New Study Closely Compares Aquinas, Innocent III, and Albert on the Roman Canon

I am pleased to inform NLM readers about an important new publication from the EOS (Editions Sankt Ottilien): The Sacramental Signification in the Rite of the Holy Mass: The Synthesis of St. Thomas Aquinas in Comparison with Pope Innocent III and St. Albert the Great by Rev. Dominik Pascal Witkowski.

Dominik Pascal Witkowski (b. 1986) is a Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Chur, Switzerland. He studied History and Theology at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and pursued further studies in Humanities and Social Science at the University of Edinburgh. He completed his theological formation with a Baccalaureate, Licentiate, and Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STB, STL, STD) at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome.

This study offers a systematic and comparative account of three major medieval commentaries on the rite of the Holy Mass: St. Thomas Aquinas’ exposition in the Summa theologiæ, Pope Innocent III’s De sacro altaris mysterio, and the De mysterio missæ attributed to St. Albert the Great. At its centre stands the Roman Canon—the core of the Latin Mass tradition—whose enduring liturgical use prompted centuries of theological reflection.

Bridging perspectives of doctrine, sacraments, and liturgical exegesis, the dissertation addresses the long-standing tension between the spiritual and philological schools of interpretation. By retrieving the Thomistic doctrine of spiritual signification—grounded in sacred doctrine and operative in Scripture, sacraments, and liturgy—it proposes a theological resolution. This Thomistic ressourcement demonstrates that the spiritual sense is not a subjective imposition, but an objective content of the rites themselves—signifying the passion of Christ, the sanctification of the Church, and the final consummation of the mystical body. In doing so, it contributes to the renewal of liturgical theology and highlights Aquinas’s synthesis as a vital key for understanding the Holy Mass in the Western tradition.

Fr. Witkowski explained to me that his book develops and presents, in an objective and scholarly way, the theological relevance and the deep significance of three major medieval commentaries; it touches only remotely on the major controversies of the twentieth century. Yet, by demonstrating the antiquity and richness of the older rites (one cannot help but be struck by the remarkable identity between the 13th-century curial rite and the pre-1955 Roman Rite), Fr. Witkowski contributes something still more fundamental: a case for the intelligibility, coherence, and perfection of the tradition, based on uncontested primary sources. This is a work that strongly presents the authority, integrity, and spiritual wealth of the Roman Rite.

This classic, extensive, detailed, and systematic study of the Holy Mass is sure to be appreciated by all serious scholars and students of liturgy, for its numerous insights into the Church’s liturgical heritage, particularly the mighty anaphora that stands at the heart of nearly all Western rites and uses.

A PDF of the Table of Contents may be downloaded here.

Defending So-Called Doublets by Understanding Parallelism

Symmetry like that of these towers in Paris is common to all works of art, musical, poetic, rhetorical, dance, etc. What is strange is not to have parallelism. Photo by Priscilla Fraire (source)

One of the pet peeves of the modern liturgists was what they liked to call “doublets,” namely, elements that seemed to them to be redundant or uselessly repetitious. Adhering to the odd belief of Romano Guardini that devotion is characterized by repetition but liturgy by linear singularity (see this lecture of mine for the relevant texts), they claimed after the Council that the Offertory rite needlessly and confusingly anticipated the Canon and therefore needed to be radically modified. As we all know, their solution was to jettison nearly all of the existing Offertory and replace it with a faux-Jewish workerist blessing of bread and wine.

It is hard to evade the impression that such reformers were like the Enlightenment and Victorian critics who complained of obscurities, infelicities, and improprieties in Shakespeare’s plays, and therefore felt themselves justified in diligently “correcting” them for modern readers. Looking back today, we can only marvel that otherwise literate and competent people should be so blind to the extraordinary perfection of the Bard’s works, as he achieved his goals with full mastery of materials.

In his superb book Forest of Symbols, Fr. Claude Barthe guides us to see the hardly accidental or incidental parallelism that exists between the Offertory of the Roman Rite and the Roman Canon. So far from this being an example of useless repetition or incoherent anticipation, it is a glowing example of how the liturgy proceeds by way of preparation, reinforcement, parallelism, building a system of cross-references that allow the fullest meaning to be grasped—much as men have two eyes and two ears in order to see and to hear a single reality better, or as a train rides on two parallel tracks in order to remain stable and not veer to the left or right. Indeed, just about every cognitive process involves multiple sources that are compared with and complete one another. What would be strange is reducing the approach to truth to a single line, unaccompanied and unrelational. Nor is it at all surprising that no divino-apostolic liturgical rite exhibits this rationalist flaw.

Let us consider the parallels in detail, quoting from Barthe, pp. 84–88.

Parallel #1

The Suscipe, sancte Pater,
hanc immaculatam hostiam…

(Receive, O holy Father, almighty, eternal God, this spotless host, which I, thine unworthy servant, do offer unto thee, my living and true God, for mine own countless sins, offences, and negligences, and for all here present; as also for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may avail for my own and for their salvation unto life eternal)

…corresponds to the Hanc igitur

(We therefore beseech thee, O Lord, to be appeased, and to receive this offering of our bounden duty, as also of thy whole household; order our days in thy peace; grant that we may be rescued from eternal damnation, and counted within the fold of thine elect) of the Canon and to the consecration of the Host (This is my Body). This Suscipe is particularly important for the development of the ultimate propitiatory purpose of the Mass: an oblation for the sins of the living and the dead with a view to their salvation.

Parallel #2

The Deus qui humanae and
the Offerimus, tibi, Domine, calicem salutaris…

(O God, who in creating human nature didst marvelously ennoble it, and hast still more marvelously reformed it; grant that, by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of his divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord… We offer unto thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching thy clemency, that it may rise up in the sight of thy divine majesty, as a savor of sweetness, for our salvation, and for that of the whole world)

…correspond to the consecration of the wine
(This is the chalice of my blood).

Deus, qui Humanae substantiae…is, as we have seen, an ancient prayer assigned by the sacramentaries to the feast of Christmas. It refers to the representation, by the admixture of the water to the wine, of the union of the faithful with Christ. It does no more than take up an allegory of the patristic period to which reference has already been made (“When the wine in the chalice is mixed with the water, the people is being united with Christ,” says St Cyprian), which in its turn depends for its authority at least on scriptural symbolism: “The waters that you saw. . . are peoples, and nations, and tongues” (Apoc. 17, 15). Attention is thus focused on the humanity of Christ and of the faithful united with him.

The text has not given an a posteriori allegorical explanation to the action, the admixture: on the contrary, it is a clear example of the allegorical meaning of the action explaining the choice of accompanying texts. In fact, the admixture is of immense theological importance. The decree of the Council of Florence (1438–1445) relating to the Armenians, who only acknowledged the one divine nature in Christ and who consecrated only wine, without the water that symbolizes Christ’s humanity, refers to the extreme appropriateness of the admixture, citing Apoc.17, 15.

To tell the truth, the allegory is double: in the Milanese and Carthusian rites the prayer also alludes to the water that issued from Christ’s side. In fact it is a triple allegory, if we take account of St Thomas Aquinas, who in addition to a historical reason gives three mystical reasons for the mixing of wine and water in the chalice, of which the first two have just been mentioned: as a representation of the Passion, with the water and the Blood flowing from Christ’s open side (in the Carthusian Offertory, the priest says, “From the side of Our Lord Jesus Christ flowed Blood and water for the redemption of the world”); as a symbol of the union of the people with Christ; but also, as a demonstration of the effect of the sacrament, namely entry into eternal life, represented by the water that quenches every thirst (John 4, 13-14).

Parallel #3

The prayer using the royal “we,” and the invocation, which derive from Gallican missals:

In spiritu humilitatis…
Veni, sanctificator…

(In a humble spirit, and a contrite heart, may we be received by thee, O Lord; and may our sacrifice so be offered up in thy sight this day that it may be pleasing to thee, O Lord God… Come, O thou who makest holy, almighty, eternal God and bless this sacrifice, prepared for thy holy name)

correspond to the epiklesis,
Supplices te rogamus…

(We most humbly beseech thee, Almighty God, to command that these things be borne by the hands of thy holy angel to thine altar on high, in the sight of thy divine majesty, that as many of us as, at this altar, shall partake of and receive the most holy Body and Blood of thy Son, may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace)

For all that, it does not seem that the sanctificator invoked here is specifically intended as the Person of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, contrary to the usual opinion, the notion of an epiklesis (a request, accompanied by a deep bow, that the power of God may descend or that the sacrifice may be raised up to him) does not necessarily imply an entreaty to the Holy Spirit.

Parallel #4

Psalm 25, 6-12,

Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas…

(I wash my hands among the innocent . . . Destroy not my soul with the wicked, O God: nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts. But I have walked in mine innocence . . . My foot hath stood in the straight way: in the churches I will bless thee, O Lord), which accompanies the washing of his hands by the celebrant, and has given its name to the action,

prepares us for the
Nobis quoque peccatoribus…

(To us sinners, also, thy servants, hoping in the multitude of thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with the holy apostles and martyrs…into whose company we pray thee admit us, not considering our merit, but of thine own free pardon).

“Wash yourselves, be clean,” says Isaiah (1, 16). According to liturgical historians, this washing of hands may have been mystical from the very beginning. If not, it could be more plausibly linked to the solemn censing than to the ancient oblation of the people: St Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–386) had already noted that those who had to wash their hands did not have a share in the receiving of the oblations.

This washing of the hands, it seems, was already present in the pontifical Mass of the fifth and sixth centuries, and was at the same point in the Mass as it is today. The priest who is going to offer the sacrifice washes his hands, symbolizing his deeds, to indicate that he must wash and purify his conscience of evil deeds with the tears of penitence and compunction, according to the verse, “Every night I will wash my bed: I will water my couch with my tears” (Ps. 6, 7).

Parallel #5

The last great prayer of the Offertory,

Suscipe, sancta Trinitas,…
ob memoriam passionis, resurrectionis, et ascensionis…

(Receive, O Holy Trinity, this offering, which we make to thee, in remembrance of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary ever virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of these and of all the saints: that it may avail to their honor and our salvation: and may they vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate on earth)

highlights the finality of the sacrifice. It is an anamnesis (remembrance, recollection), like that in the Canon,

Unde et memores…

(Wherefore, O Lord, we thy servants, as also thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ thy Son our Lord, and also his rising up from hell, and his glorious ascension into heaven, do offer unto thy most excellent majesty, of thine own gifts bestowed upon us…).

But the prayer also recalls the

Communicantes
with its roll call of the saints

(Communicating, and reverencing the memory, first, of the glorious Mary, ever a Virgin, Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ; likewise of thy blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James…and of all thy saints; by whose merits and prayers grant that in all things we may be guarded by thy protecting help).

It is a prayer addressed to the Holy Trinity, even though the Canon, like every Eucharistic prayer, is addressed to the Father. Latinists will note that in the oldest missals the more classical form in honore with the ablative was used (beatae Mariae semper Virginis et…) rather than in honorem with the accusative, an effect heightened by the fact that an ad honorem (ut illis proficiat ad honorem) follows. In honore is equivalent to in veneratione, in honore sanctorum, and makes us think of the “in honore deorum,” the feast day of the gods in old Latin. We may also note that the progression illis ad honorem…nobis ad salutem…; intercedere in caelis…quorum memoriam agimus in terris is an interesting imitation in the Latin of the High Middle Ages of the measured parallelisms of the Latin of Late Antiquity.

Parallel #6

Orate, fratres…

(Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty. May the Lord receive the sacrifice at thy hands, to the praise and glory of his name, to our benefit, and to that of all his holy church)

…recalls the prayer
Quam oblationem of the Canon

(Which offering do thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things, to bless, consecrate, approve, make reasonable and acceptable)

Fiat acceptabile— facere acceptabilem, that the sacrifice that is offered may be judged acceptable by God himself so that he can receive it. The theology is admirable, and again reveals the rigorous precision of Rome’s lex orandi.

But this Orate, fratres is above all a greeting, like Dominus vobiscum: the priest kisses the altar and extends his hands as a sign of peace. It can thus be a sort of blessing by the priest who is going to offer the sacrifice: we will note, in fact, that the double idea of an acceptable sacrifice and of an offering by the celebrant on behalf of those in whose name he is making the offering reappears in Placeat tibi, sancta Trinitas… (May the homage of my service be pleasing to thee, O holy Trinity; and grant that the sacrifice which I, though unworthy, have offered in the sight of thy majesty, may be acceptable to thee: and through thy mercy win forgiveness for me and for all those for whom I have offered it), the other apologia that precedes the final blessing.

Now, for the Orate, fratres the celebrant turns round in a complete circle, in a movement that is identical to that of the final blessing. Finally, we must remember that at the end of the silent prayer of the Offertory (representing the silent prayer of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane), the priest’s invitation to the ministers to pray before entering on the sacrifice echoes that of Christ to his disciples at Gethsemane: “Pray, lest ye enter into temptation” (Luke 22, 40).

*   *   *

Fr. Barthe proceeds to show that the many other “doublets” of the Roman Rite are equally carefully contrived to bring out the fullest depth of theological meaning, even as the equivalent doublets in the Byzantine rite are. Barthe helps us to see, from new perspectives, the profound analogies between East and West that the liturgical reform almost obliterated and that the Roman Rite in its classical integrity preserves as a witness to catholicity.

Did not all these rites take their cue from the very Word of God, in which repetition and parallelism are key features? Hebrew poetry cannot be understood at all unless one grasps its use of parallel phrases that echo one another in a sort of conceptual rhyme. And who could forget the thunderous verse of the prophet Jeremiah: “Trust not in lying words, saying: The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, it is the temple of the Lord” (Jer. 7, 4). It’s not enough to have a consecrated building; one must live as a consecrated people, receiving humbly and gratefully all that the Lord wishes to give. It’s not enough to have a “valid rite”; one must have the fullness of tradition, which is the fullness of validity: valid from and for a people the Lord has made His own, in a love announced, anticipated, achieved, fulfilled, and renewed.

Photo by Jan Canty (source)

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s Substack “Tradition & Sanity”; personal site; composer site; publishing house Os Justi Press and YouTube, SoundCloud, and Spotify pages.

St. Francis de Sales’ Method of Hearing Mass in Union with the Sacred Passion of Jesus Christ

Sts. Therese, Francis of Assisi, Wenceslaus, Margaret Mary & Francis de Sales: all would have been familiar with Mass allegories (Saint Anthony of Padua Catholic Church, Dayton, Ohio: source) 

The original Liturgical Movement tended, as a rule, to frown severely on the “methods of hearing Mass” that were proposed in popular devotional books of the Counter-Reformation era. They argued that these methods forcibly superimposed on the Mass an artificial allegory that was foreign to the original intended meaning or function of its various parts, and that it helped to divide the subjective prayer-life of Catholics from the objective content of the liturgy itself.

While one may grant that the proliferation of private forms of prayer during Mass did have certain negative consequences—most importantly, a loss of appreciation of the richness of the prayers of the Church in and of themselves, an appreciation that was much improved by the creation and distribution of hand missals, which are now a ubiquitous feature of traditional Catholic life—nevertheless it seems that here, as elsewhere, the critiques were often too severe and too simplistic.

As Fr Claude Barthe has demonstrated in his masterful work A Forest of Symbols: The Traditional Mass and Its Meaning, the “reading” of the stages of the life of Christ in the Mass is a practice that not only goes back quite a long ways but finds easy correspondence to textual and structural features in the Western Mass. That is, the so-called “allegory” finds more support in the rite than the critics allow. And if there is a certain arbitrariness in various interpretations and methods, it is at the same time limited by an overwhelming consensus in broad outlines and intended purposes.

A devotional work from 1809 in this genre

For me, this question remained entirely “academic” in the worst sense until, one day, I decided I was going to try some of these old devotional approaches to the Mass. I reasoned: “If generations of Catholics followed such devotions and seemed to do so profitably, maybe there is something more to it than meets the eye. Maybe I need to get over my Liturgical Movement strait-jacket and rediscover a variety of ways of engaging with the liturgy.” So I went ahead and tried various “methods of hearing the Mass,” and to my surprise, the attempt went smoothly and bore spiritual fruit! I’m not sure I’d want this to be my habitual approach, but at the same time, I began to grasp why something like it had dominated for centuries.

I recommend that my fellow Catholics give it a try. Although we are now in the Easter season when we dwell on the Resurrection of the Lord, the Mass is always the commemoration of His saving Passion together with His glorious resurrection and ascension, and that makes the following method by St. Francis de Sales quite fitting at any time of the year. 

Another example

Method of Hearing Mass in Union with the Sacred Passion of Jesus Christ

St. Francis de Sales

When the priest goes to the foot of the altar: Jesus enters the garden

O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, Who wast pleased voluntarily to endure mortal terror and anguish at the view of Thine approaching passion, give me grace henceforth to consecrate all my sorrows to Thee. O God of my heart! Assist me to support my trials in union with Thine agony, that through the merits of Thy Passion they may become profitable to my soul.

At the beginning of Mass: Prayer of Jesus in the garden

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, Who wast pleased to be comforted by an angel in Thy dreadful agony, grant through the merits of Thy prayer in the garden that Thy consoling angel may ever assist me in mine.

At the Confiteor: Jesus prostrated in the garden

Lord Jesus Christ, Who in the excess of Thine anguish, wast bathed in a sweat of blood while praying to Thy Father in the Garden of Olives, grant that I may participate in Thy sorrows by sympathy, and unite bitter tears of repentance with Thy tears of blood.

The priest kisses the altar: Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst submit to the embrace of Judas, preserve me by Thy grace, from misfortune of ever betraying Thee, and assist me to repay calumny and injustice with cordial charity and active kindness.

The priest goes to the Epistle side: Jesus is dragged to prison

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst submit to be bound with ropes by the hands of wicked men, break, I beseech Thee, the chains of my sins and attach the powers of my soul and body closely to Thee by bonds of charity, that they may never escape from the salutary restraint of perfect submission to Thy Divine Will.

At the Introit: Jesus receives a blow

Lord Jesus Christ, Who wast conducted as a criminal to the house of Annas, grant that I may never suffer myself to be led into sin by temptations of the evil spirit, or the evil suggestions of my fellow creatures, but that I may be securely guided by the Divine Spirit in the perfect accomplishment of Thy holy ordinances.

At the Kyrie eleison: Jesus is thrice denied by Peter

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst submit to be thrice denied in the house of  Caiphas, by the head and prince of the apostles preserve me from the danger of evil company, that I may not be exposed to the misfortune of separation from Thee.
 

From an illustrated devotional for Mass (source)

At the Dominus vobiscum: Jesus looks at Peter and touches his heart

Lord Jesus Christ, who by one glance of love didst melt the heart of St. Peter into a fountain of penitential tears, grant by Thy mercy that I may weep for my sins and never by word or deed deny Thee, who art my lord and my God.

At the Epistle: Jesus is conducted to the house of Pilate

Lord Jesus Christ, Who wast pleased to be led before Pilate, and there falsely accused, teach me to avoid the deceits of the wicked, and to profess my faith by the constant practice of good works.

At the munda cor meum: Jesus is led to Herod

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst silently endure to be again falsely accused before Herod, grant me patience under calumny, and silence under outrages.

At the Gospel: Jesus is mocked as a fool and sent back to Pilate

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst submit to be sent as a fool by Herod to Pilate, who though enemies before, then became friends, strengthen me so powerfully by Thy grace, that instead of apprehending the machinations of the wicked, I may learn to bear their malice as Thou didst and thus render their injustice profitable to my soul.

The priest uncovers the chalice: Jesus is stripped of His garments

Lord Jesus Christ, Who wast pleased to be despoiled of Thy garments and most inhumanly scourged for love of me, grant me grace to lay aside the burden of my sins by a good confession, and never to appear before Thee despoiled of the virtues of a Christian.

At the Offertory: Jesus is scourged

Lord Jesus Christ, Who wast pleased to be fastened to the pillar and torn with stripes, grant me grace to patiently endure the scourges of Thy paternal correction and never more to grieve Thy Heart with my sins.

The priest offers the Chalice: Jesus is crowned with thorns

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst submit, through love for me, to be crowned with thorns, grant that my heart may be so penetrated with the thorns of repentance in this world, that I may deserve to be hereafter crowned with Thee in glory.

The priest washes his fingers: Pilate washes his hands

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, Who, although declared innocent by Pilate wast subjected to the insults and outrages of the Jews, grant me the grace to lead an irreproachable life and at the same time to maintain a holy indifference to the opinions of men.

At the Orate fratres: Pilate says to the Jews, “Behold the Man”

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst submit to the derision of the Jews, and voluntarily wear the badges of their insolent mockery, grant that I may faithfully resist all emotions of vainglory and appear before Thee on the day of judgment clothed in the sacred garment of Thy humility.

At the Preface: Jesus is condemned to death

Lord Jesus Christ, Who, though the God of all sanctity, didst submit through love for me to a most ignominious condemnation, grant me grace to avoid rash judgments and strengthen me to bear with patience, the injustice of men.

At the Memento for the living: Jesus carries His Cross

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst carry thy heavy Cross for my salvation, grant that I may voluntarily embrace the cross of mortification and carry it daily for Thy love.

At the Communicantes: Veronica wipes with a linen cloth the Face of Jesus

Lord Jesus Christ, Who on Thy way to Calvary, didst say to the holy women that wept for the love of Thee: "Weep not for me but for yourselves;” give me the grace to weep for my sins with tears of holy contrition and love that will render me agreeable to Thy divine Majesty.

Blessing of the bread and wine: Jesus is nailed to the Cross

Lord Jesus Christ, Who wast nailed to the Cross for my redemption, attaching to it through Thy Sacred Flesh, my sins, and the eternal punishment due to them, grant me Thy saving fear, that resolutely observing Thy Holy precepts, I may ever be attached to the Cross with Thee.

At the elevation of the Host: The Cross of Jesus is elevated between Heaven and earth.

Lord Jesus Christ, Who wast pleased to be elevated on the Cross and exalted above the earth for the love of me, detach my heart, I beseech Thee, from all terrestrial affections and elevate my understanding to the consideration of Heavenly things.

At the elevation of the Chalice: The Blood of Jesus flows from His wounds.

Lord Jesus Christ, Thy sacred wounds are the inexhaustible source of all grace; grant then, that Thy Precious Blood may purify my soul from all evil thoughts and prove a salutary remedy for all my spiritual miseries.

At the Memento for the dead: Jesus prays for all men

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst pray on the Cross for all men, even for Thine executioners, grant me the spirit of meekness and patience, that according to Thy precepts and example I may love my enemies and cordially return good for evil.

At the Nobis quoque peccatoribus: The conversion of the thief (St. Dismas)

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst promise the joys of Heaven to the penitent thief, look on me with eyes of compassion and say to my soul at the last moment of my life: “This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.”

At the Pater Noster: The seven words of Christ

Lord Jesus Christ, Who from the cross didst recommend Thy Blessed Mother to the beloved disciple, and the disciple to Thy Mother, receive me, I beseech Thee, under Thy protection, and grant that amidst the snares and perils of this world I may never lose the treasure of thy friendship.

At the division of the Host: Jesus expires of the Cross

Lord Jesus Christ, Who before expiring on the Cross didst commend Thy Soul to Thy Father, grant that I may die spiritually with You now, and so confide my eternal destiny with confidence to Thy hands at the hour of my death.

The priest puts a particle of the Host into the Chalice: The Soul of Jesus descends into limbo

Lord Jesus Christ, who after overthrowing the empire of Satan didst descend into limbo to liberate the souls imprisoned there ; apply, I beseech Thee, the merits of Thy Blood and Passion to the suffering souls in Purgatory, that, being absolved from their sins, they may be received into Thy bosom, and enjoy eternal peace.

At the Agnus Dei: The conversion of sinners

Lord Jesus Christ, the contemplation of Thy torments has excited repentance in many hearts; grant me, through the efficacy of Thy painful sufferings and ignominious death, perfect contrition for my past offenses, and the grace to avoid all willful sin.

At the Communion: Jesus is buried

Lord Jesus Christ, Who wast pleased to be buried in a new monument, give me a new heart, so that being buried with Thee, I may attain to the glory of Thy resurrection.

At the Ablution: Jesus is embalmed

Lord Jesus Christ, who wast pleased to be embalmed and wrapped in a clean linen cloth by Joseph and Nicodemus, give me the grace to receive most worthily, Thy Precious Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, with a heart embalmed with the precious ointment of Thy virtues.

After the Communion: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst triumphantly issue from the fast sealed monument, grant that, rising from the tomb of my sins, I may walk in newness of life so that when Thou shalt appear in glory I may merit also to appear with Thee.

At the Dominus vobiscum: Jesus appears to His disciples

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst gladden the hearts of Thy Blessed Mother and Thine apostles by manifesting Thyself to them after Thy Resurrection, grant that, since I cannot be so happy as to behold Thee in this mortal life, I may hereafter enjoy the unclouded vision of Thy glory.

At the Postcommunion: Jesus converses for forty days with His disciples

Lord Jesus Christ, Who after Thy Resurrection deign to converse for forty days with Thy disciples, instructing them in the mysteries of our faith, increase, I beseech Thee, my knowledge of those Divine Truths, and confirm my belief in them.

The last Dominus vobiscum: Jesus ascends to Heaven

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst ascend gloriously into Heaven in the presence of Thy disciples, grant me so to love Thee that I may desire none but eternal joys, and aspire to the possession of Thee as the first and best of all blessings.

At the priest’s blessing: The descent of the Holy Ghost

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst send the Holy Ghost on Thine apostles, while engaged in unanimous and persevering prayer, purify my soul, I beseech Thee, that the Paraclete, finding therein a dwelling well pleasing to Him, may adorn it with His gifts and replenish it with His consolations

Thanksgiving after Mass

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and Redeemer of men, I humbly thank Thee for having permitted me to assist today at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I beseech Thee, through the efficacy of  that adorable Sacrifice, to strengthen me against all temptations, and to grant that, having served Thee faithfully in this life, I may hereafter attain to the possession of Thy glory. Amen.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s Substack “Tradition & Sanity”; personal site; composer site; publishing house Os Justi Press and YouTube, SoundCloud, and Spotify pages.

“May their words be as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in” - Fr Hugh Barbour on St Thomas Aquinas and Urban Hannon

In anticipation of the 750th anniversary of the death of St Thomas this week, we are pleased to share with our readers today the text of the Foreword contributed by Fr Hugh Barbour, O.Praem., to a newly published work that will be of considerable interest to readers of NLM: Urban Hannon’s Thomistic Mystagogy: St. Thomas Aquinas’s Commentaries on the Mass, a careful synthesis of the saint's remarks on the greatest liturgical act of the Church as found in various of his writings. Fr Barbour does a splendid job introducing this book, explaining why it is important, and offering a gentle but firm critique of liturgical minimalism, positivism, and legalism, which he sees as suffocators of mystery, reverence, and beauty. 

Foreword to Thomistic Mystagogy
by
Fr Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.

“The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd. More than these, my son, require not. Of the making of many books there is no end: and much study is an affliction of the flesh.” (Ecclesiastes 12, 11–12)

Few are the books in any area of theological inquiry of which we could say that they were so sufficient as to render further searches unnecessary. Yet such as there are, if and when we find them, are concise and illuminating, and one finds oneself saying, “Finally I get it!” “I’ve never understood before as I do now.”

These are the “goads,” the “counsels of masters,” given as though “by one shepherd,” which become as “nails deeply fastened” in our understanding. Only when we come across such works do we understand how it is that “the making of many books” and “much study” can be a merely futile exercise and affliction. The boon we have received in insight simply disposes us to contemplate what we now possess in knowledge, and to cease from further restless precisions and amplifications which do not add to the intensive quality of our thinking, even if they may add a certain quantity of erudition.

The authors of such books are not the greatest masters themselves, but rather the keenest students of the greatest masters. They match their masters, not in the grand volume of their comprehensive writings, but in the lean precision of their appreciation. They are hard to list, since their authority is established in a very relative way, and there are always more waiting to be known.^[1]

In fact, one may say without exaggeration that it is the task of every careful student to compose such lesser accounts of his greater masters’ teaching in order to keep hold of the insights he has received from them—if nothing else, in a notebook of commonplaces, some file to which we add over time. This may be a happier reason than Qoheleth’s for faciendi libros nullus est finis!

After all, are not the Summae of St. Thomas themselves, thanks to their very method, an ordering of such little, lesser, portable treatises woven together formally, reflecting architectonically how the whole of things comes forth and returns to its principle in sound judgment, while retaining the relation of each article in itself to the way in which we come to know, which is not the pattern of the whole, but that of our intelligence in motion? And thus the order of things and the order of coming to know are in their different ways reflected?

Regarding St. Thomas’s teaching on the Eucharist, which is our interest here, Urban Hannon offers us the second half of a work not his own which needed to be completed. Thomistic Mystagogy is, I would have the reader understand, an unintended (to Urban) completion in precisely Thomistic terms, a kind of companion volume, to Dom Ansgar Vonier’s A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist. Hannon would insist that Vonier would have done it better, but he didn’t, and now surely is gratified from his place on high to favor the younger theologian’s efforts.

The century which separates the publication of Hannon’s work from the great abbot of Buckfast’s only serves to illustrate the appositeness of this pairing. The key work of clarification of the sacramental sense of St. Thomas’s eucharistic doctrine, and the demands this sense makes on the consistency and rigor of its exposition and application, sets it apart from any positivistic or practical presentation. And yet it is just this sort of positivism which characterizes the preoccupation of the intervening liturgical movements, pre- and post-conciliar, and their approaches to the Mass. In the meantime, some Thomists are still content to entertain the French School rationales of the “essence” of the Mass as being found in the dispositions of the soul of the Incarnate Word, and not simply the offering of his body and blood!

So it is time to renew the forces of the greatest of eucharistic theologies by a return to Thomas pure and simple. Taking up Urban Hannon’s Thomistic Mystagogy will provide Aquinas’s attentive students with just that lively positive exposition which avoids the deadly positivism both of the ceremonial manuals of the pre-conciliar sort and of the bureaucratic “Office of Liturgy” nomenklatura authorities of the post-conciliar sort. What we need now is historical continuity with the liturgical sense of the Christian tradition—not a ruthless, historicist, “scientific” elimination of all allegory and subjective devotion, which is as foreign to the Epistle to the Hebrews as to Durandus or any of the medievals.

St. Thomas’s understanding of the unique reality of the sacramental order is the exhilarating and demanding summit of his doctrine of the Eucharist. This is Vonier’s contribution. Thomas’s devout exposition of the solemnities of the sacrament in the Mass is ours thanks to Hannon’s present work, which is about the things which are “said and done around the sacrament,” which are not its very being, but which nonetheless are not superfluous for its “being well.” This is the kind of simple Thomistic language which overcomes a mere essentialist minimalism, for when would it ever in practice be interesting to separate a valued thing in its esse from its bene esse? One could never take away from the theology offered here an attitude which is accustomed to thinking, “Well, at least the Mass was valid!” And how many of us over the years, sadly, have said or thought something similar.

For this we can blame a certain kind of deracinated theology of the essence of the Mass, and a certain kind of liturgical theology. Let us have no more of either. A minimally valid Mass is an illicit and sacrilegious one. Canon law forbids as nefas, literally “unspeakable,” the confection of the sacrament outside the Missarum solemnia even in extreme urgency. St. Thomas’s eucharistic theology is not a matter of settling for less, just because we know what less is.

A final fraternal caution to fellow Thomists: Hannon is wise to point out as a faithful disciple, and not merely a fan of Aquinas, that Thomas is rarely novel in his ideas, and that his use of others’ opinions makes them no less his own. Too often, in their zeal to justify the Angelic Doctor’s superiority, Thomists have looked for some new insight or essentially “Thomistic” teaching, hitherto unknown. Here, however, in Thomas’s mystagogical instructions, as in all his teaching on sacramental and liturgical matters, we find only a faithful recitation of what has been handed on in the rite of the sacraments, and which might easily have been written by almost any twelfth- or thirteenth-century theologian.

Nowhere is this habit of his more evident than in his preferential and well-nigh exclusive use of the authority of the Pseudo-Areopagite, whom he prefers to call simply Dionysius, in matters which touch on hierarchical worship, whether sacramental or angelic. This attitude an all-pervasive one.^[2] Thomas, would, it seems, have been ashamed to be novel in expounding so great a mystery. And this quality, perhaps, is what gives his twin expositors, Vonier and Hannon, their own measure of humility and thus of a certain Thomistic greatness. “May their words be as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in,” as they unite our minds to the sacrament of the sacrifice offered on the cross.

Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.
St. Michael’s Abbey, California
January 1, 2024
Circumcision of Our Blessed Lord

 

Thomistic Mystagogy is available in paperback, hardcover, or ebook, directly from the publisher, or from all Amazon outlets.

NOTES

[1] For theists and Christians generally one might name the Lewis of Mere Christianity or The Abolition of Man, and the Chesterton of Orthodoxy, and for Thomists, Pieper shines out, and Sertillanges, and Clerissac for ecclesiology, and for more recent students of the Mass there is the incomparable Joseph de Sainte Marie (Salleron), O.C.D., then for the understanding of prayer there is Gabriel Dieffenbach O.F.M. Cap.’s woefully little known gem Common Mystic Prayer, and for Mariology the suave treatise of De Koninck, Ego Sapientia: The Wisdom That Is Mary.

[2] In fact, throughout the works of St. Thomas, Dionysius is regarded as a supreme authority after sacred scripture and before the other Fathers in exegesis, theological method, metaphysics, and angelology, as well as in liturgy and spirituality. This, it is said, is because he is presumed to be the earliest non-canonical writer, the convert of St. Paul at Athens named in Acts 17. And yet it can hardly be that an authority so developed, consistent, and universal could be based only on a simple historical error. The content of his teaching, however historically recommended, is beyond question. The Areopagite’s teaching and the Church’s reception of it are undeniable and immoveable facts of history and Christian theology. One need only examine, for example, the acute use of the Areopagite in medieval English vernacular literature on prayer to verify its far-reaching influence. Of no one else did St. Thomas say in the most absolute terms, and precisely regarding the metaphysical principles of speculative thought, what he said of the Areopagite and his Christian Platonist disciples in his commentary De Divinis Nominibus: “Verissima est eorum opinio.” One can only hope that Thomists will begin to take his words formalissime as they were clearly meant and draw fruitful conclusions therefrom! We await a movement of Dionysian Thomists.

An Allegorical Rationale for the Ministers Sitting During the Gloria and Credo

Seated clergy removing birettas at the Name of Jesus

In discussions of the classical Roman rite and the twentieth-century liturgical reform, one example that always comes up of “something that just had to change” in the Tridentine Mass — one among many things targeted as supposed flaws by reform-minded people — is the custom whereby the ministers (the priest at a Missa cantata, the priest, deacon, and subdeacon at a Missa solemnis) return to their seats for the duration of the sung Gloria and Credo after they have recited the text themselves at the altar.* The reform-minded protest against both the “duplication” of the text and the alleged oddity of everyone sitting during the singing of these parts of the Mass Ordinary. Shouldn’t the clergy sing the texts together with the people, and everyone remain standing?

In an earlier article at NLM, “Is It Fitting for the Priest to Recite All the Texts of the Mass?,” I defended an affirmative answer to that question on spiritual and liturgical grounds. I shall not rehash the same arguments here. Nor will I comment on practical reasons for sitting, such as lengthy pieces of polyphony, or giving older or infirm clergy a chance to rest. I also would not dispute that the monastic custom (at least, I have seen it most often at monasteries) of the ministers remaining standing during the entirety of the Gloria and Credo is fitting for the relatively short duration of chanted Ordinaries; I do not maintain that the ministers should always sit down. The rubrics allow them to remain at their places; sitting is a concession.

Rather, taking it for granted that there are theological reasons for duplicating and practical reasons for sitting, I would like to consider some theological connections that have occurred to me over the years as I have watched this custom and thought about it. The contemplative atmosphere of the classical Roman liturgy has nurtured in me a patient, open-minded, speculative disposition towards texts, music, and ceremonies. My habit of mind is now to ask, in accord with the allegorical method of our ancestors: “What meanings can I glean from the liturgy as it exists in front of me?,” rather than: “How ought it to be improved?”

I can honestly say that I had never pondered the mystery of the “session” or seatedness of the Son of God until I had seen ministers moving from the altar in a liturgically dignified manner and sitting down ceremonially at the High Mass and Solemn Mass. Until then, “sits [or is seated] at the right hand of the Father” had been no more than a line rattled off when reciting the Apostles’ Creed or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Yet it is a mystery important enough to receive many mentions in the New Testament (cf. Mk 16:19, Acts 7:55, Rom 8:34, Heb 1:3, Rev 3:21), and in liturgical texts. In the Gloria itself: Qui sedes at dexteram Patris, miserere nobis: “Thou who art seated at the right [hand] of the Father, have mercy on us.” In the Credo: Et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris: “And He ascended into heaven, [and] is seated at the right [hand] of the Father.”

Moreover, in a church that had no pews in the nave, the sitting of the clergy would more obviously accentuate their special role in the liturgy. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes St. Gregory the Great (Hom. xxix in Evang.): “It is the judge’s place to sit, while to stand is the place of the combatant or helper” (Summa theologiae III, q. 58, a. 1, ad 3).

It is not exactly scripted in the rubrics when the ministers are to sit down, nor are they required to do so; they may remain standing the whole time, a posture that will always retain its resurrectional significance, as it does to this day in the Eastern tradition. Nevertheless, it was the Solemn High Mass that made the custom of being seated “click” for me.

At the "Et incarnatus est"

The ministers all kneel at the altar, as is appropriate, for the Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: et homo factus est. Then they rise and return to the sedilia at the side of the sanctuary. The priest, who primarily represents Christ in the offering of the Mass, is seated. Around this time, the schola (and in some places the people too) are singing: passus et sepultus est — Christ, having suffered, was laid in the tomb. The Creed almost suggests this natural moment of rest as it mentions the lowest and humblest point of the Savior’s descent among us.

At the same time, the subdeacon remains standing while the deacon proceeds to the credence, receives the burse from the MC, and brings it to the altar to set forth the corporal. During this time the schola is usually singing Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum. The reason we can turn from the Scriptural part of the service (the Mass of the Catechumens) to the Eucharistic sacrifice (the Mass of the Faithful) is that Christ is indeed risen from the dead, and death hath no more dominion over Him. He is able to renew His sacrifice among us sacramentally precisely because He is glorified. His rising on the third day was the great opening not only of the kingdom of heaven but of the sevenfold font of sacramental grace that brings us to heaven.

Deacon carrying the burse and corporal to the altar during the Credo

Call it accidental if you wish, but I find it very beautiful that as this Christological confession is sung, the principal minister occupies a seat as does Christ the Lord in heavenly glory, while the deacon, also bearing His image, prepares the altar for the “return” of the King, and the subdeacon stands at attention. The Creed then acknowledges the seating of Christ at the right hand of the Father, and His return in glory: sedet ad dexteram Patris: et iterum venturus est cum gloria. Around this time, the deacon returns to the side, and both he and the subdeacon take their seats. In this way, the various intertwined mysteries the Creed mentions at this point (around the resurrection, ascension, and session) are all somehow put on display, as if being acted out before our eyes.

Then, when the schola sings: Et vitam venturi saeculi, “[and I believe] in the life of the world to come,” all make the sign of the Cross, the ministers rise, and the people rise as well. This final strophe of the Creed has just mentioned the general resurrection of the dead and the life without end in heaven, when all the blessed will share the glory of the risen Lord. How appropriate that the “general rising” takes place right at this point in the Creed!

It is as if we are permitted to “act out,” in a sense, certain of the mysteries confessed, even as the priest during the Canon “acts out” some of Christ’s gestures, as Michael Fiedrowicz describes:

The traditional rubrics of the Roman Canon call for a “reenacting” of Christ’s actions through the celebrating priest. He not only reads aloud the words of institution, but copies Christ’s gestures as they are described: at the moment of the accepit panem/calicem he takes the offerings in his hands, which were anointed by the blessing (in sanctas et venerabiles manus suas), lifts his eyes (elevatis oculis), gratefully (gratias agens) bows his head, makes a sign of the Cross at the benedixit, and in a humble attitude completes the transubstantiation, with his arms touching the altar, once more emphasizing the union with Christ. (The Traditional Mass, p. 274)

Postscript

Years after the above “picture” was formed in my mind, I decided to consult William Durandus, whose Rationale Divinorum Officiorum had recently entered my library. Sure enough, he had beat me to the main point, once more demonstrating that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles 1:9). Book IV, chapter 18 concerns “Of the Seating of the Bishop or the Priest and the Ministers,” of which the following lines are apropos (pp. 168–69 in the Thibodeau trans.):

He is seated in a prominent place, so that just as the vinedresser cares for his vineyard, he cares for his people; for the Lord, seated in the highest heavens, guards His city (cf. Ps 126:1)…. Sitting down after the prayer signifies the seating of Christ at the right hand of the Father after His Ascension, for the seat naturally goes to the victor. Thus, the seating of the priest designates the victory of Christ… The seating of the ministers signifies the seating of those to whom it is said: You shall also sit on the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 19:28): namely, those who now reign in heaven; those who labor in the choir signify those who are as yet pilgrims in this world… Some ministers sit with the bishop, through whom is understood that the members of Christ at last have repose in peace, about which the Apostle says: He seated us together in heaven, in Christ (Eph 2:6), or else those who judge the twelve tribes of Israel; others remain standing, through whom is understood those members of Christ who continue with the struggle in this world.

* NOTE: I have decided not to address here the question of the sitting of the clergy during the Kyrie, although the enterprising reader will find it pleasant to meditate on the allegorical interpretations that might be proffered.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube channel.

In Defense of Allegorical Interpretation of the Liturgy

Allegorical interpretation of the liturgy was totally rejected during the period of liturgical reform, and even earlier by liturgists who tended towards rationalistic or reductionistic explanations (Fr. Adrian Fortescue comes to mind, although he was fortunately inconsistent). You know the kind of argument I mean:

“We know that the lifting up of the chasuble by the deacon and subdeacon, or the servers, at the elevation of the host and the chalice was only because the Gothic chasuble was made of such heavy material and ornament, and the priest needed help getting his arms up high.” The implication is: “And therefore it can’t have anything to do with the story in the Gospel about the woman with a flow of blood who touched the garment of Christ in order to be healed. That’s just a wilful, arbitrary connection some ignorant person made in a devotional book, and then it got spread around.”

This, as can be plainly seen, is no more than a Catholic version of the modern tendency that C.S. Lewis called “nothing buttery,” namely (in the words of George Gilder) “dismissing non-material qualities as ‘nothing but…’ some lower physical property.” Life is “nothing but” chemical processes; mind is “nothing but” firing neurons; love is “nothing but” hormones; and so forth. The liturgical equivalent is easy to recognize. The subdeacon’s use of the humeral veil for the paten is “nothing but” a holdover from the early Roman fermentum rite. The conclusion, whether stated or not, is always: “And therefore it should be abolished.” Which, indeed, is what the reformers did: they stripped away nearly everything that no longer served an immediate practical function, and allowed almost nothing to remain that had lost its original (known or hypothesized) purpose.

Those who study the history of the liturgy often discover that certain practices later held to be richly symbolic had or may have had quite prosaic, practical, or accidental origins — origins in which their later symbolism played no part whatsoever. Yet this makes no difference at all to the validity of allegorical interpretations, for the simple reason that any given practice (construed broadly to include minister, object, action, cessation of action, etc.) presents itself to the worshiper now as part of an ensemble of ceremonial and symbolic actions, thereby acquiring, as if magnetically, new meanings, new interpretations, new resonances. In its fine texture of details, the traditional liturgy speaks both the same messages and new messages to each generation. Like an ancient epic poem, the same text reads differently in this or that age, without losing its remarkable ability to transcend them all. The most potent and transformative signs are not those that are limited to a single definite meaning, but those that are, to use a favorite word of Dante’s, “polysemous,” turning this way and that, accumulating layers of associations.

As with patristic and medieval Scripture exegesis, it simply does not matter if we “read into” the liturgical rites an intention that was not present in the human author’s or initiator’s mind, and this for two reasons.

First, the ultimate author is God, the First Cause, who sees further and intends more than His created agent is capable of seeing and intending. For example, it was no surprise to Him that the number of signs of the Cross made in the Solemn Mass would achieve, after many centuries, the numerological perfection of 7 * 7 + 3.

Second, even subjective or arbitrary interpretations can be essentially in harmony with the objective referent, as meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary can be essentially in harmony with the re-presentation of these mysteries in the Mass (cf. Pius XII, Mediator Dei), and, moreover, can be personally helpful to the one who “indulges” in them. It is like St. Augustine’s rule for Scripture: any interpretation or application that is not contrary to the Church’s faith or to the sovereign rule of charity is legitimate — indeed, was already known to God from all eternity, even if some interpretations are superior to others in their contextual fidelity, applicability, nuance, or depth.

This ancient-medieval exegetical freedom, exercised on the traditional rites given to us by the same ancient and medieval Church, has very often led me to notable breakthroughs in my understanding of the mysteries of faith and how to live my life, in ways that I don’t recall happening with the Novus Ordo. There are several reasons for this difference, but for my present purposes, the key difference is that the Novus Ordo was fashioned by its architects to be immediately understandable and understood: “what you see is what you get.” It tends to “make sense” immediately and without remainder, and that is precisely why it is boring, and why people have to write books and articles about how to make Mass not a boring experience. In contrast, the old liturgy has accumulated so many features over the centuries that, like a vast rambling mansion that seems never to run out of rooms, closets, attics, passageways, gardens, fields or forests to explore, one really never “sees it all” or “gets to the bottom of it.” It is more of a closed book than an open book, yet a book that is freely offered to be opened and pondered ad libitum.

The analogy between the Bible and traditional liturgical rites deserves to be underlined: on the one hand, a book that was written by a single divine author and as many as a hundred inspired human authors, coming together over a period of 1,300 years (from ca. 1200 BC to AD 100); on the other hand, Christian rites that were guided by a single Holy Spirit, built up into their mature form by apostles, bishops, popes, and other saints over a similar period of time (the period from the apostolic age to the high Middle Ages). With similar gestations, guiding principles, and aims, it seems probable, at very least, that Scripture and Liturgy ought to be susceptible to the same spiritual creativity in tandem with fixity of content. A reverse confirmation is found in the fact that biblical modernism rejects the spiritual senses just as liturgical modernism rejects liturgical allegory.

Therefore, lovers of the liturgical tradition: Do not be afraid to attach meanings to ministers, objects, or actions, or to adopt the meanings given in devotional literature, if they help you to pray. One sign of a great work of art is that it makes room for, and has the wherewithal to provoke, many responses, all more or less closely tied to its own ingredients, and drawn back into them. The Mass is the greatest work of art the West has ever known, exceeding all others in its intelligible density and its fertility of cultural power. Reading off “spiritual senses” from its literal sense is no less natural and fitting than doing the same with the narrative of Israel in the Old Testament or the narrative of Christ in the New.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube channel.

Biblical Types or Anticipations of Traditional Catholic Worship

Photo by Ramses Sudiang on Unsplash

With unabashed admiration for medieval allegorical commentators on the Mass who did not stop at the level of practical or historical explanations but went for deeper significance, playing like children in the garden of spiritual meanings that spring forth from the original literal seeds, I share with readers today certain suggestive Scripture verses that support or at least add additional weight to practices familiar in the usus antiquior. I do not claim, of course, that the human authors of these verses had in mind a future Christian liturgy of Europe in its fully-developed medieval condition. But we know that the Primary Author of Scripture did have in mind the many ways in which He would inspire the Church to glorify Him worthily in her traditional rites.

Separation of Sanctuary from Nave

“And Aaron was separated to minister in the holy of holies, he and his sons for ever, and to burn incense before the Lord, according to his ceremonies, and to bless his name for ever.” (1 Chron. 23:13)

“The chambers of the north, and the chambers of the south, which are before the separate building: they are holy chambers, in which the priests shall eat, that approach to the Lord into the holy of holies: there they shall lay the most holy things, and the offering for sin, and for trespass: for it is a holy place. And when the priests shall have entered in, they shall not go out of the holy places into the outward court: but there they shall lay their vestments, wherein they minister, for they are holy: and they shall put on other garments, and so they shall go forth to the people.” (Ezek. 42:13–14)

“The priests, and Levites, the sons of Sadoc, who kept the ceremonies for my sanctuary, when the children of Israel went astray from me: they shall come near to me, to minister to me: and they shall stand before me, to offer me the fat, and the blood, saith the Lord God. They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and to keep my ceremonies.” (Ezek. 44:15–16)

“Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come…by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption…. For Jesus is not entered into the holies made with hands, the patterns of the true: but into heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year with the blood of others: for then he ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world: but now once at the end of ages, he hath appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebr. 9:11–12, 24–26)

“And it came to pass, when he [Zachary] executed the priestly function in the order of his course before God, according to the custom of the priestly office, it was his lot to offer incense, going into the temple of the Lord. And all the multitude of the people was praying without, at the hour of incense.” (Luke 1:8–10)

Incensation of the Altar

“And I saw seven angels standing in the presence of God; and there were given to them seven trumpets. And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.” (Rev. 8:2–4)

“And Aaron was separated to minister in the holy of holies, he and his sons for ever, and to burn incense before the Lord, according to his ceremonies, and to bless his name for ever.” (1 Chron. 23:13)

“Who then can be able to build him a worthy house? if heaven, and the heavens of heavens cannot contain him: who am I that I should be able to build him a house? but to this end only, that incense may be burnt before him.” (2 Chron. 2:6)”

“Our fathers have sinned and done evil in the sight of the Lord God, forsaking him: they have turned away their faces from the tabernacle of the Lord, and turned their backs. They have shut up the doors that were in tile porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burnt incense, nor offered holocausts in the sanctuary of the God of Israel. Therefore the wrath of the Lord hath been stirred up against Juda and Jerusalem, and he hath delivered them to trouble, and to destruction, and to be hissed at, as you see with your eyes. Behold, our fathers are fallen by the sword, our sons, and our daughters, and wives are led away captives for this wickedness. Now therefore I have a mind that we make a covenant with the Lord the God of Israel, and he will turn away the wrath of his indignation from us. My sons, be not negligent: the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, and to minister to him, and to worship him, and to burn incense to him.” (2 Chron 29:6–11)

“Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice.” (Ps. 140:2)

Facing the Altar as Mediators, Not Towards the People

“And the priests went in, and stood before the face of the altar and the temple: and weeping, they said: Thou, O Lord, hast chosen this house for thy name to be called upon therein, that it might be a house of prayer and supplication for thy people.” (1 Macc. 7:36–37)

“And the priests prostrated themselves before the altar in their priests’ vestments, and called upon him from heaven…” (2 Macc. 3:15)

“And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the sight of the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands towards heaven; and said: Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee in heaven above, or on earth beneath: who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that have walked before thee with all their heart…. And it came to pass, when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication to the Lord, that he rose from before the altar of the Lord: for he had fixed both knees on the ground, and had spread his hands towards heaven.” (1 Kg. 8:22–23, 54)

“Our fathers have sinned and done evil in the sight of the Lord God, forsaking him: they have turned away their faces from the tabernacle of the Lord, and turned their backs.” (2 Chron. 29:6)

“And they have turned their backs to me, and not their faces: when I taught them early in the morning, and instructed them, and they would not hearken to receive instruction.” (Jer 32:33)

The Silences During Mass—especially in the Canon

“And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven, as it were for half an hour.” (Rev. 8:1)

“For thus saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel: If you return and be quiet, you shall be saved: in silence and in hope shall your strength be.” (Isa. 30:15)

“It is good to wait with silence for the salvation of God.” (Lam. 3:26)

“Hear in silence, and for thy reverence good grace shall come to thee…. In many things be as if thou wert ignorant, and hear in silence and withal seeking.” (Sir. 32:9, 12)

“For while all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her course, Thy almighty Word leapt down from heaven from Thy royal throne.” (Wis. 18:14–15)

“But the Lord is in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before Him.” (Hab. 2:20)

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube channel.