Side by side comparison

[gladius_veritatis]

I dont suppose this is already available in double column format online just it would take an age to type out

 

I know it is in QTV (Questioning the Validity..., by Omlor), which is on-line, and this could be copied and pasted.

 

I will check it out.

 

[Charlemagne]

Cheers Gladius

[DominusTecum]

Even if the framers of a rite had a defective intention, it does not automatically invalidate the rite. The rite is merely, as relates to the sacraments, the words which surround the act of consecration. The Anglican liturgy does contain the words of consecration, according to the short form. Therefore, if a priest would celebrate it with valid matter, form, and intention, it would be valid. These days, very few would have proper intention. The Anglican rite of 1549 was certainly valid for priests who were still Catholic at heart but compromised and went with the authoritarian demand to use the new service, but said it quietly, reverently, facing ad orientam, as a sacrifice, etc. They had the intention to make it a Catholic Mass (Gardiner is an example of this) even though it was devised as an ambiguous protestant service with nothing explicitly heretical. Michael Davies treats the topic of the validity of the Anglican rite of 1549 in his most excellent book "Cranmer's Godly Order." I recommend you all read it, it is very fascinating reading, and enlightening with regards to the liturgical reform of today -the parallels are unbelievable.

 

The only place where the rite may be valid TODAY in Anglican churches are in some extremely "anglo-Catholic" parishes, where the priest has lost confidence in his Anglican orders and procures Old Catholic ordination, or perhaps Eastern Orthodox. Many "high church" Anglican priests have a proper intention, to offer a sacrifice for the remission of sins, and believe in transubstantiation. Very few Catholic priests have become Anglican, and if they have, they almost certainly no not possess a proper intention, being explicitly protestant. Nonetheless, it may be possible that they did it out of essentially lust, wanting to marry or somesuch thing, and so could still have a Catholic intention. In that case, the Anglican service would be a valid Mass, though obviously highly illicit and nothing any Catholic could go to, since it is a heretical and schismatic sect.

 

 

[gladius_veritatis]

Appendix 1: A Comparison Of The Consecration Prayers As Found In:

 

 

(1) The Original Latin

(2) The Literal English Translation from the Latin (Source: St. Joseph's Daily Missal 1951)

(3) The New, All-English Canon (Oct. 22, 1967)

(4) The Anglican Schismatics'  "Book of Common Prayer" (1549)

 

The symbol (*) denotes an omission.  Numbers denote footnotes, which appear at the end of this Appendix.

 

Original Latin	Literal English Translation
Qui pridie quam	Who, the day before He
pateretur,	suffered,
accepit panem	took bread
in sanctas ac	into His holy
venerabiles	and venerable
manus suas,	hands,
et elevatis	and having raised
oculis	His eyes
in coelum	to heaven,
ad te Deum	unto Thee, O God,
Patrem suum	His Almighty
omnipotentem	Father,
tibi gratias	giving thanks
agens,	to Thee,
benedixit,	He blessed it,
Fregit,	broke it,

[gladius_veritatis]

NEW ALL-ENGLISH CANON -- 1967	BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER -- 1549
The day before	who, in the
he suffered	same night that
	he was betrayed,
he took bread,	took bread,
(*)	(*)
and looking up to heaven,	(*)
to you,	(*)
his almighty	(*)
father,
he gave you thanks	and when he had
and praise,1	blessed,
(*) 2	and given thanks,
He broke the bread,	he brake it,

 

[gladius_veritatis]

ORIGINAL LATIN	LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION
deditque discipulis suis,	and gave it to His disciples,
dicens:	saying:
Accipite, et	take ye all
manducate	and eat
ex hoc omnes:	of this:
Hoc est enim	For this is
Corpus meum.	my Body.
Simili modo	In like manner,
postquam coenatum est,	when the supper was done,
accipiens et	taking also
hunc praeclarum  (4 )	this goodly
Calicem	Chalice
in sanctas ac	into His holy
venerabiles	and venerable
manus suas:	hands,
item tibi	again giving
gratias agens	thanks to Thee,

 

[gladius_veritatis]

NEW ALL-ENGLISH CANON -- 1967	BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER -- 1549
gave it to his disciples	and gave it to his disciples,
and said:	saying,
Take this	Take
and eat it,	eat,
all of you;
(*)3  this is my body	(*) 3  this is my body,
which is given for you:  do this is remembrance of me.	which is given for you:  do this is remembrance of me.
(*)	Likewise
When supper was ended,	after supper
he took the cup.4	he took the cup, (4)
(*)	(*)
Again he gave you thanks                            and praise,5	and when he had given thanks,

 

[gladius_veritatis]

ORIGINAL LATIN	LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION
benedixit,	He blessed it,
deditque discipulis suis,	and gave it to His disciples
dicens:	saying:
Accipite,	Take ye all
et bibite	and drink
ex eo omnes:	of this:
Hic est enim	For this is
Calix	the chalice
Sanguinis mei,	of my blood
novi	of the new
et aeterni	and eternal
testamenti,	covenant:
mysterium	the mystery of
fidei,	faith,
qui pro vobis	which shall
et pro multis	be shed for you
effundetur	and for many
in	unto
remissionem	the forgiveness
peccatorum.	of sins.
Haec quotiescumque	As often as you shall do
feceritis,	these things,
in mei	in memory
memoriam	of me
facietis.	shall you do them.

[gladius_veritatis]

NEW ALL-ENGLISH CANON -- 1967	BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER -- 1549
(*)	(*)
gave the cup to	he gave it
his disciples	to them,
and said:	saying,
Take this and	(*)
drink from it,	Drink ye all
all of you;	of this;
(*) this is	for this is
the cup	(*)
of my blood	My blood
the blood
of the new	of the New
and everlasting	(*)
covenant --	Testament,
the mystery of	(*)
faith.
This blood is	which is shed
to be shed for you	for you,
and for all men	and for many,
so that	for
sins may be	remission
forgiven	of sins:
Whenever	Do this,
you do	as oft as you shall
this,	drink it,
you will do it	in
in memory	Remembrance
of me.	of me.

[gladius_veritatis]

FOOTNOTES

[1]  This curious addition of the words "and praise" is discussed in Appendix 2.  

[2]  St. Matthew (26,26) writes "and blessed," and St. Mark (14,22) gives: "and blessing."  Ignoring these divinely inspired sources, the new Canon not only omits the word "blessed," at both consecrations, but also the actual blessings of the host and chalice have been removed from the rubrics.  In the form for the bread the Anglican Schismatics retained the word "blessed," but they omitted it for the wine.  From their rubrics they also removed the actual blessing of both species.  The heretic-schismatic, ex-Dominican friar Martin Bucer explained that Christ's presence "is merely in the receiving, and not in the bread and wine, which in no way are changed in their nature, but being symbols . . ."  Therefore, Bucer suggested that "the little black crosses" be omitted.  (Quoted from E. D. Estcourt, "The Question of Anglican Ordinations Discussed," p. 325.)  

[3]  The Schismatics, understandably, and the authors of the new all-English Canon both omit the word, for, which was "derived from Peter the apostle."  

[4]  Not just any cup, but "This" (hunc) particular chalice.  The "Catholic Encyclopedia" comments thus on the words: "this goodly chalice."  "Hunc praeclarum calicem, a dramatic identification of the Mass with the Last Supper," (v. 3, p. 263, 1908 ed.)  The new all-English Canon and the Schismatics' version - with identical phraseology - say simply, "He took the cup."  How dramatic!  Incidentally, as Father Jungmann points out in "The Mass of the Roman Rite" (v. 2, p. 199 and again on p. 203), the expression, "goodly chalice," is taken from Psalm 22:5.  Thus the claim of the "new-breed liturgists" that their changes reflect an attempt towards becoming "more scriptural" is quite preposterous.  

[5]  See Appendix 2.