mcb wrote:Nothing much else to say really - it's not peculiar from a grammatical point of view, we just don't know what it means.
Just to clarify that we are on the same wavelength, mcb, could you confirm or not that when you say, "it's not peculiar from a grammatical point of view", that you don't mean to say, "the words "mysterium fidei" do not fit syntactically into the word of constitution". Could you also confirm or otherwise that when you say, "we just don't know what it means", that you don't mean to say, "the words "mysterium fidei" in the context of the verba made no sense because, in context, they cannot be interpreted in any way that would make sense of them"?
Musicus, do forgive me this one final question as the import of mcb's remarks appears to confuse.
Calum Cille wrote:could you confirm or not [...] that you don't mean to say, "the words "mysterium fidei" do not fit syntactically into the word of constitution".
Words of institution, I assume you mean? Like I said, I think making it a question of syntax is a red herring - an otherwise unattached noun phrase in a Latin sentence can be taken to be in apposition with another noun phrase with a head noun in the same case. But it only makes sense to do so (i.e. to take this to be the correct parsing of the sentence) if there's a candidate noun phrase elsewhere for it to be linked to. And that depends on whether the connection makes sense. So (to almost answer your question), (i) there's nothing inherently ungrammatical about a dangling noun phrase if it connects with another; (ii) the only candidate to link with mysterium would seem to be calix, which doesn't make convincing good sense (where sanguinis or testamenti might have); (iii) we don't know what it means, and the problem isn't inherently syntactic; (iv) there is a problem in knowing where mysterium fidei fits in the grammatical structure of the institution narrative.
Calum Cille wrote:Could you also confirm that you don't mean to say, "the words "mysterium fidei" in the context of the verba made no sense because, in context, they cannot be interpreted in any way that would make sense of them"?
I don't know, is the honest answer.
(Disclaimer: I know nothing about either Latin or sacramental theology. There must be someone out there who can answer these questions from a basis of lesser ignorance than mine. Next door's cat, for a start. )
An intriguing thread. For me, the enigmatic nature of the phrase is underscored by the punctuation (same in pre-1962 and 1962 Missals - quoted correctly by CC above). Just say this section of the institution narrative with the pauses demanded by the parenthetic colons. It looks, reads, sounds and feels like a noun phrase that stands alone, without necessarily qualifying anything. I must go and look up how it got there in the first place (frustration: Ambrose's early reference to the Canon - On the Sacraments - stops short in his quotation of this section).
Here are a couple of interesting quotes, from a website less wholesome than this one:
The words “mysterium fidei”, not found in the biblical institution narrative, have been embedded in the formula of consecration of the chalice since at least the 7th century. They were displaced in the 20th. It is possible that in the ancient Church a deacon said these words aloud to clue people in about what was going on behind the curtains drawn before the altar.
Yes, the removal of “Mysterium Fidei” was a titanic innovation in the 20th century, but so was its insertion, in certain areas, in the 7th century. It is non-Scriptural, and the essence of the sacrifice does not call for this acclamation by either the priest individually or joined by the people in this part of the consecration. If we wish to elicit confessions and oaths in the Real Presence, it can easily be done outside of Mass before the proper authorities of the Church.
If we are going to retain this phrase, I find it very appropriate to connect the transubstantiation of the Blessed Sacrament to the mystery of Resurrection as well and its fulfillment in the Parousia, and for the people to acclaim this as the “res tantum” (ultimate realities) of the Sacrifice. These kinds of acclamations are very common in the Eastern liturgies, and are not done to “make the people get loud” for their enjoyment or benefit. Rather, acclamations of the people throughout the liturgy are for a greater expression of adoration, by the members and not only the head (priest).
Thank you for your response. I can see that you have not given categorical support either to the statement "the words "mysterium fidei" do not fit syntactically into the word of constitution" or to the statement "the words "mysterium fidei" in the context of the verba made no sense".
mcb wrote:Words of institution, I assume you mean?
Yes; “constitution” is the name of one of the main streets local to me.
mcb wrote:(to almost answer your question) ... the problem isn't inherently syntactic;
Your statement that "the problem isn't inherently syntactic" appears to weaken at least to some degree any perception that you would support the notion that the words "mysterium fidei" do not fit in syntactically.
Calum Cille wrote:Could you also confirm that you don't mean to say, "the words "mysterium fidei" in the context of the verba made no sense because, in context, they cannot be interpreted in any way that would make sense of them"?
mcb wrote:I don't know, is the honest answer.
Since you do not know either way, I deduce that you do not mean to say that "the words 'mysterium fidei' in the context of the verba made no sense because, in context, they cannot be interpreted in any way that would make sense of them", as such a statement expresses the conviction of a viewpoint in a certain direction.
I remain unconvinced that such a topic is a red herring, mcb, and I would be interested to see what presbyter can dig up about it. Nick Baty's original enquiry was for understanding concerning the status of 'Christ has died'. In order to investigate the appropriateness of this statement in the mass, one has to discuss the germane issues. The meaning and function of the phrase "mysterium fidei", in current and previous contexts, are surely germane issues, 'Christ has died' being a response to it. Since grammar and syntax play a role in relation to meaning, they would seem to be germane topics for discussion to that end.
I’m not keen on any assertion that there are senseless phrases anywhere in the words of the mass and, since mcb mentions not knowing the sense of “mysterium fidei”, I’d like to address the question of the meaning of the phrase in its original context; not to aspire to 'inform' forum members of things they already know, but because comment has been made about a claimed lack of meaning and because not much possible content of meaning has been set out on this thread about this phrase in its original context.
Words and symbols can be rich with multiple meanings which are often justifiable, whether or not officially validated in writing by ecclesiastical authorities. One particularly strong candidate meaning for “mysterium fidei” in its original context can be argued as follows.
When we say, “a glass of milk”, we do not merely refer to the vessel, we also refer to the contents; thus “I don’t want a glass of milk, I want a glass of water” can actually be meaningfully used in a situation when the same glass is actually being used. It is pertinent to note that both Matthew and Mark refer to “My blood” and not to the cup whereas Luke and 1 Corinthians principally refer to the cup but not without relating the cup to “My blood”. In 1 Corinthians, St Paul asks, “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?” One could argue from this that the word 'cup' is used as a metonym for the cup's contents. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul repeatedly uses the construction “drink the cup”; strictly, one does not drink cups, one drinks liquids from cups.
When Luke and 1 Corinthians say (strictly, it is not Luke and 1 Corinthians that say this but the writers of Luke and 1 Corinthians) that “this cup is the new testament”, the cup becomes a symbol of God’s new covenant with man but, this new covenant being forged in blood, the concept of sacrifice is associated with the cup. This association of sacrifice with a cup is not made only at the Last Supper but also in the garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus indicates that a cup has been given to him by the Father. St Augustine unites these two cups in a “cup of suffering” which martyrs drink.
St Peter is on record as saying that Christ’s witnesses ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. We share the cup with Christ: he offers himself and the church unites herself with this offering and offers herself. The cup of God’s new covenant is an important sign of what is acknowledged in paragraph 1368 of the catechism.
The establishment of God’s new covenant and the act of Christ’s sacrifice are aspects of the Paschal mystery. While the precise intentions of those who originally included the phrase “mysterium fidei” in the words of institution are not clear, to claim that they don’t make any sense is demonstrably untenable. Both mcb and I agree that the grammar of the noun “mysterium” allows it to be validly related to the cup, which is scripture presents as God’s new testament, made in blood.
When the words, “mysterium fidei” are said in the context of the words of institution, very good argument can be made for them to have meaning, viz, they refer to the Blood-holding Cup of the New Covenant, “a sharing in the blood of Christ”, an important aspect of the Paschal mystery which is celebrated in the liturgy. I have always taken these words to refer to (the fairly obvious candidate of) the mystery of the Passover sacrifice of Christ.
An official stance on the meaning of the phrase in the original context is, once again, another question. The meaning of the phrase in the context of the modern liturgy, and the degree of appropriateness of “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” as a response to "the mystery of faith", are yet more questions which I have no current interest in discussing (musicus will be relieved to hear), finding neither utterance any more offensive than singing “glory to God in the highest” at Easter and “blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” at Christmas, or than singing “Sanctus Dominus ... pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua ... benedictus qui venit”.
Well here's Jungmann (The Mass of the Roman Rite), who does link the phrase grammatically to the chalice
Regarding the meaning of the words mysterium fidei, there is absolutely no agreement. A distant parallel is to be found in the Apostolic Constitutions, where our Lord is made to say at the consecration of tthe bread: "This is the mystery of the New Testament, take of it, eat, it is My Body". Just as here the mysterium is referred to the bread in the form of a predicate, so in the canon of the Mass it is referred to the chalice in the form of an apposition. It has been proposed that the words be taken as relating more closely to what precedes, so that in out text we should read: "new (and eternal) Covenant mystery (of faith)". But such a rendering can hardly be upheld, particularly because of the word fidei that follows, but also because the whole phrase dependent upon the word mysterium would then become a man made insertion into the consecrating words of our Lord. Mysterium fidei is an independent expansion, superadded to the whole self-sufficient complex that precedes.
What is meant by the words mysterium fidei? Christian antiquity would not have referred them so much to the obscurity of what is here hidden from the senses, but accessible (in part) only to (subjective) faith. Rather it would have taken them as a reference to the grace-laden sacramentum in which the entire (objective) faith, the whole divine order of salvation is comprised. The chalice of the New Testament is the life-giving symbol of truth, the sanctuary of our belief.
The question of whether or not the phrase was originally a diaconal, informative comment for the assembled faithful is well worth pursuing. Source please Copernicus.
thank you for that. I don't see how "new (and eternal) Covenant mystery (of faith)" would bear the nature of a man-made interpolation any less than a simple "new and eternal covenant, mystery of faith" interpolation, but Jungmann's equation of the (consumable) mystery / sacramental species with "the mystery of faith" would certainly match the notion of the cup as a metonym for the Precious Blood. I note that the catechism uses the phrase 'sacramenta mysterii Paschalis' (sacraments of the Paschal mystery).
Calum, thank you for your extensive musings on this subject, which I greatly appreciate. Your point about the two meanings of "cup" is very valid. You seem fond of celtic comparisons, so it may be noted that Welsh has two words to translate cup, "cwp" meaning the vessel. and "cwpaned" to mean the contents. Do you know if the latin word "calix" commonly carries both meanings?
I further note that your comments seem to relate to the extraordinary form. Can anyone shed any light on what they mean, or might mean, in the ordinary form?
Please, everyone, keep writing. This thread is turning out rather interesting.
The question of whether or not the phrase was originally a diaconal, informative comment for the assembled faithful is well worth pursuing. Source please Copernicus.
Ah no. In the Eastern rites there's a diaconal instruction/invitation to make a profession of faith - something similar to our usage. More later
Trying to make some sense of the phrase then…..in brief:
Liturgy of Saint James (Jerusalem)
Deacon - We believe and confess. Faithful - We do show forth thy death, O Lord, and confess thy resurrection.
If ( big IF )in origin The Mystery of Faith is an Eastern diaconal invitation and instruction to the faithful to make a profession of faith, then that's its simple, straightforward sense and function.
I do not know what happened in the seventh century (but want to find out). I wonder if when the phrase migrated West, it brought with it the response of the faithful. As an instruction and invitation, it could surely be argued that the phrase makes no sense and has no function without the response of the people.
Yet the response manifestly suffered a dismal desuetude in the West (if it was there at all), leaving the phrase (now assigned to the priest) in the Institution Narrative, No longer an invitation to a profession of faith, the impact/interpretation of the phrase changes.
Jungmann (and CC) connect it with the chalice (and contents thereof - the Precious Blood). In the Canon now recited sotto voce, the phrase can seem as if it's a private affirmation of faith by the celebrant in what he's engaged in.
So the sense and function of the phrase depend on its position.
The Missal of Paul VI adopts the Eastern use - an invitation/instruction to make a profession of faith. Yet the phrase is placed on the lips of the priest, not the deacon.
In the new translation of the Missal (no Let us proclaim…) I make a tentative suggestion that the sense of all the above can be embraced:
The Mystery of Faith.
1 - a simple, straightforward invitation/instruction to the faithful to make a response.
2 - because it is announced by the celebrant - he can still mentally connect the phrase with what is before him on the altar and in the act of proclaiming the phrase, make his own, internal and private affirmation of Christ's presence.
(Fr Z's blog - referred to by Copernicus - seems to overlook this possibility. Perhaps Fr Z has not thought about it. Furthermore - anyone present can make an internal affirmation of faith as the phrase is announced - which then becomes external, corporate, full, conscious and active in the sung response. )
Does that "make sense" or is it a bit far-fetched?
I echo Presbyter, in that this has been a fascinating thread - but I doubt if I have understood it all! This response will move some way from the sublime.
Nazard asked:
Do you know if the latin word "calix" commonly carries both meanings?
. In the dark ages when I was learning latin, I was told that 'calix' had, over time, became a container from which wine was drunk, and so it had become a metronym for the wine itself. I also recall being taught a number of common latin phrases, including "calix meus inebrians" - and I doubt if the container itself was causing the inebriation! Interestingly enough, there is a similar metronymy with 'cup' (which does not come from 'calix' but, I think, from a later latin word) in English, in that cup can also mean its contents (over simplifying, "Pimms No1 Cup" does not refer to its container). That's it for me - now off for some caffeine (from a mug!).
At the risk of arousing ire, when [presbyter] says
Trying to make some sense of the phrase then
he is absolutely right.
If the finest minds in the business have not succeeded in making sense of it, then why should we presume that we can do any better? And why bother? Of course it's possible to parse it syntactically, but that still doesn't mean that it makes any sense. Why not just leave it alone?
)
