Let's talk about the Mass of Paul VI

[Dempsey1919]

I have often wondered what inspired the Mass of Paul VI?

Where did the Mass come from? It does not resemble the traditional Mass of the Roman rite, and many of the prayers are different. Obviously the New Mass contains elements of the Old Mass, but many elements were discarded and replaced. For example, who decided that the Priest should face the people? Why did they create various Canons?

The men who created the Pauline Missal must have been inspired by other liturgies? Or did they just make it up as they went along?

I see the Pauline Mass as a simplified version of the Tridentine Mass; the OF contains all of the important elements of liturgy but it has been stripped down, so to speak. Why did the inventors of the OF feel the need to replace ancient prayers with newer alternatives?

Surely, the prayers and gestures of the OF must have some historical basis? I don’t believe that the committee responsible for the OF would just compose prayers.

I want to discuss the history of the creation of the Mass of Paul VI. What were the intentions of the creators? What historical sources did they draw from? Why did they choose to create a totally new Mass? Do the seeds of the New Mass originate in pre-Vatican II days?

Let’s have a discussion on the creation of the Pauline Missal, including the history, inspiration, and motives of the committee responsible.

Please don’t turn this into another Pauline Mass v Tridentine Mass thread.

They are both equally valid Masses of the Roman rite, so let us remember to be charitable in our responses.

Thanks

 

[ProVobis]

We only need to read what Ratzinger-Benedict says.

Condensed from the 30 Days printing of
Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to La Reforme
liturgique en question, by Klaus Gamber,
Editions Sainte-Madeleine. (Only the
French translation is on hand.)

The Mass Reduced to a Show
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

A Young priest recently told me: “Today we need a new liturgical movement”. He was expressing a desire, these days, only deliberately superficial souls would ignore.

What matters to that priest is not the conquest of new, bolder liberties. For, where is the liberty that we have yet to arrogate ourselves? That priest understood that we need a new beginning born from deep within the liturgy, as liturgical movement intended . . .

In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.

On the one hand, we have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims.

Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the “doing” becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.

On the other hand, there is the conservation of ritual forms whose greatness is always moving but which, when pushed to extremes, manifests an obstinate isolationism and leaves, ultimately, a mark of sadness.

There is no doubt that between these two poles there are priests and parishioners who celebrate the new liturgy with respect and solemnity. But they, too, are made to feel doubtful by the contradiction of the two extremes and, in the final analysis, the lack of unity within the Church makes their faith seem - and wrongly so in most cases - just their own personal version of neo-conservatism.

Therefore, a new spiritual impulse is necessary so that the liturgy becomes a community activity of the Church for us once again and to remove it from the will of parish priests and their liturgical teams.

There can be no “fabricating” a liturgical movement of this kind, just as there can be no “fabricating” something which is alive. But a contribution can be made to its development by seeking to re- assimilate the sprit of the liturgy and by defending publicity that which was received.

The new beginning needs “fathers” who would serve as models, who would not content themselves with just showing the way . . . It is difficult to express in just a few words what is important in this diatribe of liturgists and what is not. But perhaps what I have to say will be of use. J.A. Jungman, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, offered his definition of the liturgy of his time, as it was intended in the West, and he represented it in terms of historical research. He described it as “liturgy which is the fruit of development”.

This is probably in contrast with the Eastern notion which does not see liturgy as developing or growing in history but as the reflection of eternal liturgy whose light, through the sacred celebration, illumines our changing times with its unchanging beauty and greatness. Both conceptions are legitimate and by definition they are not irreconcilable.

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

• Christian Order, March 1993, pages 162-163, used with kind permission.

latin-mass-society.org/ratzshow.htm

 

[catharina]

We only need to read what Ratzinger-Benedict says.

latin-mass-society.org/ratzshow.htm

Huge correction re Ratzinger-Benedict.

Nobody is entitled to turn the words of Cardinal Ratzinger into the supposed words of Pope Benedicat XVI. If Pope Benedict repeats those words as Pope, then he has said it as Pope.

 

[ProVobis]

Thomas E Woods’ take on Card Ratzinger’s Book:

What, then, were Ratzinger’s main criticisms?

First, he contended that the new missal gave rise to excessive creativity in liturgical celebration, which in turn underminded the very essence of liturgy and cut Catholics off not only from their past but even from the parish down the street, where Mass was celebrated differently . . . . “To most people the liturgy seems to be rather something for the individual congregation to arrange. Core groups make up their own ‘liturgies’ from week to week, with an enthusiasm which is as amazing as it is misplaced.”

. . . A second major theme in Ratzinger’s corpus of liturgical writing is what he called desacralization. He told the Chilean bishops in 1988 that although many reasons could be cited to explain why a great many people “seek refuge in the traditional liturgy,” the primary one was that “they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there.” After the Council, he explained, many priests “deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program.” They argued that the New Testament had abolished the cult of the Temple, and that the tearing of the veil of the Temple from top to bottom upon Christ’ death was meant to signify the end of the sacred. “The death of Jesus, outside the City walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the true religion. Religion, if it has any being at all, must have it in the nonsacredness of daily life . . . Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things.”

. . . Ratzinger’s third major criticism of the liturgical reform was that whatever its virtues, the new missal, both in particular sections and in its entirety, leaves the impression of a rupture with the past, and in some ways seems contrived. It resembles more a compilation by a committee of professors than the organic development of a truly living liturgy. “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy,” Ratzinger wrote. “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

. . . Again Ratzinger faulted the new liturgical books themselves, not merely their clumsy implementation. “Even the official new books, which are excellent in many ways, occasionally show far too many signs of being drawn up by academics and reinforce the notion that a liturgical book can be ‘made’ like any other book.” The new missal, “was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth.”

Ratzinger cited the reform of the liturgical calendar as an example of “the armchair strategy of academics, drawing up things on paper which, in fact, would presuppose years of organic growth.” This approach was “one of the weaknesses of the psotconciliar liturgical reform.” Those responsible, he said, simply “did not realize how much the various annual feasts had influenced Christian people’s relation to time. In redistributing these established feasts throughout the year according to some historical arithmetic — inconsistently applied at that — they ignored a fundamental law of religious life.”

jknirp.com/latin.htm

 

[Jenny_Z]

Huge correction re Ratzinger-Benedict.

Nobody is entitled to turn the words of Cardinal Ratzinger into the supposed words of Pope Benedicat XVI. If Pope Benedict repeats those words as Pope, then he has said it as Pope.

Cardinal Ratzinger was still the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith… even if he said that before he was Pope, it’s still important (and definitely no less insightful, since I had full respect and admiration for him before he became Pope, as I’m sure many of you did)

 

[catharina]

Cardinal Ratzinger was still the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith… even if he said that before he was Pope, it’s still important (and definitely no less insightful, since I had full respect and admiration for him before he became Pope, as I’m sure many of you did)

As Prefect of the Congregation he wasn’t yet Pope.

Only as Pope, does he have the full graces of the office of the Papacy. That’s my point.

 

[ProVobis]

Nobody is entitled to turn the words of Cardinal Ratzinger into the supposed words of Pope Benedicat XVI. If Pope Benedict repeats those words as Pope, then he has said it as Pope.

Same person. I haven’t heard him recant anything he wrote whether as cardinal or priest or layman.

But this isn’t a thread about what the Pope says; I only used it as a starting point for discussion. Perhaps you would like to state what YOU think about the Mass of Paul VI. Or are you just happy to poke holes at anything written about the Pauline or Bugnini Mass?

 

[maurin]

Huge correction re Ratzinger-Benedict.

Nobody is entitled to turn the words of Cardinal Ratzinger into the supposed words of Pope Benedicat XVI. If Pope Benedict repeats those words as Pope, then he has said it as Pope.

Cardinal Ratzinger was still the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith… even if he said that before he was Pope, it’s still important (and definitely no less insightful, since I had full respect and admiration for him before he became Pope, as I’m sure many of you did)

As Prefect of the Congregation he wasn’t yet Pope.

Only as Pope, does he have the full graces of the office of the Papacy. That’s my point.

your point is not at all understood…as the liturgists ignore the history of the Liturgy, you are ignoring the Pope’s own history as a high-ranking prelate in the Magisterium.

What point are you making?

 

[catharina]

your point is not at all understood…as the liturgists ignore the history of the Liturgy, you are ignoring the Pope’s own history as a high-ranking prelate in the Magisterium.

What point are you making?

M ypoint is that what Pope Benedict XVI says as Holy Father is more instructive to us than anything he has said prior to the time of his Papacy. When he chooses to comment about the liturgy, we will hear him in that regard. Conclusions he draws as Holy Father are more powerfully instructive than anything he’s said before now.

(Provobis’ dig about “recanting” is disrespectful and absurd.)

 

[maurin]

And his writings as Pope are certainly in line with what he has written before ascending to the Papacy. THe SP, and the coming changes to the responses and Eucharistic prayers in the Liturgy are certainly in line with these.

we await hopefully for more good things to come!

 

[AlexV]

As pope Benedict has yet to speak extensively on numerous major topics.

It’s convenient for some but a tad myopic to claim that what he said before his election isn’t quite as forceful as what he’s said since. In many cases, he hasn’t spoken as pope on the same subjects.

But it’s typical for some to pretend that every day is a new one as far as liturgy goes, and that the past can be discarded with no concern.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Thanks to everyone who provided the quotations from the work of the Holy Father concerning the Liturgy. It is very interesting to know the current Holy Father’s opinion concerning the Mass. I believe it will enable us to accurately predict how the Mass may change during the course of his pontificate.

I thought it was a good idea to start the discussion with this quote (bold is mine):

. . . Ratzinger’s third major criticism of the liturgical reform was that whatever its virtues, the new missal, both in particular sections and in its entirety, leaves the impression of a rupture with the past, and in some ways seems contrived. It resembles more a compilation by a committee of professors than the organic development of a truly living liturgy. “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy,” Ratzinger wrote. “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

The Holy Father, then Cardinal Ratzinger, describes the Pauline Missal as the “fabricated liturgy” orchestrated by a “committee of professors.” He further points out that the “new missal” was a “rupture with the past.”

These statements reveal the current Holy Father’s opinion concerning the Pauline Missal, and the post Vatican II Liturgical Movement in general. However, they do not provide much information concerning the “committee of professors” responsible for it’s creation. By discussing the creators of the New Mass, we will be able to discern their motives for creating the NO. We will also be able to discover the symbolism behind the OF. With this in mind, does anyone know the identity of the “committee of professors” who “fabricated” the Pauline Mass?

 

[giuseppeTO]

I have often wondered what inspired the Mass of Paul VI?

Where did the Mass come from? It does not resemble the traditional Mass of the Roman rite, and many of the prayers are different. Obviously the New Mass contains elements of the Old Mass, but many elements were discarded and replaced. For example, who decided that the Priest should face the people? Why did they create various Canons?

The men who created the Pauline Missal must have been inspired by other liturgies? Or did they just make it up as they went along?

I see the Pauline Mass as a simplified version of the Tridentine Mass; the OF contains all of the important elements of liturgy but it has been stripped down, so to speak. Why did the inventors of the OF feel the need to replace ancient prayers with newer alternatives?

Surely, the prayers and gestures of the OF must have some historical basis? I don’t believe that the committee responsible for the OF would just compose prayers.

I want to discuss the history of the creation of the Mass of Paul VI. What were the intentions of the creators? What historical sources did they draw from? Why did they choose to create a totally new Mass? Do the seeds of the New Mass originate in pre-Vatican II days?

Let’s have a discussion on the creation of the Pauline Missal, including the history, inspiration, and motives of the committee responsible.

Please don’t turn this into another Pauline Mass v Tridentine Mass thread.

They are both equally valid Masses of the Roman rite, so let us remember to be charitable in our responses.

Thanks

There is really a pretty simple answer to this and you have only to look at the reflections of its pric(name removed by moderator)al architect, Bugnini. The intent was modify the Mass so that it would be acceptable to other mainstream Protestants who hold that the Mass is not the unbloody sacrafice but rather a Last Supper reinactment. So all of the parts of the Mass, the prayers referring to oblation and sacrifice were removed … references to “altar” replaced with “table”, etc. Nothing was to remain that would ostensibly be objectionable to mainstream Protestants.

And, to wit, the Novus Ordo Mass is now almost indistinguishable from the Lutheran service, the Presbyterian service, the Anglican High Mass, or the Episcopal Mass.

 

[Dempsey1919]

There is really a pretty simple answer to this and you have only to look at the reflections of its pric(name removed by moderator)al architect, Bugnini. The intent was modify the Mass so that it would be acceptable to other mainstream Protestants who hold that the Mass is not the unbloody sacrafice but rather a Last Supper reinactment. So all of the parts of the Mass, the prayers referring to oblation and sacrifice were removed … references to “altar” replaced with “table”, etc. Nothing was to remain that would ostensibly be objectionable to mainstream Protestants.

And, to wit, the Novus Ordo Mass is now almost indistinguishable from the Lutheran service, the Presbyterian service, the Anglican High Mass, or the Episcopal Mass.

Do you have any references to prove your statements and claims?

You mentioned Bugnini. Who was he and what role did he play in the creation of the Mass of Paul VI? Please provide references and proof if you choose to answer this question.

Thanks

 

[brotherhrolf]

I can give you observations from the point of view of someone who was a teenager and an altar boy during the years of transition. The change from the EF to the OF was accomplished in basically a two year period. It was not an organic or fluid change. It was every few weeks this or that prayer in Latin would be said in English. My wife has a 1965 St. Joseph Missal. We never followed anything that remotely looked like the Mass in that missal. We followed what was in the leaflet missalette - something that did not exist prior to 1965.

Although the Mass of Paul VI was formally implemented on the first Sunday of Advent 1969, it was present in great measure by the fall of 1968 - my senior year in high school. I’m not going to repeat what I have said over the years but at my Catholic boys high school “Come Holy Ghost” was replaced by “Bridge Over Troubled Waters”.

Now my father was not Catholic at that time (although it was he who woke me up and drove me to serve 6am Mass). My father started attending Mass with us as a family in 1970. There is some credence to the belief that Bugnini adapted the Mass so that it would be acceptable to mainstream Protestants. It certainly worked for my father.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I can give you observations from the point of view of someone who was a teenager and an altar boy during the years of transition. The change from the EF to the OF was accomplished in basically a two year period. It was not an organic or fluid change. It was every few weeks this or that prayer in Latin would be said in English.

Is it your belief that the Mass of Paul VI was produced in it’s entirety far earlier than 1969? Or do you think the Pauline Mass is the result of a series of minor changes implemented throughout the 1960’s? It sounds as if the Pauline Mass existed in the mid 1960’s and was gradually introduced.

There is some credence to the belief that Bugnini adapted the Mass so that it would be acceptable to mainstream Protestants. It certainly worked for my father.

But is there any evidence to support the belief that Bugnini intended to create a protestantized Roman Mass?

 

[AlexV]

Go read his book. It will answer all your questions.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Go read his book. It will answer all your questions.

What book?

Would you be able to share some quotations from it?

 

[palmas85]

M ypoint is that what Pope Benedict XVI says as Holy Father is more instructive to us than anything he has said prior to the time of his Papacy. When he chooses to comment about the liturgy, we will hear him in that regard. Conclusions he draws as Holy Father are more powerfully instructive than anything he’s said before now.

(Provobis’ dig about “recanting” is disrespectful and absurd.)

I hope that you are not advocating we dismiss out of hand what he wrote in those days unless he reaffirms them now and that somehow those writings are now meaningless given his position as the Pope.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Do you have any references to prove your statements and claims?

You mentioned Bugnini. Who was he and what role did he play in the creation of the Mass of Paul VI? Please provide references and proof if you choose to answer this question.

Thanks

Dempsey, this is documented ad nauseum in many books. Just Goggle Bugnini and read all of the viewpoints. The progression to the creation of the New Mass is well documented.

Here is one link to get you started: