Let's talk about the Mass of Paul VI

[Brennan_Doherty]

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):

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?

I think this article by Lauren Pristas:

“The Orations of the Vatican II Missal: Policies for Revision”

communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/pristas30-4.pdf

might be exactly what you are looking for.

In it, she has a translation of the article called, “The Orations of the New Roman Missal” by Antoine Dumas, O. S. B.

Fr. Dumas was on Archbishop Bugnini’s liturgical commission and thus helps give insight as to why the committee dropped or altered some of the prayers the way they did.

There’s also a couple more articles by Lauren Pristas along the same lines here:

faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/

Very informative and she is supposed to be releasing an entire book on the subject at some point.

 

[AJV]

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

I think that explanations would hardly cover it. There are many books which provide insights into various aspects of the reform. Of course, Bugnini’s own work is helpful, and journals (such as “Liturgy”, “Blackfriars”, “Liturgical Arts”) from that time give many details. I would particularly recommend Orate Fratres/Worship. Many of the prominent English-speaking liturgical reformers (Ellard, Reinhold, McManus, Diekmann, etc. ) either wrote for it, or were affiliated with it. It not only displays the evolving liturgical movement (as seen in its articles which get bolder and bolder) but also many desired aspirations of reformers and the liturgical conferences. If you read French I would also suggest La Maison-Dieu .

Other helpful resources are books by notables of the liturgical movement. The books by Fr. G. Ellard and H.A. Reinhold are all relatively short and give good insights into various things that later became commonplace – Dialogue Mass, ad populum, rearrangement of certain rites. J.D. Crichton’s books and articles are also informative – particularly “Lights in the Darkness” and “As it was”. “English Catholic Worship” is narrower in scope but may be interesting to you because it deals with liturgical reform (or “renewal” as Critchton put it) in the U.K. B. Botte’s “From Silence to Participation” is another book like Bugnini’s – though he is less meticulous.

For the origins there are multiple resources to show the sources from which the variable prayers of the Mass, for example, are drawn. One book is “Sources of the Modern Roman Liturgy”. The revisers drew on many sacramentaries for the texts. Some collects were altered in a phrase or two, some more drastically and others were composed by centonization – sticking together various parts of Patristic or liturgical sources/phrases with possibly an addition of the composer. The new rites also tend toward the didactic for understanding various ceremonies. Thus the new passages directed to the people are all composed with a view to understanding various ceremonies or the meaning or a form of invitation.

Edmund Bishop, an English liturgical historian wrote at the beginning of the last century an essay called the “The Genius of the Roman Rite” (which can be viewed here). The fundamental premise is that the pristine Roman liturgy involves simplicity and order – gravitas – or as he put it “sobriety and sense”. He wrote:

Nothing, then, can possibly be more simple than the composition (mind, I am not now speaking of ceremonies) of the early Roman mass, say about the middle of the fifth century.

The singing of a psalm, the ‘introit’, by the choir at the beginning, on the entry of the clergy; a prayer or collect said by the celebrant; followed by readings from the Bible separated by a psalms sung by the choir which we call the “gradual’. After the collection of the offerings of bread and wine from the people, during which the choir sing another psalm-our ‘offertory’-the celebrant reads a second collect having reference to the offering of gifts

Next comes, as an introduction to the great action of the sacrifice, what we call the preface, said by the celebrant and followed by a solemn choral song of praise to God the Sanctus. Then follows the great act of sacrifice, itself embodying a consecration, viz. the prayer called the Canon. As a preparation for the communion of the priest and people the celebrant says the Lord’s Prayer, adding a few words which are, as it were, the echo of that holy prayer, our Libera nos quaesumus.

Then comes the communion of the people, during which a psalm is sung by the choir, which we call the ‘communion’. Finally the celebrant says a third collect, our ‘post-communion’, and the assembly is dismissed. It is to be observed that these collects are extremely short; three or four lines, as we have them in our missal to-day.

What can be more simple? It is the mass reduced to its least possible expression. There is not a single element that is not essential unless, indeed, it were contended that the readings from the Bible, and the preface and Sanctus together with the singing of psalms at the entry of the clergy, before the gospel, and during the acts of collecting the offerings and the communion, are superfluous.

This viewpoint was not held in isolation. You can see it in other places, and among other writers themselves, a kind of wistful “golden age”. For example, Fr. Fortescue, of “Ceremonies of the Roman Rite” fame, while admitting that the additions to the Mass over the ages added “variety and reticent emotion”, deemed the fifth century as the best age where each of the clergy and the people knew their place and function and everything was carried out with fitting simplicity and decorum.

It was this pristine Roman rite that had been altered and changed by Gallican additions. And yet because the Roman rite was always conservative, the existing structure was never changed by elements were inserted into it. For example, though the Mass ended at “Ite Missa Est” after the custom grew of blessing the people, the blessing remained after the “Ite”. Or despite the fact that the ‘Introit’ is the Entrance text, it never began any Masses because the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were kept where they originated. Nothing was rearranged to a more logical order, or discarded as being repetitious. And as texts and even rubrics came to be treated as part of a tradition, sometimes regarded as even apostolic, they stood untouched. Theology was always made to ‘fit’ the text- the text was not altered for the theology. For example: how are we to understand the Offertory in Requiem Masses? How can we offer the Victim before the consecration? What is the meaning of the words ‘ut illis profíciat ad honorem’ in the Suscipe? How are we to understand crossings in the Canon? How should X phrase in the Canon be interpreted?

 

[AJV]

At that particular time, there were far more studies being published. Of course, people had always known (sort of) about the history of the liturgy with liturgists like Dom Martene or Cardinal (St.) Tomassi. But at that time, new liturgical texts were discovered, new analyses were been made, and there was a greater interest and progress in other liturgical rites as well.

The impact of it all was profound. To digress for a moment: when I started reading different books about different aspects of the liturgy, it all seemed very strange and wonderful. One gets into the ideas of development, of thanksgiving, of symbolic action and so much more. When you look at the Traditional liturgy through that lens, it appears as a jumbled conglomerate of prayers shoved into pristine structure. A hodge-podge of ideas, no logical sequence, much repetition – you can find many faults.

And so, the ideas of one branch were simple: why do we need all these disfigurements, these multiple devotional prayers with their repeated ideas and confused theology? Why not get rid of all these “accretions of the centuries” and let the Roman rite shine in primitive simplicity that would also make it much more accessible?

One problem here, of course, is where do you stop? 7th century? 6th century? Hence some argue for a liturgy that does not exactly ‘time travel’ to another century but fits in with perceived modern ideas, and ‘liturgical principles’ and a certain form of theology.

This argument is in fact, still repeated today by many liturgists, who are not satisfied even with the NO. From that viewpoint, the liturgy has certain ‘clear outlines’ as it were.

1.Liturgy of the Word
2.Liturgy of the Eucharist

The main emphasis of (1) is Scripture. Thus nothing else should be given too much prominence. Lengthy ‘introductory rites’ should be avoided. Something short if you have to, but by all means after the psalm or song say the Collect (a.k.a. gathering prayer) and get on with the reading as quickly as possible. End with praying for people.
(2) Main focus here is the mantra “take, bless, break, give”. No Offertory texts only a simple Offertory procession that highlights the community offering gifts. The priest should merely prepare the elements i.e. ‘take’ but without prayers because the action should speak for itself. Then say an offering prayer, then move on to ‘blessing’ – say the Eucharistic Prayer. Communion rite- as short as possible. Only preparation should be the Our Father and Sign of Peace. Then we should ‘break’ – namely the Fraction – and then the Communion Rite should take place. Do not lengthen it with all manner of private prayers and Domine non sum dignus’s. Then say the Postcommunion thanksgiving prayer, and dismiss the people.

Of course, I do not say that everyone then was inspired by Dix’s “fourfold action”, as many seem to be now. Far from it. Some preferred the structure for its easier and hence-supposedly more ‘pastoral’ nature. Others, as I wrote previously, simply wished a return to the pristine age of the Roman liturgy free, from all obscuring “accretions”. Some wanted certain parts changed in a more logical fashion. Even within the revisers, and the promoters of reform there were disagreements – how long should the Eucharistic Prayer be, should it include this much petitonary material, should we model it on a thanksgiving, should there be a final blessing, etc., etc.

Another central idea is that the liturgy should be somewhat ‘fluid’ in accommodating itself to various types of peoples and situations. One place where it was felt was in the rubrics which were(and still largely are) not so minute as in the Traditional Missal. In its worst form, this has led to all manner of abominations and abuses. In another form, it explains why the NO provides so many options at the discretion of the priest-celebrant, options for different communities, or why it lends itself to cultural adaptation, or why it provides (or provided, in some areas) places for monitions by the celebrant. The Jesuit Fr. Tihon, wrote in Nouvelle Revue Theologique, in 1965, when changes were just coming how”

If exact specifications no longer dictate the manner of making such or such a gesture, this is not for the simple purpose of loosening the iron collar of the rubrics; it is a question, above all, of affording the celebrant an opportunity for genuine self-expression, that is to say, an expression that is vital and personal, appropriate for eliciting community response and prayer

Again consider this portion of an article on liturgical changes:

Liturgy exists as a function of the people of God. It follows that liturgical rites have no intrinsic or inherent value. They must be evaluated in their relationship to the people of God from whom they derive their meaning. Thus rites have a relative and dependent value. They are valuable to the degree that they express the nature and disposition of the assembled congregation. Further, if this expression is to be at all representative of a given community, control of the liturgical forms must to a considerable extent be the responsibility of the local pastor and his flock

You can almost seen in some of this why we have Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation, or the ‘Swiss Canon’ prayers. It is the reason why dropping of other elements of the Traditional Mass was justified – they didn’t possess the same sign value as they once did (how exactly that was decided is another thing….).

This is also the second impetus that governs much of the reform of texts. The texts, it was felt, must speak to the modern conditions, they must be at once theological, instructive and pastoral, and they should be based on a sense of the liturgical year. Thus we witness the rearranging or omissions of various variable prayers of the Mass. The same is true for the other rites e.g. the gloom-and-doom mediaeval emphasis of the funeral rites must be replaced with a hopeful, resurrection-style text.

 

[AJV]

Do the seeds of some of the new rites particularly in the Mass originate from an earlier period? Yes, indeed for some. Take a look at these proposals (reproduced from Worship) of two International Liturgical Conferences –Maria Laach and Monte Ste. Odile – in 1951 and 1962 respectively. Almost all of them were fulfilled either (1) in the 62 missal (2) in the 1964/5 changes: Inter Oecumenici (3) 1967: Tres Abhinc Annos or (4) the 1970 Missal and GIRM.

When the competent authorities decide to undertake the reform of the Roman Missal, the participants in this Congress hope that the following suggestions may be taken into account:

1. All duplications ought to be eliminated: that is, the celebrant himself ought not be obliged to read the scriptural lessons read by a reader, nor the proper parts sung by the choir or the ordinary parts sung by the congregation. Rubric 15 of the Ordo Sabbati Sancti offers reason to look forward to the early realization of this hope, which is a likewise a generally accepted demand of contemporary liturgical science.
2. The present beginning of Mass, i.e. the prayers at the foot of the altar, need some revision. Would it not be preferable to restore them to their former place and use, and merely conclude these prayers briefly at the altar after having begun them in the sacristy? Or should the model of the new Ordo Sabbati Sancti n this point be followed, and these prayers eliminated altogether?
3. The Fore-Mass – a better name for which would be “the Liturgy of the Word” – should take place, not at the altar, but “in choro” analogously to what happens in a pontifical Mass, or at Vespers (cf. the new Ordo Sabbat Sancti n. 12)
4. The number of orations of Mass should be reduced to a minimum. As a general rule there should be only one. The addition of a commemoration should be possible only in exceptional cases.
5. The present arrangement of the scriptural periscopes would seem urgently to require serious re-examination, in which, moreover, a clear distinction should be made between the cycle of readings for the Sundays, that for special solemnities and feasts of the saints, and that for the ordinary weekdays. For the Sundays after Pentecost and after Epiphany especially, a three or four-year cycle seems desirable. The present arrangement could perhaps remain as the first year of such a cycle.
   The scriptural readings for the Sundays and holy days of obligation should be so chosen that a Christian who attends Mass only on these days would nevertheless, in a few years, come to know the essential passages of holy Scripture would nevertheless, in a few years, come to know the essential passages of the New Testament. The readings for weekdays, on the other hand, would serve to give a profounder knowledge of Scripture to a more restricted group of zealous faithful; perhaps in this case the ancient practice of a continuous reading would be in place, or even permission for the celebrant to select appropriate passages.
   In order that the reading of the Bible fulfil its function of communicating the word of God to the faithful more effectively, all present at this Congress express their unanimous and most urgent hope that in every Mass at which the people assist the scriptural readings be one directly and exclusively in the mother tongue.
6. The recitation of the Creed should occur much less frequently, and not at all in octave Masses.
7. After the “Liturgy of the Word” there follows an isolated Oremus before the offertory: here belong the Suffrages (prex fidelium). It would seem that for ordinary use a litany form, enumerating the intentions and needs of the congregation to which the people respond with a set formula, would be preferable to the Orationes solemnes form. Moreover, it should be, at least facultively, in the mother tongue.
8. As in a solemn Mass, so in every parish Mass the table of the altar should be prepared only immediately before the offertory: i.e. the sacred vessels and more especially the elements of sacrifice, should not be brought to the altar before this moment.
9. There should be a greater number of prefaces (especially for Sundays), and they should, as in ancient times, be more inspired with the idea of the memoria passionis than has been the case with some of the newer prefaces.
10. The celebrant should begin the Te igitur only after the sung Sanctus and Benedictus have been completed. Within the Canon, at least the Amen that occurs several times (if not the Per Christum Dominum nostrum) should be eliminated
11. When Holy Communion is distributed during Mass, the Confiteor and its following prayers should be dropped: they are appropriate only for the distribution of Communion outside of Mass.
12. Mass ought to end with the blessing by the priest without the addition of the Last Gospel – as is already provided for in the new Ordo Sabbati Sancti

Questions recommended for further and more intensive study

1. It is desirable that the Secret prayer be called by its proper name of “Prayer over the offerings” and that, as the terminating prayer of the offertory, it be sung aloud together with the conclusion – as is done with the collect and postcommunion.
2. It is desirable that the great doxology at the end of the canon (Per ipsum, etc.) be sung in its entirety (using the tonus antiquus orationis) The five signs of the cross should drop out, and the “minor elevation” should take place during the entire doxology, and genuflexion (if at all) only after the concluding Amen.
3. Highly desirable would be the rearrangement of the section after the Pater noster, in such a way that the prayers and ceremonies fit together better; and some adaption of a reconciliation rite (Pax) should be introduced for the congregation – but what specific form should it take?
4. Some amplification of the after Communion part of Mass is desirable, perhaps by inserting a prayer, or several, or a song between the Communion verse and the postcommunon, which would more clearly express sentiments of praise and thanksgiving. This would, as is the case in other liturgies, give us a less abrupt conclusion to the Mass after Communion
5. It is desirable that the present rubric about the use of Ite Missa Est and Benedicamus Domino be altered: let the Ite be used in all public Masses, and the Benedicamus in private Masses. (The Requiem Mass would not come into question)

---

1. It is to be hoped for that in the rubrics of the Missal too, as in the 1952 Ordo Sabbati Sancti, pastoral directives be added.
2. It is to be hoped for:
   a. That permission be granted for the doloxogy of the Canon (Per ipsum, etc.) to be sung in a Missa canatat and pronounced aloud in a Missa lecta.
   b. That its 5 signs of the cross be dropped
   c. That the celebrant hold Chalice and Host elevated during the entire doxology, and until the people have responded Amen
   d. That the celebrant make his genuflection (if at all) only after the Amen

1. It is to be hoped for:
   a. That the Amen after the Pater Noster be omitted
   b. That the embolism (the Libera prayer) after the Pater noster with its doxology be sung in a Missa canata and recited aloud in a Missa lecta
   c. That the sign of the cross with the paten, the kissing of the paten, as well as the genuflection be omitted during this Libera.
2. It is to be hoped for that the prayer for peace (Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti Apostolis tuis…) if it is retained at all, be inserted immediately after the Libera. Then only should the celebrant sing or speak the Pax Domini, and without accompanying ceremony. Thereupon would follow the usual kiss of peace.
3. It is to be hoped for that the rite of breaking and commingling the Host follow upon the kiss of peace, but without any accompanying ceremony. During the breaking, the congregation could sing the Agnus Dei; in a Missa lecta the priest could say it after the breaking. Only now would follow the two preparatory prayers for holy Communion – if they are kept at all.
4. It is to be hoped for that, if holy Communion is distributed, the priest would retain only half of his Host for his own Communion; the other half he would break into pieces and place with the small hosts, and distribute them first of all, preferably to servers.
5. It is to be hoped for:
   a. That the Confiteor, Misereatur and Indulgentiam be omitted before the distribution of holy Communion during Mass.
   b. That, if there are many communicants, the priest be permitted to use a shorter formula for distribution e.g. Corpis Christi, or Corpus Domini

1. It is to be hoped for that pastors be encouraged to have the communion verse sung during the distribution of holy Communion at parish Masses, and if possible, in a more solemn fashion. This could be done by singing the corresponding psalm and inserting the verse at regular intervals as a refrain. In every case, text and melody should be such that that the people are able to have a part in the singing.
2. It is to be hoped for that in parish Masses (apart from Requiems) the Ite Missa Est be exclusively used formula of dismissal, to which the people answer aloud. Amen.

In fact, it was after the liturgical conference at Assisi in 1956 that the Liturgical Movement became ‘fashionable’ as it were. Many other effects of the liturgical movement are still with us. For example, to help in understanding the Mass, an option increasingly employed was a commentator. He did a kind of simultaneous vernacular reading or explanation of ceremonies for the people, while the priest said the Mass at the altar. The role of the commentator is still mentioned in the GIRM. Many of the initial ideas for Offertory processions, popular hymns, ad populum altars, dialogue Masses were all proposed from that time.

 

[AJV]

Re: the Canon’s, I would suggest Dom Vagaggini’s “The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform”. The book is no more remarkable that other books on the same subject though in its treatment of the issue it is more conservative theologically. However, the interesting points in it are the introduction by Fr. McMannus and the fact that Vagaggini was in Coetus X, responsible for the Order ot the Mass and had a hand in the composition of the new texts.

Why did they decide for new Canons? Basically it was felt that the Roman Canon was insufficient. It was a muddle, seeming to be of many prayers, each with the conclusion ‘through Christ our Lord’. It was not logically arranged – some of the parts raised theological difficulties which had to be explained. It was low on thanksgiving except for a few sentences in the preface, on the ‘mirabile Dei’ and the history of salvation as in other anaphoras was practically non-existent. There was lot of repetition of the idea of offering obscuring the main offering at Unde et memores. It did not give a sufficient role to the Third Person of the Trinity. It lacked an eschatological emphasis. The saints were too local. It raised difficulties with liturgical ‘proclamation’. And so on.

How did they compose the new Eucharistic prayers? All the new prayers follow roughly the so-called Antiochene, or West Syrian format. This format consists of: Thanksgiving [Preface, Sanctus, (continuation of preface) ] Institution, Anamnesis, Oblation, Epiclesis, Intercessions, doxology. The difference is that the consecratory Epiclesis, for theological reasons, was placed before the Institution. This was justified on the basis of an Alexandrian tradition, and the Canon itself which has implicit epiclesis at the Quam oblationem (before the Institution) and Supplices te (after the Institution).

Some things were added for various reasons. So for example, the epiclesis was made explicit, referring to the Holy Spirit, to bring out a Trinitarian nature of the prayer and also bring it into line with other liturgies. Acclamations were added for the sake of participation, based on prototypes of Coptic and Syriac liturgies. The Words were changed: Mysterium Fidei was removed (though retained at the request of Paul VI) and ‘qui pro vobis tradetur’ was added for stylistic, historical, theological and liturgical reasons (ostensible or otherwise).

As for the texts of the liturgies themselves, they came from various sources. For example, in EP III and IV, phrasings were adopted form this-or-that part of Oriental Eucharistic prayers (anaphorae) or the variable parts of Mozarabic or Gallican prayers. Sometimes, they came from Patristic writings or the writings of Popes (e.g. in drafts of EP III, the composers tried to incorporate something from Mediator Dei about the offering of the Church).

EP II of course, was initially largely Hippolytus. However, most of the text is composed, since Hippolytus’ anaphora did not have a consecratory epiclesis of the style required, or intercessions or a Sanctus. These portions, like EP III and IV drew their inspiration from various texts.

 

[Our_Refuge]

QUOTE=AJV;4069524]

Why did they decide for new Canons? **Basically it was felt that the Roman Canon was insufficient. **It was a muddle, seeming to be of many prayers, each with the conclusion ‘through Christ our Lord’. It was not logically arranged – some of the parts raised theological difficulties which had to be explained. It was low on thanksgiving except for a few sentences in the preface, on the ‘mirabile Dei’ and the history of salvation as in other anaphoras was practically non-existent. There was lot of repetition of the idea of offering obscuring the main offering at Unde et memores. It did not give a sufficient role to the Third Person of the Trinity. It lacked an eschatological emphasis. The saints were too local. It raised difficulties with liturgical ‘proclamation’. And so on.

How should one reconcile the beliefs of the Consilium that the Roman Canon was insufficient with that of the Council of Trent on the Roman Canon?

CHAPTER IV
THE CANON OF THE MASS
And since it is becoming that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all things this sacrifice is the most holy, the Catholic Church, to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted many centuries ago the holy canon, which is so free from error that it contains nothing that does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer. For it consists partly of the very words of the Lord, partly of the traditions of the Apostles, and also of pious regulations of holy pontiffs.

Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated,let him be anathema.

 

[AJV]

How should one reconcile the beliefs of the Consilium that the Roman Canon was insufficient with that of the Council of Trent on the Roman Canon?

CHAPTER IV
THE CANON OF THE MASS
And since it is becoming that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all things this sacrifice is the most holy, the Catholic Church, to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted many centuries ago the holy canon, which is so free from error that it contains nothing that does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer. For it consists partly of the very words of the Lord, partly of the traditions of the Apostles, and also of pious regulations of holy pontiffs.

Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated,let him be anathema.

Of course, Trent is speaking of doctrinal errors when they speak of errors. This canon is directed toward the blasphemous parodies and analyses of the canon that were being circulated

Scholars (and I don’t mean those of the 60’s but from the 19th century) have questioned certain points of Latin expression in the Canon. Not being a Latin scholar, it goes above my head. Likewise, there are legitimate perplexities which all, including Popes *such as Benedict XIV), have acknowledged and attempted to solve. For example what does “haec” mean the Supplices? What is the meaning of the Supra quae? and so forth. It does not pertain to the canon to address errors (perceived or real) of arrangement, logic, and so forth. If it did, then the Church would have not allowed books to be published on that, much less would a Pope have done so

 

[Dempsey1919]

AJV:

This viewpoint was not held in isolation. You can see it in other places, and among other writers themselves, a kind of wistful “golden age”. For example, Fr. Fortescue, of “Ceremonies of the Roman Rite” fame, while admitting that the additions to the Mass over the ages added “variety and reticent emotion”, deemed the fifth century as the best age where each of the clergy and the people knew their place and function and everything was carried out with fitting simplicity and decorum.

This is perhaps the sole cause of the reform of the Roman Rite: the liturgists wanted to re-create an earlier form of the Mass. In Sacrosanctum Concilium, the work of reform is frequently referred to as “the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy.” Bugnini and his Consilium seem to have had this in the forefront of their minds during the creation of the Pauline Mass. However, Bugnini and the other liturgists had forgotten the principal of organic development; changes to the Mass occur slowly over time for valid reasons. The Roman Mass was a living entity, and not something that should be “created” by committees or consiliums. Furthermore, in attempting to restore and promote the sacred liturgy, the experts omitted ancient prayers and gestures; many of which were apostolic in origin. During the “restoration” of the Mass, ancient customs were removed, and novelties introduced. How can this be classed as a restoration?

At that particular time, there were far more studies being published. Of course, people had always known (sort of) about the history of the liturgy with liturgists like Dom Martene or Cardinal (St.) Tomassi. But at that time, new liturgical texts were discovered, new analyses were been made, and there was a greater interest and progress in other liturgical rites as well.

Would it be correct to say that these new studies caused many within the liturgical movement to revise their thinking? I ask this because earlier liturgists such as Dom Prosper Gueranger seem adamant in their defence and explanation of the Tridentine Mass. It appears that these new studies caused people to begin re-evaluating their thoughts and opinions; and these new perspectives heavily influenced the structure and style of the Pauline Mass. These newer studies gave birth to new ideas and perspectives; and I get the impression that these new ideas eclipsed many of the long standing liturgical principals. The modern liturgists seem to have forgotten the need continuity in the stampede to implement these new findings into the Roman Mass. The greater understanding brought about by these new findings could have had a wonderful effect on the Tridentine Mass had the liturgical experts remembered the need for continuity; they could have implemented smaller changes into the already existing Roman rite.

As for the texts of the liturgies themselves, they came from various sources. For example, in EP III and IV, phrasings were adopted form this-or-that part of Oriental Eucharistic prayers (anaphorae) or the variable parts of Mozarabic or Gallican prayers. Sometimes, they came from Patristic writings or the writings of Popes (e.g. in drafts of EP III, the composers tried to incorporate something from Mediator Dei about the offering of the Church).

It would appear that the new Canons are the creations of modern liturgists. I do not question the validity of these Canons but your explanations of them point to the fact that they were created, rather than taken from earlier liturgies or times. The Canons seem to have been pieced together from a multidude of ancient sources, and the result of this synthesis is a whole new Canon, which never existed previously.

…

To conclude, a greater understanding of liturgical history appears to be the main reason for the reform of the Roman rite. The new liturgical studies seem to have opened up a world of new information for Bugnini and his comtemporaries. As a result, they began to fully appreciate the meaning and purpose of the various elements of the Mass such as the gradual and collects. This obviously caused them to critically analyse the Roman Mass, and they believed that they could improve the Mass based upon their findings and new liturgical knowledge. However, rather than improve the existing Mass, they created a totally new Mass in accordance with their beliefs and preferences. In the rush to implement new findings, the older principals were forgotten, and continuity and organic development were destroyed in the process.

The new Mass is very coherent and easy to understand, so in a sense, the modern liturgists achieved their objectives. I believe it was necessary to reform the Roman rite and I think the new studies would have helped a great deal in this endeavor. However, it is my personal opinion that the reforms went too far and continuity was lost. I believe the modern liturgists threw the baby out with the bathwater, and allowed themselves to become too influenced by academic studies.

 

[giuseppeTO]

A greater understanding of liturgical history appears to be the main reason for the reform of the Roman rite. The new liturgical studies seem to have opened up a world of new information for Bugnini and his comtemporaries. As a result, they began to fully appreciate the meaning and purpose of the various elements of the Mass such as the gradual and collects. This obviously caused them to critically analyse the Roman Mass, and they believed that they could improve the Mass based upon their findings and new liturgical knowledge.

To think that Bugnini, in 1965, somehow acquired a greater “understanding” of liturgical history than Pope Pius V and the succeeding Popes and all of the doctors of the church before him is extreme arrogance. That he “fully appreciated” the meaning and purpose of the Mass that somehow eluded everyone else prior to him and his amazing commission is quite a miracle! And apparently once he so fully understood what his more dimmer predecessor Popes couldn’t quite get their arms around, he was in a better position to ‘fix’ it - ostensibly by cutting it out. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the majority of the Offertory and Cannon Prayers, the Last Gospel. Apparently these were all what was wrong or broke with the Mass. I wonder where this phenominal “New Liturgical Knowledge” that wasn’t available to anyone else came from? The Dead Sea Scolls maybe? It actually couldn’t have been that new because Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer came up with pretty much the same Mass 400 years earlier.

The new Mass is very coherent and easy to understand, so in a sense, the modern liturgists achieved their objectives.

Hmm. I remember being able to easily follow the old Mass by the time I was in third grade with no training in Latin, as did my Italian grandmother who never got past the first grade, so I’m wondering who these mental giants were who found the old Mass incoherent and hard to follow. Did they just throw their missals up in the air in a rage and shout "I just don’t know where I am in this Mass!!’ Maybe it was all the colored ribbons that were confusing? … Oh wait, they’re in Pauline Missal also…

I believe it was necessary to reform the Roman rite.

Demp, I don’t mean to keep picking on you but EVERYBODY keeps parroting this phrase … I’m amazed it’s not a bumper sticker. Can someone tell me what specifically needed reformation in the old Mass? What just had to go to get closer to liturgical perferction and what were the indications that it had to go? I can certainly see what was jettisoned but I just wonder, of all the beautiful prayers that were lost, what clearly indicated for instance that the Judica Me psalm or the Last Gospel just had to go?

 

[Dempsey1919]

To think that Bugnini, in 1965, somehow acquired a greater “understanding” of liturgical history than Pope Pius V and the succeeding Popes and all of the doctors of the church before him is extreme arrogance. That he “fully appreciated” the meaning and purpose of the Mass that somehow eluded everyone else prior to him and his amazing commission is quite a miracle!

I agree with you. I was merely summarising my thoughts after reading the above posts by AJV, which I found to be excellent explanations.

As AJV has posted, the modern liturgists had access to many new studies concerning the Mass and the liturgy. This is what made them desire to re-create an earlier version of the Mass, although what earlier form they had in mind is still a mystery. However, this was one of the main reasons for the liturgical reform.

I find it odd how great liturgical scholars such as Dom Prosper Gueranger can spend years defending and promoting the Roman rite, only to have the next generation totally disregard their work because of some “new” material. I think it would have been wiser to look at how the “new” material fitted with the rest of the traditional liturgical studies.

Demp, I don’t mean to keep picking on you but EVERYBODY keeps parroting this phrase … I’m amazed it’s not a bumper sticker. Can someone tell me what specifically needed reformation in the old Mass? What just had to go to get closer to liturgical perferction and what were the indications that it had to go? I can certainly see what was jettisoned but I just wonder, of all the beautiful prayers that were lost, what clearly indicated for instance that the Judica Me psalm or the Last Gospel just had to go?

For one, more vernacular would have been helpful in certain places. Communion under both species should also have been offered. The new lectionary is better and makes more sense.

But other than that, the Tridentine Mass was fine. In fact, the Tridentine Mass is my favourite Mass and I attend it almost exclusively. However, I do think that we should follow the new Calendar in order to foster greater unity.

However, I would be saddened to see any widescale changes made to the 1962 Missal because I have grown to truly love it.

 

[AJV]

To think that Bugnini, in 1965, somehow acquired a greater “understanding” of liturgical history than Pope Pius V and the succeeding Popes and all of the doctors of the church before him is extreme arrogance. That he “fully appreciated” the meaning and purpose of the Mass that somehow eluded everyone else prior to him and his amazing commission is quite a miracle!

No it is not arrogance. Bugnini was very well educated and knowlegable and he had more discoveries and a corpus of texts to work on. That’s simply a fact pf history and a result of liturgical discoveries. St. Pius V’s commission did not have the same corpus of texts to work on. When one reads some of his Bugnini’s articles, it can be seen that even though he may have been arrogant concerning the purpose, he was not a dimwit.

St. Pius V was not an expert in liturgical history or even ceremonies - his ceremoniaire notes that he sometimes made mistakes in the celebration of the rites – and he too left things upto a commission. I am NOT saying this to say that because Bugnini had more knowlege his ideas were necessarily right, but merely to point out that he did have more knowlege.

And apparently once he so fully understood what his more dimmer predecessor Popes couldn’t quite get their arms around, he was in a better position to ‘fix’ it - ostensibly by cutting it out. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the majority of the Offertory and Cannon Prayers, the Last Gospel. Apparently these were all what was wrong or broke with the Mass. I wonder where this phenominal “New Liturgical Knowledge” that wasn’t available to anyone else came from? The Dead Sea Scolls maybe? It actually couldn’t have been that new because Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer came up with pretty much the same Mass 400 years earlier.

The reasons for the reforms are quite different, and no, as much as some would have you believe, the Masses are different in many ways. There are plenty of amazing discoveries that broadened the knowlege - not the Dead Sea Scrolls but still. For example, Dom Martene, 100 years after St. Pius V went through monasteries and libraries in several parts of Europe publishing several works which revealed different orders and rites of the Church. The Apostolic Traditions (for all the good or bad they’ve caused) were discovered in the mid 19th century as were severla Church Orders, Serapion, the Didache and any other number of works you can mention

 

[giuseppeTO]

For one, more vernacular would have been helpful in certain places.

Helpful in what way? Is it a problem to, for instance, read the Epsitle as the Deacon is chanting it? Since every part of the pass contains a venacular translation in the missal, why would it make any difference to hear a certain part in the venacular?

Communion under both species should also have been offered.

I don’t agree … only because our belief is that we that our Lord is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the single specie and distribution of Communion under both species undermines that belief. It is Sacramentally redundant and increases the opportunity for mishaps handling the Precious Blood, as well as necessitating an additional Ordinary Minister to administer it.

The new lectionary is better and makes more sense.

I can’t believe that anyone would prefer the politically corrected and gender non-specific new lectionary over the prosaic old-English used in the 62 book and before. That would be like preferring to hear an opera in German rather than Italian. Yuk!

 

[Dempsey1919]

I don’t agree … only because our belief is that we that our Lord is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the single specie and distribution of Communion under both species undermines that belief. It is Sacramentally redundant and increases the opportunity for mishaps handling the Precious Blood, as well as necessitating an additional Ordinary Minister to administer it.

Christ gave bread AND wine to his disciples during the Last Supper. Our Lord instituted Communion under both species and the Church removed it for fear of any spilling of the Precious Blood. However, I think it’s more biblical for us to have the option to recieve under both kinds.

I can’t believe that anyone would prefer the politically corrected and gender non-specific new lectionary over the prosaic old-English used in the 62 book and before. That would be like preferring to hear an opera in German rather than Italian. Yuk!

The translation of Scripture has nothing to do with it. The new lectionary enables the Church to work through all of the Gospels in a systematic fashion. I belive the entire lectionary revolves around a three year cycle. The new Lectionary would be the new Lectionary no matter what translation of Scripture was used.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Christ gave bread AND wine to his disciples during the Last Supper. Our Lord instituted Communion under both species and the Church removed it for fear of any spilling of the Precious Blood. However, I think it’s more biblical for us to have the option to recieve under both kinds.
.

Exactly! He gave it to the Apostles, his inital Priesthood and Patriarchs. There is nothing biblical about Christ distributing wine or His Preciuos Blood to the faithful. His charge was to “do this in remembrance of Me” … that is, re-enact this sacrifice in your capacity in the Royal Priesthood. There was never a need to distribute under both species as the charge was to the priest to eat and drink, which he does, and then he shares the sacrifice with us in the Eucharist which has the entire sacramental content. There was never a need to distribute the Precious Blood … it was a novelty that was appropriately done away with for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Exactly! He gave it to the Apostles, his inital Priesthood and Patriarchs. There is nothing biblical about Christ distributing wine or His Preciuos Blood to the faithful.

In that case, there is nothing Biblical about Christ distributing Bread to the faithful either. According to your logic, only the Bishops and clergy should recieve Communion.

However, this thread isn’t a Tridentine Mass V. Pauline Mass topic.

This thread is solely about the Pauline Mass, so do you have anything to say about the history or motives behind the Mass of Paul VI?

 

[giuseppeTO]

In that case, there is nothing Biblical about Christ distributing Bread to the faithful either. According to your logic, only the Bishops and clergy should recieve Communion.

However, this thread isn’t a Tridentine Mass V. Pauline Mass topic.

This thread is solely about the Pauline Mass, so do you have anything to say about the history or motives behind the Mass of Paul VI?

I guess in summation, I would say the Pauline Mass was created to attract Protestants to Catholicism in the spirit of (perhaps misguided) ecumenism. I believe the chief architect, Bugnini, had the goal in mind and used his research to justify his intended result, which was to basically adapt the mass/communion service of Luther and Cranmer to Catholic worship. If you were to get a dispensation and attend a Lutheran and an Anglican service and then compare them to the Pauline Mass, you would be hard pressed to find singnificant differences. You would probably find more variations between different Pauline Masses in the same church. Since the Coucil did not change the Anglican and Lutheran mass, and they are now the same as the Novus Ordo, the logical conclusion is that this was the original intent and all of the “research” and deep thinking and biblical enlightenment was basically justification to a planned end.

The sad part is that much of what Luther and Cranmer intended by their Mass was to use it to quash many Catholic beliefs.

 

[Dempsey1919]

If you were to get a dispensation and attend a Lutheran and an Anglican service and then compare them to the Pauline Mass, you would be hard pressed to find singnificant differences. You would probably find more variations between different Pauline Masses in the same church. **Since the Coucil did not change the Anglican and Lutheran mass, and they are now the same as the Novus Ordo, the logical conclusion is that this was the original intent and all of the “research” and deep thinking and biblical enlightenment was basically justification to a planned end.
**

I have heard this said by numerous other people, but I have not investigated the matter further. Would you be able to show my any similarities between the Anglican, Lutheran, and N.O Mass? Is it possible that the Mass of Paul VI influenced the Anglican Mass?

I would like to see and possibly read how and why the Mass of Paul VI is like a protestant service.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I have heard this said by numerous other people, but I have not investigated the matter further. Would you be able to show my any similarities between the Anglican, Lutheran, and N.O Mass? Is it possible that the Mass of Paul VI influenced the Anglican Mass?

I would like to see and possibly read how and why the Mass of Paul VI is like a protestant service.

Anecdotally, my wife and I attended the Lutheran funeral of friend a few months ago. Afterward, my wife commented that if she did not know it was a Lutheran Mass, she would not be able to distinguish it from the Novus Ordo. The nuanced differences she saw were what one might expect between Novus Ordo Masses in different parishes.

We have attended Anglican services in Britain and Episcopalian services in the US and made the same observations. I don’t know of any agreement between these protestant groups and Catholics to synchronize their services so I have to assume that an Anglican service is today, what it was 50 years ago.

I did note that the Luthern service followed the Traditional Catholic Church calendar for the Sunday service. It was the 10th Sunday after Pentecost as opposed to the 98th Sunday in Ordinary time.

 

[ProVobis]

No it is not arrogance. Bugnini was very well educated and knowlegable and he had more discoveries and a corpus of texts to work on. That’s simply a fact pf history and a result of liturgical discoveries.

Your bias is very revealing. Even archaeologists with their hammers and chisels can be wrong. What makes you think Bugnini knew all that much except that he was given power to change one, fired, then change another, and then exiled to Iran? Let’s face it, someone had an agenda and he was the one most able to execute it. And one only has to read a few paragraphs in his book to recognize his extreme arrogance.

But as long as we’re onto all these texts to work on, why don’t we examine all the gospels and other scriptural works which the Church had discarded in the early centuries? Surely we can find something that fits our agenda which includes changing liturgy and writing books trashing 1600-yr rites.

 

[AJV]

I guess in summation, I would say the Pauline Mass was created to attract Protestants to Catholicism in the spirit of (perhaps misguided) ecumenism. I believe the chief architect, Bugnini, had the goal in mind and used his research to justify his intended result, which was to basically adapt the mass/communion service of Luther and Cranmer to Catholic worship. If you were to get a dispensation and attend a Lutheran and an Anglican service and then compare them to the Pauline Mass, you would be hard pressed to find singnificant differences. You would probably find more variations between different Pauline Masses in the same church. Since the Coucil did not change the Anglican and Lutheran mass, and they are now the same as the Novus Ordo, the logical conclusion is that this was the original intent and all of the “research” and deep thinking and biblical enlightenment was basically justification to a planned end.

On the contrary, the Anglicans and the Lutherans largely changed their services after the NO–and in many cases, this also involved a change of format. Furthermore, many of their services are modeled after the NO (with some doctrinal commissions) not the other way around. For example, the Ecumenical version of EP IV and the Revised Common Lectionery.

In fact, almost all the mainline denominations have evolved and embraced a more liturgical form of worship. Things which would have been anathema a century ago are widely accepted. Sanctoral calendars, vesture, formalised worship, greater emphasis on Holy Communion are all there.

Moreover, when it comes to the mainline denominations especially these two, the issue is not so clear cut and uncomplicated. For example, the Episcopalians now admit praying for the dead **officially ** i.e. not just n Anglo-Catholic wing, but in their catechism. If you look in a 1979 BCP you can see many things in an English version from the Traditional missal. E.g. the collects for the Holy Eucharist and Blessed Sacrament are identical, as is the collects for the Holy Cross, the Holy Angels, Kingship, etc. The preface for the dead and some of collects for the dead are identical or nearly so. All Souls, “Thanksgiving for Holy Communion” (Corpus Christi" and other such observances would make the original 'Reformer’s role n their graves. In fact, a study group evaluating some of the then-new Anglican Eucharistic Prayers in the 60’s-70’s concluded “Cranmer would have excommunicated them!”.