Sacrosanctum Concilium - Reform of the Sacred Liturgy

[Dempsey1919]

Sacrosanctum Concilium makes reference of the need to “restore” the Sacred Liturgy. During Vatican II, the Latin Rite celebrated the Tridentine Mass according to the Missal of Bl John XXIII. Therefore, it is obvious that the Council Fathers wanted to restore the Tridentine Mass to something more ancient as a restoration implies a return to something earlier. I want to know what the Council Fathers meant by this?

Here is a quotation from Sacrosanctum Concilium that shows the call for the “restoration” of the Liturgy:

III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy

1. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

I am assuming that the Mass of Paul VI is the fruit of this restoration because this is the Mass that came after the Second Vatican Council. Is the Novus Ordo Missae in some way more ancient than the Tridentine Mass?

The Apostolic Constitution of Pope St Pius V entitled “Quo Primum,” also makes reference to the need to restore the Sacred Liturgy. The result of this restoration was the Tridentine Mass. Here is a quote from Quo Primum:

We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus **they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. **When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Both the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI claim to be restorations of the Sacred Liturgy. Pope St Pius V claimed that his Mass was “the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.” However, Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that the Mass needed to be restored to something more ancient. If the Tridentine Mass was the “original form and rite of the holy Fathers” why would it need to be restored? What could it be restored to? The Tridentine Mass itself was a restoration of the Liturgy.

As I have said, I am assuming that the Novus Ordo Missae is the fruit of Vatican II. I am assuming that this Mass was promulgated in order to implement the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy? However, is this what the Council Fathers wanted?

What is the real Mass of Vatican II?

Personally, I don’t believe that it is the Mass of Paul VI. I don’t believe that the Council Fathers had this Mass in mind when they wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium. The reforms of Sacrosanctum Concilium could have been implemented in the Tridentine Mass. Sacrosanctum Concilium’s recommendation for more scripture would have been possible within the Tridentine Mass as would more vernacular where required.

What are your thoughts? What did the Council Fathers mean by the restoration of the Liturgy? Is the Novus Ordo this restoration? If the Tridentine Mass is the original Mass of the holy Fathers, how could it be restored? What is the real Mass of Vatican II?

 

[japhy]

Sacrosanctum Concilium makes reference of the need to “restore” the Sacred Liturgy.
…
I am assuming that the Mass of Paul VI is the fruit of this restoration because this is the Mass that came after the Second Vatican Council. Is the Novus Ordo Missae in some way more ancient than the Tridentine Mass?

Not as such. There’s plenty of literature on this; here’s a list of what I’ve read so far (and I suggest them to you):

• Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background (Msgr. Klaus Gamber)
• Reform of the Reform?: A Liturgical Debate : Reform or Return (Fr. Thomas M. Kocik)
• Spirit of the Liturgy (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)

There is a strong argument that the Missale Romanum of 1965 satisfied the goals of the liturgical reform (as laid out in Sacrosanctum Concilium), and that the liturgy produced in the next four years, and released in 1969, was somewhat of a “fabrication”. It was something quite new; here are the words of Pope Paul VI himself in his General Audience on Nov. 26, 1969:

We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

Pretty unsettling words, if you ask me, and I’ve been attending Mass in the Ordinary Form in the vernacular versus populum my whole life (with one exception: I attended an Extraordinary Form Mass once, but hope to do so again in the near future).

Both the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI claim to be restorations of the Sacred Liturgy. Pope St Pius V claimed that his Mass was “the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.” However, Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that the Mass needed to be restored to something more ancient.

There were some faulty assumptions behind the reforms that went into the Mass of Paul VI, and there were things that were never mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium that were practically enforced afterwards (complete use of the vernacular, Mass facing the people) and some other innovations that crept in, most likely because of the difference between the older and newer Mass (Communion in the hand, female altar servers, hidden tabernacles, etc.).

Eucharistic Prayer II – and I might add, there was nothing that called for the creation of new Eucharistic Prayers – is the shortest (and the most popular, it seems). It’s called the oldest, but that’s not true. It’s based on an old anaphora, sure, but it’s been altered. Its model was also not “set in stone”: it was an example or model itself. It was also intended for use by a newly consecrated Bishop at his first Mass.

What is the real Mass of Vatican II?

Some would say the Missal of 1965, others would say the Missal of 1969, and others would say we haven’t gotten it yet. That third group is made up of conservatives and liberals, though; see this article by Shawn Tribe of The New Liturgical Movement.

Consider the reading list I mentioned at the top. It’s helping me understand the situation a lot better. While I believe the Ordinary Form of the Mass is still a valid and acceptable Mass, I also believe it has been designed poorly and has been misinterpreted and abused gravely. I would strongly support a “reform of the reform” that looks back to the Missal of 1962 and, using the Missal of 1965 as an example of the reform, seeks to truly carry out the (somewhat vague and ambiguous) reforms called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium.

 

[AJV]

What are your thoughts? What did the Council Fathers mean by the restoration of the Liturgy? Is the Novus Ordo this restoration? If the Tridentine Mass is the original Mass of the holy Fathers, how could it be restored? What is the real Mass of Vatican II?

I would have quoted from “The Organic Developement of the Liturgy” but I’ve lent it out and it’s not yet returned. There Dom alcuin Reid examines this question.

The original justification, as it were, of many at that time went a bit like this:

St. Pius V *wanted *to restore it to the form and rite of the Fathers. However his scholars did not have adequate materials and mostly examined ones that went back to the 12th-13th century and also did so in haste. Consequently, the rite of 1570 still contains a lot of the mediaevel accretions and is not the rite of the Fathers. Since then more materials have come to light and there is better correlation and dissemination of existing materials. Thus the rite of the Fathers that St. Pius V aspired to can be more closely followed. And that si what we will do.

So even Paul VI wrote

Since then, however, more ancient liturgical sources have been discovered and published and at the same time liturgical formulas of the Oriental Church have become better known. Many wish that the riches, both doctrinal and spiritual, might not be hidden in the darkness of the libraries, but on the contrary might be brought into the light to illumine and nourish the spirits and souls of Christians.

Likewise in the GIRM was written

Manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided some verbal emendations, but they seldom allowed research into “ancient and approved authors” to extend beyond the examination of a few liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages… Today, on the other hand, countless studies of scholars have enriched the “tradition of the Fathers” that the revisers of the Missal under St. Pius V followed. After the Gregorian Sacramentary was first published in 1571, many critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian sacramentaries appeared. Ancient Spanish and Gallican liturgical books also became available, bringing to light many prayers of profound spirituality that had hitherto been unknown. Traditions dating back to the first centuries before the formation of the Eastern and Western rites are also better known today because so many liturgical documents have been discovered. The continuing progress in patristic studies has also illumined eucharistic theology through the teachings of such illustrious saints of Christian antiquity as Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom.

Dom Reid argues, IIRC, that, on the contrary, there was some awareness of earlier sacramentaries, etc. and that “restoration to the form and rite of the Fathers” meant something different for St. Pius V. It meant a liturgy organically developed from the rite of the Fathers rather than just the rite of the Fathers. (Perhaps some kind person with the book will type out the relevant part of that argument? The nuanced position is quite lost in this attempted summary)

Certainly if one wants to go back to the “rite of the Fathers” (which Fathers, BTW? ) taken absolutely literally in that one sense (i.e. the exact rite more or less the Fathers used) many features of the Traditional liturgy would not exist such as the Offertory, Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Last Gospel, and many others.

Ave Maria Purissima!

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am sitting here with a copy of the 1966 St. Joseph Missal and matching it to my memories as a 15 year old altar boy. First thing that jumps out - the Asperges/Vidi Aquam before Mass. In 1965-66, the Mass was still said in Latin although sections of the older TLM had been deleted.

And then the announcements came from the pulpit. Starting next Sunday we will pray the Confiteor in English. Starting next Sunday we will pray the Gloria in English. (Said Gloria does not resemble the Gloria we use today. It appears to be a direct translation from the Latin). Starting next Sunday we will pray the Nicean Creed in English. (Said Creed does not resemble the Creed we use today). Starting next Sunday we will pray the Preface and the Sanctus in English. (Said Preface and Sanctus does not resemble the preface and Sanctus we use today.)

And so on and so forth. There was no organic development just a series of pronouncements from the pulpit. To this day, I cannot adequately explain anything other than by my senior year in high school (68-69), the guitars were in and anything even remotely resembling what we had know just three years earlier was out the window.

There was no reform. It was wholesale upheaval - no rhyme or reason, just a series of pronouncements from the pulpit. I witnessed this with my own two eyes.

 

[japhy]

Dom Reid argues, IIRC, that, on the contrary, there was some awareness of earlier sacramentaries, etc. and that “restoration to the form and rite of the Fathers” meant something different for St. Pius V. It meant a liturgy organically developed from the rite of the Fathers rather than just the rite of the Fathers.

That sounds more reasonable. There are multiple Rites – Mozarabic, Roman, Byzantine, etc. – and have been for so long, and it does not seem likely that Pope St. Pius V wanted to eradicate the Roman Rite in favor of a “universal” Rite. Part of the problem with the post-conciliar reforms of the Roman Rite is that they drew from non-traditional sources; that is, they sought to incorporate elements from other Rites, elements which don’t have a history within the Roman Rite.

I do fear the post-conciliar reforms were an attempt at getting rid of organic development of the Rite and producing a “primordial” Mass that Protestants would have no trouble associating with.