function of the Offertory
orations? Is it, as in the traditional
Mass, to articulate the anticipation
of sacrice? Or is it the offering of
human labor (fruits of the earth) to
God, as insisted by the proponents of
the new rite?
First of all, it would be inac-
curate to say that the old Offertory
prayers were merely anticipatory of
the consecration. They are prayers
preguring the consecration. Both
offering prayers in the traditional
rite make obvious references to the
Old Testament. The bread offering
is reminiscent of Melchisedechs
pleasing offering to God of pure
bread.
13
The offering of the chalice
of salvation is an obvious reference
to Psalm 115. These priestly offerings
are supremely important since they
pregure the Eternal Priest, Jesus
Christ, offering pure bread and wine
as a pleasing sacrice to the Father.
Even if the liturgists and biblicists no
longer believe in the notion of pre-
gurement, the Jews and Christians
historically always considered them
as Messianic.
Furthermore, it is an anachronism
to claim that the true meaning of
the Offertory has been restored. The
ancient Roman liturgy knew of abso-
lutely no specic Offertory prayers.
The Ordines Romani of the eighth
century relate that the celebrant only
bows in silence with the offering
at the altar and presumably prays
silently.
14
There is no restoration of
meaning in the new prayers because
both the new and the old prayers are
merely an expansion of a formerly
simple ritual. This entire argument is
pure fantasy from a historical point
of view.
The third argument for the new
Offertory prayers, held by Paul VI, is
that active participation is a crucially
important element. It permits the
people to participate more fully in the
offering of their gifts to God. How-
ever, as noted above, the most ancient
texts of the Roman rite demonstrate
no activity whatsoever on the part of
the faithful. Even the earliest liturgi-
cal texts, whether East or West, do
not support anything other than the
faithful presenting the bread and
wine used for Mass. Simply put, the
offertory was a quick transitional
practical preparation of the bread
and wine by celebrant and deacon(s),
nothing more.
15

Furthermore, it needs to be
mentioned that although these are the
main reasons provided as to why the
Offertory necessitated change, the
nal two reasons given were that the
prayers were not Roman but Gallican,
and that they were not written em-
There is no restoration
of meaning in the new
prayers because both the
new and the old prayers
are merely an expansion
of a formerly simple ritual.
This entire argument
is pure fantasy from a
historical point of view.
The Mass of Saint Basil by Pierre Subleyras
43 Spring 2003
Notes
1 BUGNINI, A. Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75,
Collegeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press, 1990
(1st English edition. Trans. Matthew J. OConnell).
p. 354.
2 DOCUMENTS ON THE LITURGY 1963-1979,
Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts, International Com-
mission on English in the Liturgy, The Liturgical
Press, Collegeville 1982. DOL 208. The General
Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 48, Query 2.
3 BUGNINI, A. Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, pp.
369, 375.
4 Ibid., p. 375.
5 Ibid., p. 369.
6 Ibid.
7 La riforma conciliare dell<<Ordo Missae>>. Il
percorso storico-redazionale dei riti dingresso, di
offertorio e di comunione (BEL, 120), CLV-Edizioni
Liturgiche, Roma 2002, pp. 202-203.
8 All translations are from the original Latin text, the
English should not be considered a critical product.
9 PREX EUCHARITICA, Textus e variis liturgiis
antiquioribus selecti, Albert Gerhards etHeinzgerd
Brakmann (editio tertia), vol. 1 , Universittsverlag
Freiburg Schweiz, 1998. Pp. 66-7.
10 For a book that represents the mainstream thinking
on the nature of these prayers and their sacricial
nature see: MAZZA, ENRICO, The Celebration of
the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Devel-
opment of Its Interpretation, Minnesota, Liturgical
Press 1999 (1st English edition). Trans. Matthew J.
OConnell.
11 PREX EUCHARITICA, pp. 6-7.
12 Ibid., pp. 89.
13 Genesis 14:18. This is the opinion of Joseph
Jungmann. See infra. Mass of the Roman Rite, vol
II, p. 98.
14 manuscript LES ORDINES ROMANI DU HAUT
MOYEN AGE II, LES TEXTES (Ordines I-XIII),
SPICILEGIUM SACRUM LOVANIENSE, ETUDES
ET DOCUMENTS FASCICULE 23, cura Universite
Catholique et Colleges Theologiques O.P. et S. J.
de Louvain, Michel Andrieu, 18, Rue Juste Lipse,
Louvain 1971. Ordo I], # s 75-87 (Latin only).
15 Ibid., p. 1-5.
16 For a list of these reasons see: La riforma conciliare
dell<<Ordo Missae>>, p. 203.
Father Romano Tommasi received his
Licentiate in Sacred Theology (S.T.L.)
from the Pontical University of San
Anselmo in Rome.
ploying the Roman Genius of the
Latin language. It has already been
abundantly demonstrated in the pre-
vious articles of this series, however,
that the Consilium produced texts
that imitated and copied Gallican
elements when they were convenient
and spurned them when it bolstered
their desire to create change. There-
fore this point is without merit.
The nal point, referring to the
allegation that the composition of
the traditional Offertory prayers is
not done in the austere, succinct, and
generic style of the most pure Roman
compositions: sufce it to respond
that this criterion was completely
ignored when the experts were
reforming introductory remarks to
rites, solemn blessings, etc.
16

Conclusions
It is appropriate to summarize as
follows:
1) Any restoration of the Offerto-
rys original meaning and purpose
would have led to expunging
any and all prayers from the rite,
since this would seem to reect
accurately the original practice of
the ancient Church.
2) The new offering prayers for the
bread and wine violate the prin-
ciple of a return to the Tradition
of the Fathers (one of the main
reasons offered to justify the
entire post-conciliar reform of the
liturgy) since they create two real
Canons within the Roman Mass
(at least according to their gener-
ally accepted
historical
presupposi-
tions). The
rst Canon
(the new
Offer-
tory prayers),
therefore,
would
represent a
consecratory
formulation
similar to
those found
in at least a
few ancient
Christian com-
munities; the
second Canon
is found after
the Sanctus. Secondly, the new
prayers contain acclamations for
the faithful, something experts
criticized as a duplication of the
faithfuls response to the Offer-
tory collect. This means that the
new prayers are clearly not within
the liturgical tradition of East or
West.
The destruction of the old Offer-
tory prayers is not so much a crime
because of the loss of the prayers
themselves (which are not of great
ancient origin), nor because of
their doctrinal content. The reason
this change is
so deplorable is
that these prayers
imitate the inspired
New Testament
writers in pregur-
ing the sacrice
of the Cross. The
Old Testament
pregures the New
Testament realities,
and the fore-Mass
along with the
Offertory (Liturgy
of the Word and
Offertory) preg-
ure the sacrice
about to take place
by recounting the
salvation and sacred
history which will
soon be made present on the altar in
the unbloody sacrice. The Church
would do well to recapture the Tra-
dition of the Fathers and expunge
a rite that is foreign to the sacred
worship of the Church.

the new prayers are

clearly not within the
liturgical tradition of
East or West.
Liturgy The Offertory Prayers of the Mass of Paul VI: A Reform?