THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
PONTIFICIUM ATHENAEUM S. ANSELMI DE URBE
PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM LITURGICAM
___________________________________________________
Thesis ad Lauream
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO
THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Christiaan W. Kappes
Tesi per il conseguimento del Dottorato in Sacra Liturgia
Romae 2012
1
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
ACKNOWLDGEMENTS
My debt of gratitude is such that certain persons’ contributions to this work -whether
moral or material- deserve to be mentioned.
First, I wish to thank His Excellency, the Most Reverend Daniel M. Buechlein, O.S.B. As
the bishop who ordained me and my Archbishop for the whole of my priesthood, his generous
suggestion to me to pursue doctoral studies in Liturgy in Rome will never be forgotten. Without
such support this project would have never been started.
Next, my heart-felt thanks to the God-loving bishop, Kyrillos Katerelos, at the University
of Athens. Without his moral encouragement and friendship, as well as his sincere interest in this
work, it may well have never been completed.
Also, my sincere thanks to Rev. Gerard Generelli, whose moral support, friendship and
hospitality here in Italy encouraged me in the completion of this work.
I would like to acknowledge the generosity of my Uncle and Aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen
A. Kappes. Their time spent in reading over the early draft of this text has greatly contributed to
its clarity of expression.
Lastly, I’m greatly indebted to Fr. Cassian Folsom, who was kind enough to undertake
the direction of this doctorate. I recall vividly that he enthusiastically embraced this project
despite the numerous projects and responsibilities that consumed so much of his time. I am even
more humbled now by his efforts to see this project through. All this, he has done, in spite of his
ever increasing crosses to bear. I am eternally grateful.
In conclusion, I would like to dedicate this work to my Parents Tim and Jenny and
especially to my sister Nadia, all of whom have been so excited to see their son and brother’s
success, that I can’t help but think that this is a gift to them, as much as it is an honor for me. I
can only hope that, in spite of my earnest desire for this works success, my even greater desire
will always be to a true theologian according to the mind of Evagrius Ponticus: “If you pray
truly, you are a theologian, and if you are a theologian, then you pray truly.”
2
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................6-12
1.0 CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................................................13
1.1 Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Consilium......................................................13-14
1.2 The Council: Sacrosanctum Concilium...............................................................14-21
1.3 The Consilium.......................................................................................................22-23
1.4 Sacram Liturgiam and the Consilium..................................................................23-24
1.5 Inter Oecumenici: The Reform Begins in Earnest.............................................24-25
1.5.1 Organization of the Consilium...................................................................26
1.5.2 Functional Structure of the Consilium 1964-1967....................................27
1.5.3 Reforms........................................................................................................28
1.5.4 Ceremonial Elements............................................................................28-29
1.5.5 Additions to the Ordo Missae.....................................................................29
1.6 Summary................................................................................................................29-30
1.7 Tres abhinc annos: The Consilium Begins Reconstruction................................31-33
1.8 Summary.....................................................................................................................33
1.9 Transitional Missal According to 4 May 1967....................................................33-34
1.10. Summary.............................................................................................................34-35
2.0 CHAPTER TWO...................................................................................................................36
2.1 From Tres abhinc annos to the Normative Mass...............................................36-37
2.2 Approved Principles of Reform for Coetus X in April 1964..............................37-41
2.3 Chronological Description of the Reform for Coetus X....................................42-43
2.4 Coetus X’s Mass Schema as adopted by the Consilium...........................................44
2.4.1 The Liturgy of the Word and Offertory..............................................44-48
2.4.2 Canon Missae........................................................................................48-53
2.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................54-55
3.0 CHAPTER THREE...............................................................................................................56
3.1 Principles of the Reform..........................................................................................56
3.2 Altiora principia: Fundamental Principles.........................................................56-59
3.3 Operational Principles.........................................................................................59-60
3.4 Commentary..........................................................................................................61-69
3.5 Ecumenism............................................................................................................70-73
3.6 Coetus X and Its Organization and Function within the Consilium................73-76
3.7 Specific Treatment of the Structure and Operation of Coetus X...........................77
3.7.1 Process of Approval of Any Reformed Liturgical Books...................77-78
3.7.2 Theoretical Organization of the Work of Each Group......................78-80
3
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
3.7.3 Procedure for Enacting Any Reform Approved by the Consilium....80-81
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR..................................................................................................................82
4.1 The Ordo Missae According to the Missa Normativa.........................................82-85
4.2 Ritus Initiales.........................................................................................................85-92
4.3 Salutation...................................................................................................92-97
4.4 Actio Poenitentialis.........................................................................................98
4.4.1 Kyrie Eleison.............................................................................98-100
4.4.2 The Kyrie in Relation to Penitential Compositions.............100-107
4.5 The Gloria..............................................................................................108-111
4.6 The Collect.............................................................................................111-113
4.7 Readings: The Liturgy of the Word Proper........................................113-121
4.8 The Credo...............................................................................................121-124
4.9 Prayer of the Faithful: Petitions..........................................................124-128
5.0 CHAPTER FIVE.................................................................................................................129
5.1 The Offertory: the Bread.................................................................................129-132
5.2 The Offertory: the Wine...................................................................................132-136
5.3 Canon Missae: The Preface..............................................................................133-139
5.4 Canon Missae: The Roman Canon..................................................................139-141
5.4.1 Canon Missae: Form A. Te igitur......................................................141-145
5.4.2 Canon Missae: Form A. Memento....................................................146-148
5.4.3 Canon Missae: Form A. Communicantes.........................................148-149
5.4.4 Canon Missae: Form A. Hanc igitur........................................................150
5.4.5 Canon Missae: Form A. Quam oblationem......................................150-151
5.4.6 Canon Missae: Form A. Institution Narrative................................151-153
5.4.7 Canon Missae: Form A. Unde et memores...............................................154
5.4.8 Canon Missae: Form A. Supra quae & Supplices te rogamus.........154-155
5.4.9 Canon Missae: Form A. Momento....................................................155-156
5.4.10 Canon Missae: Form A. Nobis quoque peccatoribus.....................156-158
5.4.11 Canon Missae: Form A. Per quem..................................................158-159
5.4.12 Canon Missae: Form A. Per Ipsum.................................................159-160
5.5 Canon Missae: Form B.....................................................................................160-161
5.5.1 Canon Missae: Form B. Memento & Communicantes....................162-162
5.5.2 Canon Missae: Form B. Hanc igitur-Supplices te rogamus............162-164
5.5.3 Canon Missae: Form B. Momento & Nobis quoque peccatoribus..164-165
5.5.4 Canon Missae: Form B. Per quem & Per ipsum.....................................165
5.6 Canon Missae: Form C.....................................................................................166-167
5.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................168-171
6.0 CHAPTER SIX....................................................................................................................172
6.1 The Our Father.................................................................................................172-174
6.2 The Our Father: the Embolism.......................................................................174-177
4
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
6.3 The Pax Domini.................................................................................................177-180
6.4 Pax......................................................................................................................180-182
6.5 The Commingling and Agnus Dei...................................................................183-186
6.6 The Communion Preparation..........................................................................186-188
6.7 The Ecce Agnus Dei..........................................................................................188-190
6.8 The Communion Rite.......................................................................................190-192
6.9 The Post-Communion Rite..............................................................................192-196
6.10 The Post-Communion Oration......................................................................196-197
6.11 The Closing rites.............................................................................................198-199
6.12 Conclusions.....................................................................................................199-200
7.0 CHAPTER SEVEN..............................................................................................................201
7.1 The Synod of Bishops.......................................................................................201-203
7.2 Query I at the Synod of Bishops......................................................................203-208
7.2.1 Query I, Section 2..............................................................................208-209
7.2.2 Query I, Section 3..............................................................................210-212
7.3 Query II.............................................................................................................213-214
7.4 Query III............................................................................................................214-216
7.5 Query IV............................................................................................................216-217
7.6 Papal Queries on the Normative Mass...........................................................217-218
7.6.1 Papal Query I: Eucharistic Prayers.................................................218-220
7.6.2 Eucharistic Prayer III.......................................................................221-224
7.7 Query II & III: The Words of Institution.......................................................224-228
7.8 The Nicene and Apostle’s Creed......................................................................228-229
7.9 Conclusions about the Synod...........................................................................229-232
8.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................233
8.1 Theoretical Considerations..............................................................................233-235
8.2 Altiora Principia: Principles One and Two.....................................................236-237
8.3 Third Principle: Active Participation.............................................................237-242
8.4 Other Theoretical and Operative Principles..................................................242-243
8.5 The Normative Mass and Its Overall Structure............................................243-244
8.6 The Synod of Bishops and the Normative Mass............................................244-245
BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................246-257
5
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
INTRODUCTION
An earnest reform within the Roman Catholic Church had already begun in the ambit of
her public worship before the formal closing of the Second Vatican Council on December 8th
1965. This reform was inaugurated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Holy Father established a
papal organ of liturgical reform for the Latin rite known as the Consilium ad exsequendam
Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. This impetus came from the Constitution Sacrosanctum
Concilium of the 4th of December 1963. the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra
Liturgia, dubbed as the “Consilium”, thereafter was to be the authoritative voice of the Holy
Father for interpreting and applying the principles and decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council in regard to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. 1
This papal organ began its task to apply the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy by means
of a full revision of the liturgical books of the Latin rite upon the Consilium’s establishment as
an official body following the decree of Sacram Liturgiam on the 25th of January 1964.2 In the
course of that historic work of reform, specifically regarding the revision of the ritus et preces of
the Roman Missal in force, the Consilium adopted a policy of gradual simplification of the Pian
Missal (editio typica 1962). This was in order to arrive at a final and thorough revision of the
Roman Missal.3
It is the task of the present work to describe the process by which the Consilium reformed
a specific part of the Pian Missal, i.e. editio typica 1962. 4 The reform of the Roman missal was
1P.
MARINI, «Il primo Periodo de attività del “Consilium”: prospettive e difficoltà (MarzoGiugno 1964)», Ephemerides Liturgicae 107 (1993) 401-439. In Appendix I P. Marini
reproduces the original Promemoria submitted by A. Bugnini for Paul VI, which ideas resulted in
the Consilium as a reforming agency instead of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (SRC).
2
PAUL VI, «Sacram Liturgiam», Acta Apostolica Sedis 56 (1964) 139.
3 P.
MARINI, «L’Istruzione “Inter Oecumenici”, una svolta decisiva (Luglio-Ottobre
1964)», Ephemerides Liturgicae 108 (1994) 225.
4
However, it should be kept in mind that the simplification of rubrics in 1964 and 1967
were not considered “New Missals”, rather rubrical adjustments and textual deletions of the
editio typica 1962 (itself a transitional Missal according to Rubricarum intructionem)in order to
transition to a new Missal.
6
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
meant to establish a definitive schema for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Mass. Just such a
schema was eventually proposed by the Consilium on the 24th of May 1966, before its debut
before the Fathers of the extraordinary synod of bishops in 1967. This work intends to limit itself
to an investigation of Ordinary of Mass celebrated before the synod of bishops. This limited area
of study had been entrusted to Coetus X of the newly formed Consilium. The new form of Mass
was officially named the Missa normativa, or Normative Mass. The Normative Mass represents
the first attempt to introduce the Church to a complete liturgical reform of the Ordo Missae of
the Latin rite in accord with the fundamental and operational principles of liturgical reform as
emanating from the Fathers of the Consilium. These principles of reform are themselves the fruit
of the Consilium Fathers’ and periti’s reflections and officially sanctioned interpretation of
Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is the intent of this work to present the text of the Ordo Missae of
the Missa normativa in order to evaluate the resultant rite produced by the Fathers of the
Consilium in conjunction with their periti. This work also intends to shed light on the motives
and reasoning of these Fathers and periti for individual revisions and compositions of texts with
the purpose of demonstrating that the Missa normativa was not merely another “transitional
form” of the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy in order to arrive at the Novus Ordo Missae of
1969. Instead, this work attempts to highlight a conscious application of the fundamental and
operational liturgical principles, applied by the Consilium periti and voted upon by the Fathers of
the Consilum, that led to the establishment the basic structure of the Normative Mass. This
Normative Mass was to be the bedrock upon which any “new liturgy” was to be based. It will be
shown that the Consilium’s approach to the structure of the Mass also admitted local variation
and innovation. Nonetheless, the skeleton of the Normative Mass was the desired final product of
the Consilium Fathers. It represented their sincere desires for a reformed liturgy. An appointed
group of voting “Fathers” (i.e. Cardinals, prelates and priests) were responsible for the final
approval of the various schemata as proposed by the periti of the Consilium ad exsequendam
Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. After presenting the full schema of the Normative Mass, the
present work intends to concentrate on investigating the Ordo of the Normative Mass. It hopes to
put into relief the manner in which Consilium principles were applied to some individual parts of
that liturgy. Additionally, the work plans to justify its claim that the Normative Mass was meant
7
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
to be the definitive rite of the Mass. This will be accomplished by an analysis of the individual
sections of the Normative Mass from various perspectives. The result of investigating the
historical background, application of principles, and resultant changes in a rite should
demonstrate that this form of celebration was in fact the near-final result of applying the
principles of liturgical reform as adopted by the Consilium. The reason why this claim might be
contested is due to the fact that the Normative Mass failed to gain unanimous acceptance before
the representative bishops of the extraordinary synod of bishops in Rome in 1967. 5 At this synod
the bishops expressed their views on the Normative Mass in a rather negative fashion. These
responses were interpreted by the Pope and Consilium members as a failure to gain approval of
their reform efforts. This singular event led to the ultimate failure of the Normative Mass to
become the skeleton over which the new post-Conciliar liturgy would ultimately be enfleshed.6
The method of this work will introduce briefly the historical formation of the rite itself and then
report on the work of the Consilium. The main focus of this work will be to evaluate the
individual rites of the Mass in a systematic way. This work will explain the provenance of the
various rites in the Normative Mass. It also hopes to justify each reform’s value in light of the
Consilium’s opinions on liturgical history and its concerns for the modern needs of man and
legitimate cultural adaptation.
In regard to authors who have studied the Normative Mass itself, none have treated
specifically the Normative Mass as a separate entity and specific area of study, except per
accidens. Maurizio Barba has published copious notes, various minutes, votes of the Fathers, and
5
The implication here is that the “failure” of a large project often is an occasion to “reinvent” the project so that all the labor and work has not been in vain. Something like this can be
argued to have happened with the Normative Mass. Its failure was the occasion to start a new
project. This new project did not begin ex novo, but adopted some of its principles and structure
from the Normative Mass. These rites were then combined with various other rites suggested by
the Pope, curial agencies and through surveys provided by clerics and laypeople. This process
will be treated more amply in the main body of the work.
6
CONSILIUM, «De liturgia in primo synodo episcoporum», Notitiae 3 (1967) 357.
8
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
discussions of the Consilium periti.7 His most valuable work in this area is his commentary and
anthology of texts found under the title: La riforma conciliare dell’ «Ordo Missae». In this work
M. Barba has published several previously unedited manuscripts and schemata detailing the
work and discussions of the periti of Coetus X of the Consilium. In particular, he has reproduced
the proposed schemata of the rite of Mass leading up to the Normative Mass as celebrated before
the Synod Fathers of 1967 in Rome. Besides the Vatican Council documents themselves and
papal decrees in Acta Apostolic Sedis, which are the principle sources for understanding the
Church’s official process of reform, there are significant studies on the reform in general. For
instance, such documentation exists in Notitiae8 and within the works of several liturgical
writers, themselves part of the historical reform process. The bulk of documentation is published
by Ephemerides Liturgicae, which reproduced documents and materials on the same subject.
Among the principle authors of interest are Piero Marini9 and Aimé-George Martimort.10 An
additional indispensable source is the Ordo Romanus Primus11 from among the Ordines Romani
and Missale Romanum (editio typica 1962) for comparing and contrasting the various parts of the
Ordo Missae of the Normative Mass to its historical predecessors. In the realm of liturgical
history, J. Jungmann’s Mass of the Roman Rite is indispensable.12 Jungmann’s magnum opus is
7
M. BARBA, La riforma conciliare dell’“Ordo Missae”. Il percorso storico-redazionale
dei riti d’ingresso, di offertorio e di comunione (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia
120), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 22008.
8
CONSILIUM, «Septima sessione plenaria “Consilii”», Notitiae 2 (1966) 313. CONSILIUM,
«De Missa normativa», Notitiae 3 (1967) 371-380.
9
P. MARINI, «L’Istruzione “Inter Oecumenici”, una svolta decisiva (Luglio-Ottobre
1964)», Ephemerides Liturgicae 108 (1994) 205-231. P. MARINI, «Il primo Periodo de attività del
“Consilium”: prospettive e difficoltà (Marzo-Giugno 1964)», Ephemerides Liturgicae 107
(1993) 401-403.
10 A.-G.
MARTIMORT, «Adaptation liturgique», Ephemerides Liturgicae 79 (1965) 3-16.
11
«Ordo Romanus Primus», in Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2. Les Textes
(Ordines I-XIII), ed. Michel Andrieu (Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense, études et documents
fascicule 23), Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense administration, Louvain 1971, 67-108.
12
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite. Its Origins and Development 1-2, tr.
Francis A. Brunner, Benzinger Brothers, New York 11951.
9
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
important for this work not only because of its authoritative acceptance as a historical study on
the origins and history of the Roman rite, but most especially because the Consilium explicitly
favored Jungmann’s historical presentation and interpretation of the Roman rite. The Consilium
praised J. Jungmann’s Missarum Sollemnia as a valuable compilation and harmonization of the
entire range of knowledge from previous liturgical studies of the Latin rite. J. Jungmann had
incorporated into his work a great variety of studies and authors. Liturgical interests and studies
multiplied exponentially following the advent of liturgical movement, especially as inaugurated
during the Pontificate of Pius X.13
There are other published studies important for this work. Vincenzo Raffa, in Liturgia
eucaristica. Mistogogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla pastorale practica, has
already outlined the rationale for many of the reforms of the Novus Ordo Missae. some of these
are germane to the Normative Mass as well.14 Various articles of Carlo Braga are indispensable
for understanding the workings and process of reform of the Consilium, as well as the thinking
of the individual periti.15 Their work, however, is principally concerning the Missal of Paul VI,
and again most often mentions the Normative Mass only in passing, i.e., a matter of proper
13
“Nel frattempo però si portavano a termine anche gli studi che Pio X aveva auspicato
e nel 1948 Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., poteva riassumerli e publicarli nella sua celebre opera
Missarum Sollemnia che è stata tradotta in molte lingue e diffusa in tutto il mondo.” See the
Consilium publication «Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae” e sulle
esigenze, possibilità e mete della riforma dell’ “De Ordo Missae” in conformità ai decreti
conciliari». This is reproduced by J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des Ordo Missae», in Liturgia
opera divina e umana.Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in
occasione del suo 70º compleanno, ed. P. Jounel - R. Kaczynski –G. Paqualletti (Bibliotheca
Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 26), Edizioni liturgiche, Roma 1982, 263-290. This last line is
meant to distinguish the liturgical movement of Dom Gueranger from the more modern
movement following the legislation and writings of Pope St. Pius X.
14
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia
alla postorale practica (Biblioteca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 100), CLV-Edizioni
Liturgiche, Roma !2003.
15
C. BRAGA, «Instructio ad exsecutionem Constitutionis de Liturgia recte ordinandamCommentarium», Ephemerides Liturgicae 78 (1964) 421-518. C. BRAGA «De liturgia in quarta
periodo Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II», Ephemerides Liturgicae 79 (1965) 377-387. C.
BRAGA, «Istauratio liturgica: anno primo», Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 141-155.
10
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
chronology when explaining the process of reform resulting in the Novus Ordo Missae. Nearly
everything written which touches on the Normative Mass does not intend to treat it as the focus
of a an article. As such, no specific study of the Normative Mass as a separate entity seems to
have been written. With the exception the initial work of M. Barba, there exists no evaluation of
the parts and whole of the Normative Mass in order to discern whether or not it was in fact a
faithful application of the Consilium’s fundamental principles. In fact, there is nothing currently
known that attempts to treat the individual rites of this Mass in light of the tradition and
adaptation to the modern man. Only the celebrated work of Annibale Bugnini (La riforma
liturgica 1948-1975) and M. Barba’s La riforma conciliare dell’“Ordo Missae” dedicate
substantial time and effort to describing the nature and intent of the Normative Mass itself. A.
Bugnini treats both the major historical stages of the project as well as its successes and failures
before the synod of bishops (1967). M. Barba has edited many of the important schemata and
described many projects of the Consilium on the Normative Mass. He has also commented on
large sections of the Normative Mass in order to delineate the process of reform and hightlight
certain motives of some of the individual reforms. With the exception of these two works, it
seems that the subject of this thesis is unique. There seem to be no limits constraining the present
work because of studies that have already been published. The one exception is in regard to
delineation of the technical reform process in order to arrival at the Normative Mass as already
accomplished by M. Barba.16 A. Bugnini in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy 1948-1975
provides a description of the Missa Normativa and its short-lived history, but no further pastoral
or historical evaluation of the Mass has ever been done.
There are, then, several tasks left to be done with regard to this rite of Mass. There has
never been a work outlining the rationale for the reform of the individual rites, which is
important for the Novus Ordo Missae as well. This is the case since many of the rites that were
16
M. Barba, in his introduction, specifically hopes that his recently published work will
finally spur on some students and scholars of liturgical science to take advantage of this rich field
of investigation. “Non è nostra intenzione offrire qui un’analisi completa dei riti, convinti che la
celebrazione liturgica esorbiti dai limiti imposti da un’analisi descrittiva. Tale volume, pertanto,
non avendo lo scopo di ricondurre tutta la ricchezza poliedrica dell’argomento ad una
organizzaione definitiva dei dati studiati, si auspica di lasciare aperti orizzonti più vasti di
indagine e prospettive in altrettanti estesi filoni di ricerca.” M. BARBA, in RCOM, xxx.
11
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
altered in the Church’s actual liturgy, following Vatican II, can be traced back to the debates
involving the Normative Mass. Also, a step-by-step analysis of the methodology of the
Consilium and its application to the individual rites of Mass is missing. This analysis is
necessary to understand the way in which each reform was discussed and evaluated by the
Consilium. Lastly, there is still no full explanation as to the motives behind the Conslium’s
abandonment of the Normative Mass project in order to arrive at the Novus Ordo Missae in its
stead. With this in mind, apart from the mere historical value of this rite of Mass, it is important
to put into relief the role of the Normative Mass as a real reform which contributed to the
liturgical renewal in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The value of this work may be not
only its description of the history of the reform of this peculiar rite of Mass but also its insights
that explain why A. Bugnini was so profoundly effected by the lack of appreciation for the
schema of this Mass at its actual Eucharistic celebration that occurred during the extraordinary
synod of 1967. Many hopes of the Consilium Fathers and periti rested upon the success of this
Mass at the time when it was presented to representatives of the episcopal conference of the
Catholic Church. As such, it is remarkable that no one has attempted to understand why A.
Bugnini in particular, and the Consilium periti in general, valued this proposed reform of the
Roman liturgy so much. In fact, before the synod of 1967, many members of the Consilium
anticipated its complete success. In conclusion, a treatment of this theme may provide:
a.) An explanation of some historical, pastoral and theological reasons as to why the
Normative Mass is an authentic expression of the Consilium’s work.
b.) A demonstration that the Ordo Missae of the Normative Mass is an important reference
point for liturgical reform.
c.) An understanding of the origin of several innovations within the Novus Ordo Missae.
Some of the structure and prayers of the Novus Ordo were the result of either criticisms or
suggestions for improving the Missa normativa as reformed by the Consilium.
12
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
1.0 CHAPTER ONE
1.1 SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM AND THE CONSILIUM
If one were to attempt to produce a comprehensive evaluation of the Ordo Missae of the
Missa normativa one could spend an unnecessary and yet exhaustive amount of time first
treating Sacrosanctum Concilium alone. This document has been invoked, cited, and interpreted
among varying lines and perspectives for more than 40 years now. In this introductory chapter
there is no need to do anything other than highlight a few facts regarding this document’s
importance and effect on the reform of the liturgy. The purpose in this is merely to elucidate the
connection between the Council, the formation of the Consilium, and the principles of the
Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. Through such a process of
delineation it is easy to advance to an investigation of the application of the Consilium
principles. Such an evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the individual ritus et preces
of the Ordo Missae relying on the Consilium’s competence to interpret the various parts of the
Liturgical Constitution of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Obviously, the story of the reform of the liturgy is not merely traced back to the Second
Vatican Council, which can perhaps be said to have realized or accelerated many desires and
hopes of the modern liturgical movement. Nonetheless, given the scope of this work, a treatment
of liturgical reform might most appropriately begin upon the date of the 6th of June 1960. It was
on this day that Cardinal Cicognani (prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites) was appointed
president of a newly appointed commission known as the Preparatory Commission on the
Liturgy. Soon after this event the celebrated figure of Annibale Bugnini entered into the fray of
ante-Conciliar reform formally on 11 July of the same year. A. Bugnini entered as secretary to
the Preparatory Commission that would eventually draft the formal schema to be presented at the
upcoming Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. This schema would serve for discussion,
amendment, approval and publication of new liturgical norms.17
This new Preparatory Commission was simply, in many ways, the formal body
17 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 14-15.
13
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
established in order to begin working on the themes and propositions as put forward by the
“Ante-preparatory Commission” established immediately after the announcement of a
forthcoming council by Pope John XXIII in 1959.18
1.2 THE COUNCIL: SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
The current investigation will only concern itself with the principles as espoused by the
Consilium, which were inspired by the document Sacrosanctum Concilium. This is an important
point of departure, since this work has no intention of evaluating the Missa normativa in light of
any new interpretations of the Council documents or statements. It seems more than clear that,
from its inception, the Consilium had already proposed explicit and clear principles by which the
Liturgy Constitution was to be interpreted. Furthermore, these principles were approved by Pope
Paul VI. The approval process will be explained further below.
Given the fact that Pope Paul VI established, unwaiveringly supported, and encouraged
the work of the Consilium, it is a methodological assumption that the Consilium’s operations
reflected the mind of the Pontiff himself. This will become evident as some of Paul VI’s
profound and continuous involvement in the reform process is chronicled in the present study.
Therefore, the principles of liturgical reform as proposed by the Consilium’s periti and
authoritatively approved by the Fathers of the Consilium represent a secure and acceptable
criterion by which to evaluate the first proposed schema of the Normative Mass. Thus, this
work’s aim is to understand any principles of liturgical reform in Sacrosanctum Concilium only
as they were officially interpreted through the papal organ of the Consilium (with additional
reference to some few other agencies of the Roman curia). This seems to be the best point of
departure in order to evaluate and even to critique the reform of the liturgy of the Missa
normativa so as to avoid hermeneutic problems of interpretation in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Any potential ambiguities that have been sources of discussion within the conciliar document
18
V. NOË, «Storia della Costituzione liturgica. Punti di riferimento», in Costituzione
liturgica “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, ed. Congregazione per il Culto Divino (Ephemerides
Liturgicae Subsidia 38), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1986, 12.
14
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
are, therefore, irrelevant for this work. This work does not seek to go beyond any interpretation
of the liturgy Constitution that is not based in statement by the periti and Fathers of the
Consilium. In the realm of methodology this work will search for any rule of consistency on the
part of the Consilium when applying its own principles to the reform process. This will also
require consideration of the historical and liturgical assumptions which the Consilium used as
part of its methodology.
Although there was much discussion and not a little rivalry between liturgical
“conservatives” and “progressives” in the initial drafting of the various schemata of the
Constitution,19 the end result of all the debates of the Council Fathers was to procure a truly
progressive document as finally approved by the Council to reform of the liturgy.20
It is important to emphasize that the Council itself was explicitly entrusted with
proposing only general principles of reform, with some few exceptions, while specialized organs
of the Holy See were envisioned to put these general principles into effect by creating more
fundamental and operational norms. The norms would be used as a point of departure for the
actual task of liturgical reform.21
The actual Constitution was overwhelmingly approved (2147-4) and was finally
promulgated on the 4th of December 1963.22 This was the general impetus for gathering a group
of experts, known as periti, who were to organize into work groups to put into action the
declarations of the Council. The groups were to propose reforms to be voted on by a select
number of bishops, abbots and priests known as the “Fathers” of the Consilium. The Fathers and
periti were to utilize these principles as a point of departure for reform of the Missal of St. Pius
V according to its 1962 edition, as well as the other liturgical books of the Roman rite.23
It is worthwhile noting that ordinarily the Sacred Congregation of Rites (SCR) would
19
P. MARINI, «L’Istruzione “Inter Oecumenici”», 205-231.
20 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 26-27.
21 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 27.
22
V. NOË, «Storia della Costituzione liturgica», 14.
23
P. MARINI, «Il primo Periodo de attività del “Consilium”: prospettive e difficoltà
(Marzo-Giugno 1964)», Ephemerides Liturgicae 107 (1993) 401-403.
15
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
have been entrusted with any general
task of enforcing and interpreting decrees like
Sacrosanctum Concilium.24 Yet it was hardly a secret that the Sacred Congregation of Rites had
developed a reputation (in a more progressive post-Conciliar atmosphere) being indisposed, if
not inimical, to the Council’s “spirit” in some ways.25 Therefore, in place of the SCR, a special
commission of experts was devised in order to reform the liturgy, much like that which was
established after the Council of Trent.26
Of course, there was a great difference between the two organizations. The group of
cardinals, following the Council of Trent, knew of no congregation in the Roman curia in charge
of liturgical matters. This lacuna resulted in a post-conciliar commission to reform and interpret
Trent’s decrees, and eventually led to the establishment of a congregation to enforce liturgical
law and determine orthopraxy. This was accomplished by Sixtus V in 1588 through the
establishment of the SCR.27 Nevertheless, the above-mentioned distinction between the Sacred
Congregation of Rites and the Consilium, in so far as their “spirit” is concerned, should not be
too sharply drawn so that one might think that the creation of the Consilium was a truly singular
event in the history of the Roman Curia. For instance, Leo XIII was rather fond of having
extraordinary commissions (coetus) attached to congregations. He is said to have made the first
actual steps, since the reform of Trent, in overhauling and reforming the curia by means of
commissions that were not unlike the Consilium in structure, but were thought to be merely an
initial stage of more drastic reform of the curia. It additionally should be mentioned that
following Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X himself bypassed the SCR when erecting a special
commission for the study and revision of the breviary of St. Pius V as published in 1568. That
24
P. MARINI, «Il primo Periodo de attività del “Consilium”», 401-439. This article
chronicles the initial struggles between the SRC and the future Members of the Consilium in
attempting to become the official body entrusted with liturgical reform.
25
P. MARINI, «Il “Consilium” in piena attività in un clima favorevole (Ottobre 1964Marzo 1965)», Ephemerides Liturgicae 109 (1995), 106.
26
K. SEASOLTZ, New Liturgy New Laws, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 1980, 26-27.
27
F. MCMANUS, The Congregation of Sacred Rites (The Catholic University of America
Canon Law Studies 352), The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 1954,
28-29.
16
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
breviary had been revised on a few occasions by the SCR, but only with rather minor changes.
At the beginning of the 20th century criticisms of this breviary noted the fact that it was still
disorganized (rarely permitting the celebration of the weekly distribution of the Psalter) and
unnecessarily onerous. This left the saintly Pope to establish a commission separate from the
SCR to deal with the situation by a rather ample reform of the Breviary and its rubrics.28
One can surmise that the eventual suppression of the SCR during the period of postConciliar liturgical reform was at least in part affected by the generally negative view of its work
when placed under scrutiny of a more progressivist post-Conciliar outlook, particularly among
experts of the Consilium itself. The rubricist and “backward” reputation of the SCR meant that it
would be unlikely to result in much more than merely adjusting rubrics and inserting new
formulas into the existing Missal. This was in stark contrast to any attempt to reform the Missal
innovatively, especially in order to be in more accord with modern mentality and needs of 20th
century society.29
The story of the Normative Mass begins from the moment of establishment of the
Consilium. Even if de jure the changes in the Mass depended on the Pope’s authority and
approval, in general, it can be said that Pope Paul VI was in great concord with a multitude of
opinions shared among the Consilium Fathers and especially their periti. 30 It is important to
recognize that Pope Paul VI had a general confidence and profound respect for the opinions,
advice and counsel expressed by the Consilium membership. 31 This organ or agency of the Pope
technically fell under the presidency of Cardinal Lercaro and then later Cardinal Benno Gut, yet
it is generally recognized that the Consilium’s moral leadership really depended on the
28
P. BATTIFOL, History of the Roman Breviary, tr. Atwell Baylay, Longmans, Green, and
Company, New York !1898, 289. This second edition has an appendix dealing with the then
recent reforms of Pope Pius X.
29
P. MARINI, «Il Consilium in piena attività in un clima favorevole», 106.
30
RCOM, 93.
31
PAUL VI, «Allocutio Paui VI ad “Consilium”», Acta Apostolic Sedis 58 (1966)
1145-1150.
17
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
monumental figure of its secretary Annibale Bugnini.32
The rival of the Consilium,33 i.e. the SCR, had as its secretary a more moderate reformer
in the figure of Fernando Antonelli.34
At the beginning of the reforms it would not be just to
contrast these two men too severely and look for excessive dissension between their two
respective organs of the Holy See. This risks exaggeration. Initially, F. Antonelli was actually
responsible for recommending A. Bugnini’s liturgical expertise in a study group for the Council
itself.35 Certainly it must have seemed to him that A. Bugnini would make an excellent choice.
This was due to A. Bugnini’s experience and work in reforming Holy Week in the 1940’s and
1950’s, as a member of the Pian Commission, as well as because of his obvious knowledge of
things liturgical. What seemed to be mere accidental differences of perspective between the two
men at the beginning of their work would eventually betray far deeper divisions touching the
very substance of the reform. These disagreements would sometimes strain relations between F.
Antonelli and A. Bugnini. The conflict seemed to have been a gradually escalating one. Several
of F. Antonelli’s complaints centered around some of A. Bugnini’s theological perspectives.
These concerns were an eventual cause of anxiety for F. Antonelli.36
F. Antonelli was himself no stranger to the Council or reform. He had earnestly
recommended more moderate reforms and a repristinization of the liturgy on a more sober level.
He had naturally approved of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, since he had had a part in
drafting the very document. He described himself as working to preserve the Constitution from
32
K. SEASOLTZ, New Liturgy New Laws, 26-27. For a synopsis of his life, work and great
influence within on the Consilium, see C. BRAGA, «Ricordo di Mons. Annibale Bugnini»,
Notitiae 18 (1982), 440-452.
33 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 77.
34
F. Antonelli was a Franciscan and was eventually made a Cardinal for his service to the
Church, particularly in reforming the liturgy from 1948-1970. For his bibliography, see N.
GIAMPIETRO, Il Card. Ferdinando Antonelli e gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica dal 1948-1970
(Analecta liturgica e sacramentum 21), Centro Studi S. Anselmo, Roma 1998, 13-18.
35 A. BUGNINI,
36
The Reform of the Liturgy, 71.
CFA, 264.
18
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
anything that he considered too radical.37 Perhaps because of his cautious attitude, when he was
appointed secretary general of the Conciliar Commission on the Sacred Liturgy to oversee the
preparation for the drafting of Sacrosanctum Concilium, he received a rather cold reception by
the Commission’s members.38 Given F. Antonelli’s self-perception as a guardian of sorts he did
not fall into the category of emotional enthusiasts. He might be better described as a more stoic
or moderate curia ecclesiastic faithfully carrying out his appointed task as he understood it. His
critics perceived this, perhaps, as a propensity toward legalism. Yet, he has been praised by many
for genuine work of reform while remaining faithful to both the letter and spirit of official
decrees.39 Many experts and progressives, as a whole, had conversely placed their hopes in the
appointment of A. Bugnini to the post which F. Antonelli occupied during the Council. From the
perspective of progressivism, it was a disappointment to see a more mainstream official take the
place of a more avant-garde thinker like A. Bugnini. Relative to A. Bugnini, F. Antonelli
certainly would not have been perceived as a bold figure in liturgical reform in step with the
spirit of the age.40
F. Antonelli, while discussing certain tendencies and trends within the liturgical
movement wrote to Cardinal Larraona:
“Io non dissi nulla.
Risposi soltanto che con l’esperienza che ho della
Congregazione mi prometterei di prendere subito in mano il movimento liturgico
mondiale, non per arrestarlo, ma per imprimerci una linea unitaria e liberarlo da
37
Bernard Botte was in agreement that the liturgical commision before the Council and
the process of proposing reforms to the Mass was an occasion of tension between “some
members of the curia” and liturgical progressives, labelled as radicals. See BOTTE, BERNARD Il
Movimento Liturgico. Testimonianza e ricordi, Effatà Editrice, Cantalupa 2009, 175-179.
38
CFA, 106.
39
Several authors are mindful of his reforming spirit. See Antonelli, Ferdinando
Giuseppe. Omaggio a Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Ferdinando Giuseppe Antonelli in
occasione del suo 90. anno di vita, Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, Roma 1986.
40
CFA, 106.
19
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
posizioni eccessive.”41
Nonetheless, F. Antonelli’s vision of the reform was representative of the Preparatory
Commission of Vatican II, of which he had been a guiding force. For instance, he envisioned
some explicit changes in the actual texts of the Pian Missal, more than merely an updated text of
Scripture or approval of quasi-illicit ceremonies then in vogue like the offertory procession. He
saw the main changes as pertaining to the realm of active participation of the people.42 He
explicitly expressed his predictions that the reform of the Order of Mass (Ordo Missae) would
augment and vary the biblical readings, add a Prayer of the Faithful, new prefaces and new
votive and ferial Masses. Obviously this still represents a substantial enrichment of the Roman
Missal, even if not as radical as many scholars believed to be essential to breathe new life into
the liturgy.43
However, so as not to paint F. Antonelli as too reserved, it is generally admitted that F.
Antonelli’s counsel and recommendations were those that directly led to the study groups that
would eventually be known as the Consilium. As a member (or Father) of the Consilium, F.
Antonelli had the right to vote on reforms. Yet this role limited him to being one member among
some forty voting Fathers. More importantly, previous to the Consilium, he had been indirectly
responsible for many eventual reforms of the Missa normativa and the Novus Ordo Missae by
wholeheartedly recommending a good number of the periti of the Consilium. He made these
recommendations when Secretary of the SCR and various commissions.44
If F. Antonelli represented moderation twinned with fidelity, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani,
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, represented a conservative and ostensibly
suspicious mentality through calling into question ambiguities in drafts of the Liturgy
Constitution. For example, in regard to the reform of the Order of Mass, he remarked:
41
F. ANTONELLI, «Il diario», in CFA, 104.
42
CFA, 205-207.
43
CFA, 214.
44
CFA, 221.
20
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“In art. 37 huius capitis legitur: «Ordo Missae sive in sua dispositione
generali, sive in singulis partibus, esset recognoscendus.» Quid sibi volunt haec verba?
Nunc, num revolutio quaedam fieri vult de tota Missa? Quia si ordo Missae reformandus
est tum in sua dispositione generali, tum in suis singulis partibus, quid manebit.” 45
In conclusion, the Preparatory Commission, Council, and the Consilium, like the 1967
synod of bishops that eventually rejected the Normative Mass, represented a complex
amalgamation of different points of view. Ultimately, the appointments to the Consilium signaled
a victory for the more progressive and reform-minded periti. The reason why it is important to
mention these facts before reviewing the actual text of the reformed Ordo Missae of the
Normative Mass is to acclimate the reader to the ambience in the midst of which the Normative
Mass as a whole suffered its ultimate rejection. This rejection was attributed by some important
periti to be in no small part due to a lack of modern liturgical understanding and education on the
part of many ecclesiastics (whether before the Council or, as will be discussed, following the
Council during the extraordinary Synod of bishops in 1967). The Consilium and its visionaries
had to overcome the force of habit and the psychological comfort of custom and ritualization that
the old liturgical forms offered to the bishops of the Church. As such the bishops’ rejection of
the Normative Mass was evaluated by some Consilium experts as being more of a result of
liturgical ignorance and inauspicious conditions of celebration, rather than defects of the
Normative Mass itself. As an aside, it should be kept in mind that despite some misgivings as
evinced by individuals more along the mind-set of Cardinal Ottaviani, the Normative Mass was
to receive a warm reception by the Pontiff himself, who was no stranger to the liturgical
movement and who had promoted many experiments in his own archdiocese of Milan in the
1950’s.46
45
Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II 1, Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, Città del Vaticano 1970, 598-599. This is reproduced in part by RCOM, 40-43.
46J. MONTINI,
«De re pastorali liturgica», Ephemerides Liturgicae 77 (1963) 218-234.
21
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
1.3 THE CONSILIUM
It was only logical that the Pope entrust the work of carrying out the Council’s wishes
and declarations to an organization both knowledgeable and competent in matters liturgical.
Obviously the SCR was one logical choice. However, there had been rumblings and misgivings
about the SCR’s reactionary and backward views.47 The SCR was often perceived as an
annoyance to liturgical progressives and had been somewhat intrusive during the Council itself.
It had made a futile attempt to put the reins on the exuberant enthusiasm for liturgical change that
was being promoted by various periti and even many members of the Roman curia and
hierarchy. 48 Therefore, it was deemed most opportune to use a fresh group of experts who would
be inspired by a spirit different than that of the SCR. Obviously the new spirit that was present
after the Council was one of optimism, zeal, and interest in new ways of dialoguing with the
world. Cardinal Virgilio Noë enthusiastically recalled the immortal words of J. Jungmann. He
called the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: “un grande dono di Dio posto nelle mani degli
uomini.”49
Of course, the current investigation assumes the Constitution was “a gift from God”, but
the task will be to evaluate just how this divine gift-in-hand was used in order to produce its first
human fruit, the schema of the Normative Mass. Quickly following the publication of Sacram
Liturgiam in 1964, as mentioned above, A. Bugnini was made the secretary of the new reform
47 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 70.
48
This view of the SCR being “anti-reform” is often exaggerated. Not unlike F.
Antonelli, Cardinal Cicognani initially showed a positive if somewhat conservative mentality
toward liturgical reform. His attitude remained much the same from the 1950's until his death
during the preparation for the Council. Gaetano Cardinal Cicognani (Prefect of the Congregation
of Rites; d. 5 Feb. 1962) mentioned in his opening address at Assisi: “[T]he zeal and exuberance
of the liturgical movement are a source of consolation to the Holy Father’s heart, still ‘Our duty
requires Us to give careful attention to this ‘revival’ and keep the movement free from
exaggeration and error.” See G.CICOGNANI, «Opening Address», in The Assisi Papers.
Proceedings of the First International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy. Assisi-Rome, September
18-22, 1956 (Worship Supplement), The Liturgical Press, St. John’s , MN 1957, 6.
49
V. NOË, «Storia della Costituzione liturgica», 17.
22
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
commission. No doubt he was qualified for this weighty position due to his veteran status in
liturgical reform that he acquired while working in the SCR before the Council.50 His
appointment was to the official post of secretary for the Council for the Implementation of the
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The head of the commission was initially Cardinal Lercaro.
Both of them were about to inherit leadership roles in the monumental task of reform as outlined
in the motu proprio, Sacram Liturgiam.51
1.4 SACRAM LITURGIAM AND THE CONSILIUM
The decrees of this motu proprio (25 January 1964) did not substantially alter anything in
the Missal of St. Pius V. They were responsible for adjusting several rubrics with regard to the
Mass. For instance, the sacraments of confirmation and marriage were now permitted to be
celebrated following the Gospel. More importantly, the executive decision was made to officially
go forward with establishing a reforming body for the Roman Missal (inter alia).52 Cardinal
Lercaro, appointed president of the Consilium, was later officially asked to give names of experts
that would be both qualified and recognized for historical and liturgical expertise in the reform of
the Roman liturgy.53
In actuality, it was left to A. Bugnini, as newly appointed secretary of the Consilium, to
make the recommendations of proper experts to begin the process of reform.54 It speaks well of
the initial stages of the reform that many of the names recommended by A. Bugnini were also
simultaneously recommended by F. Antonelli. F. Antonelli had made his recommendations even
before the Council. F. Antonelli had recommended his own list of experts for Vatican II’s
50
RCOM, 91.
51
K. SEASOLTZ, New Liturgy New Laws, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 1980, 26-27.
52
PAUL VI, «Sacram Liturgiam», 139-144.
53
PAUL VI, «Sacram Liturgiam», 139-144.
54
CFA, 224.
23
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
preparatory commission, as well as post-Conciliar study groups.55 In summary, among many of
the names recommended, were world-renowned experts in the field of the Roman liturgy. They
were perceived by both A. Bugnini and F. Antonelli to be more than competent for the task at
hand.
1.5 INTER OECUMENICI: THE REFORM BEGINS IN EARNEST
Upon its creation the Consilium began to work immediately. By the 26th of December
1964 the Pope had a document drafted by the Consilium experts which contained the first phases
of simplification in reforming the Roman rite. This document, Inter Oecumenici, was a giant
stepping stone in the reform. Up to this point only a few minor adjustments had been made (i.e.
mitigation of the fast to 1 hour before Communion, changing the Communion formula to Corpus
Christi, etc.). Inter Oecumenici covers several important liturgical and methodological concerns.
The decrees most germane to the current investigation are in reference to the Ordo Missae.
The first principles of reform are here openly declared. They are as follows a.) Active
participation b.) Making the liturgy the summit and source of ecclesial life c.) Pastoral concerns
and linkage of the pastoral with the liturgical.56
These are the impetus accounting for any reform in theory. These will in fact be
incorporated into the fundamental and operational principles of the Consilium, as will be further
elucidated in Chapter three. More particularly, regarding article 50 of Sacrosanctum Concilium,
the Ordo Missae was ordered to be reformed. A list of these initial simplifications, as contained
in Inter Oecumenici, will be provided further below.57
The Consilium estabished by the Pontiff gradually developed into a complex organization
55
CFA, 104, 217-128.
56
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Inter Oecumenici», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964)
877-878.
57
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Inter Oecumenici», 877-900.
24
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
that, in many ways, imitated congregations of the Roman Curia.58 Although Sacram Liturgiam
had been responsible for its juridical erection, it was the Pontiff himself who approved the finer
details of its initial structure. It may, at this point, be useful to outline this structure of the
Consilium and its development. This will aid in contextualizing how its decisions and operations
were to theoretically take place.
58
B. BOTTE, Il Movimento Liturgico. Testimonianza e ricordi, 180-183. It becomes rather
formulaic that one can only speak “generally” of the actually way the voting and meetings
worked. Since the Fathers and members of the Consilium had no formal organization envisioned
by Canon law, and were not a dicastry of the Curia, they imitated “generally” the methods and
order of the Congregations of the Roman curia, but deviated from this when deemed appropriate.
25
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
1.5.1 ORGANIZATION OF THE CONSILIUM 196459
President60
20-30 bishops
"
(voting Members)
Vice President
"
Secret
Secretary
!!!!!!!!
Members62
Group1 Group2 Group363
Consiglieri61
(a.k.a Consultors)
Section from various group64 (Coetus peculiaris)65
Section from various groups
59A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 79. Also should be kept in mind that this schema is a working schema. It is not a
real set of statutes or bylaws, but the result of consultation between the Cardinal president and secretary of the Consilium. “Non
abbiamo uno Statuto, né un regolamento, nessuna legge scritta. L=avremmo voluto, ma non l’abbiamo ottenuto...(Intervento of
A. Bugnini to Consilium; 17 October 1967). This was said at the eleventh adunanza.” See A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica,
193.
6011 March 1964 at the first adunanza generale Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri was elected to the position of “vicepresident.” See A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 151. His role was akin to a “Cardinal Protector.” He did not actively help in
reforming the liturgy.
61”Counselors” are by presidential appointment. Their job is to offer observations “apporto per scritto” on difficult
questions, which consist of some few pages treated in the adunanze. However, more rarely, una tantum or occasionally, they may
be present at the invitation of the president to participate in the actual adunanze. They will eventually consist of 30-40 experts
from diverse places all over the world. They review and make observations on the relazioni of the Consilium consultori. See P.
MARINI, A Challenging Reform, 43.
62 “Members” of the Consilium are by direct Pontifical appointment.
MARINI, A Challenging Reform, 43.
They are given the title: Consultori. See P.
63
Known as “Gruppi” or “Coetus.” The names of the Consultors (i.e., Members of a Coetus or Group) were published
for public dissemination; however, those of the advisors (consiglieri; not member of a Coetus) were kept secret to avoid outside
pressure. This was prudent according to the Members of the Consilium, since the advisors lived outside of Rome and were not
full-time dedicated to the task of the reform, unlike many of the Consultors. See CONSILIUM, Elenchus Membrorum,
Consultorum, Consiliariorum, Coetuum a studiis, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Città del Vaticano 21967.
64 These sections theoretically were sub-groups. However, they ended up being made of select consultors for special projects from any number
of the various Groups. See P. MARINI, «Elenco degli “Schemata” del “Consilium” e della Congregazione per il Culto Divino (Marzo 1964-Luglio
1975», Notitiae 18 (1982) 482-483.
65This
was composed of an expert or some few periti with a particular competency on a section that was being treated
by the larger Coetus. See: RCOM, 98-99.
26
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
1.5.2 FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE CONSILIUM 1964-1967
Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro, President
(30) bishops
(voting members) (
Consiglieri
(June 1964)
(40)Consulta 66
(7-8)Consilium Presidentiae
Annibale Bugnini, Secretary
Undersecretary
• Carlo Braga
Undersecretary
Others
• Eventually
nine total men
• Gottardo
Pasqualetti
Relators of the Groups Coetus Consultorum (17)
Observers
(Oct. 1966)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Coetus IV
VII
VIII
V Pontifical
Groups 20-21
Common
elements
IX
X
XI
XII = divided by liturgical books
VI
Ritual
Groups
22-23bi
Coetus 17 Rites
of the liturgical
year
Coetus
20
• Revision
Coetus 18
Commons
Coetus 20bis
Coetus 22
Sacra- ments
• Virgins
Coetus 23
Sacra- ments
I
Calendar
Coetus 1
• Calendar
Coetus 18bis
• Orations
• Prefaces
Coetus 21
Book II & III
Coetus 19
Rubrics
Coetus 21bis
• Dedication
Church & Altar
Coetus 23bis
Penance
VII. Martyrology = Coetus 24. Revision
X. Non-Roman rites = Coetus 27. Elements appliable to others
VIII. Songs = Coetus 25. Revision of hymnals XI. Code of Liturgical Law = 28 Prepare a Code
IX. Ceremonial = Coetus 26. Revision
XII. Papal Chapel = Coetus 29. Revision of Rites
66
Coetus Consultorum (Consulta). It is important to recall that the Consulta is constituted from the Relators, Secretaries and
select experts in the science of liturgiology. They meet only in unison with the President and Secretary of the Consilium. See P.
MARINI, «Il primo Periodo de attività del “Consilium”, 415.
27
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
1.5.3 REFORMS
In light of Inter Oecumenici, the initial Consilium recommendations resulted in the
Pontiff approving the following practical reforms, in anticipation of a more thourogh general
reform of the liturgy:
The celebrant is not to say privately those parts of the Proper of the Mass sung or recited by the
choir or congregation (e.g. The priest does not say privately the introit of the Mass if the
choir or people sing it.).
The celebrant may recite or sing the parts of the Ordinary together with the choir or
congregation.
The prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted if preceded by another rite (This was already the
case for some Masses of the 1962 Missal).
The subdeacon no longer holds the paten from the offertory until the Our Father.
The secret, or offertory prayer, is now to be said aloud.
The doxology, or little elevation, omits the five signs of the cross with the Host and is also
recited aloud, albeit a part of the Canon.
The Lord’s Prayer may be in the vernacular with the embolism after it to be said aloud.
The recently abbreviated formula for Communion (Corpus Christi) is to be used in Latin or the
vernacular.
The Last Gospel and Leonine prayers are suppressed.
Solemn Mass with a only a deacon present is permitted and bishops may sing Mass using the
ceremonial of priests.
1.5.4 CEREMONIAL ELEMENTS
The lessons are to be read facing the people, and ministers may read the lessons (even lay
ministers) while an extra priest may say the Gospel. The celebrant sits and listens to the
various readings.
The celebrant should attempt to have the liturgy of the word and prayers, up to the Creed, at the
28
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
seat (in anticipation of future reform requiring it) but may remain at the altar ad libitum
1.5.5 ADDITIONS TO THE ORDO MISSAE
a.) The petitions or Prayer of the Faithful are to be said ad libitum.
b.) The lessons, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, introit, offertory,
communion, acclamations, greetings, dialogues, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi,
Lord’s Prayer and embolism may all be recited in the vernacular.
1.6 SUMMARY
Some of these elements seem to be the result of mere simplification of rites. These reforms
encountered no real problems. For instance, it was of the greatest pastoral advantage that a
bishop could now sing Mass without the necessity of full pontificals. The benefit was principally
in small dioceses and during episcopal visitations and Masses at parishes. Most of these places
were incapable of such an elegant ceremony and many lacked space or clergy. Thus the bishop
was destined to recite low Mass only, even for the highest of feasts and functions, outside his
own cathedral. Secondly, the Divine Office, in conjunction with the Mass, had historically
replaced the preparatory prayers at the foot of the altar in chapter Masses. 67
These were not historical innovations per se. Processions and solemn blessings had also
replaced the prayers at the foot of the altar in the early and late medieval Church as well.68 Also
there was the elimination of the celebrant’s “doublets”, i.e., the priest repeating those verses sung
by the choir or read by a minister. This will be noted later, but it was already a trend in the SCR
to gradually eliminate this burden on the celebrant and so reestablish a dialogue between priest
and people, as well as return the liturgy to a more historically simple form according to the more
ancient manuscripts. Lastly, the Liturgy of the Word had taken on a truly didactic role, which
67
P. TIROT, Un“Ordo Missae” monastique. Cluny, Cîteaux, La Chartreuse (Biblioteca
Epemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 21), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1993, 38-47.
68
P. TIROT, Un“Ordo Missae” monastique, 38-47.
29
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
was completely consistent with the desires of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
Eventually, other simplifications were further published (e.g., Quum Constitutio, 14 Dec.
1964) until the well known compilation of simplifications was edited into the first transitional
Roman Missal. By common parlance it was called the “`65 Missal.” The decree sanctioning the
printing of this transitional Missal for the use in churches of the Roman rite was executed by
Nuper edita instructione, on January 27, 1965. 69
This new Missal resulted in a removal of duplicated rites, or of complex rubrics. It was
considered the greatest milestone by the reforming Fathers since it explicitly took into account,
as found in its Ritus Servandus Missae, the active role of the people and their parts in various
rites for the very first time since the first edition of the Ritus Servandus Missae of John Burchard
had been published in Missals beginning in the 16th century.70 A whole list of the ceremonial and
rubrical changes may have little revelance at this point. Suffice it to say that this new Order of
Mass and rubrics had essentially reduced the Mass to a celebrative form not that different from
the Requiem Mass or Masses of Passiontide as found in the Pian Missal according to the 1962
edition. All kisses and blessings were omitted for the most part. All extra crosses were omitted
and the ceremonial was more sober. The last Gospel was removed like the third Mass of
Requiem on All Souls and Easter Vigil and Christmas. Additionally the were the changes as
mentioned above in Inter Oecumenici. This Missal, although greatly simplified, had retained the
basic structure and prayers of the Pian Missal, but with a general simplification of previously
more complex rubrics. No one could argue that the Order of Mass was anything other than the
basic skeleton of the Ordo Missae of the Missal of Pius V. In fact, this new form of the Roman
Mass was still in many ways more rich in ceremony and complex than her sister “rites” or usages
(e.g., the Dominican and Carthusian rites). It was a relatively minor series of simplifications that
had been accomplished. However, despite these important changes, there was no doubt that this
69
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Nuper edita instructione», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57
(1965) 408-409.
70
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», in Liturgia opera divina
e umana.Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo
70º compleanno, ed. P. Jounel -R. Kaczynski -G. Paqualletti (Bibliotheca Ephemerides
Liturgicae Subsidia 26), Edizioni liturgiche, Roma 1982, 271.
30
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
was only a transitional missal that would antedate the final product of a new Mass meant for
normative celebration.
1.7 TRES ABHINC ANNOS: THE CONSILIUM BEGINS RECONSTRUCTION71
The edifice of the Order of the Mass of the Latin rite, as it existed in the 1962 missal,
had been a work in progress from the beginning period of formation of the Latin rite in the 4th
century, until the Mass reached its definitive form for the Roman Church following the Council
of Trent. The first detailed liturgical texts (i.e., earliest Ordines Romani),72 from which the Ordo
Missae origins can be traced, lead to the conclusion that the history of the Latin rite was one of
continuously augmenting the priestly Mass prayers that were to be eventually designated as the
Ordo Missae. Historically, there was a triple augmenting in western sacramentaries that provided
texts for the celebrant’s communion prayers, prayers for the offertory at Mass, and prayers of
apology for the rite of Mass. These additions resulted in the richness of the celebrant’s text that
became known as the Ordo Missae.73 This creativity was rather constant. Trent, of course,
curtailed any further organic developments of the Order of Mass in the famous Missal published
under the authority of Pius V in 1570. All that had gradually expanded and developed over the
period of more than a millennium was now codified. For the first time since Trent this was
greatly simplified by the Missal produced according to the decrees of Sacram Liturgiam and
71
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Instructio altera ad exsecutionem Consitutionis de Sacra
Liturgia recte ordinandum», Ephemerides Liturgicae 81 (1967) 299-332.
72
The Ordines Romani should not be construed as a homogenous and accumulative
collection that led directly to the Order of the Mass. Rather, these pontifical ceremonial texts
often touched upon the rubrics and ceremonial pertinent for the performance of Mass ritual.
Their role in influencing the rubrics of the Mass will become clearer when comparing various
Ordines Romani to the Pian and Pauline Mass reforms.
73
B. LUYKX, «Der Ursprung der gleichbleibenden Teile der heiligen Messe», Liturgie und
Mönchtum 26 (1960), 72-119.
31
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Inter Oecumenici.74 These simplifications and corrections had reduced the missal to a much more
austere form.
The Consilium continued its work, however, with the end in view of creating an
entirely new Order of Mass. The old Ordo Missae, having reached its apex at the end of the
medieval period, became considered by many periti as passé from a cultural point of view.75
Also, active participation had been all but eliminated during the latter part of the medieval period
and was only restored to some extent by the authority of the Church following the advent of the
modern liturgical movement, especially by St. Pius X in Tra le sollicitudine (1903),76 which was
the effective point of departure for encouraging active vocal participation at Mass and the
following of the ceremonies through the use of hand missals.77 Nonetheless, many texts that had
been added to the Ordo of the Mass in the Gallican period of liturgical creativity were now under
scrutiny. They were often judged as inimical to active participation. These critiques arose during
the period of the modern liturgical movement (especially during the period of the Consilium’s
work). Authors based this criticism on the contrast between the people’s role in medieval liturgy
and the available testimonies of lay participation in the liturgy during the patristic age of the
Church. Finally, a plan of measured transition was adopted. This is described in Liturgicae
instaurationes. All change to the new liturgy should be gradual so that the change to the new
74
However, The simplification of Pope Pius XII’s reformatory Commissions can be said
to have been much more drastic in their simplifications and compositions of new liturgical rites
than the Missal of John XXIII. Only a few retouchings and further simplifications were made in
anticipation of a full reform following Vatican II.
75
S. FAMOSO, «The reformation of the Sacred Liturgy», 101.
76
Although the encouragement of active-vocal participation does not intrinsically
necessitate a reform of the texts of the Order of the Mass, the transitional Missal of 1965 was the
first Missal to incorporate explicit rubrics that assumed the faithful’s responses and participation
in all the forms of the Mass. The changing of the actually prayers in the Mass will be justified by
the Consilium via other arguments.
77
L. BEAUDUIN, La pietà della Chiesa. Apostolato della Sacra Liturgia (Bibliteca
Liturgica Popolare 6), tr. L. De Beaufin, Società Anonima Tipografica, Vicenza 1915, 5-10. Dom
Beauduin, as a principle actor in the beginning of the liturgical movement, cites St. Pius X as the
inspiration for active and vocal participation in the rites, especiall Tra le sollicitudine.
32
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
liturgy might not seem to be too abrupt or radical.78
Measured transition was meant to assure a gradual flow along the same current of
liturgical reform. Each stage of simplifications enacted by the Holy See complemented previous
legislation and attempted to accomodate the probable direction of future reforms. Tres abhinc
annos of 1967 was an important part of the process of transition. It was the final simplification
that attempted to ease the faithful’s transition to a new liturgy. The Consilium judged the reform
of the Mass to be best accomplished in stages. Therefore, the second major stage of the reform
was accomplished with the publication of the so-called “`67 Missal”; the transitional missal
according to the simplification ordered on 4 May 1967.79 The Missal produced in 1967 was
important, not only because it was a simplification, but also because it was a key to
understanding what some new features of the Normative Mass would be (e.g., the final blessing
is placed before the Ite, Missa est).
The simplifications of the Ordo Missae introduced by the Holy See in 1967, in
contradistinction to the Missal of St. Pius V according to the 1962 typical edition, are as follows:
1.9 TRANSITIONAL MISSAL ACCORDING TO 4 MAY 1967 (Tres abhinc annos)
a.) In Mass only one collect is ever to be said.
Although there is only to be one collect at Mass, a few special circumstances allow for
a second collect but under only one conclusion.
b.) Genuflections at Mass are reduced to a minimum of four or a maximum of seven
depending on whether or not a tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament is present at
Mass.
c.) The celebrant only kisses the altar at the beginning and end of Mass.
d.) No signs of the cross are made with or over the paten and chalice apart from a single
78
SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO CULTU DIVINO, «Liturgicae instaurationes», Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 62 (1970) 692-693.
79
The Roman Missal in Latin and English for Sunday, Feast, Ferial and Votive Masses 1,
The Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1968.
33
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
cross during the recitation of the Canon.
e.) The Canon may be said aloud and it always begins by simply standing erect with arms
outstretched and permission to use vernacular in the Canon will become universal.
“Canonical digits”, or guarding the thumb and index finger touching each other from
the consecration until the ablutions, are no longer required after touching the
consecrated species.
f.) The old doublet of two occurrences of the Domine, non sum dignus is eliminated.
The celebrant now combines his Communion preparation with that of the faithful,
using the formula Ecce, Agnus Dei, facing the people, and then consumes the Host
and Chalice after the threefold response to the prayer is said.
h.)
recited
The blessing is now done before the Ite, Missa est while the Placeat may be
while leaving the altar, if at all. The Requiescat in pace is suppressed for
Requiem Mass’ conclusion.80
1.10 SUMMARY
The various changes accounted for here are mostly simplifications. For example, the
multiple signs of the cross during the Canon were reduced to but one. Furthermore, the Placeat
was made optional. Finally, there was the recitation of the Canon aloud, which was considered
desirable for didactic reasons.
There were a host of ceremonial simplifications and various adjustments of the
celebration of other rites as well. In spite of the numerous changes, the old Order of Mass was
still, for the Most part, preserved. There were a few notable deletions (Psalm 42, Last Gospel &
Oremus at the offertory). Yet, the Missal still basically followed the general outline of the Missal
of Pope St. Pius V. For example all the Collects, prefaces and the Order of Mass were taken from
the Missal of St. Pius V as it appears in the editio typica 1962. It was the radical simplification
80
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO -CONSILIUM, «Tres abhinc annos», Acta Apostolicae Sedis
59 (1967) 442-448.
34
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
in some rubrical adjustments that gave the liturgy a new tenor.81 Depending on one’s point of
view, this reform could be deemed either an exercise in noble simplicity or notable austerity.
The Missal of 1967 was the last simplification before the more radical transitional period
began. Following the 4 May 1967 decree, the Novus Ordo Missae was published in 1969. This
anticipated the complete Pauline Missal published in 1970. There was a very important series of
liturgical experiments during this time as well. The principal experiment was the celebration of
the Normative Mass before the synod of bishops in November of 1967. Here, experimental
celebrations of this Mass were designed to assist the Consilium to secure definitive approval of
their new Order of Mass. The positive suggestions resulting from these experimental celebrations
would be incorporated into a final reformed missal. This newly published missal would be
considered the realization of the aims of Second Vatican Council.
81
CONSILIUM, «Instructio altera. Ad exsecutionem constitutionis de sacra liturgia recte
ordinandam», Ephemerides liturgicae 81 (1967), 299-332.
35
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
2.0 CHAPTER TWO
2.1 FROM TRES ABHINC ANNOS TO THE NORMATIVE MASS82
Upon the establishment of the Consilium in 1964, a two-fold urgency was perceived by
the Consilium membership. First and foremost, they perceived it necessary to create a new
liturgy that would be far removed from the spirit and mentality of the old. This was not the mere
simplification of the Pian Missal seen in the `65 or `67 versions of the Missal of St. Pius V.83 The
old mentality was generally denigrated for unhealthy tendencies toward rubricism, as well as a
narrowness of vision which which stifled creativity and innovation.84 Since it was claimed that
the medieval mentality and period was responsible for creating such a legalistic and myopic
liturgical viewpoint, it was logical to reject many things in the liturgy composed during the
aforementioned historical period. The retention of rites dated to the medieval period may often
risk cooperation with the medieval mentality, considered opposed to goals of the liturgical
reform. Secondly, various parts of the Ordo Missae of the Pian Missal were viewed as
corruptions surviving since this historical period. J. Wagner, who was appointed the Consultor of
Coetus X of the Consilium in 1964, was responsible for proposing more specific methodological
principles for reforming the Ordo Missae. He suggested to the Consilium these norms in addition
to the more general principles. the general principles will be mentioned in the following chapter.
82
Consilium, «Schemata, n. 170, De Missali, n. 24 (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 491-492.
83
P. MARINI, «Attivitá complessiva dei gruppi di studio del “Consilium ad exsequendam
constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia”(Gennaio1964-Marzo1965)», Ephemerides Liturgicae,
commentarium bimestre de re liturgica 112 (1998) 298-299. The reason why it’s important to
note the changes to the Missal up to and including the Normative Mass schema is not merely
historical. The periti actually looked at the reactions and pastoral observations of Churchmen
and faithful and used the transitional Missals as part of the process of evaluating certain reforms.
In fact, they were unable to come up with a solid plan for the reform of the Missal until they had
seen reactions to the simplifications both in 1965 and 1967.
84A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 70-71.
36
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
J. Wagner’s consultative work with the other relators of the various Coetus resulted in publishing
Quaestiones tractandae of Coetus X. These were prepared in anticipation of reforming the
Roman Missal. This outline, referred to as a relatio, 85 adopted (following discussion and debate
within the 1st Plenary Audience) various architectonic principles for initiating reform in the
exclusive area of the Roman missal. In contrast to the Pian Missal, the new Mass liturgy was to
be based on some initial operational principles the were agreed upon by the voting Members of
the Consilium. All these principles were approved of by the voting Fathers their first plenary
audience according to the following order:86
2.2 APPROVED PRINCIPLES OF REFORM FOR COETUS X IN APRIL 1964
1.) Private Mass (unlike the Pian Missal) is not to be the basis of the new liturgy.
2.) A sung Mass, not read or recited Mass, is to be the mode of expression from which
any part should have its inspiration.
3.) Musical options and innovations are to be permitted according to culture, place, and
solemnity of the rite.
4.) A “new form” of Mass is to be constructed that should be called simplex. This is
meant to supply for the needs of both small and large Churches in the Latin rite.
5.) There must be a substantial uniformity between all the different types of celebrations,
unlike the Solemn Papal, Pontifical, solemn, sung and read (low) Masses of the Pian Missal.
6.) The only real distinction between Masses would ultimately be the solemnity of the
Mass based on whether or not a congregation is present. In this sense there is a distinction
85
“Le informazioni erano comunicate su fogli ciclostilati che recavano il titolo
Relationes. I primi due numeri uscirono nel marzo 1964 e davano il resoconto rispettivamente
della prima e della seconda Plenaria del «Consilium».” See P. MARINI, «Il Consilium in piena
Attivitá in un clima favorevole», 111.
86
CONSILIUM, «Questiones tractandae (6-17 aprilis 1964)», in RCOM, 334-335.
37
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
between so-called private and public Mass. The Mass without a congregation is to have its own
proper rite.87
The Consilium proposed the foundation of a universal rite of Mass should be constructed
along the lines of the ancient Roman Orders (Ordines Romani). In particular Ordo primus was
seen as a truly authentic ceremonial text, describing the pristine praxis of the liturgy in Rome by
the Pontiffs and clergy as far back as the 8th century. Therefore, these authentic Roman texts
were to be the inspiration and measure of the new Mass to be created by the Consilium.88 The
secretary of Coetus X wrote an illucidating comment as a result of periti discussions. When
drafting the first proposed schema of the Mass, Wagner said:
“Proinde ‘sacrosanctum Eucharistiae mysterium’ celebrandum ad normam
antiquorum ‘Ordinum Romanorum’ describatur oportet tamquam opus communitarium
hierarchice ordinatum ab omnibus qui ad id participandum ius et officium habent populo et schola minime exclusis- peragendum.” 89
In order to depart from rigidly distinguished types of celebrations of Mass in the Pian
Missal (i.e., Solemn Pontifical, Pontifical Low, Solemn, Sung, and Read Mass), a new term was
to be predicated of the reformed Mass. This term excluded the old distinctions of different kinds
of Masses. It was to be called “normative” or the Missa normativa. In English it was naturally
rendered as the Normative Mass.90 The members of the Consilium were historically aware that
no culture had yet produced a Mass on a “workbench,” nor had a Mass ever been restored in
87
In chapter three, Annibale Bugnini’s summary of the fundamental and operational
principles will depend on these initial principles proposed by the Consilium.
88
RCOM, 143.
89
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 39, De Missali n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», in RCOM,
352-353.
90
RCOM, 144.
38
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
such a thorough way previous to the mandate of the Consilium periti. Nonetheless, both their
publications and records of their audiences record their general consensus; namely that the good
of the Church seemed to them to demand an attempt to return the liturgy back to the vigor that it
enjoyed at the end of the patristic age and the early middle ages. This period was exemplified by
the vocal participation and diversity of functioning liturgical ministries. The scientific work on
liturgical manuscripts and ancient witnesses provided the testimonials of such practices, which
were effectively sources of inspiration for liturgical reform. Some periti argued that the only
way to reinvigorate the liturgy was to engineer the Mass to be perfectly disposed for continued
change and adaptation according to time and circumstances. 91 This concept of continual change
was seen as being clearly obedient to the wishes of the Council. The Consilium periti’s task was
to reanimate organic development in the liturgy by creating something that was, in itself, fluid
and even somewhat amorphous so that it could be reshaped and changed according to time,
place, or culture. This also meant that the core of the Mass rite was not based on an inviolable
and rigid ritual, but on a Mass rite inherently disposed to adaptability. This allows the rite to
easily adopt or reject certain parts, rubrics, or ceremonies with sufficient facility to meet the
pastoral needs of a particular people or region. However, there was also recognition that this
should be done while preserving the basic underlying skeleton of the Roman liturgy.92 The
following explanation and graphic were an produced by the Consilium to explain the pastoral
nature of the new liturgy:93
“Potestne Missa lecta esse fundamentum celebrationis eucharisticae? Minime
gentium! Esset totalis regressio a quavis traditione liturgica et a quavis necessitate
pastorali. Verum est quod rubricae Missalis Romani primo loco considerant Missam
lectam; sed hoc est consequentia evolutionis historicae rubricarum, non aestimationis
91
M. FRANCIS, «Liturgical Inculturation. The State of the Question», Liturgical Ministry
6 (1997), 101.
92
93
RCOM*, 108-109.
For a list, once again, of these persons, see RCOM, 101-114.
39
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
huius formae Missae. Cum enim agitur de Missa in cantu, fundamentum repetendum est a
Missa Pontificali, quae describitur in «Caeremoniali Episcoporum». Missa sollemnis et
Missa cantata ortae sunt ex diminutione vel simplificatione Missae Pontificalis. Proinde
in hodiernis rubricis librorum liturgicorum duo exstant fundamenta evolutionis M i s s a e :
una rubricalis, altera pastoralis. Prima officialis, altera exhorta ab extra, premente motu
renovationis liturgicae, uti videri potest in sequenti schemate:
40
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Motus rubricalis 1.) Missa Pontificalis
2.) Missa Sollemnis
3.) Missa cum diacono
4.) Missa cantata
!
----------------------------------------------------
Missa normativa
"
Motus pastoralis 1.) Missa plene participata
2.) Missa cum cantibus
3.) Missa cum responsionibus populi
4.) Missa lecta.”94
The Normative Mass was also a rite that was conceived as changing little in the ritual for
more solemn events. It would only be simplified according to the number of people or musical
accompaniment present for each individual celebration. This would take place in such a way that
instead of necessarily singing the chants and hymns of the Mass, these text might simply be read
or sung according to the capacity of the priest and the congregation. This new conception of
celebration was seen as a middle way between the solemn rite of Pontifical Mass and the private
nature of the read Mass.95 The chronological process for the celebrated form of the Normative
Mass to be completed and presented to the Synod can be summarized as follows:96
94
CONSILIUM, «De Missa normativa», Notitiae 3 (1967) 377.
95
CONSILIUM, «De Missa normativa», 377.
96
P. MARINI, «Attivitá complessiva dei gruppi di studio», 296-298.
41
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
2.3 CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REFORM FOR COETUS X
From this period of time between March-October 1964 Coetus X operated as follows (For
references to times and places of Coetus X plenaria and schemata, cf. RCOM 65, 78):
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
J. Wagner is alerted to the fact that he and several others will be the members of Coetus X
(elaborato, 22). He proposed several plans of reform in the first audience (11 March
1964).
J. Wagner in consultation with other newly appointed relators (Consulta) isolates the
essential sources and models to be used by Coetus X for liturgical reform.97
He personally presents this plan to the second Plenary Audience 17 April 1964. It is
approved
In consultation with his Members, they agree to have their internal Plenary Meeting 8-10
June in Trier to present the results of their assigned tasked as apportioned by J. Wagner.
This happens again in Einsiedeln 5-7 June 1964. This work results in Quaestiones
tractandae at the 3º Plenary Audience 18-20 June.
6.)
Following the August and September plenary meetings of Coetus X in Freiburg and
Rome, they are able to present a Relatio to the Secretary of the Consilium. He presents it
at the Consilium 4º Plenary on 5-6 October. The corrections and suggestions result in
schemata nn. 3-5.
7.)
From the October 1964 Plenary Audience until the 26-30 April 1965 5º Plenary audience
Coetus X produces schemata 9-11. N.B. There is no “Plenary Audience of Coetus X”
during this time. All revisions are done by individual consulting between the Secretary of
the Consilium and the Relator-Secretary.
8.)
Following a 5º Plenary Audience and the October 1965 6º Plenary Audience, Coetus X
produced schemata nn. 12-14. The Coetus X Plenary Audiences was 18-23 June in Paris
and 15-20 September 1965 in Rome.
9.)
The first full schema of a reformed Mass is presented as a homogenous unit. Votes are
held on the Mass rite in the Plenary Audience of the Consilium in the 9 October 1965.
10.) Their
vote results in further revisions of the new “Normative Mass.” From the October
1965 Plenary Audience until the Consilium’s 7º Plenary Meeting (6-14 October 1966)
Coetus X produces Schemata 15-23. There are no Plenary Audiences of the Coetus
during this period. Much of the work was done in intensive sessions of Relators and with
A. Bugnini (A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 163-165).
11.) From
the October 1966 7º Plenary Audience until the 10-19 April 1967 8º Plenary
97
CONSILIUM, «Quaestiones tractandae 6 (17 aprilis 1964). Investigationes faciendae de
Missali Romano recognoscendo», in RCOM, 333-339.
42
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Audience Coetus X produces schemata 24-34. There are two last Plenary Audiences of
Coetus X in Switzerland and Rome on 24-30 January and 8-12 March 1967 respectively.
12.) The
culmination of Coetus X’s work is presented in the 10-19 April 1967 Plenary
Audience of the Consilium. This is the point at which the overall structure is solidified.98
Before investigating the overarching principles according to which the Normative Mass
was created, it may be of value to present the initial proposed schema of the Missa normativa in
full.99 After such an exposition of the individual rites, the reader can see more clearly the
differences in the celebrative framework of the Normative Mass in contrast to the simplified rite
of the Pian Missal according to Tres abhinc annos of 4 May 1967. This should put into relief the
differences between the two rites in order to more easily envision the Normative Mass. When the
text of the Mass is clearly seen, an evaluation of the application of the Consilium’s principles
may be pursued.100
98
P. MARINI, «Elenco cronologico degli “Schemata” del “Consilium” e della
Congregazione del Culto Divino (Marzo 1964-Luglio 1975), in Constituzione liturgica
“Sacrosanctum Concilium”, ed. Congregazione per il Culto Divino (Biblioteca Ephemerides
Liturgicae Subsidia 38), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma, 575-581.
99
For the entire list of all the schemata and their content, as well as the schemata for all
other sacraments and sacramentals, see P. MARINI, «Elenco degli “Schemata” del “Consilium” e
della Congregazione per il Culto Divino (Marzo 1964-Luglio 1975», Notitiae 18 (1982),
440-452.
100A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 348. It is very important to note that
the original schema of the Normative Mass as approved in October of 1965 was that which was
presented at the Synod. However, this was merely the basic structure. The schema here also
takes into account retouchings and changes ordered by the Pope before the introduction of the
Mass to the Synod.
43
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
2.4 COETUS X’S MASS SCHEMA AS ADOPTED BY THE CONSILIUM101
The schema of the Missa Normative is as follows:102
2.4.1 THE LITURGY OF THE WORD AND OFFERTORY
“1.) Populo congregato, sacerdos et ministri, deferentes, pro opportunitate, librum
lectionum, luminaria, crucem, et thuribulum, ad altare accedunt, dum cantus ad
introitum peragitur.
2.) Cum ad altare pervenerint, facta debita reverentia, signant se signo crucis.
Sacerdos deinde salutat altare osculo, vel alio signo, pro regione stauto, et pro
opportunitate illud populumque incensat. Postea cum ministris sedem petit.
3.) Omnibus stantibus, sacerdos, ad populum versus, et manus extendens, eum
salutat, cantans vel clara voce dicens: DOMINUS VOBISCUM. Populus respondet:
ET CUM SPIRITU TUO. vel sacerdos: GRATIA VOBIS ET PAX A DEO PATRE
NOSTRO, ET DOMINO IESU CHRISTO. Populus respondet: BENEDICTUS DEUS,
ET PATER DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI. vel sacerdos: GRATIA DOMINI
NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI, ET CARITAS DEI, ET COMMUNICATIO SANCTI
SPIRITUS SIT CUM OMNIBUS VOBIS. Populus respondet: BENEDICTUS DEUS
IN SAECULA.
4.) Deinde sequitur actio poenitentialis.103
101
N.b., This Mass schema is important for the purpose of this investigation, since it
represents and “unadulterated” testament to the work of the Consilium. Following this schema’s
debut, curial agencies, theologians and Paul VI himself add and change rites of the Normative
Mass according to their own criteria. The obvious irreconcilability between these interventions
and the Consilium principles adopted to expunge certain rites and adopt others will be noted in
the step-by-step analysis of the individual rites of the Mass.
102
This is the schema from that of 24 May 1966. This was the last full schema to be
proposed before the Consilium began to concern itself with creating new Eucharistic prayers at
the behest of Paul VI. However the corrections to this schema, before the Mass’s live celebration
in front of the Fathers of the synod of bishops on 11-13 January 1968 will be footnoted further
below.
103
By order of Pope Paul VI, following a special audience in directives of the Pope on 20
June 1966, a further penitential act was to be inserted into the Ordo Missae in order: a.) to
prevent three songs in a row from weighing down the opening rites (Introit, Kyrie, Gloria). That
is, when there is a Gloria the Kyrie is not sung and a penitential act that is different is inserted.
b.) to give the faithful an active part at the beginning of Mass unlike the prayers ad pedem
altaris. See: A. BUGNINI, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 346.
44
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5.) Sequuntur invocationes: KYRIE ELEISON. KYRIE ELEISON. KYRIE ELEISON.
CHRISTE ELEISON. CHRISTE ELEISON. CHRISTE ELEISON. KYRIE ELEISON,
KYRIE ELEISON. KYRIE ELEISON. Quae omitti possunt, si habetur hymnus
GLORIA.104
6.) Diebus dominicis extra tempus et Quadragesimae necnon diebus festis I et II
classis sacerdos inchoat cantans vel clara voce dicens: GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO.
Populus prosequitur: ET IN TERRA PAX HOMINIBUS BONAE VOLUNTATIS.
LAUDAMUS TE. BENEDICIMUS TE. ADORAMUS TE. GLORIFICAMUS TE.
GRATIAS AGIMUS TIBI PROPTER MAGNAM GLORIAM TUAM. DOMINE DEUS,
REX CAELESTIS. DEUS PATER OMNIPOTENS. DOMINE FILI UNIGENITE, IESU
CHRISTE. DOMINE DEUS, AGNUS DEI, FILIUS PATRIS. QUI TOLLIS
PECCATA MUNDI, MISERERE NOBIS. QUI TOLLIS PECCATA MUNDI, SUSCIPE
DEPRECATIONEM NOSTRAM. QUONIAM TU SOLUS SANCTUS, TU SOLUS
DOMINUS, TU SOLUS ALTISSUMUS. IESU CHRISTE, CUM SANCTO SPIRITU:
IN GLORIA DEI PATRIS. AMEN.
7.) Deinde sacerdos, versus ad populum, cantat vel clara voce dicit: OREMUS. Et
omnes per aliquod temporis spatium in silentio orant. Deinde sacerdos, manibus
extensis, cantat vel clara voce dicit orationem, quam populus concludit, acclamans:
AMEN.
8.) Deinde lector ad ambonem pergit, et profert primam lectionem, quam omnes
sedentes auscultant.
9.) Psalmista vero, seu cantor, populo pro opportunitate responsum proferente,
psalmum cantat vel clara voce dicit.
10.) Postea si habenda sit secunda lectio, quae non est Evangelio, lector eam in
ambone profert, ut supra.
11.) Sequitur ALLELUIA vel alter cantus, prout tempus aut qualitas Missae postulat.
104
On those days in which the Gloria is said, following the Pope’s intervention
mentioned above, the Consilium proposed the following in “De actu paenitentiali” on 19 April
1967: “En expositio nostra: 1. Post salutationem sacerdotis in initio Missae, ipse sacerdos una
cum populo, recitat vel cantat: MISERERE NOSTRI, DOMINE, QUIA PECCAVIMUS TIBI. 2.
Fit momentum silentii. 3. Postea sacerdos dicit vel cantat: OSTENDE NOBIS, DOMINE,
MISERCORDIAM TUAM. Populus respondit: ET SALUTARE TUUM DA NOBIS. 4. Tunc
sacerdos dat absolutionem, dicens: INDULGENTIAM, ABSOLUTIONEM ET RESMISSIONEM
OMNIUM PECCATORUM NOSTRORUM TRIBUAT NOBIS OMNIPOTENS ET MISERCORS
DOMINUS. 5. In Quadragesima et in diebus paenitetnialibus, potest, ad libitum, uti formula pro
Missa “privata” provisa, nempe cum recitatione “Confiteor”. 6. E contra durante Tempore
Paschali et in maioribus solemnitatibus, pro opportunitate, hic actus omitti posset. 7.
Conferentiis Episcopalibus liceat aliam formulam pro respectivis territoriis providere.”
CONSILIUM, «Schemata, n. 218, De Missali, n. 34 (19 aprilis 1967)», in RCOM, 569-571.
45
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
12.) Interim diaconus, si est Evangelium prolaturus, ante sacerdotem inclinatus,
benedictionem petit, dicens105: IUBE, DOMNE, BENEDICERE. Sacerdos benedicit:
DOMINUS SIT IN CORDE TUO ET IN LABIIS TUIS: UT DIGNE ET
COMPETENTER ANNUNTIES EVANGELIUM SUUM IN NOMINE PATRIS, ET
FILII, + ET SPIRITUS SANCTI. Diaconus respondet: AMEN.
13.) Si vero non adest diaconus, sacerdos ante altarem inclinatus secreto, dicit:
MUNDA COR MEUM AC LABIA MEA, OMNIPOTENS DEUS, UT SANCTUM
EVANGELIUM TUUM DIGNE VALEAM NUNTIARE. 106
14.) Postea diaconus -vel sacerdos- ad ambonem pergit, ministris eum pro
opportunitate cum incenso et luminaribus comitantibus, et iunctis manibus cantat vel
clara voce dicit: DOMINUS VOBISCUM. Populus respondet: ET CUM SPIRITU
TUO. Et diaconus -vel sacerdos- pronuntians: INITIUM sive SEQUENTIA S.
EVANGELII SECUNDUM N. Signat librum et seipsum in fronte, ore et pectore.
Populus respondet: GLORIA TIBI, DOMINE. Deinde diaconus -vel sacerdos- librum
pro opportunitate incensat, et Evangelium prosequitur.
15.) Finito Evangelio, diaconus, vel sacerdos, librum osculatur vel alio modo
legitime statuto honorat.
16.) Finito Evangelio, diaconus librum sacerdoti osculandum, vel alio modo
honorandum, prout pro regione statutum est, defert. Si vero sacerdos Evangelium
protulit, librum in ambone osculatur, vel alio signo honorat prout statutum est.
17.) Homilia habetur omnibus diebus dominicis et festis de praecepto, aliis diebus
valde commendatur.
18.) Item omnibus diebus dominicis et festis de pracepto profertur symbolum, quod
sacerdos inchoat, cantans vel clara voce dicens: CREDO IN UNUM DEUM.
Populus prosequitur: PATREM OMNIPOTENTEM, FACTOREM CAELI ET TERRAE
VISIBILIUM OMNIUM ET INVISIBILIUM. ET IN UNUM DOMINUM IESUM
CHRISTUM, FILIUM DEI UNIGENITUM, ET EX PATRE NATUM ANTE OMNIA
SAECULA. DEUM DE DEO, LUMEN DE LUMINE, DEUM VERUM DE DEO
VERO, GENITUM, NON FACTUM, CONSUBSTANTIALEM PATRI: PER QUEM
OMNIA FACTA SUNT. QUI PROPTER NOS HOMINES ET PROPTER NOSTRAM
SALUTEM, DESCENDIT DE CAELIS. ET INCARNATUS EST DE SPIRITU
SANCTO EX MARIA VIRGINE, ET HOMO FACTUS EST. CRUCIFIXUS ETIAM
PRO NOBIS SUB PONTIO PILATO, PASSUS, ET SEPULTUS EST, ET
RESURREXIT TERTIA DIE, SECUNDUM SCRIPTURAS, ET ASCENDIT IN
CAELUM, SEDET AD DEXTERAM PATRIS. ET ITERUM VENTURUS EST CUM
GLORIA, IUDICARE VIVOS ET MORTUOS. CUIUS REGNI NON ERIT FINIS. ET
IN SPIRITUM SANCTUM, DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM: QUI EX PATRE
FILIOQUE PROCEDIT. QUI CUM PATRE ET FILIO SIMUL ADORATUR ET
105
This was clarified to be said submissa voce on 21December 1967. CONSILIUM,
«Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», in RCOM, 623.
106
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 218, De Missali, n. 34. (19 aprilis 1967) », in RCOM*, 498.
46
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
CONGLORIFICATUR. QUI LOCUTUS EST PER PROPHETAS. ET UNAM,
SANCTAM, CATHOLICAM ET APOSTOLICAM ECCLESIAM. CONFITEOR
UNUM BAPTISMA IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. ET EXSPECTO
RESURRECTIONEM MORTUORUM, ET VITAM VENTURI SAECULI. AMEN.
19.) Et fit oratio communis seu fidelium, quam sacerdos moderatur. 107
20.) Quibus absolutis, incipitur cantus ad offertorium, qui protrahitur usque dum
dona ad altare allata sunt.
21.) Sacerdos sedens lavat manus, ministro aquam fundente.108
22.) Deinde ministri missale, corporale et calicem velo coopertum in altari collocant,
et sacerdos ad altare accedit.109
23.) Tunc patena -et si opus est, etiam aliae patenae vel pyxides- cum pane, atque
vinum et aqua ad altare deferuntur. Quod pro opportunitate fit a fidelibus, secus a
ministris. Alia dona si fideles offerunt -a diacono, si adest, secus a sacerdoterecipiuntur et a ministro loco apto prope altare collocantur.
24.) Sacerdos accipiens -de manu diaconi, si adest- patenam cum pane eamque
ambabus manibus aliquantulum elevatam super altare tenens dicit:110 SICUT HIC
PANIS ERAT DISPERSUS ET COLLECTUS FACTUS EST UNUS, ITA
107
It will later be explained that, by its nature, this prayer is according to the local genius
of a region, and therefore it would be useless to provide a template here for something which is,
of its nature, fluid. Coetus XII was actually responsible for these compositions (included here by
Coetus X after the Consilium’s Fathers approval and publication of the petitions). The group
leaders were: Relator: A. Roguet; Secretary: J. Molin. See P. MARINI, «Attività complessiva dei
gruppi di studi», 300.
108
In the schema of 24 May 1967 the celebrant, sitting, washed his hands. This was
omitted and placed instead at 28a, in the final schema, before the celebration before the synod
Fathers.
109
In the schema published following the synod Fathers’ critiques there was inserted
here: “22a.) Sicubi vero mos est ut fideles dona ad altare deferant, sacerdos, antequam ad altare
accedat, ea recipit ad cancellos, adiuvantibus ministris, qui illa opportuniore loco collocant.”
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», in RCOM, 623.
110
This was later clarified to be said: secreto. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali,
n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», in RCOM, 623.
47
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
COLLIGATUR ECCLESIA TUA IN REGNUM TUUM. GLORIA TIBI, DEUS, IN
SAECULA. Deponit deinde patenam cum pane super corporale. 111
25.) Deaconus si adest -secus sacerdos- infundit vinum et parum aquae in calicem. 112
26.) Sacerdos accipiens -de mano diaconi, si adest- calicem eumque, -diacono
adiuvante- ambabus manibus aliquantulum elevatum super altare tenens,113 dicit:
SAPIENTIA AEDIFICAVIT SIBI DOMUM, MISCUIT VINUM ET POSUIT
MENSAM. GLORIA TIBI, DEUS, IN SAECULA. Deponit deinde calicem super
corporale.
27.) Inclinatus sacerdos subiungit: IN SPIRITU HUMILITATIS ET IN ANIMO
CONTRITO SUSCIPIAMUR A TE, DOMINE. ET SIC FIAT SACRIFICIUM
NOSTRUM IN CONSPECTU TUO HODIE, UT PLACEAT TIBI, DOMINE DEUS.
28.) Pro opportunitate, accepto thuribolo, incensat oblata.114
29.) Manibus extensis cantat vel clara voce dicit orationem super oblata. Populus
respondet: AMEN.
30.) Deinde sacerdos incipit actionem eucharisticam. Manibus super altare positis,
cantat vel clara voce dicit: DOMINUS VOBISCUM. Populus respondet: ET CUM
SPIRITU TUO. Sacerdos, manus elevans, prosequitur: SURSUM CORDA. Populus:
HABEMUS AD DOMINUM. Sacerdos, manus iungens, subdit: GRATIAS AGAMUS
DOMINO DEO NOSTRO. Populus: DIGNUM ET IUSTUM EST. Sacerdos, extensis
ut prius manibus, prosequitur praefationem: VERE DIGNUM....iungit manus.
31.) Populus una cum sacerdote praefationem concludit cantans vel clara voce
dicens: SANCTUS, SANCTUS, SANCTUS DOMINUS DEUS SABAOTH. PLENI
111
P. Jounel was personally sollicited by A. Bugnini to compose new offertory prayers
different from the originally voted schema. These were then used in place of the original. At the
first live liturgical celebrations of this rite in 1967, the offertory ran as follows: The offertory
prayers were said privately; a.) bread: Suscipe, Sancte Pater, hunc panem, quem de operibus
manuum nostrarum offerimus, ut fiat unigeniti Filii tui corpus. Commixture: Per huius aquae et
vini mysterium eius efficiamur, Dmine, divinitatis consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri
dignatus est particeps, Iesus Christu, Filius tuus Dominus noster. Wine: Offerimus tibi, Domine,
calicem hunc, in quo populi tui unitatis mysterium exprimitur ut sanguis fiat Domini nostri Iesu
Christi. Lavabo: Cor mundum crea in me, Deus, et spiritum rectum innova in visceribus meis. A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 362.
112
In the original schema there was no private prayer to accompany this ritual action.
113 Again,
this was later clarified to be silent. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n.
44 (21 decembris 1967)», in RCOM, 624.
114
In the 21 December 1967 schema, hereafter was added: “28a.) Sacerdos deinde lavat
manus, dicens:...”. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», in
RCOM, 624.
48
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
SUNT CAELI ET TERRAE GLORIA TUA. HOSANNA IN EXCELSIS. BENEDICTUS
QUI VENIT IN NOMINE DOMINI. HOSANNA IN EXCELSIS.”
2.4.2 CANON MISSAE
Forma A
32.) Sacerdos, extensis manibus, clara voce dicit: TE IGITUR, CLEMENTISSIME PATER, PER
IESUM CHRISTUM, FILIUM TUUM, DOMINUM NOSTRUM SUPPLICES ROGAMUS
AC PETIMUS UTI ACCEPTA HABEAS ET BENEDICAS signat semel super calicem et
panem simul HAEC DONA, + HAEC MUNERA, HAEC SACRA SACRIFICIA ILLIBATA.
Extensis manibus prosequitur: IN PRIMIS, QUAE TIBI OFFERIMUS PRO ECCLESIA
TUA SANCTA CATHOLICA: QUAM PACIFICARE, CUSTODIRE, ADUNARE ET
REGERE DIGNERIS TOTO ORRBE TERRARUM: UNA CUM FAMULO TUO PAPA
NOSTRO N. ET ANTISTITE NOSTRO N. ET OMNIBUS ORTHODOXIS ATQUE
CATHOLICAE ET APOSTOLICAE FIDEI CULTORIBUS.
33.) Commemeratio pro vivis. MEMENTO, DOMINE, FAMULORUM FAMULARUMQUE
TUARUM N. ET N. Iungit manus, orat aliquantulum pro quibus orare intendit: deinde
manibus extensis prosequitur: ET OMNIUM CIRCUMSTANTIUM, QUORUM TIBI
FIDES COGNITA EST ET NOTA DEVOTIO, QUI TIBI OFFERUNT HOC SACRIFICUM
LAUDIS,115 PRO SE SUISQUE OMNIBUS: PRO REDEMPTIONE ANIMARUM
SUARUM, PRO SPE SALUTIS ET INCOLUMITATIS SUAE: TIBIQUE REDDUNT
VOTA SUA AETERNO DEO, VIVO ET VERO.
34.) Infra actionem. COMMUNICANTES ET MEMORIAM VENERANTES, IN PRIMIS
GLORIOSAE SEMPER VIRGINIS MARIAE, GENITRICIS DEI ET DOMINI NOSTRI
IESU CHRISTI: SED ET BEATI IOSEPH, EIUSDEM VIRGINIS SPONSI, ET
BEATORUM APOSTOLORUM AC MARTYRUM TUORUM, PETRI ET PAULI,
ANDREAE, IACOBI, IOANNIS, THOMAE, IACOBI, PHILIPPI, BARTHOLOMAEI,
MATTHAEI, SIMONIS ET THADDAEI: LINI, CLETI, CLEMENTIS, XYSTI, CORNELII,
CYPRIANI, LAURENTII, CHRISOGONI, IOANNIS ET PAULI, COSMAE ET DAMIANI:
ET OMNIUM SANCTORUM TUORUM; QUORUM MERUISTIS PRECIBUSQUE
CONCEDAS, UT IN OMINBUS PROTECTIONIS TUAE MUNIAMUR AUXILIO. Iungit
manus PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.116
35.) Tenens manus expansas super oblata, prosequitur: HANC IGITUR OBLATIONEM
SERVITUTUIS NOSTRAE, SED ET CUNCTAE FAMILIAE TUAE, QUAESUMUS,
DOMINE, UT PLACATUS ACCIPIAS: DIESQUE NOSTROS IN TUA PACE DISPONAS,
115
The additamentum Alcuini was proposed to be dropped by the Consilium here.
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966) », in RCOM 478-479.
116
The Amens are also proposed to be dropped for historical and pastoral reasons. See:
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966)», in RCOM, 479.
49
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
36.)
37.)
38.)
39.)
40.)
41.)
ATQUE AB AETERNA DAMNATIONE NOS ERIPI, ET IN ELECTORUM TUORUM
IUBEAS GREGE NUMERARI. Iungit manus: PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.
QUAM OBLATIONEM TU, DEUS, IN OMNIBUS, QUAESUMUS, BENEDICTAM,
ADSCRIPTAM, RATAM, RATIONABILEM, ACCEPTABILEMQUE FACERE DIGNERIS:
UT NOBIS CORPUS ET SANGUIS FIAT DILECTISSIMI FILII TUI DOMINI NOSTRI
IESU CHRISTI.
Deinde cantat vel clara voce dicit: QUI PRIDIE QUAM PATERETUR accipit panem
ambabus manibus eumque paulum super altare tenens elevatum, prosequitur ACCEPIT
PANEM IN SANCTAS AC VENERABILES MANUS SUAS, elevat oculos ET ELEVATIS
OCULIS IN CAELUM AD TE DEUM PATREM SUUM OMNIPOTENTEM, caput
inclinat TIBI GRATIAS AGENS, BENEDIXIT, FREGIT, DEDITQUE DISCIPULIS SUIS
DICENS: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS
MEUM. Quibus verbis prolatis, statim hostiam consecratam ostendit populo, et reponit
super patenam.
Tunc, detecto calice, cantat vel clara voce dicit: SIMILI MODO POSTQUAM CENATUM
EST, accipit calicem ambabus manibus eumque paulum super altare tenens elevatum
prosequitur ACCIPIENS ET HUNC PRAECLARUM CALICEM IN SANCTAS AC
VENERABILES MANUS SUAS: caput inclinat ITEM TIBI GRATIAS AGENS,
BENEDIXIT, DEDITQUE DISCIPULIS SUIS, DICENS: ACCIPITE , ET BIBITE EX EO
OMNES. HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI:
MYSTERIUM FIDEI:
QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN
REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HAEC QUOTIESCUMQUE FECERITIS, IN MEI
MEMORIAM FACIETIS. Quibus verbis prolatis, statim calicem ostendit populo et
reponit super corporale. Deinde adorat, genuflexus, vel profunde inclinatus, si hoc pro
regione statutum est.
Postea, extensis manibus, dicit: UNDE ET MEMORES, DOMINE, NOS SERVI TUI, SED
ET PLEBS TUA SANCTA, EIUSDEM CHRISTI FILII TUI, DOMINI NOSTRI, TAM
BEATAE PASSIONIS, NECNON ET AB INFERIS RESURRECTIONIS, SED ET IN
CAELOS GLORIOSAE ASCENSIONIS: OFFERIMUS PRAECLARAE MAIESTATI TUAE
DE TUIS DONIS AC DATIS HOSTIAM PURAM, HOSTIAM SANCTAM, HOSTIAM
IMMACULATAM; PANEM SANCTUM VITAE AETERNAE, ET CALICEM SALUTIS
PERPETUAE.
SUPRA QUAE PROPITIO AC SERENO VULTU RESPICERE DIGNERIS: ET ACCEPTA
HABERE, SICUTI ACCEPTA HABERE DIGNATUS ES MUNERA PUERI TUI IUSTI
ABEL, ET SACRIFICIUM PATRIARCHAE NOSTRI ABRAHAE: ET QUOD TIBI
OBTULIT SUMMUS SACERDOS MELCHISEDECH, SANCTUM SACRIFICIUM,
IMMACULATAM HOSTIAM.
Profunde inclinatus, inunctis manibus, prosequitur: SUPPLICES TE ROGAMUS,
OMNIPOTENS DEUS: IUBE HAEC PERFERRI PER MANUS SANCTI ANGELI TUI IN
SUBLIME ALATARE TUUM, IN CONSPECTU DIVINAE MAIESTATIS TUAE: UT,
QUOTQUOT EX HAC ALTARIS PARTICIPATIONE SACROSANCTUM FILII TUI
50
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
CORPUS ET SANGUINEM SUMPSERIMUS, OMNI BENEDICTIONE CAELESTI ET
GRATIA REPLEAMUR. PER EUMDEM CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM. 117
42.) Commemoratio pro defunctis:
MEMENTO ETIAM, DOMINE, FAMULORUM
FAMULARUMQUE TUARUM N. ET N., QUI NOS PRECESSERUNT CUM SIGNO
FIDEI, ET DORMIUNT IN SOMNO PACIS. Iungit manus, et orat aliquantulum pro iis
defunctis,118 pro quibus orare intendit; IPSIS, DOMINE, ET OMNIBUS IN CHRISTO
QUIESCENTIBUS, LOCUM REFRIGERII, LUCIS ET PACIS, UT INDULGEAS
DEPRECAMUR. Iungit manus: PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.
43.) Manu dextera percutit sibi pectus et clara voce dicit: NOBIS QUOQUE PECCATORIBUS
FAMULIS TUIS, extensis manibus eadem voce prosequitur DE MULTITUDINE
MISERATIONUM TUARUM SPERANTIBUS, PARTEM ALIQUAM ET SOCIETATEM
DONARE DIGNERIS, CUM TUIS SANCTIS APOSTOLIS ET MARTYRIBUS: CUM
IOANNE, STEPHANO, MATTHIA, BARNABA, IGNATIO, ALEXANDRO,
MARCELLINO, PETRO, FELICITATE, PERPETUA, AGATHA, LUCIA, AGNETE,
CAECILIA, ANASTASIA, ET OMNIBUS SANCTIS TUIS: INTRA QUORUM NOS
CONSORTIUM, NON AESTIMATOR MERITI, SED VENIAE, QUAESUMUS,
LARGITOR ADMITTE. Iungit manus PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.
44.) PER QUEM HAEC OMNIA, DOMINE, SEMPER BONA CREAS, SANCTIFICAS,
VIVIFICAS, BENEDICIS ET PRAESTAS NOBIS.
45.) Accipit hostiam et calicem et elevans eum cum hostia, cantat vel clara voce dicit: PER
IPSUM, ET CUM IPSO, ET IN IPSO, EST TIBI DEO PATRI OMNIPOTENTI, IN
UNITATE SPIRITUS SANCTI, OMNIS HONOR ET GLORIA, PER OMNIA SAECULA
SAECULORUM. Populus respondet: AMEN. Calice et hostia depositis, sacerdos
profunde se inclinat.
45-73.) Hi numeri omittuntur, utpote qui, continentes alias duas formas Canonis cum textu
aliquatenus mutato, non amplius sunt ad rem. 119
74.) Deinde erectus, iunctis manibus, cantat vel clara voce dicit: OREMUS. PRAECEPTIS
SALUTARIBUS MONITI, ET DIVINA INSTITUTIONE FORMATI, AUDEMUS DICERE:
extendit manus et, una cum populo, cantat vel clara voce dicit: PATER NOSTER, QUI ES
IN CAELIS: SANCTIFICETUR NOMEN TUUM: ADVENIAT REGNUM TUUM: FIAT
VOLUNTAS TUA, SICUT IN CAELO, ET IN TERRA.
PANEM NOSTRUM
117
Later this was clarified, that after the prayer Erigit se. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266,
De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967) », in RCOM, 626.
118
Later this was clarified, that after the prayer manibus extensis, dicit. CONSILIUM,
«Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», in RCOM, 641.
119 Although
the Consilium Fathers had voted to break up the original Roman Canon of
the Missal of Pius V into two more abbreviated forms, Pope Paul VI (acting on his own
authority) decided that the Roman Canon was to remain untouched and that instead the
Consilium should compose two or three new Eucharistic prayers. See A. BUGNINI, Reform of the
Liturgy, 346.
51
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
COTIDIANUM DA NOBIS HODIE: ET DIMITTE NOBIS DEBITA NOSTRA, SICUT ET
NOS DIMITTIMUS DEBITORIBUS NOSTRIS ET NE NOS INDUCAS IN
TENTATIONEM; SED LIBERA NOS A MALO.
75.) Manibus extensis, sacerdos solus prosequitur, cantans vel clara voce dicens: LIBERA NOS,
QUAESUMUS, DOMINE, AB OMNIBUS MALIS, PRAETERITIS PRAESENTIBUS ET
FUTURIS: DA PROPITIUS PACEM IN DIEBUS NOSTRIS: UT, OPE MISERICORDIAE
TUAE ADIUTI, ET A PECCATO SIMUS SEMPER LIBERI ET AB OMNI
PERTURBATIONE SECURI: EXPECTANTES BEATAM SPEM, ET ADVENTUM
SALVATORIS NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI. Iungit manus. Populus una cum sacerdote
orationem concludit, cantans vel clara voce dicens: QUIA TUUM EST REGNUM, ET
POTESTAS, ET GLORIA IN SAECULA.
76.) PAX DOMINI SIT SEMPER VOBISCUM.120 Populus respondit: ET CUM SPIRITU TUO.
77.) Deinde diaconus, vel sacerdos, pro opportunitate subiungit cantans vel dicens: OFFERTE
VOBIS PACEM et omnes, modo convenienti, pacem et caritatem sibi invicem significant.
78.) Sacerdos profunde se inclinat. Deinde accipit hostiam eamque super patenam vel calicem
frangit, et particulam parvam immittit in calicem dicens secreto: HAEC SACROSANCTA
COMMIXTIO CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI FIAT
ACCIPIENTIBUS NOBIS IN VITAM AETERNAM.
79.) Interim cantatur vel dicitur: AGNUS DEI, QUI TOLLIS PECCATA MUNDI: MISERERE
NOBIS. Quod repetitur ter, vel etiam pluries, si fractio panis protrahitur.
80.) Sacerdos, secreto: DOMINE IESU CHRISTE, FILI DEI VIVI, QUI EX VOLUNTATE
PATRIS, COOPERANTE SPIRITU SANCTO, PER MORTEM TUAM MUNDUM
VIVIFICASTI: LIBERA ME PER HOC SACROSANCTUM CORPUS ET SANGUINEM
TUUM AB OMNIBUS INIQUITATIBUS MEIS ET UNIVERSIS MALIS: ET FAC ME
TUIS SEMPER INHAERERE MANDATIS, ET A TE NUMQUAM SEPARARI
PERMITTAS.
81.)
Sacerdos accipit partem hostiae confractae, eamque aliquantulum elevatam super
patenam tenens, ad populum versus, clara voce dicit: ECCE AGNUS DEI, ECCE QUI
TOLLIT PECCATA MUNDI. BEATI QUI AD CENAM AGNI VOCATI SUNT. Omnes ter
subdunt: DOMINE, NON SUM DIGNUS, UT INTRES SUB TECTUM MEUM SED
TANTUM DIC VERBO, ET SANABITUR ANIMA MEA.
82.) Et sacerdos, ad altare versus, submissa voce dicit: CORPUS CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ME
IN VITAM AETERNUM. Et reverenter sumit Corpus Christi.
83.) Deinde dicit:121 QUID RETRIBUAM DOMINO PRO OMNIBUS, QUAE RETRIBUIT
MIHI? CALICEM SALUTARIS ACCIPIAM, ET NOMEN DOMINI INVOCABO. Accipit
120
Later this was clarified, that: “Sacerdos statim subdit...” CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.
266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967) », in RCOM, 642.
121
Later this rubric was clarified so that it be said secreto. The clarification ran as
follows: “Sacerdos statim subdit...” CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21
decembris 1967) », in RCOM, 643.
52
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
84.)
85.)
86.)
87.)
88.)
89.)
90.)
91.)
92.)
93.)
94.)
calicem et prosequitur: SANGUIS CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ME IN VITAM AETERNAM.
Et reverenter sumit sanguinem Christi.
Postea accipit patenam vel pyxidem, accedit ad communicandos, et hostiam parum
elevatam unicuique eorum ostendit, dicens: CORPUS CHRISTI.
Communicandus
respondet: AMEN. Et communicatur. Eo modo agit et diaconus, si pro opportunitate
sacram communione distrubuit.
Si adsint sub utraque specie communicandi, servetur ritus suo loco descriptus.
Dum sacerdos sumit Corpus Christi, incipitur cantus ad communionem.
Distributione communionis expleta, sacerdos et diaconus ad altare reversi, colligunt
fragmenta, si quae sint, et purificant patenam super calicem et ipsum calicem. Deinde
calix aqua purificatur et linteo extergitur a diacono ad abacum vel, si non adest
diaconus, a sacerdote pro opportunitate sive ad abacum, sive ad altare, quo in casu vasa
purificata a ministro deferuntur ad abacum. Sacerdos lavat manus et redit ad sedem.
Licet tamen vasa purificanda, praesertim si sint plura, in altari super corporale, velo
cooperta, relinquere eaque post Missam, populo dimisso, purificare.
Pro opportunitate deinde, praemissa, si placet, admonitione, canuntur vel dicuntur sive
hymnus, sive psalmus, sive aliae preces laudis.
Sacerdos, versus ad populum cantat vel clara voce dicit: OREMUS. Et omnes per aliquod
temporis spatium in silentio orant. Deinde sacerdos, manibus extensis, dicit orationem
post communionem, quam populus concludit, acclamans: Amen.
Sequuntur, si habendae sint, adnuntiationes breves ad populum faciendae.
Deinde fit dimissio. Sacerdos versus ad populum dicit: DOMINUS VOBISCUM. Populus
respondet: ET CUM SPIRITU TUO.
Sacerdos benedicit populum cantans vel clara voce dicens: BENEDICAT VOS
OMNIPOTENS DEUS, PATER, ET FILIUS, + ET SPIRITUS SANCTUS. Vel orationem
super populum, vel aliam bendictionem, sicut pro tempore vel die statutum est. Populus
respondet: AMEN.122
Diaconus, vel si non adest, sacerdos, manibus iunctis, ad populum versus, cantat vel clara
voce dicit: ITE, MISSA EST. Vel, si qua actio liturgica sequatur: BENEDICAMUS
DOMINO. Populus respondet: DEO GRATIAS
Denique sacerdos cum ministris, facta altari debita reverentia, recedit, et omnes
revertuntur ad opera sua bona, collaudantes Deum.” 123
122
In the original schema of 24 May 1966 nos. 92 and 93 were inversed. However, by
the time the schema had been touched up for the synod, Tres abhinc annos had already mandated
that the blessing precede the dismissal, and so the positions of 92 and 93 have been inverted to
reflect the changing of position in that text. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24
maii 1966)», in RCOM, 463.
123
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966) », in in RCOM, 463.
53
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
2.5 CONCLUSIONS
In order to arrive at this final schema of the Normative Mass before the Fathers of
the synod of bishops were to review it, it was voted on and constructed in stages among the
Consilium Fathers. This process continued until the potential final product was celebrated ad
experimentum during a special synod of bishops on Monday October 24 of 1967 (i.e., before the
Fathers of the extraordinary synod of bishops).
Msgr. Annibale Bugnini remarks about the
Normative Mass, which took place before the Fathers of the synod, that:
“Occorre dire subito che l’esperimento non riuscì. Anzi, in certo
m o d o ,
produsse l’effetto contrario e pesò sulla votazione in senso negativo.” 124
It should not be a surprise that a failed experiment led to a negative vote on the
proposed schemata, but perhaps A. Bugnini and other periti hoped that the post-Mass discussions
would have resolved any difficulties. The end result, however, was a series of rejections, and not
a few reservations, about certain omissions of texts and ceremonial. There was also opposition to
the oversimplified nature of the ritual of Mass as a whole. Msgr. Bugnini noted that the synod of
the bishops saw the Mass as impoverished by the deletion of private and traditional prayers.
Further, the simplification of gestures caused disturbance among some bishops.
In the final
analysis, Annibale Bugnini remarks: “In conclusione, il cambiamento sembrava troppo
radicale.”125
Three more experimental Normative Masses were performed in the presence of
churchmen, women religious, and laymen at a later date in January of 1968. These involved a
revised schema of the Mass because of the critique of the synod Fathers in October and
November of 1967. These January 1968 experiments led to a wide variety of opinions that often
were at odds with observations of the bishops or the Pope. Both the Pope and some additional
bishops had further commented on the post-synodal revision of rite of the Normative Mass. In
short, there was simply no real consensus on whether or not certain reforms were either
124A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 347.
125A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 348.
54
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
comprehensible or acceptable to one or another group.126 However, this work’s focus of interest
will be to evaluate and critique the Normative Mass in its most original form as approved by the
Consilium Fathers.127 It must be kept in mind, however, that the Consilium’s own systematic
work and productions suffered numerous interventions from various quarters of the Roman curia.
A “pure” Missa normativa was not allowed to be celebrated before the synodal Fathers in Fall of
1967. When this slightly revised Normative Mass was celebrated before the bishops, it was
rejected by a significant enough number of them. The vote proved to be a great disappointment
to the Consilium Fathers. This prompted a more inventive and creative effort that would become
the Novus Ordo Missae.128 The Novus Ordo Missae represented an effort to enrich the Mass with
both modern and medieval gestures and communal prayers in order to reach the minds and hearts
of those who had rejected the Normative Mass as something deficient and stark. A significant
portion of the new liturgy (Novus Ordo Missae) follows along the lines of the Normative Mass.
There is, however, a significant addition of some revised prayers from the medieval euchological
heritage of the Church. There is also a rearrangement of the Normative Mass’ Ordo to
accommodate certain liturgical suggestions made to the Consilium by the Pope, bishops,
religious, and laymen.
126A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 354-372.
127 As
distinguished from the forms following the interventions of the Roman Curia and
Synod of Bishops (1967).
128
For instance, it was a creative invention to use a substantially medieval private
Confiteor as the basis of a public communal confession of sin in the Novus Ordo Missae.
Another example would likewise be the transformation of the private Trinitarian formula and
sign of the cross, beginning the old prayers at the foot of the altar, into a public and joint act of
the priest and faithful together. A Final example would be to use the euchological Quod ore
sumpsimus as a cleansing prayer for the vessels, which is merely the default Post-communion of
the Gelasian sacramentary.
55
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
3.0 CHAPTER THREE
3.1 PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORM
After the presentation of the complete schematic draft of the Missa normativa, it is now
necessary to present and describe the formal principles for the creation of this new liturgy of the
Mass. The inaugural celebration before the Synod Fathers on 24 October 1967 also represents the
“celebration” of the final product of the Consilium’s application of its principles.129 The various
stages through which this schema of the Normative Mass passed to reach its celebrative form as
witnessed by the synod will not be the main focus in this chapter. Instead, evaluating and
critiquing the reform is first made possible only after understanding the proper meaning and
content of the official principles laid down by the reformers. It is convenient to emphasize this
priority by way of a special chapter dedicated to to each objective criterion that will be applied to
the individual rites of the Mass for the reform.
First of all, a brief word would be helpful on the source of the principles of the reform as
espoused by the Consilium. The point of departure for the reform was universally attributed to
two monumental liturgical documents. The first source, or remote cause, of many of the liturgical
principles was undoubtedly the Magna Charta of the liturgy, Mediator Dei,130 promulgated by
Pope Pius XII in 1947. This was and will always be considered the original magisterial starting
point (e.g., the Pian Commission) that allowed for the realization of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
However, it is the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy itself that directly inspired the theoretical
and practical principles that the Consilium adopted in actuality. The Constitution itself mentions
several principles that either call for or at least make opportune liturgical reform. They are as
follows:
129A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 348-349.
130
COMMISSIO PIANA, La riforma liturgica di Pio XII. Documenti. I. La “Memoria sulla
riforma liturgica”(Bibliotecha Ephemerides Liturgicae 128), ed. Carlo Braga, Edizioni
liturgiche, Roma 2003, v-x.
56
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
A.) Active participation of the faithful (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14).131
B.).
The Word of God having a more ample role in the Eucharistic celebration
(Sacrosanctum Concilium, 33, 35). 132
C.) Adaptation to modern and cultural circumstances (Sacrosanctum Concilium , nos.
37-40).133
3.2 ALTIORA PRINCIPIA: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
The fundamental principles of the reform are those upon which the revision of texts and
rites depends in order to truly express the very nature of the liturgy as the summit and apex of
Christian worship. Using this mode of thought, one can then see how important these principles
become to the Consilium Fathers and periti. They are the principle intellectual guides in order to
be able to weigh and judge any proposed project of reforming the Missal of Pius V. These
principles are a point of departure for judging the value of individual rites in the Mass and limit
the operational principles that follow them:134
The Liturgy is an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ (SC 7). This is interpreted
1.)
to mean the following:
131
J. WAGNER, «Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae” e sulle
esigenze possibilità e mete della riforma dell’ “Ordo Missae” in conformità ai decreti conciliari
», in Liturgia opera divina e umana.Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale
Bugnini in occasione del suo 70º compleanno, ed. P. Jounel -R. Kaczynski -G. Paqualletti
(Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 26), Edizioni liturgiche, Roma 1982, 269.
132 J. WAGNER,
«Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae”, 269.
133
A. CHUPUNGO –K. PECKLERS, «Storia della liturgia romana», in Scientia Liturgica,
vol. 1, ed. professori del Pontificio Istituto Liturgico S. Anselmo, Piemme, Casale Monferrato
1998, 149-150.
134For
this order of listing of the principles see A. BUGNINI, Reform of the Liturgy, 39-45.
The Secretary of the Consilium notes that these principles are a summation of the Constitution
on the Sacred Liturgy as laid out by the Preparatory Commission and found within the
Consitution itself. As such, Sacrosanctum Concilium’s (SC) paragraph’s will be appropriately
referenced in each section.
57
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
a.)
The liturgy is a celebration of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
b.)
The various liturgical rites are public celebrations and exist to constantly
renew Church life.
c.)
One must avoid a mentality from this point on that is concerned with
“sacramental minimalism” (that which is purely necessary for validity) and
considering ceremonial in isolation, since liturgy is a corporate act.
The Liturgy is the summit and source of the Church’s life (SC 5, 10).
13.)
a.)
The Christian community’s most efficacious corporate act is the Eucharist.
b.)
Therefore the faithful should visibly express unity and so be lawfully united
together in full communion under the presidency of ministers at one altar.
14.)
Full, conscious, and active participation (SC 14).135
a.)
The basic movement of the liturgical reform is to bring to fruition in
Christians the liturgical spirit.
b.)
Liturgical formation and instruction must lead Christians to their rightful
place of actively taking part in the corporate Christian worship act.
c.)
Various customs, mentalities and language must be taken into account in the
concrete reality of every Christian community.
d.)
Participation, especially in the Scriptures, Divine Office and sacraments must
occur, especially through the formation of clerics toward that end.
15.)
Manifestation of the Church (SC 26).
a.)
Liturgy is communal and so public celebration is always to be preferred to
anything that is private or quasi-private.
b.)
Individuals, according to their rank and vocation, have a particular role in the
assembly and should exercise properly their role and only their role.
c.)
Clerical monopoly on the liturgical rites is to be avoided so that a true
expression of Church occurs by a common and active worship of the one
God.
135 J. WAGNER,
«Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae”, 269.
58
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Substantial unity not rigid uniformity (SC 38).
16.)
a.)
Social, religious, and cultural conditions have changed and so the liturgy must
adapt to them in contradistinction to the Tridentine reforms.
b.)
The psychological climate is radically different in our own day and so the
“national soul” of people is constituted in their cultural patrimony. Therefore,
even if the customs be pristine reflections of the pre-Christian culture, they
should be adapted into the liturgy if possible.
Sound Tradition and Legitimate Progress (SC 23).
17.)
a.)
There are two dimensions of liturgy: i.) visible ii.) invisible
b.)
The invisible is divine and untouchable but the human is malleable.
c.)
Rites have grown outmoded, encrusted in time and therefore must be revised.
The rites must be updated to the modern age.136
d.)
Failure to update leads to stagnation and petrification.
3.3 OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES
In addition to the fundamental principles of liturgical reform, there are the operational
principles which delineate the means through which the practical reform can be achieved. These
principles of reform are the following:
Language (SC 54): Latin is to be retained in theory, and theoretically the
1.)
vernacular is to “accompany” and not replace the language of the Church. All
the faithful should be able to participate actively using plain chant for the
Mass parts as instructed in the Liturgy Constitution.
136
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 170; De Missale n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum
sull’attività del Coetus X ‘De ordine missae’ e sulle esigenze, possibilità e mete della riforma
dell’Ordo Missae in conformità ai decreti conciliari», in RCOM, 466-467.
59
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
The Word of God (SC 7, 24, 33, 51): The minimalized use of the Scriptures is
2.)
to be restored to its ancient full usage.137 A more ample use of Scripture in
accord with ancient tradition is to replace the deficiencies of the present.
Further, a greater honor and love for the Scriptures should be encouraged
among Catholics.
Catechetical Instruction (SC 29, 48, 90):
3.)
Rites and prayers in the rites
themselves should be composed to clarify the rituals. Also sermons and solid
catechesis are to be used in the liturgical formation of the faithful.138
Singing (SC 112): Renewal in sacred song and emphasis on chant and song is
4.)
to be the means of solemnizing liturgy and making more visibly apparent the
celebrative nature of the rites.
Reform of the Liturgy (SC 21): The process is to be gradual. The rites should
5.)
become simple and easily interpreted and understandable without much
instruction.139 The Holy See is the authentic means of accomplishing reform,
along with the cooperation of pastors of souls and the legitimate local
authorities of a given place. The reform is to remove things that have fallen
into disuse over time. Any “accidents of history” should be eliminated as
being of no use in the liturgy.140 The liturgy must be known for its “noble
simplicity” and be “short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions”.
Rites should be restored to “the vigor” they held in the “tradition of the
Fathers”. In general, a simplification is to take place. 141
137A.
Bugnini does not specify what is meant here by “full”, however the Constitution for
the Sacred Liturgy does specify a more ample pouring out of the Word of God withing the
liturgical rites. Later this will treated once again in chapter four.
138
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 170; De Missale n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum
sull’attività del Coetus X ‘De ordine missae’», 467.
139 J. WAGNER,
«Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae”, 269.
140 J. WAGNER,
«Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae”, 269.
141 J. WAGNER,
«Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae”, 269.
60
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
3.4 COMMENTARY
It would not be an overstatement to say that among the gravest problems of liturgical
reform, following the Second Vatican Council, was the question of methodology. Although the
Council clearly called for reform, and even enunciated a few particulars, there was no tried and
true method for reforming the liturgy as a whole. Even Trent was little more than a codification.
Furthermore, the Sacred Congregation of Rites (SCR) had really only taken up problems of
interpretation, ceremonial, and some minor adjustments until the opening of the 20th century.
The SCR had some experience in reforming the breviary, the Holy Week liturgy, the
simplification of rubrics, and musical instructions. The SCR had also developed a historical
section in order to reference the liturgical past when answering queries on liturgics, but now a
new method and a new liturgical spirit were needed to procure the sweeping changes that many
experts on the Consilium had been envisaging and writing about for years. Following the
establishment of the Consilium there was absolutely no concrete methodology in existence for
accomplishing this monumental and innovative task.142 This was still the case to a large extent,
even after the publication of the transitional Missal in 1965. There was a real crisis due to a lack
of corporate vision. What should the reform would look like? No one had received any practical
guidance from the most recent Papal documents and post-Conciliar documents. They were rather
general in scope and somewhat ambivalent as to their expectations. 143
Consequently, working out a methodology to reform the Order of Mass as whole
was in some ways a truly unenviable task. One must admit that the amount of work that the
Consilium had to perform in a relatively minimal amount of time would have frustrated and
pressed the most veteran of liturgists among the Consilium Fathers and periti. Even the
celebrated figure of F. Antonelli, a veteran who had helped reform Holy Week and the liturgical
changes up to and including the Council, noted the difficulties of the process of authentic
142 RCOM,
133.
143 RCOM,
133-134.
61
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
reform.144 It must be said that in general many of the members of the Consilium found
themselves pressed to make decisions in order to meet deadlines in hopes of accomplishing the
reform in a timely manner.145 Granted that little time was allotted to work out completely the
specific methodology of reforming the Order of Mass, 146 Coetus X did establish a general
method for approaching any parts of the Roman Missal to be reformed within its own group. In
Chapter two it was already mentioned that Coetus X established principles in addition to the
altiora principia of Sacrosanctum Concilium. 147 By combining the altiora principia with these
internally established and officially approved principles for the reform of the Ordo Missae one
has a nearly complete idea of Coetus X’s rationale and method. The “fundamental principles” are
similiar to a priori principles. They represent theological presumptions that must be taken into
144 CFA,
145 P.
259, 269.
MARINI, «Il “Consilium” in piena attività in un clima favorevole», 118.
146
The definition of “methodology” used for this paper is as follows: A set or system of
methods, principles, and rules for regulating a given discipline, as in the arts or sciences.
147
1.) Private Mass (unlike the Pian Missal) is not to be the basis of the new liturgy.
2.) A sung Mass, not read or recited Mass, is to be the mode of expression from
which any part should have its inspiration.
3.) Musical options and innovations are to be permitted according to culture,
place, and solemnity of the rite.
4.) A “new form” of Mass is to be constructed that should be called simplex. This
is meant to supply for the needs of both small and large Churches in the Latin rite.
5.) There must be a substantial uniformity between all the different types of
celebrations, unlike the Solemn Papal, Pontifical, solemn, sung and read (low)
Masses of the Pian Missal.
6.) The only real distinction between Masses would ultimately be the solemnity of
the Mass based on whether or not a congregation is present. In this sense there is
a distinction between so-called private and public Mass. The Mass without a
congregation is to have its own proper rite. This is based off of Ordo Primus of
the Ordines Romani.
62
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
account before reforming any rite. The do not admit of debate. there are also the operational
principles.
Like a posteriori reflections, they are gleaned from the empirical and historical
research of the liturgy gleaned from the science of liturgiology. Lastly, the specific principles of
Coetus X were approved by the voting Fathers in their sessions, but represent a further
particularization of the operational principles of the Consilium. This nearly exhausts Coetus X’s
methodological lines of research and reform of the Missal. There is a last set of methodological
concerns that were used by Coetus X in the reform. This will be treated more fully in the
paragraph below, where the function of Coetus X within the Consilium is described more fully.
Each level of principles allows one to employ intellectual tools in order to assess the Consilium’s
revisions of the Roman Missal.
Although these three groupings of principles represent the official line adopted by the
Consilium and Coetus X itself, J. Wagner (relator for Coetus X) proposed some specific liturgical
sources and documents as references that would help to guide any changes in the Mass. These
basic filters or sources of liturgical knowledge were explicitly recognized by the voting Fathers
as a basis for contextualizing their own decisions about any reformed rite carried out by Coetus
X. All changes to Order of the Mass were to take into account the following:148
“1.)
Acta Commissionis preparatoriae, praecipue autem eius
‘Declarationes’ quae, quamquam non sint authenticae, tamen ut unanime
148
These four paragraphs represent neither fundamental, nor operational principles, but
merely additional considerations that each Coetus should consider before beginning the process
of reform of any given rite of the Church. They represent points of comparison to assure
harmony with the work of Holy See until the Consilium, and opinions of acceptable authors in
the mind of the Consilium.
63
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
consilium virorum hac in re peritissimorum -cum episcoporum tum
consultorum- magno valore gaudeant. 149
2.) Si casus fert, vota episcoporum in collectione Commissionis
Ante-praeparatoriae: ‘Acta et Documenta’ expressa.150
3.) Omnia quae Sectio Historica SRC pro generali Liturgiae
instauratione iam praeparavit ac typis mandavit (‘Memoria sulla riforma
liturgica’ cum quattuor supplementis). 151
4.) Elucubrationes auctorum probatorum, qui de Missali Romano
reformando iam multa sapienter scripserunt. 152
Quamquam non omnes
eorum positiones admitti possint, Commissio tamen nostra vituperationem
temporis venturi ne subeat, vota eruditorum diligenter, serio et mature non
expendisse.”153
149
Of course this is a reference to the Ante-preparatory Commission, already referred to
briefly in Chapter one. This meants explicitly: “Nei voti che I Vescovi hanno inviato in vista del
Concilio, in risposta all richiesta rivolta lorao dalla Commisione ante-preparatoris 2.) Negli
studi e nelle proposte elaborate dalla Commissio praeparatoria. 3.) Nei dibattiti e nelle
deliberazioni conciliari. See J. WAGNER, «Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine
Missae”, 271.
150 See
footnote eleven.
151 COMMISSIO PIANA,
La riforma liturgica di Pio XII, 14-19, 347-673.
152
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 170; De Missale n. 23. Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus
X ‘De ordine missae’», in RCOM, 466. In these presentation of the Missa normativa, written for
the voting Fathers of the Consilium, Coetus X explicitly stated that J. Jungmann’s Missarum
Sollemnia is the primary historical work for determining questions of the liturgy. Secondly,
approved authors are additionally considered as those scholars with works published by
Ephemerides Liturgicae.
153
CONSILIUM, «Quaestiones tractandae 6 (17 aprilis 1964). Investigationes faciendae de
Missali Romano recognoscendo», in RCOM, 334.
64
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
In 1964 foundational changes to the old Order of Mass took place following more mature
reflection upon the fundamental and operational principles set forth by the Council and applied
by the Consilium. J. Wagner referred to additional principles as something that practically
resulted as a “basis” for reforms occuring in the Ordo Missae (of Coetus X) in the reformed rite
of Mass. These new principles are neither fundamental nor operational. They are simply lesser
principles adopted within Coetus X that were the fruit of their communal reflection on the higher
fundamental and operational principles. These principles drafted for use only within Coetus X.
They were adopted as specific to the group, yet in harmony with higher principles that bound
each and every other Coetus. J. Wagner emphasizes that they are extremely significant as both a
sign and foundation for things to come:154
I.
The individual parts of the Mass must be made more harmoniously connected with each
other so that the rationale for the rites becomes obvious.
II.
More active participation must be accommodated by the new ritual.
III.
Simplification of the rites is necessary
IV.
Rites judged as duplications or of little use are to be deleted.
V.
Some rites fallen into disuse should be restored.
154 J. WAGNER,
«Zur Reform Des Ordo Missae», 269; RCOM, 115.
65
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
The “substance” of the old Ordo Missae should be retained.155
VI.
However, the most important development in the mental outlook of the reformers was in
regard to the assumptions that were made in the ambit of “ideal” liturgy. Any treatment of the
development of the liturgy by Coetus X emphasized the significant development of the Mass rite
especially after the 8th century. This period was commonly accepted as a time of Gallicanization
of the Roman liturgy in the Frankish empire.156 According to this theory, during a long and
complex history, the authentic rituals of the Roman rite were mixed or replaced with texts and
ceremonial from the Gallican Church, especially after the 8th-9th centuries. The Consilium
Fathers, perhaps reflecting recent trends in Western liturgiology, often valued only those rites of
the Mass that could be found in Rome’s patristic and ancient liturgy as it was celebrated in the
city of Rome before the Gallican period of liturgical creativity in the Roman rite.157 This
155
This base upon which Coetus X’s official internal principles derived is described by J.
Wagner as follows in his Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae” e sulle
esigenze possibilità e meta della riforma dell’ “Ordo Missae” in conformità ai decreti conciliari:
“1.) La ‘propria ratio necnon mutua connexio’ delle singole parti della Messa è stata già,
almeno in linea di massima, assicurata. Infatti il solo sacrificio si svolge all’altare, mentre la
liturgia della paraola si svolge ad sedem oppure all’ambone. 2.)Senza avere applicato
radicalmente il principio della semplificazione, molti riti sono già stati sfrondati. 3.) Anche il
principio del ‘duplicatione vitandae’ ha trovato le sue applicazioni: ‘partesquae ad scholam et
ad populum sectant, si ab ispsis canuntur vel recitantur, a celebrante privatim non dicuntur.’ 4.)
Alcuni elementi ‘minus utiliter addita’ sono soppressi: così il Salmo 42 e l’ultimo Vangelo. 5.) Le
Letture non vengono più lette senza tener conto della Comunità dei fedeli, ma rivolgendosi ad
essa. 6.) La ‘oratio communis’ è stata già restaurata. See J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform Des Ordo
Missae», 271.
156This
is the overall thesis of Joseph Jungmann’s Missarum Sollemnia.
157
Unfortunately, this does not actually bode well for liturgical reform in light of modern
authorities in regard to the ancient period. For example Cyrille Vogel remarks: “[N]othing
survives of the Roman Century of the first five centuries. Undoubtedly there must have been
considerable liturgical activity but we have no way of evaluating either its extent or its results.”
See C. VOGEL, Medieval Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources, tr. W. Storey, -N. Krogh
Rasmussen, The Pastoral Press, Washington D.C. 21986, 37.
66
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
idealized Roman liturgy was a general standard for evaluating the worth of elements imported
into the Roman Missal. A rite was often judged harshly and evaluated negatively if it had found
its way into the Roman rite following the 8th century.158 This approach was due to the fact that
most rites that were non-Roman were judged to have a corrupting effect on the spirit or ethos of
the original Roman liturgy in the writings of many notable scholars of the time. Furthermore, an
important task of the reform was explicitly to remove Gallican encrustations on the Roman
Mass. This was accomplished by returning to a pre-Gallican model of liturgy, namely the basic
skeleton of a more ancient Roman liturgy. The details of many ancient rites were known through
the earliest Ordines Romani (OR).159 The Roman Orders, or Ordines Romani, are papal
ceremonial books which reflect the praxis of liturgy from the 8th century and beyond. These
books served for creating the skeletal model by which the entire Consilium was to base its
reform.160 The structure of the new liturgy, discussed more fully in the next chapter, was to be
based on the foundation of what was thought to be a more authentic and unadulterated Roman
liturgy. These ancient rites for the celebration of Mass, especially in Ordo Romanus Primus of
the Ordines Romani, were to become paramount as a measure and rule in liturgical reform.
A. Bugnini was very clear in noting the fact that the principles of reform led to nothing
less than the expunging of Gallican influenced texts and ceremonial as adopted relatively late by
the Roman rite. This is a principle rationale for the reform as gleaned from Coetus X’s
application and reflection upon the fundamental and operational principles when applied to the
particular problem of the Ordo Missae. Gallican additions represent “accretions”, “duplications”
158
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 170; De Missale n. 23. Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus
X ‘De ordine missae’», in RCOM*, 400-401.
159T.
SCHNITZLER, «The Revision of the Order of the Mass», in The Commentary on the
Constitution and on the Instruction of the Sacred Liturgy, ed. A. Bugnini -C. Braga, tr. Vincent
Mallon, Benzinger Brothers, New York 1965, 137-144.
160
M. FRANCIS, «Liturgical Inculturation. The State of the Quesiton», Liturgical Ministry
6 (1997) 101.
67
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
and not a few “useless” rituals that had crippled the Roman rite for centuries.161 The Consilium
periti themselves generally adopted this view, many of whom expressed this critical attitude
toward the liturgy, especially in their publications before the Second Vatican Council. The
necessity of removing accretions and useless “doublets” in the Roman rite necessarily impugned
many Gallican practices and texts as culprits of liturgical curruption.162 This initially meant: a.)
Kisses, crosses, genuflections, and bows should be reduced b.) Prayers at the foot of the altar
should be curtailed and simplified c.) The readings should be proclaimed facing the people d.)
The offertory should involve active participation and be said aloud and also be retouched to
reflect a different theology e.) The prefaces should be increased, while the Canon should be
simplified f.) The embolism should be said aloud g.) The faithful should receive Communion
within Mass h.) The fraction of the Host should be rearranged
i.) Communion should be
simplified j.) Mass should be ended with the dismissal not blessing.163 These adjustments and
deletions would necessarily affect the entire medieval structure of the Ordo Missae in the Missal
of St. Pius V. In short, the goal was to return the liturgy back to its pristine patristic form (as
much as possible), since its celebrative structure both presumed active participation of the
faithful (i.e., vocal participation) and the ancient structure was the basic skeleton upon which the
medieval accretions had grown over the centuries. Any adjustments to this ancient celebrative
structure was to be either for modern needs and adaptation or for the good of the whole
Church.164
Very often the periti took into consideration the ancient sources of the Ordines
Romani when reforming a rite of the Mass. This was due to the fact that, besides the Leonianum
161A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 339-340.
162 CONSILIUM,
«Quaestiones tractandae n. 6 (17 aprilis 1964)», in RCOM, 334-335.
163 CONSILIUM,
«Quaestiones tractandae n. 6 (17 aprilis 1964), in RCOM, 335-336.
164
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 39, De Missali n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», in RCOM,
352-353. The periti justify these motives on a rite per rite basis, as will become clear in the
commentary upon the individual parts of the Mass.
68
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
and Gelasianum sacramentaries, the most ancient sections of the Ordines Romani were the
closest witnesses to the patristic structure of the Roman liturgy.165
Despite the emphasis on
“Roman-ness”, the periti of the Consilium were far from monolithic in their dependence on one
ancient Roman liturgical source. There was the additional consideration of other groups of texts
deemed as authentic; namely the (Leonine and early Gelasian) sacramentaries and the so-called
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome.166 The Consilium periti also judged as authentic the
tradition as contained in these ancient texts as well.167 These sacramentaries were universally
recognized as the principle euchological sources for pure Roman prayer and genius.
Furthermore, the Apostolic Tradition was considered a source from which the wisdom of the
post-apostolic Church could be gleaned in order to enrich the Roman rite. This comprised the
main body of sources to which the reformers necessarily referred in their very first attempt at
reforming the Roman Missal’s Order of Mass so as to return the it to the “Tradition of the
Fathers”. P. Marini, an under-secretary for the Consilium at that time, said recently of the Novus
Ordo Missae:
“The reform was a return to the authentic tradition of the church, which is
the liturgy of the Fathers. This meant taking away all the duplications that found
165
Of course, this does not exclude allusions and citations of the Fathers of the Church.
However, the patristic texts are often less than clear as to exactly what they refer and (for the
Roman rite) cannot help construct the individual rites of much of the Mass.
166
One peritus of the Consilium, and a celebrated scholar, had just finished his
reconstruction of the text of Hippolytus. See B. BOTTE, La Tradition apostolique de Saint
Hippolyte. Essai de reconstitution par Dom Bernard Botte, O.S.B., Aschendorffsch
Verlagsbuchhandlung, Münster Westfalen 1963.
167
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia
alla postorale practica (Biblioteca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 100), CLV-Edizioni
Liturgiche), Roma !2003, 192.
69
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
their way into the liturgy, the encrustations that were superimposed over the
centuries. This was a work of cleaning, like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.”168
What was said recently by P. Marini of the “new Mass,” could in fact be equally said of
the Missa normativa. The very same methodological principles made it possible to realize the
final product of the Normative Ordo Missae. Thus, it should be obvious from this point forward
that the very rationale of the reform of the Order of Mass by the Consilium is nothing less than
the desire to revitalize something judged weighed down by accretions and many outmoded
means of symbolic expression (encrustations). This is in order to make the liturgy a more
effective means of worship in the modern day, given its mentality and needs.
3.5 ECUMENISM A PRINCIPLE OF LITURGICAL REFORM?
Although Ecumenism was not one of the official operational principles of the reform, the
chronicle of decisions of the Consilium Fathers and Holy See, as will be presented in subsequent
chapters, will certainly allow the reader to see that it was not an unimportant consideration.
From the beginning of the reform and at the Council there was a sense of openness to traditions
and observations from outside the visible-juridical confines of the Roman Catholic Church.169
On 23 August 1966 the Secretary of State gave permission for the establishment of a group of
official observers from non-Catholic ecclesial Christian communities. They did not have voting
rights, nor were they official members, but occassionally acted as a consultative body that was
instrumental for a few restricted areas of liturgical reform (e.g., the lectionary).170 Then, on 6-14
October 1966, for the first time, the members of non-Catholic Christian confessions were
admitted to be observers at the general adunanze of the Consilium. The Observers were
168 J. ALLEN,
«The Papal Liturgist», National Catholic Reporter 43 n. 2 (2003).
169
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Nostra Aetate», Acta Apostolicae Sedis
58 (1966) 740-817.
170
A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 206-207. These persons were: Rev. Ronald Jasper,
Rev. Massey Shepherd, Prof. Raymond George, Pastor Friedrick-Wilhem Künneth, Rev. Eugene
Brand, and Pastor Max Thurian.
70
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Professors Raymond George (World Council of Churches), Canon Ronald C. Jasper and Dr.
Massey Hamilton Shepherd (Anglican Communion), Rev. Friedrich Wilhelm Künneth (World
Lutheran Federation), and Brother Max Thurian (Taizé).171
For example, A. Bugnini recorded the fact that various Protestant confessions were asked
for their opinions and suggestions on the reform of the lectionary in one Plenary Audience of the
Members and periti. This is recorded in his memoirs as secretary of the Consilium. This
obviously shows that the Consilium was in close communication with various separated
Christians in order to create a lectionary revision that would be acceptable and anticipated by
confessions other than the Catholic Church, and thus be truly universal.172 Furthermore, their
opinions and interaction were sought on some other topics.173 For instance, they aided Coetus
VIIIbis in the composition of the various petitions and intercessions in the Liturgy of the Hours at
the official request of the Consilium. Lastly, the responsories of the Divine Office took some of
their inspiration from the mixed Catholic-Protestant community of Taizè, especially from the
contributions from one of its leaders, Brother Max Thurian .174 In effect, these reforms and a few
others relied on collaboration between the Consilium and non-Catholics in order to adopt
seemingly successful modern forms of worship which could speak to modern man and inculcate
the wisdom of communities that had long been worshiping in the vernacular. For many years
these communities had composed texts by principally relying on readings of the Bible and
creative-prayer writing. These facts are very important for an additional reason.The participation
of non-Catholic observers functioned efficiently and productively for the Consilium. In contrast,
as will be explained further below, the Consulta, Ordinary Audiences (adunanze ordinarie), and
Consilium Praesidentiae were groups erected by Cardinal Lercaro, following the approval of
Paul VI in private audiences. Nonetheless, M. Barba and A. Bugnini have both noted that these
theoretical organizations accomplished little and can be said to have been inefficient and
171 CONSILIUM,
«VII Sessio Plenaria “Consilii”», Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 402.
172 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 415-416.
173 CONSILIUM,
«Septima sessione plenaria “Consilii”», Notitiae 2 (1966) 312-313.
174 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 556-557.
71
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
ultimately failures. The observers, on the other hand, were able to assist and speak ad instar
peritorum (even if they were not official Members), and were deemed by all as very helpful.
They were able to assist successfully in the reform process. They performed a function greater
than what was initially foreseen by their establishment through the Secretary of State. On the
other hand the Consulta and Consilium Presidentiae were ineffective appendages to the organ of
the Consilium.
In summary, as a principle, ecumenical concerns do officially at least influence the
liturgical reform in one way. The document In ecclesiasticam futurorum sacerdotum (3 June
1979) 175 repeated and clarified the Ecumenical Directory of the Secretariat for Christian Unity of
14 May 1967.176 Ecumenical concerns influence the liturgy, in the view of these two organs of
the Holy See. Several ecumenical questions are indeed liturgical. According to the explanations
provided by these two texts, the liturgical reform needs to keep in view actual and historical
controversies among Christians when reforming the liturgy. This is because the object of the
Church’s overtures toward non-Catholic Churches and communities is to eventually unite
together in mutual communal worship (communicatio in sacris). In practice, it seems to direct
avoiding anything that might accentuate historical divisions between Christian confessions. In
fact, Unitatis Redintegratio (UR no. 6) explicitly links the ecumenical and liturgical movements.
The liturgical movement is considered one of the developing factors that allowed ecumenism to
be fostered in the first place.177 Even if not a formal principle, ecumenism was treated as if it
were an operational principle of the reform. Hopefully, further observations of the various rites
of the Normative Mass will elucidate that fact. The question remains, however, as to whether or
not it constitutes a technical violation of the official reform of the Mass to base some mutations
purely on ecumenical motives, since they are still not actual principles. The Liturgy Constitution
gives no such directives, while the Consilium itself was given no discernable explicit mandate to
175
SACRA CONGREGATIO DE INSTITUTIONE CATHOLICA, «In ecclesiasticam futurorum
sacerdotum», Notitiae 15 (1979) 526-556. See especially the Appendex nn. 1-7.
176 S ECRETARIATUS AD
C HRISTIANORUM U NITATEM F OVENDAM , «Directorium
Oecumenicum», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967), 574-592.
177CONCILIUM
Oecumenicum VATICANUM II, «Unitatis redintegratio», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57
(1965) 90-107. See especially numbers 243-274.
72
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
make this a real principle of reform. However, in response to such an objections it must be
remembered that the Pope himself and certain curial agencies were very supportive of any
explicit efforts to adapt the liturgy to ecumenical concerns. Given the reality of Unitatis
Redintegratio, the ecumenical directory, and the above cited examples of ecumenical cooperation
in the liturgical reform, there seems to be every positive reason to consider the ecumenical aspect
of the liturgical reform as a de facto guiding principle. In conclusion, it may merit a place in the
evaluation of certain parts of the Normative Mass. Therefore ecumenism should be presumed as
a methodological element in reforming rites. The Consilium will take into account both the
Oriental and Protestant traditions when deleting, augmenting, and changing individual rites of
the various liturgical offices. Ecumenism will be treated as a factual principle of reform in the
this work’s evaluation of the various parts of the Missa normativa’ s Order of Mass.
3.6 COETUS X AND ITS ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION WITHIN THE CONSILIUM
First and foremost, the Consilium was directly subject to the Pope. It was closer to an
agency of the Curia in its structure than to a Commissio, which was merely attached to an agency
or congregation within the Curia. 178 Secondly, the Pope initially appointed forty-two members .
178A. BUGNINI,
Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 51.
73
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
These consisted in cardinals, archbishops, bishops, one abbot and three priests.179 These Fathers
of the Consilium were responsible for voting on all the propositions of the various Coetus, or
study groups of experts. The President and Secretary were members responsible for dividing up
the work for the various groups. These sub-commissions of experts were to propose schemas of
various rites and redact them accordingly. The final schemas would be subjected to a further
review for their theological, pastoral, stylistic and musical content by a respective
subcommission for each. The final product would be subject to a vote by the Fathers for approval
and presentation to the Holy Father. The Holy Father might send the final product to episcopal
179A.
BUGNINI, Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 52, 943-944. The list of all eventual
members, with rights to vote, are as follows: Presidents: Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro (1964-1968)
and Cardinal Benno Gut, formerAbbot Primate, (1968-1969). Members: Cardinal Gregory
Perter Agagianian (Prefect of the Propaganda Fide), Fr. Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M. (Secretary
SRC), Cardinal Augistin Bea (President Secr. Christian Unity), Bishop Willem Bekkers (Neth.),
Giulio Bevilacqua, C.O. (Priest), Bishop Jan Bluyssen (Neth.), Archbishop Tulio Botero Salazar
(Colombia), Bishop René Boudon (France), Archbishop Leo Byrne (U.S.A.), Bishop Gerald
Carter (Canada), Archbishop Tomás Alberto Clavel Méndez (Panama), Cardinal John Patrick
Cody (Archbishop, U.S.A.), Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri, Cardinal William Conway
(Archbishop, Ireland), Bishop Leo De Kesel (Belgium), Archbishop George Dwyer (England),
Bishop Jesús Enciso Viana (Spain), Archbishop Vicente Enrique y Traracón (Spain), Archbishop
Pericle Felici (Curia), Bishop Bernardo Fey Schneider (Bolivia), Cardinal Paolo Giobbe (Curia),
Cardinal Valerian Gracias (Archbishop, India), Archbishop Gordon Gray (Scotland), Archbishop
Francis Grimshaw (England), Bishop Emilio Guano (Italy), Archbishop Paul Hallinan (U.S.A.),
Bishop Anton Hänggi (Switz.), Bishop Juan Hervás y Benet (Spain), Archbishop Eugene Hurley
(S. Africa), Bishop José Clemente Carlos Isnard (Brazil), Bishop Fraçois Kabangu (Zaire),
Bishop François Kervéadou (France), Bishop Sándor Kovács (Hungary), Archbishop Henri
Jenny (France), Bishop Franciszek Jop (Poland), Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larraona (Prefect
SCR), Bishop Ambróz Lazík (Czechoslavakia), Bishop Agostino López de Moura (Portugal),
Bishop Joseph Malula (Zaire), Archbishop Ignazio Clemente Mansourati (Rome), Bishop Joseph
Albert Martin (Canada), Bishop Laurentius Satoshi Nagae (Japan), Bishop Karel Ot#enaá$k,
(Czechoslovakia), Archbishop Michele Pellegrino (Italy), Bishop Alfred Pichler (Yugoslavia),
Bishop Enrique Rau (Argentina), cardinal Joseph Ritter (Archbishop, U.S.A.), Bishop Carlo
Rossi (Italy), Cardinal Laurean Rgambwa (Bishop, Tanzania), Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez
(Archbishop, Chile), Bishop Otto Spülbeck (Germany), Luigi Valentini (Priest, Rome), Bishop
Willem Van Bekkum (Indonesia), Bishop Willem Van Zuylen (Belgium), Bishop Hermann Volk
(Germany), Rembert Weakland, O.S.B. (Abbot Primate), Archbishop Guilford Young (Australia),
and Bishop Franz Zauner (Austria). Secretary: Annibale Bugnini, C.M.
74
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
conferences for advice and discussion.180 After the Consilium’ inception in March of 1964, A.
Bugnini announced a plan for dividing the liturgical books into sections (I-XII). This was
approved by the Fathers. This division alotted each Group a certain rite to reform. Liturgical
book section III includes Groups (Coetus) 10-16. A. Bugnini delivered a fifty-three page typewritten notebook to the Holy Father with his proposed plan for the practical workings of the
Consilium. He outlined, among other things, Group X and its operation.181 The operation of any
Group will be explained in twelve stages. This will outline how a definitive reform of any given
section of the liturgy ought to occur.182
A. Bugnini also made a distincition between the
“operative” and the “revisional” groups that were doing the work of reform. The operative
groups were periti preparing a schema. Revisional groups consisted in eleven more specialist
groups to judge various aspects of the text (although these were never created). They were to
critique latinity, jurisprudence, etc.183 A. Bugnini also foresaw that the general audiences of the
members of the Consilium should take place once or twice a year. 184 This general draft, as
presented by A. Bugnini, was unanimously accepted by the plenary assembly at the first public
meeting of the Members of the Consilium.185 After Cardinal Lercaro and A. Bugnini convened
the first adunanza plenaria (March 1964), they also assigned Relators, Secretaries, and
Consultors to various Groups (eventually groups 1-29). Group (Coetus) X received the
“Ordinary of the Mass” to update. After the Coetus was erected and officially commissioned, it
was then expected to organize its own internal rules of order, methodology, locations of reunions,
and modus operandi.
In the case of any Coetus each individual Consultor was, of necessity, approved by Pope
Paul VI in private audiences with Cardinal Lercaro (and A. Bugnini) present. Each member (i.e.,
180A. BUGNINI,
181 RCOM,
182 A.
185 M.
89-90.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 79.
183 RCOM,
184 A.
Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 62.
114-115.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 86.
MARINI, A Challenging Reform, 46.
75
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Relator, Secretary, ordinary Member) of a Coetus is technically a “Consultor” by Papal
appointment. 186 Relators and Secretaries of Coetus were personally appointed by Cardinal
Lercaro and A. Bugnini (A. Bugnini effectively proposed the vast majority of names and
Cardinal Lercaro is not known to have rejected any suggestions).
Coetus X, erected and officially given its commission in the plenary audience in October
of 1964 , 187 had J. Wagner as its life long Relator. A. Hänggi was its initial secretary. There were
seven additional Consultors.188 After the first plenary audience in March, The group of
Consultors of Coetus X received the commission of reforming the individual parts of the Order
of Mass. This resulted in them spending several months developing methodological principles
and working out the final goal of reforming the Mass in particular. Following the creation of
internal principles, these were presented to the voting Fathers in Plenary sessions. Coetus X was
first officially commissioned to produce actual schemata of a reformed Mass following the 5-6
October Plenary Audience of the Consilium. At this audience, in addition to the general
reforming principles of reforming the liturgy as proposed by the Consilium (cf. A. BUGNINI, La
riforma liturgica, 53-62), and the internal principles worked out by the Coetus X itself, the
Consilium established other guiding principles of the reform of the Order of the Mass as already
mentioned above. Coetus X produced its first chronological, rite-by-rite, schema in October of
1965.189
186 P.
MARINI, A Challenging Reform, 35.
187 J.
WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», , 271.
188
For the Members of the Coetus X, see the footnote (#12) in chapter two or see RCOM,
103-112.
189 J.
WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 269-271.
76
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
3.7 SPECIFIC TREATMENT OF THE STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF COETUS X
3.7.1 PROCESS OF APPROVAL OF ANY REFORMED LITURGICAL BOOKS
Now that the account of Coetus X’s creation had been chronicled, this section intends to
describe the actual step-by-step process needed to occur when any part of the liturgy was to be
reformed. Each step represents a theoretical part of the reform process.
1.) Each Group receives a liturgical book (or section thereof) to revise. It produces the drafts or a
1st relazione;
2.) The Group relays the relazione to the Secretary of the Consilium via its secretary;
3.) The Secretary relays the relazione to the President of the Consilium who allows Consultors
from outside of the original Group to study it along with 20-30 consiglieri;
4.) The overall observations of the Consultors and consiglieri result in a judgment;
5.) The judgment and observations are related to the Secretary of the Consilium;
6.) The Secretary of the Consilium returns the 1st relazione along with the observations of
Consultors190 and consiglieri to the secretery of the Group or Coetus; 191
190A.
Bugnini, as Secretary, organized a further Coetus Relatorum and Consulta. He was
able to gather the relatores from the various study groups and have them look over the work of
their peer groups. This was a great aid to revise, correct or perfect any proposed schema by a
Coetus in lieu of an upcoming adunanza plenaria. The idea was to facilitate a better schema that
would be discussed more easily at the adunanza and, of course, would be more likely to get a
placet vote. A. Bugnini still ordinarily met with the 17 relators of the various Groups before
Plenary Audiences in order to prepare the various schemata for presentation to the voting
Fathers. See RCOM, 97-98.
191In
reality, often the 1st relazione would be presented directly to the adunanze generali
and the Fathers would give a votazione orientativa only to the parts of the schema of whatever
rite. This “votazione” was designed to settle debates between the periti within the gruppo and
orient them toward the desires or decisions of the Fathers on the unclear question. See A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 156. For the technical aspects of pagination, enumeration and
titles of the schemata, see P. MARINI, «Elenco degli “Schemata” del “Consilium” e della
Congregazione per il Culto Divino (Marzo 1964-Luglio 1975», 481-484.
77
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
7.) The Group or Coetus then produces a 2nd relazione;
8.) The 2nd relazione is conveyed and reviewed by the Secretary of the Consilum;
9.) With the permission of the President this 2nd relazione is delivered to the “Fathers” -or voting
Members- of the Consilium. They must pass the item with a majority vote for it to be considered
approved. This meeting with a vote and discussion is called an adunanza plenaria.
10.) The vote and corrections are made by the voting Fathers;192
11.) The results are relayed to the Group who prepared the 1st & 2nd relazione. The Group is
responsible for then producing a “Schema generale”;193
12.) The voting members of the Consilium (Fathers) review the general schema in order to send
it to Paul VI for his review, corrections, and publication via the SCR.194
3.7.2 THEORETICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK OF EACH GROUP (GRUPPO)
Before the just mentioned twelve steps in the approval process for any given reform, A.
Bugnini’s plan for the Consilium had originally proposed a process (although never actualized)
195
for arriving at the 1st relazione of any reformed rite of the liturgy.
1.) The Group would work together to prepare a proposed relazione.
192Although
this was mostly true, there were also interventions on the part of Paul VI and
other Congregations within the Curia. This happened, for instance, when the Consilium’s work
was known by the SCR since both organizations shared members. When the SCR, for example,
offered criticisms or observations, it sometimes happened that Paul VI would order Cardinal
Lercaro to revise certain rites by sending them back to the various Coetus. See RCOM, 118.
193With
regard to the Instructio on this or that matter (e.g. Peculiare ius 8 februariis
1966), the relazioni continued to be produced until the Consilium Fathers were satisfied with the
document. In this example on sacred music (Peculiare ius), there were nine redactions plus a
tenth and final one which gained approval. See A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 164.
194After
the review of the Pope, his final adjustments or corrections would become part of
the published edition. This information (revisions) was relayed back to the Fathers of the
Consilium during their plenary sessions (adunanze). See P. MARINI, «Il “Consilium” in piena
attività in un clima favorevole», 100.
195A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 81.
78
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
2.) The schema would then be submitted to gruppi di studio.196
3.) Eight separate groups would evaluate the schema (art, pastoral, theological, historic, stylistic,
musical, cultural and juridical).
4.) The final result of their addenda, when compiled and combined with the schema197 by the
Group, led to the 1st relazione which would be submitted to the above mentioned process.
However, in the end, A. Lentini & other latinists in the Secretariat of State’s office, as
well as Abbot Carlo Egger, would merely check the documents for style and latinity.198
Furthermore, the juridical aspects were generally reviewed by two principal and able canonists:
Msgr. Felici and Msgr. Bonet. Also it is important to note that, among those institutions of the
Consilium, there was one which did not last the five year process of reform. This is the
aforementioned adunanze ordinarie.These consisted of periti from the Groups (Coetus). Instead,
A. Bugnini used a select Group of Consultors that seemed most qualified for his needs and
formed a Consulta of about forty experts.199 The adunanze ordinarie only met twice in its short
lived history. It was deemed ineffective and inefficient and was discontinued within a year’s
time.200
196A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 81.
197Schema/Shemata:
are the fascicles of the minutes (verbali) of the reunions of the periti
in their proper group. They refer to the relazioni delivered to the Fathers for voting or the actual
outlines of whatever rite that the group is working on. The schemata might have supplementary
information (for instance, added by a relator or secretary), or the results of internal voting among
the Group, or details about particularly problematic issues. All the schemata had their own
chronological proper numbering. See, in RCOM,125.
198A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 81.
199
It is important to recall that the Consulta is constituted from the Relators, Secretaries
and select experts in the science of liturgiology. They meet only in unison with the President
and Secretary of the Consilium. See: P. MARINI, «Il primo Periodo de attività del “Consilium”»,
415.
200 RCOM,
97-98.
79
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
The Members (Fathers) of the Consilium were the most regular and effective facet of the
Consilium. Individuals from among the short-lived group of Consultors (Consulta), were
effective as attachés to A. Bugnini in his meetings with other dicastries of the Roman Curia on an
ad hoc basis. These select Members were either in the Consulta or ex officio members of the
Coetus Relatorum, which consisted of the heads (Relators) of the various Groups (Coetus).
Individual Relators or Consultors were used to represent the thoughts or the mens of the
Consilium when there were meetings various dicastries of the Holy See (e.g., the SRC).201
3.7.3 PROCEDURE FOR ENACTING ANY REFORM APPROVED BY THE CONSILIUM
The Consilium was denied the ability to publish its reforms independently of the SCR.
Furthermore, it was required to consult the SCR in order to mutually agree upon the language of
any decrees of the SCR before they were published and became binding on the Universal
Church. In addition, the Consilium agreed to several steps established by Pope Paul VI to realize
any reform on an official level through a decree through the SRC. The following process was
decided:202
1.) The reform of a rite, when approved by the Fathers, is to be followed by an appropriate period
of experimentation (e.g., concelebration, communion under both kinds).
2.) There would follow an approval and definitive text conjointly agreed upon by both the
Consilium and the SRC.
3.) The definitive approbation of the Pope and publication would occur. Publication was the
responsibility of the SRC.
Ordinary Adunanze: These sessions required mandatory attendance by those
“Members” of the Consilium present in Rome and by seventeen Consultors (who were members
of the SRC), by the Propaganda Fidei and by some others among the Consilium experts. These
201 RCOM,
202 P.
97-98.
MARINI, «Il “Consilium” in piena attività in un clima favorevole», 102.
80
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
ordinary audiences were a Thursday affair twice per month in order to treat administrative
questions and prepare for the plenary audiences.203 Since this organization only met twice and
was then discontinued, it was not included on the organizational chart in Chapter two.
Plenary Adunanze: These were the officially scheduled meetings of all the Fathers,
along with the Secretary and President, to discuss and vote on the work of the various Coetus.
Although various individuals could be present at the invitation of the President, most commonly
the Relators of each Coetus were present and select individual periti were present to answer
questions about select schemas. If a peritus were invited to be present, it was because of his
expertise in a current area of discussion.204 There was no minimum quorum of Fathers in order
to have a valid vote. Also, no official statutes were ever approved to determine if an absolute
majority or a two-thirds majority was necessary to pass any give schema. The audiences or
meetings were scheduled about twice a year and the dates were chosen to fit with the schedules
of the Fathers of the Consilium.205
Relator: The relator was important for guiding the work of any one Group. As such he
personally determined the number of gatherings necessary to produce a schema. Following the
meeting and the compilation of a schema, it was the Group’s (Coetus) secretary who had to send
a copy of the material to the Secretary of the Consilium with a series of informative notes on the
status laboris. These notes served to help the Secretary make sense of the information that was
presented in the redaction.206 Furthermore, it was the duty of the Relator to coordinate and invite
sharing of information between other Groups working on things pertinent to his own Group’s
work.
For example, Coetus X needed to share information and coordinate discussions on a
harmonious integration of the work of Coetus XII (Oratio fidelium) into their own schema for the
203 For
summaries of the sessions, see: P. MARINI, «Il primo Periodo de attività del
“Consilium”: prospettive e difficoltà», 401-439.
204A.-G.
MARTIMORT, «Le rôle de Paul VI dans la réforme liturgique», in Mirabile laudis
canticum. Mélange liturgique (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 60), CLV-Edizioni
Liturgiche, Roma 1991, 218-219.
205 P.
MARINI, «Il “Consilium” in piena attività in un clima favorevole», 98.
206 RCOM
98-99.
81
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Ordo Missae. This was essentially worked out by the Relators communicating with one
another.207
Furthermore, it was generally the practice that each Coetus discussed its own principles
and method of approaching the liturgical reform before beginning the actual practical work of
writing schemata of the new liturgical rites. This often took several sessions in order to finalize
the method and principles of the individual group’s work.208
207 RCOM,
98-99.
208
P. MARINI, «Attivitá complessiva dei gruppi di studio del “Consilium ad exsequendam
Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia”», 297.
82
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR
4.1 THE ORDO MISSAE ACCORDING TO THE MISSA NORMATIVA
The principles of both the Consilium’s and Coetus X’s liturgical program of reform
permit, in this chapter, an evaluation of the individual rites of the Missa normativa to begin. By
evaluating the Consilium’s methodological work and final product of the Liturgy of the Word,
this chapter should be able to discover in what ways the new proposed liturgy was in fact an
authentic expression of liturgical reform according to the methodological principles of the
Consilium. Undoubtedly, there is an importance in thoroughly investigating each reform in order
to determine its value in light of available historical data. Before evaluating the individual
sections of the Normative Mass, it is appropriate to first underline the fact that the reform of the
Pian Missal was not primarily a historico-liturgical reform. Above all it was a pastoral
intervention on the part of the Church.209 Similar to the Second Vatican Council as a whole, the
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy must be read through a pastoral lense.210
Still, the reader
should not think pastoral concerns were a mere innovation of the Council for liturgical reform.
Tra le sollicitudine (1903) of St. Pius X (mentioned in the opening chapter) was the historical
catalyst for an overwhelmingly pastoral impetus of liturgical reform up to and including the
Second Vatican Council.211 The Magisterium, from the time of the reforms begun by St. Pius X,
found its most important pastoral principle in reform to be active participation. It is worth
209
P. MARINI, «Il “Consilium” in piena attivita’ in un clima favorevole», 102.
210
This was the explicit thinking of the Consilium which was presented to Paul VI. This
perspective of the Consilium was reinforced by the Consilium’s periti and some Fathers speaking
with the individual heads of national liturgical commissions and directors of liturgical periodicals
in various reunions in Rome in 1964. See P. MARINI, «Il Consilium in piena attività in un clima
favorevole», 101-102.
211
This opinion is not only held by historians and commentators, but was proposed
officially by the Consilium in its explanation of the Normative Mass and how that Mass came to
be to the synod Fathers in 1967. See J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des Ordo Missae», 268. This is
in the corrected edition of the Memorandum that accompanied the questionnaire to the synod
Fathers in 1967.
83
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
quoting, in support of this idea, Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani212 (who approved the preparatory
Commission’s draft of Sacrosanctum Concilium) in his opening address to the Congress at Assisi
in 1956. In the name of Pope Pius XII he remarks:
“Of course the sacred liturgy may be the object of historical and linguistic
studies, may be considered from a pedagogical point of view in its influence on the
different civilizations; but in the mind of the Supreme Shepherds it has had and will
always have a single goal and identical end, that of making the faithful take part in the
divine mysteries.
Those would be mistaken, therefore, who would see in the various liturgical
reforms and rearrangements, as some have thought of the “Restored Order of Holy
Week,” a nostalgia for ancient formulas, a kind of romanticism based on esthetic or
mystical motive, a sentimentalism for things past. No, absolutely no. The principal and,
we might say, the only reason of such reforms and reorderings is the ardent desire that
the faithful live truly the life of Christ .”213
And even more emphatically he repeasts the same idea when referring to the recent
reform of Holy Week:
“Again, and I insist once more on this point, the motive of the reform was a
deeply anxious pastoral solicitude and not, as some may have thought, a desire
praisworthy in itself, for that matter- to call back ancient ceremonies to new
life.”214
212
Cardinal Cicognani was the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of Rites during the
period of the ante-preparatory and preparatory phases of preparation for Vatican II.
213
G. CICOGNANI, «Opening Address», 5-6
214
G. CICOGNANI, «Opening Address», 1.
84
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
The reader should remember that the Consilium did not principally interest itself in past
historical and liturgical practices but rather with the pastoral exigencies of the present, the
resolutions of which were supposed to lead to a greater interiorization of the liturgy within the
hearts of the faithful. The Second Vatican Council had called for a revision of the Order of the
Mass. It also ordered that the parts and connection between those parts be both retouched and
simplified.
The Consilium necessarily took its inspiration from the Council decrees and its
wishes and chose to revise the Order of Mass pastorally. The liturgical tradition of a
chronologically ordered section of the Missal, called the Ordo Missae, had been of great
practical use and advantage for the celebrant since its initial development in the medieval
period.215 This can explain, to some extent, why there was no concern about eliminating an Ordo
Missae as an anachronism for returning to a patristic liturgy. The desire of the Council and the
Consilium emphasized the vigor of the liturgy in the age of Fathers over and above its individual
rites.
4.2 RITUS INITIALES
The schema of the Normative Order of Mass proposed to the synod, as already outline in
chapter two, began as follows:
“1.)
Populo congregato, sacerdos et ministri, deferentes, pro opportunitate,
librum lectionum, luminaria, crucem, et thuribulum, ad altare accedunt, dum cantus ad
introitum peragitur.
2.) Cum ad altare pervenerint, facta debita reverentia, signant se signo crucis, et
aliquamdiu sistunt. Sacerdos deinde salutat altare osculo, vel alio signo, pro regione
statuto, et pro opportunitate illud populumque incensat.
Postea cum ministris sedem
petit.”216
215
To understand the development of the Ordo Missae in the Latin rite, see B. LUYKX,
«Der Ursprung der gleichbleibenden Teile der heiligen Messe», 72-119.
216
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170; De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 435.
85
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Historical Evaluation of Entrance Procession: First of all, the general outlines of the
procession within the Normative Mass, along with incense and candles and the Gospel, were
restored to their ceremonial place as a normative mode of celebrating Mass. Interesting, though,
is what seems at first glance to be an Oriental introduction of incensing the people. this is now
an option in the Normative Mass.217
This was a creative attempt to promote more active
participation by involving the faithful in the opening procession. Incidentally, its existence in the
West can be traced to Gallican expansion of a formerly more simple use of incense as described
by the Ordines Romani (OR VI, 6).218 In the most ancient Ordines of the Roman liturgy, the
incense was purely processional and was not utilized for incensing altar or people. Of course, the
Consilium Fathers knew this to be the case but they had already agreed, as a general rule, that
something historically used by non-Roman rites does not automatically become inimical to
liturgical reform. This means that, despite the fact that the periti often found Gallican rites to be
inimical to their vision of liturgical reform, a Gallican (or Oriental) ritual could, in theory, be
admissible in the Roman rite if it was reconcilable to the theoretical (fundamental) principles of
the Consilium. In this case it is a common Oriental custom to often turn and incense the people
of God during the liturgy. A formal response to some objections to this innovation was:
“Quod sacerdos ipse populum incensat, est quidem usus Orientalium, sed
nequaquam spernendus, quia speciali dignitate pollet: honor populo Dei congregato a
sacerdote tribuitur, unio huius populi cum altari, et communis totius congregationis
oratio significantur...”219
217
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170; De Missali, n. 23 (24 may 1966)», in RCOM, 435. This
schema contains the commentary as compiled by J. Wagner (relator) and A. Hänggi
(secretarius).
218
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 6, 243.
219
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966)», 367. See the
commentary as compiled by J. Wagner (relator) and A. Hänggi (secretarius).
86
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Finally, it should be noticed that the Introit chant’s position and use remains
unchanged. The general outline of the Introit was allowed to remain the same as the period of the
Ordines Romani. Its function had perdured through the rubrics and practice of the Missal of
Pope St. Pius V as well. It was present too in the schema of the Normative Mass. The only
practical change mandated by the Consilium was to sing the first verse of the Psalm for the
Proper of the day and merely to repeat the antiphon once after the Gloria Patri. This had already
been the case in the early 20th century. The practice of the recital of several verses -or even the
entire Psalm (instead of only a verse after the opening antiphon)- was once again permitted
during the reign of Pope Pius XI, beginning with his very own papal coronation. 220 Any doubts
as to the liceity of such a practice were resolved by the SCR and its official response to the
dubium entitled: “De Cantu Introitus”, 29 January 1947.221
Historical evaluation of Prayers at the Foot of the Altar: Secondly, some
observations of the Consilium’s work are appropriate about the rites ad pedem altaris. First,
there is present in the Normative schema a call to simplification. This begins following the
debita reverentia made to the altar in paragraph two above. There is a curious rubric in paragraph
two, after mentioning the celebrant making the sign of the cross, it says: “...et aliquamdiu
sistunt...”. It is puzzling as to why the Consilium Fathers, following the procession, wanted the
celebrant to remain at the foot of the altar, so to speak, before greeting the altar with the
customary kiss.
One actually finds here that the prayers at the foot of the altar (i.e., their
historical point of genesis) have in fact been retained. They were merely simplified in accord
with their original known form. When analyzing what the Council calls the “sound tradition”222
of the Church, the periti deemed this simplification useful and necessary in order to return the
liturgy’s celebration back the “vigor…[it]…had in the Tradition of the Fathers.”223 Again, as
220
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 1, 327.
221
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «De cantu introitus», in Documenta pontificia ad
instaurationem liturgicam spectantia 1, ed. A. Bugnini (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae
sectio practica 9), Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1953, 93-94.
222
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia», 98.
223
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia», 114.
87
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
already mentioned in chapter three, one of the Consilium’s concerns was the Constitution’s call
to simplify rites, which was particularly interpreted to mean the expunging of Gallican
expansions of formerly shorter and less complex rites.224
The following citation from Ordo Romanus Primus will be a helpful example to see the
similarity between the model form of Mass (OR I) and the Normative Mass:
“46.
Tunc subdiaconus <sequens> cum tymiameaterio praecedit ante
ipsum, mittens incensum...ante pontificiem usque ante altare.
49.
Tunc peraccedens, antequam veniat...et pertransit pontifex in caput
scolae et inclinat caput ad altare, surgens <et orans> et faciens crucem in fronte sua,
et dat pacem uni episcopo de ebdomadariis et archipresbitero et diaconibus omnibus.
50. Et respiciens ad priorem scolae annuit ei ut dicat Gloriam; et prior
scolae inclinat se pontifici et inponit. Quartus vero scolae praecedit ante pontificem,
ut ponat oratorium ante altare; et accedens pontifex orat super ipsum usque ad
repetitionem versus.
51. Nam diaconi surgunt quando dicit: Sicut erat, ut salutent altaris latera,
prius duo et duo vicissim redeuntes ad pontificem.
Et surgens pontifex osculat
evangelia et altare et accedit ad sedem et stat versus ad orientem.”225
Immediately after the ministers greet the Pontiff (OR I, 51), an oratorium 226 is placed
before the altar so that the celebrant might prostrate himself in prayer for some time before
approaching the altar to perform the sacred rites. Immediately following silent preparatory
prayers at the foot of the altar OR I has the Pontiff kiss the Gospels and the altar, and then
immediately go to the seat in order to celebrate solemn Mass. The Normative Mass attempts to
224 CONSILIUM,
«Schema, n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», in RCOM,
252-353. The Consilium explicitly considers this the form that needs to be imitated in the reform.
225Les
226
Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2, 83.
This seems to be a prayer mat used for prostration.
88
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
preserve some semblance of this tradition. First, the celebrant signs himself227 with the cross
silently -following a bow or genuflection- and then bows in prayer a bit and finally kisses the
altar. However, it should be emphasized that the Missa normativa should not be construed as a
slavish imitation of the Pope’s preparatory prayer that takes place at the foot of the altar in the
classic Roman rite of OR I. The Consilium Fathers eliminated many of the ceremonial elements,
which were more historically linked to the imperial order of precedence of rank and file honors.
This simplification of a complex custom of ritual greetings was foreign to modern customs and
cultural conditions in very many places. Furthermore, the simplification in the previous prayers
at the foot of the altar of the 1962 Missal (particularly the sign of the cross and Ps. 42 with its
versicle) was a means to allow for an inclusive rite of penance for all the faithful, instead of
continuing a private act of the celebrant at the opening of the Mass as found here in OR I and in
the Missal of St. Pius V by means of the prayers at the foot of the altar. The following points are
important to note regarding the initial private prayer of the celebrant. The rubrics for the
Normative Mass, although there is no Ritus servandus Missae like the Pian Missal, concur with
the Pian Missal whereby the sign of the cross is made in the same fashion exactly as found in the
pre-Vatican II Missals (touching the head, shoulders and breast).228 This reform may be described
as a mean between the Trinitarian formula spoken privately by the celebrant in the Pian Missal
when signing himself and the silent sign of the cross on the forehead only (OR I, 49). The sign
of the cross as practiced in the Pian Missal was generally considered in liturgical commentaries
to be of purely Gallican origin.229 Generally speaking, such accretions are typically denoted as
little more than a corruption of classic Roman liturgy, as already mentioned in Chapter three.230
Often, the addition of some privately said formula (i.e., the Trinitarian invocation) was
interpreted as a Gallican tendency to merely satisfy a cultural penchant to accompany every
227
According to the instructions of the Ritus servandus Missae of the Editio typica 1962
Pian Missal there is the rubric of crossing on the body, not the forehead.
228
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 435. See
the commentary as compiled by J. Wagner (relator) and A. Hänggi (secretarius).
229J. JUNGMANN,
230
The Mass of the Roman Rite 1, 296.
CONSILIUM, «Quaestiones tractandae, n. 6 (17 aprilis 1964)», in RCOM, 334-335.
89
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
ritual action with a verbal formula.231 Given the fact that such a Trinitarian formula was absent
from the earliest manuscripts describing the sign of the cross during the ritus initiales of the
Roman liturgy, it was argued that to drop such a formula would in fact be in accord with the
Consilium’s principles. It was in fact dropped from the Missa normativa by official vote.232
Thus, in the Normative Mass there is merely a procession to the altar while the introit was sung.
At the end of the procession the proper reverence to the altar or Sacrament is made, and then a
silent gesture of the sign of the cross is made by only the celebrant. Finally the celebrant pauses a
bit in sacred silence (or prayer) and then goes up to kiss the altar. Afterwards, he goes to the seat
and says Dominus vobiscum. 233 Obviously, this reformed and simplified introductory rite could
be argued to be consistent with the principle of rejecting certain types of accretions.234 In
conclusion, the “sound tradition” that the Consilium imitated for the deletion of the sign of the
cross’ spoken formula (here OR I, 49) relies on the witness of the oldest complete description of
the Roman liturgy as described in OR I. This was the most ancient rite the periti were able to
study. Originally (OR I, 49) the Pontiff prayed silently before the altar upon an oratorium before
approaching his chair. Later this vacuum of silence was amply filled by prayers of preparation
and apologies (confessions) in the Gallican rites.235 The Normative Mass schema thus far can be
said to follow (in very general outlines) OR I. The relatively simple structure of the Mass rite
according to Ordo I is still considered the ideal outline for Roman liturgical praxis according to
several noted scholars.236 A final support for the Consilium’s rejection of the Trinitarian formula
accompanying the sign of the cross is proposed by Vicenzo Raffa, where he says:
231 A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 339-40.
232 A.
BUGNINI, Th Reform of the Liturgy, 175.
233
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170; De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966)», 375.
234 To
compare the 1962 Missal to the classic Roman liturgy in order to see these
“accretions”, see Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2,82-84.
235
A. KING, The Liturgy of the Roman Church, Longmans, Green and Company, New
York 1957, 225-230.
236 A.
CHUPUNGCO –K. PECKLERS, «Storia della liturgia romana», 149-160.
90
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“In conclusione: un segno di croce, congiunto con la formula trinitaria come
atto comunitario, compiuto da tutta l’assemblea al principio della messa è estraneo
alla tradizione propriamente liturgica romana.”237
The usage of the Pian Missal of 1570 was consistent with tradition of OR I in as much as
the cross was done as a private act of the celebrant. The innovation on the part of the Pian Missal
was the use of a large sign of the cross over the body (as instructed by the Ritus servandus
included within the Missal) in place of the smaller cross on the forehead only. Lastly, the Pian
Missal had the addition of the Trinitarian formula accompanying the ritual gesture of the sign of
the cross as well.
Full Conscious and Active Participation: The sign of the cross within the Pian missal
was merely a private act of the celebrant,238 thus excluding the faithful from vocal participation.
Even the server did not respond with an Amen to the invocation of the Trinitarian formula at the
foot of the altar. Now it is a communal prayer.
Manifestation of the Church: Furthermore, the previous prayers of the Pian Missal
could be designated in every way a ‘clerical monopoly’. Some of them were composed
specifically to be recited privately between priest and server. If this were not true for all Masses
(e.g., the exceptional dialogue Masses), still at any sung Mass or solemn Mass the people were
impeded from participation when the Introit and Kyrie eleison were sung by the schola cantorum
while the priest and server privately dialogued. Thus the reform removed this quasi-private act
from the opening of a community synaxis of praise. The first verbal act of the celebrant in the
Normative Mass is one of salutation, as described below. Instead of a private preparation of the
celebrant there is only a communal dimension to the opening liturgy.
Substantial Unity, Not Rigid Uniformity: the Normative Mass preserved the current
universal custom of signing the head, shoulders and breast for the sign of the cross, in order to
take into account the modern man’s time and customs. Simultaneously, the Consilium eliminated
237
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 262.
238 J.
JUNGMANN, «De actu poenientiali infra Missam inserto conspectus historicus»,
Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 257-264.
91
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
a formerly private ritual act by eliminating the private dialogue between server and celebrant.
The return to a small cross on the celebrant’s forehead might have appeared to be archaeologism.
Most of the Catholic world opened religious ceremonies and private devotions with a more
ample sign of the cross of the body, not on forehead alone.
Ecumenical Dimension:
There is also an ecumenical dimension in reinserting the
Gospel into the opening procession, intending to emphasize the honor due to the Word of God.
This is especially with regard to Protestant and various Christian denominations that tend to
highlight ceremonially the Bible and its sacredness during their own celebrations. However, this
resemblance may be only per accidens. Coetus X was interested in a “normative” ritual and so
logically included the more solemn elements of pontifical liturgy into the ordinary celebration of
Mass.
4.3 SALUTATION
Following the sign of the cross and greeting of the altar in the Missa normativa the rubric
appears instructing the priest at the chair to extend his hands and greet the people, saying:
“3.) Omnibus stantibus, sacerdos, ad populum versus, et manus extendens,
eum salutat, cantans vel clara voce dicens: DOMINUS VOBISCUM.
Populus
respondet: ET CUM SPIRITU TUO.
vel sacerdos: GRATIA VOBIS ET PAX A DEO PATRE NOSTRO, ET DOMINO IESU
CHRISTO. Populus respondet: BENEDICTUS DEUS, ET PATER DOMINI NOSTRI
IESU CHRISTI.
vel sacerdos: GRATIA DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI, ET CARITAS DEI, ET
COMMUNICATIO SANCTI SPIRITUS SIT CUM OMNIBUS VOBIS.
respondet: BENEDICTUS DEUS IN SAECULA.” 239
239
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 492.
92
Populus
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Historical Evaluation of the Salutation: The Pian Missal had no salutation directed
toward the faithful until just before the opening collect of the Mass. In the Normative Mass, there
is an attempt to imitate in some way OR I of the 8th century. Yet, after the reformers cut out the
private prayers at the foot of the altar, the greeting above follows in order to engage the
congregation at the very beginning of the rite of Mass. The ancient Roman OR I lacks such a
greeting at this point. There is, rather, the immediate intoning of the Kyrie and then the Gloria
before the Pontiff greets the people with Pax vobis:
“52.
Schola vero, finita antiphona, inponit Kyrieeleison.
Et continuo acoliti
ponunt cereostata in pavimento ecclesiae...Prior vero scolae custodit ad pontificem, ut ei
annuat quando vult mutare numerum laetaniae et inclinat se pontifici.
53. Quando vero finierint, dirigens se pontifex contra populum incipit Gloria in
excelsis Deo. Et statim regerat se ad orientem usquedum finiatur. Post hoc dirigens se
iterum ad populum dicens: Pax vobis, et regerans se ad orientem dicit: Oremus et
sequitur oratio. Post finitam sedit. Similiter episcopi vel presbiteri sedent.” 240
Without a doubt, the new place for the salutation noticeably displaces the older position
of the salutation. The old location was immediately before the collect. The Consilium relocates
the greeting before the penitential rite and Gloria. It appears that this reform is obviously not in
strict adherence to the chronological order of prayer in the tradition according to OR I. As such
is an innovation. Ordinarily, an innovation was presumed to require some necessary good of the
Church as required by Sacrosanctum Concilium (no. 23).241 The fact of the matter is that the
original place of this greeting in the OR I and the Pian Missal was immediately before the
collect. The Roman tradition described in all of the earliest Ordines Romani records the practice
of greeting the faithful before the collect only.242 The innovation of removing the salutation from
before the Collect to after the sign of the cross has no historical basis in the West, i.e., when
240
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2, 84-85.
241CONCILIUM
242
OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia», 106.
CONSILIUM, «Quaestiones tractandae, n. 6 (17 aprilis 1964)», in RCOM, 330.
93
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
taking into account the Roman liturgy after the introduction of the Kyrie eleison and Gloria.
Therefore, in order to appeal to tradition for such a reform one would need to go back even
further. Some periti, at the time, emphasized the fact that St. Augustine somewhat vaguely refers
to his entrance into the Church in procession. He greets the assembly and then begins the
readings.243 Although some scholars opine that this would seem to be the primitive practice of
the apostolic Church before a true formation of individual rites is considered to have taken place,
the greeting takes place before the readings, not a penitential rite. Augustine’s Mass rite probably
reflects the African liturgy. The rituals and practices of the African church are still not known in
great detail. It is possible that Augustine’s description of the Mass might reflect Gallican
elements or Roman ones, or merely an independent local custom.244 First of all the structure of
the African liturgy, in light of recent studies, is still imperfectly understood in its individual rites
and euchology. It would be dangerous to pretend that a real knowledge exists of the North
African liturgy, especially considering the fact that no manuscripts or detailed descriptions of it
exist.245 With this relatively scant historical evidence in mind, it is interesting that the Fathers of
the Consilium displace the greeting to this point since it is not found thus in the salutation as
found in OR I. This salutation is actually in a very ancient and relatively original position. In the
ancient Roman Order (OR I) the celebrant enters the sanctuary and goes to the chair and says
Pax vobis. Afterwards the Oremus, collect and Scripture readings follow.246 Although the liturgy
of Augustine is not necessarily historically relevant for referencing this reform in the Roman rite,
the scholarly reconstruction of the general outlines of his African rite of the Mass do in fact agree
with the same overall structure of the skeleton of the ancient Roman liturgy.247 OR I mentions
243
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 265.
244J.
JUNGMANN, The Early Liturgy. To the Time of Gregory the Great, tr. F. Brunner,
University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN 1959, 233-234.
245
G. RAMIS, «Celebrazione eucaristica nell’occidente non romano», in Scientia
Liturgica, vol. 3, ed. professori del Pontificio Istituto Liturgico S. Anselmo, Piemme, Casale
Monferrato 1998, 261-263.
246
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2, 84-86.
247
G. RAMIS, «Celebrazione eucaristica nell’occidente non romano», 261-263.
94
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
additional rituals to the Pax vobis of the Pontiff: a.) The procession b.) The reverence of the
Sancta,248 altar and ministers c.) The prayers at the foot of the altar and its kiss/greeting d.) The
Kyrie e.) The Gloria f.) Greeting g.) collect h.) lessons/readings. All these elements, from letters
“b” to “e” inclusively, are later additions to the Roman rite as will be explained. If these
additions (accretions) are removed from the beginning of the liturgy, the ancient nascent
structure of the Mass appears, namely:
Lessons/readings.249
a.) Procession and greeting b.) Roman collect c.)
Contrary to this observation, scholars recognize that the salutation
represents the first time that the assembly is directly addressed in OR I. This greeting occurs
only after having already sung three hymns (Introit, Kyrie, Gloria). 250 Still the Consilium did not
think it odd to displace the ancient entrance greeting of the Roman liturgy in the Normative
Mass. J. Jungmann’s officially adopted historical studies of the liturgy recognized too that the
Dominus vobiscum was a greeting somewhat inseparably linked to the collect and was even
potentially linked linguistically to the collect. The Dominus begins the call to prayer while the
Per Dominum ends the prayer just begun.251 However in spite of these strong ties between the
salutation and the collect it was nonetheless displaced. What was the necessary reason that
ruptured this ancient and effective format in order to bring about good for the entire Church?
The Fathers of the Consilium approved this reform in light of the periti explanation as follows:
“Altari salutato, sacerdos, ad sedem stans, populum salutat, manifestans
congregationis (assemblea), cui praeest, initium nunc fieri, sicut mos est in hominum
248
I.e., the preserved consecrated Eucharistic species held in pyx from the previous Papal
celebration.
249G.
DIX, The Shape of the Liturgy, Continuum, London 142003, 457-458.
250This
structure of accretions was also alluded to in the official memorandum to the
synod Fathers by the Consilium. See J. WAGNER, «Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De
Ordine Missae” e sulle esigenze possibilità e mete della riforma dell’ “Ordo Missae” in
conformità ai decreti conciliari», in Liturgia opera divina e umana.Studi sulla riforma liturgica
offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo 70º compleanno, ed. P. Jounel -R.
Kaczynski -G. Paqualletti (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 26), Edizioni liturgiche,
Roma 1982, 275.
251
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 1, 359-361.
95
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
congregationibus aperiendis...Salutatio populi in initio Missae ante lectiones facienda
antiquior est quam oratio; proinde e indole sua non est elementum introductorium
orationis, sed per se stans, quidquid sit de traditione posteriori.”252
Sound Tradition and Legitimate Progress: In the earlier schemata of the Normative
Mass as proposed by the Consilium.253 the traditional ancient order was preserved, as in the Pian
Missal and the OR I. Eventually a series of debates finally led the reformers to displace the
salutation in favor of the place it now occupies in this schema of the Normative Mass. Rather
than argue (as cited above) that the nature of the salutation is not per se linked to the collect
(which is merely excusing the innovation), the Consilium more positively argued that it would in
fact be pastorally effective to have a greeting to fill the vacuum of silence created by the
omission of the prayers at the foot of the altar. North of Italy this gap of inaction and silence was
gradually filled with various privately recited prayers and apologies. These eventually constitute
the prayers at the foot of the altar. The apologies could be argued to be logical extensions of the
prayer of humility as privately prayed by the celebrant in the OR I while upon his oratorium, as
already mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. However, the Consilium eliminated prayers at
the foot of the altar and returned the initial rites of the liturgy to the original private and silent
prayer of preparation by the celebrant. The Consilium periti imply the following in their
understanding of the Western liturgy: if the universal practice in the West seems to have been
first a greeting and afterwards the collect and finally readings, then it is actually the Kyrie eleison
and Gloria which have obscured the natural opening of the Mass rite. Analogically, as the OR I
is to the Pian Missal, so is the “patristic tradition” to the OR I. Therefore, this primitive
procession and greeting are really the ipsissima res of the primitive Mass rite. The greeting is
simply being returned to its natural place. At least the Consilium argued this was the case, both
historically and actually, since when assemblies meet both in the ancient and today’s modern
churches it seems most appropriate to begin with some sort of greeting from the presider. This
252
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 491. See
the commentary as compiled by J. Wagner (relator) and A. Hänggi (secretarius).
253
Not necessarily in later schemata.
96
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
does leave one dangling methodological question. Often, Gallican rites are inimical to the liturgy
as opposed to “authentic rites” that historical predate them. However, when one pits a probable
inference of a patristic rite against the certain knowledge of an “authentic” Roman rite (OR I),
there does not seem to be an objective methodological value system for resolving which has
pride of place, or objectively greater value. All things being equal, more generally, there exists
no method for resolving the question as to whether or not patristic rites dating before the OR I
always have pride of place when in conflict with either rites of OR I or even, as will be
demonstrated, the later Medieval period.
Ecumenical Dimension of Trinitarian Salutation: The salutation contains a further
innovation as well. The new optional Trinitarian salutations based on texts in St. Paul’s epistles
are now used ad libitum for the Mass greetings in this schema of the Normative Mass. The only
liturgical precedent that could be argued to be have been historically in use in the vicinity of
Rome was the dialogue before the anaphora, for instance as found in the Byzantine Liturgy. 254 In
contradiction to the Novus Ordo Missae, which has both a Trinitarian formula for the sign of the
cross at the beginning of Mass and a further option of a Trinitarian formula at the greeting that
follows, the Normative Mass demonstrates a mean between two different liturgical practices.
First, it does not slavishly imitate the OR I, arguing for pastoral advantage of the faithful by an
initial salutation. Secondly, it avoids the noticeable doublet (two Trinitarian formulas in a row at
the beginning of Mass) as exhibited by the retention of the sign of the cross and its Trinitarian
formula in the Novus Ordo Missae. Thus, the Normative Mass is able to begin the liturgical
celebration by both a Trinitarian invocation (taking into account the near universal usage of such
an invocation in the rites of Christendom) while avoiding a “useless doublet.”255
254
The opening of the dialogue between priest and people at the beginning of the
Byzantine “preface” also begins with St. Paul’s Trinitarian greeting in place of the Latin:
Dominus Vobiscum. See L´Eucologio Barbarini gr. 336. Seconda edizione riveduta. Con
traduzione in lingua italiana, ed. S. Parenti, -E. Velkovska (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae
Subsidia 80), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 2000, 76.
255
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 265. In a footnote, V. Raffa admits the embarrassing
problem of having introduced a new doublet into the Novus Ordo liturgy, which rite was
supposed to eliminate such undesirable occurrences that often occurred in the Pian Missal.
97
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
4.4 ACTIO POENITENTIALIS
4.4.1 KYRIE ELEISON
After the greeting within the Normative Mass, the penitential act begins. The Missa
normativa eliminates many of the prayers at the foot of the altar. In place of the these prayers the
Kyrie eleison is recited exclusively. Nonetheless, the following rubric appears in the April 1967
Mass schema:
“4.) Deinde sequitur actio poenitentialis.”256
Historical evaluation of the rubric: Although in the original schema of the Missa
normativa the only reference to a penitential action is to that of the Kyrie eleison, Pope Paul VI
intervened before the presentation of this Mass to the synod Fathers in 1967. He asked that a
Confiteor be considered for inclusion into the Mass schema. This is not properly the work of the
Consilium, nonetheless it deserves sufficient treatment and explanation to understand why the
intervention took place and what was the new rite’s content.
First of all, the original schema of the Normative Mass as just noted, contained no
apology for sins on the part of the celebrant.257 There was division among several Fathers on this
point, as will become clear. F. Antonelli, as secretary for the Congregation of Rites, followed
closely the liturgical work of the periti of the Consilium. Seeing that the majority of experts had
voted to ommit the Confiteor from the Normative Mass, he made a personal intervention,
reporting:
“Chiedo ed ottengo subito la parola. In sostanza io ho detto questo: che
comprendo bene la difficoltà incontrata da Mons.Wagner e i suoi collaboratori con il
Confiteor, perché in realtà, nè in fonti storiche antichissime come Giustino e Ippolito,
256
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 437. See
the commentary as compiled by J. Wagner (relator) and A. Hänggi (secretarius).
257
“Apology” is used synonymously with a prayer of guilt or admission of sin.
98
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
nè negli antichi Ordines Romani si incontra mai un atto penitenziale nella Messa.
D’altra parte la cosa è prospettata da S. Paolo: Probet autem seipsum homo et sic
de pane illo edat et de calice bibat, ecc. Nella Didachè poi, cap.14, abbiamo questa
testimonianza gravissima: Die autem Dominica congregati frangite panem et gratias
agite, postquam confessi eritis peccata vestra, ut mundum sit sacrificium vestrum.
Inoltre è da riflettere che pecca di archeologismo, non solo chi vuole
riassumere istituti ormai decaduti e senza efficacia, solo perché c’erano
nell’antichità, ma anche chi non vuole accogliere elementi validissimi, solo perché
non si trovano nell’antichità. Il Confiteor è mediovale; nel sec. X circa entra anche
nella Messa e vi rimane fissato nella forma attuale da S. Pio V (1570). Ora è un
elemento teologicamente ovvio e pastoralmente utilissimo. Non vedo come si
potrebbe tralasciare. Il suo posto mi piacerebbe all’inizio, dopo il bacio dell’altare e
il saluto all’assemblea. La forma può essere ridotta. Per esempio: Fratres, carissimi,
confiteamur peccata nostra Deo et veniam impetremur. Omnes: Confiteor Deo quod
peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere. Domine miserere.258
E aggiungerei l’assoluzione che è un sacramentale di cui abbiamo spiegato
sempre l’utilità e l’efficacia in questo momento per purificare l’anima. Basterebbe la
formula: Indulgentiam259
peccatorum nostrorum tribuat nobis omnipotens et
misercors Deus.”260
258
A Confiteor was in fact proposed by the Consilium for the so-called private Mass
schema, which was not ready for the synod Fathers. It was proposed to simply allow the use of
this schema by the celebrant in place of the verse response-method referred to further below.
The Confiteor ran as follows: “Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, coram Angelis et Sanctis eius, et tibi,
frater, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione, mea culpa. Et precor te, orare
pro me.” See CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 224, De Missali, n. 36 (11 aprilis 1967)» in RCOM*,
505.
259
The Misereatur was used for a different form of the Missa normativa posterior to the
Mass schema of 24 May 1966. It was developed as a result of the wishes of the Pope.
Furthermore, the Indulgentiam was added onto the 24 May 1966 schema as an addendum, a little
before the synod of bishops, as a result of an intervention on the part of the Pontiff as well.
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 218, De Missali, n. 34 (19 aprilis 1967)», in RCOM 569-571.
260
CFA, 233.
99
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
These observations caused F. Antonelli to speak with the Pope. Paul VI personally
intervened, seeing merit in F. Antonelli’s concerns. At the Pope´s request there were created two
different suggestions for a penitential rite. The first proposal for a penitential rite was along the
verse-response method used in the Missal of St. Pius V, following the recital of Psalm 42. The
Priest and server dialogued, alternating the responses: Deus, tu conversus et vivificabis nos.
Response: Et plebs tua vivificatur in te. Priest: Ostende nobis, Domine misericordiam tuam.
Response: Et salutare tuum da nobis. Priest: Domine, exaudi orationem meam. Response: Et
clamor meus ad te veniat. Priest: Dominus Vobiscum. Response: Et cum spiritu tuo. 261 Because
of the Pope’s intervention, the Consilium was constrained to take a vote on the re-introduction of
the rejected penitential rite.
The vote, even considering the Pope’s pressure, was not at all
unanimous. Of thirty-two Fathers voting on whether or not to take up the Pope’s proposal,
twenty-two Fathers still voted with a Non placet for its re-introduction, while two Fathers
abstained from voting. Furthermore, it was asked where such a Confiteor or apology should be
placed, if it were to be a part of the Missa normativa.262 Thirteen Fathers opined that it should be
at the beginning of Mass, ten at the offertory, one before Communion. Two others suggested that
the conference of bishops decide. There were three abstentions. Obviously this proposed rite only
multiplied difficulties and created division.263
4.4.2 THE KYRIE IN RELATION TO PENITENTIAL COMPOSITIONS
Finally, a proposal was added for the verse-response method in order to satisfy the Pope’s
request. The method proposed to the Fathers was as follows:
261 Missale
Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti concilii tridentini restitutum summorum
pontificum cura recognitum, Mame, Toronacibus 1962, 308.
262CONSILIUM,
«Conspectus suffragationum. Quae in Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus
21, 22, et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae sunt», in RCOM*, 443.
263CONSILIUM,
«Schema, n. 218, De Missali, n. 34 (19 aprilis 1967)», in RCOM, 570.
100
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“1.) Post salutationem sacerdotis in initio Missae, ipse sacerdos una cum
populo, recitat vel cantat: MISERERE NOSTRI, DOMINE, QUIA PECCAVIMUS
TIBI.
2.) Et fit momentum silentii.
3.)
Postea sacerdos dicit vel cantat: OSTENDE NOBIS, DOMINE,
MISERICORDIAM TUAM. Populus respondit: ET SALUTARE TUUM DA NOBIS.
4.)
Tunc sacerdos dat absolutionem, dicens: INDULGENTIAM,
ABSOLUTIONEM ET REMISSIONEM OMNIUM PECCATORUM NOSTRORUM
TRIBUAT NOBIS OMINIPOTENS ET MISERCORS DOMINUS.
5.) In Quadragesima et in diebus paenitentialibus, potest, ad libitum, uti
formula pro Missa “privata” provisa, nempe cum recitatione “Confiteor”.
6.) E contra durante Tempore Paschali et in maioribus solemnitatibus,
pro opportunitate, hic actus omitti posset.” 264
The Psalm verses here presented are from Psalm fifty and Psalm eighty-four and attempt
to draw the penitent into a humble confession. These verses are not unlike the verses that were
dropped from the Pian Missal by the Consilium. There is little explanation needed for these short
verses. Although it was inspired from that of the Pian Missal, and thus potentially inimical to the
liturgical emphasis of the Consilium, it seems that the utter simplicity of the verse-response
method pressured the Consilium to offer this as an option.265 This problem was further
compounded by using other Gallican forms, often foreign to the Roman rite according to the
thinking of the periti of the Consilium. For instance there is also present the use of the medieval
absolution formula Misereatur following the use of this option; without a theological explanation
of its meaning or even demonstration of its organic connection to the Mass. This remains
problematic since it is purely an absolution formula that seems to have found its way into the
Mass rite.
264
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 218, De Missali, n. 34 (19 aprilis 1967)», in RCOM 570-571.
265
RCOM,216-217.
101
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
F. Antonelli’s use of the Scripture and the Didache obviously did not propose an
historical and literary argument that some similar prayers had once existed during the time of
New Testament worship. Instead, he implies that a Confiteor satisfies the exigencies of his two
historical references. He also argues that the same apology (confession) would satisfy the
exigencies that exist nowadays within the context of a rite of Mass. Taking the majority of
scholarly opinion into account, as represented in the Consilium, it was still difficult to justify
medieval absolution formulas (whether Indulgentiam or Misereatur) in order to conclude the
penitential rite. It was not only considered a problem from the perspective of theological clarity,
but a problem of accretions that were particularly marked to be dropped since they were typical
examples of medieval “private” rites within the Mass. F. Antonelli’s pastoral argument was the
strongest, since this a guiding principle of reform as delineated in Chapter three.266 F. Antonelli’s
concerns were potentially negated by the fact that the Confiteor, as a public act as opposed to a
private act whispered during the Introit, seriously elongated the Liturgy of the Word. This was
arguably equally un-pastoral.267 F. Antonelli’s objections will be dealt with again in conjunction
with Kyrie eleison, which the Consilium proposed thus:
“5.) Sequuntur invocationes: KYRIE ELEISON. KYRIE ELEISON.
KYRIE ELEISON. CHRISTE ELEISON. CHRISTE ELEISON. CHRISTE ELEISON.
KYRIE ELEISON. Quae omitti possunt, si habetur hymnus GLORIA.268
266
Father Joseph Jungmann, who was not dogmatic about rejecting it from the Mass,
strongly argues its rooted-ness in popular piety. See J. JUNGMANN, «De actu poenitentiali infra
Missam inserto conspectus historicus», 257-264.
267
J. WAGNER, «Memorandum sull’attivitá del Coetus X», 274-278.
268
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 170; De Missali n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schema Primum
Ordinis Missae Normativae», in RCOM, 437. See the commentary as compiled by J. Wagner
(relator) and A. Hänggi (secretarius).
102
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Historical Evaluation:
The medieval apology (Confiteor) of the Pian Missal is
considered among the most typical features of the Gallican (Franco-German) rites.269 These
prayers of sorrow and confession of sin began to make their manuscript debut between the 8th
and the 9th centuries in the time of Pepin and Charlemagne. The apology for sin as found in the
Pian Missal was of later date and form, however. The basic form of the Confiteor known in the
Pian Missal can be dated to about the 11th century. Although apologies began to be used already
in Gaul by the 8th century, the form of the double Confiteor became normative only around the
11th century. This form is exemplified in the Missal of Pius V. The double Confiteor is the
practice whereby the celebrant first says his confession and then the server says: Misereatur tui
omnipotens Deus, etc. Then, having prayed for the celebrant as he requested, the server confesses
and the celebrant in turn prays the Misereatur for him. This late medieval style of apology seems
inseparably linked to the double Confiteor. The early apologies were more given to exclusively
personal confession of sins by the celebrant in a low voice. Sometimes he even listed real sins
that he had recently committed. Eventually the apologies became more formalistic and involved
the minister or servers aiding the celebrant. However, this was a practice which both presumed
the non-participation of the faithful, and actually resulted in their further exclusion because of
reciting the apology as a private act between priest and server. Therefore, the Consilium voted to
delete these late medieval forms of the apologies.
Theodore Klauser, a noted and popular scholar during the period of the reform, reflected
very well the general scholarly outlook of the time of Sacrosanctum Concilium’s approval. He
wrote that most of the developments from the high medieval period of the liturgy, from a pastoral
perspective, were looked upon as little more than decadent accretions.270 With this in mind, it
was a bit surprising that there was some division as to whether or not to retain the Confiteor
within the Normative Mass’ penitential act. The Fathers’ vote, after having read the studies of
269
Le Pontificale romano-germanique du dixiéme siècle 2, ed. C. Vogel, -K. Elze, Città
del Vaticano 1963, 16-17. It should also be noted that these facts gleaned about the Confiteor are
also the opinion of the official historical text for the Consilium in vol. 1 of Missarum Sollemnia.
270
T. KLAUSER, A Short History of the Western Liturgy, Oxford University Press, New
York !1979, 94-116. This book is of special import since it went through dozens of editions when
taking into account the original and its translations.
103
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
the periti, is not really unanimous. Of the thirty-six voting Fathers deciding whether or not the
Mass was to include the penitential act apart from the Kyrie, twenty-eight desired the apology to
be removed and eight periti voted to inject it into the reformed Mass.271
However, when the
same vote was allowed to the bishops at the Synod in 1967, after their experience of the
Normative Mass, they desired to keep the penitential act at a proportionately much higher rate
than the Consilium. Among the bishops eighty-seven percent had a desire to retain it within the
Mass. This certainly was not a result of knowledge of liturgical history or critical thinking. More
probably it was reflective of an understandable sentimentality toward old and familiar forms.272
Initially, following their original reform principles, the periti rejected the Confiteor outright for
the sake of fidelity to their critical historical and pastoral views. 273 Relying on the Pope’s support
for their liturgical work, the Conciium did not anticipate such a lack of enthusiasm from the
synod Fathers.
Substantial unity not rigid uniformity: Turning to the Kyrie, the schema of the
Normative Mass could be criticized as being somewhat impoverished. The Consilium Fathers
knew full well, per J. Jungmann’s magnum opus of the history of the Mass, that St. Gregory the
Great long ago defended the Roman invocation of the Kyrie eleison as something peculiar and
particular to the Roman rite. The use of the Christe in the series of invocations was unlike the
litanies of the Orient.274 What was specifically Roman about the Kyrie was that it was first
intoned by clergy and then repeated by the faithful. Further it was combined with petitions, but
only on solemn feasts. The original plan suggested by the Consilium was to use petitions like
271
CONSILIUM, «Conspectus suffragationum. Quae in Sessione plenaria “Consilii”,
diebus 21, 22, et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae sunt», in RCOM*,
443. See the Suffragationes.
272
This was the opinion of one of the under-secretaries of the Consilium. See C. BRAGA,
«De Liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides Liturgicae 81 (1967) 467.
273
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», in RCOM, 356.
274
The history of St. Gregory the Great and the liturgy had already been known in great
detail since the beginning of 20th century through pioneer studies. For example, see A.
FORTESCUE, The Mass. A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam, NJ
42003, 239.
104
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
those found in the ancient supplications of the Deprecatio Gelasii of the 5th century that would
end with Kyrie eleison. Some experts had suggested introducing petitions. Then, each petition
would end with a Kyrie eleison as a response.275 Restoring these petitions was probably attractive
to the periti since it restored a rite that was argued to have fallen into desuetude as an accident of
history. 276 Thus, it can be argued that any reintroduction of supplications is really organic since it
neither displaces the Kyrie nor changes its meaning or liturgical function. On the contrary, it
specifies the request for which the Lord’s mercy is sought. The Consilium periti, relying
explicitly on J. Jungmann’s research, proposed that the introduction of these litanies gradually
led to the deletion of the Prayer of the Faithful. The Prayer of the Faithful, therefore, dropped out
of Mass because of the introduction of the Kyrie eleison and its adjoining petitions. This was
attributed to the actions of Pope Gelasius.277 These Kyrie petitions were thought to have replaced
the petitions that occurred in the Prayer of the Faithful. The Prayer of the Faithful was thought to
have existed before the addition of the Kyrie into the Roman Mass. 278 If the Consilium accepted
this theory, it would create a doublet by a repetition of such petitions in the restored oratio
communis.279 By restoring completely the Kyrie, along with petitions attached to it, there was a
strong argument that a useless doublet in the Mass would then exist due to the Prayer of the
Faithful’s restoration. This had to be done because of the command of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
These additional prayers often express the exact same requests.280 As a result of this problem the
275
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», in RCOM,
356-357.
276
A. CHAVASSE, La liturgie de la ville de Rome (Analecta liturgica18), Centro Studi S.
Anselmo, Roma 1993, 40-42.
277
CONSILIUM, De Oratione communi seu fidelium. Natura, momentum ac structura.
Criteria atque specimina Coetibus territorialibus Episcoporum proposita, Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1966, 164.
278
J. JUNGMANN, The Early Liturgy , 236-237.
279
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum», in
RCOM, 493.
280
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 113, De Missali, n. 14 (9 octobris 1965)», in RCOM,
414-415.
105
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Consilium did not restore the Kyrie along with its ancient petitions. This litanic prayer still
suffered from a technical “accident of history.” It was an incomplete formula (at least on
solemnities).281 The solemn prayer always presupposed a petition preceding each Kyrie
invocation. Also, in the time of Gregory the Great, scholars believed that the authentic form of
the Kyrie was recited without any petitions only on ferial days.282 The Missa normativa requires
imitation of the ferial Kyrie’s, except when the Gloria is recited. Therefore, the only change to
the use of the Kyrie eleison, in the schema provided above, is its optional use on festal days
according to the new rubrics.
Singing: In the end the periti of the Consilium felt constrained to obey the dictates of
the Second Vatican Council. 283 Since the Council ordered that the faithful should be able to sing
the parts of the ordinary of the Mass, the Kyrie was explicitly included in this mandate of the
Council. Therefore it was decided to leave the Kyrie eleison in the form as it had been sung and
recited during the Council. This was the form of the prayer which Sacrosanctum Concilium (no.
54) ordained that the faithful should be able to sing within the Mass.284
Legitimate Progress:
Finally there is the interesting addition of the rubric regard the
optional nature of the Kyrie eleison when the Gloria is said at Mass. Although OR I clearly
directs that the Kyrie and Gloria are to be used at solemn papal Masses and, 285 according to
scholars (as mentioned above), Gregory the Great used a simple Kyrie in ferial Masses, the
Consilium attempted to reduce the Kyrie’s recitation to only very particular Masses. Most Fathers
281
For the relation between the “Prayer of the Faithful” and Kyrie see G. DIX, The Shape
of the Liturgy, 450-451.
282A.
FORTESCUE, The Mass, 233-234.
283Any
part of the Ordinary of the Mass (Missale Romanum 1962), which the people were
asked to learn, could only be altered if the “most grave reasons” forced the hand of the
Consilium. Therefore, generally speaking, the Ordinary of the Mass, that was supposed to be
said or sung by the people, was not altered. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 117, De Missali, n. 23 (24
May 1966)», in RCOM, 493. See the commentary through J. Wagner (relator) and A. Hänggi
(secretarius).
284
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICAN II, «Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia», 115.
285Les
Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2, 84.
106
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
voted for the schema of the periti. They explicitly wished that anytime the Gloria was recited the
Kyrie should be altogether dropped.286 At one time they even proposed that it be all together
eliminated on ferial days. Here perhaps was an attempt to recover the authentic and simple
entrance rite of greeting and Liturgy of the Word. Most periti wished to return to a schema more
in line with that of the early formative patristic liturgy. Historically, the Mass probably began
immediately with a greeting of the assembly, the Collect, and readings.287 Because of the tension
caused by retaining the prayer out of obedience to the Council’s directive, there was some
division among the Fathers who voted on the periti’s proposal. Eighteen of the Fathers voted for
the option to eliminate the prayer on all occasions apart from penitential days. Seventeen Fathers
objected to this decision. One Father objected iuxta modum, voting to eliminate the Kyrie but
with slight modifications.288
This whole division among the periti was based on the
presupposition that the Prayer of the Faithful had been restored to its ancient place after the
Oremus that precedes the offertory. 289 The Kyrie, which the Consilium considered to be
historically “recent” in comparison to the ancient Prayer of the Faithful,290 was left untouched.
At the same time, the introduction of the Prayer of the Faithful was presented as a restoration of
an even earlier liturgical practice. it theoretically took precedence in the minds of the periti and
Fathers.
286
CONSILIUM, «Conspectus suffragationum. Quae I Sessione pleanaria “Consilii”,
diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae sunt», in RCOM, 511.
287
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 113, De Missali, n. 14 (9 octobris 1965)», in RCOM,
415-416.
288
CONSILIUM, «Conspectus suffragationum. Quae I Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus
21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae sunt», in RCOM, 511.
289
CONSILIUM, De Oratione communi seu fidelium, 8.
290
This hearkens back to the question as to whether or not ipso facto –ceteris paribus- the
more ancient of two rites is imputed more objective value than another.
Resolution to the
question seems to be wanting.
107
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
4.5 GLORIA
The Gloria is one of the few ancient hymns that have survived from the early Church.
It is now used as an exclusively festive hymn of praise and its text (and a variety of rubrics) was
contained in both the Pian Missal and the Normative Mass thus:
“6.) Diebus dominicis extra tempus Quadragesimae necnon diebus festivis I
et II classis sacerdos inchoat hymnum, cantans vel clara voce dicens: GLORIA IN
EXCELSIS DEO.
Populus posequitur: ET IN TERRA PAX HOMINIBUS BONAE
VOLUNTATIS. LAUDAMUS TE. BENEDICIMUS TE. ADORAMUS TE
GLORIFICAMUS TE.
GRATIAS AGIMUS TIBI PROPTER MAGNAM GLORIAM
TUAM. DOMINE DEUS, REX CAELESTIS. DEUS PATER OMNIPOTENS. DOMINE
FILI UNIGENITE, IESU CHRISTE. DOMINE DEUS, AGNUS DEI, FILIUS PATRIS.
QUI TOLLIS PECCATA MUNDI, MISERERE NOBIS. QUI TOLLIS PECCATA
MUNDI, SUSCIPE DEPRECATIONEM NOSTRAM. QUONIAM TU SOLUS
SANCTUS, TU SOLUS DOMINUS, TU SOLUS ALTISSIMUS. IESU CHRISTE, CUM
SANCTO SPIRITU: IN GLORIA DEI PATRIS. AMEN.”291
Historical Evaluation: This hymn is among the most ancient that the entire Church
possesses. It is one of those few composed hymns that has survived from the earliest periods of
Christian liturgical creativity. The hymn, as it now exists, can be traced back to the East in both
its Greek and Syriac versions. It has been evaluated as a liturgical hymn typical of third century
Christian composition and so is valued as one of the most precious liturgical texts that have been
handed down from the ancient Church. 292 Many scholars are of the opinion that the Roman
Church, uniquely, introduced the hymn of praise only once a year on Easter Vigil.293 However,
291
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 438.
292
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 1 , 346-350 .
293
G. DIX, The Shape of the Liturgy, 456-457.
108
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
during the period of the reform, the rubrics and ceremonial attached to the hymn were seen as
superimposed. It was a hymn used infrequently in the Roman liturgy. This conclusion is drawn
from the fact that its recital within Mass was severely limited in the liturgy to select times in the
year. Only the highest feast days and the most solemn Masses were occasions for this jewel to
adorn the opening Mass ritual. Scholars’ preoccupation was that frequent use of it might obscure
the ancient structure of the Mass.294 The Liber Pontificalis295 records the Gloria’s introduction
into the Mass during the reign of Pope Telesphoros (d. 136).296 It could indeed be possible that
this Greek Pope had introduced some sort of hymn into the Roman liturgy in the 2nd century
(Gloria in excelsis Deo), since this Scriptural citation is so very appropriate to use at Christmas.
The Liber Pontificalis records that this introduction was mandated particularly for this feast day.
Still it must be admitted that the posterior dated composition of this hymn and its successful
introduction into the West seems to have taken place under the auspices of St. Hilary of Poitiers
(c. 363-366). Scholars commonly opine that it is more likely that the Gloria entered into the
liturgy at a much later date.297 Pope Symmachus (d. 514) seems to have introduced the Gloria
into the Mass, perhaps owing to its festive popularity, but restricted it to feasts upon which it had
probably grown customary. These were typically feasts of martyrs and Sundays.298 The Ordines
Romani (OR I, 53) of the 8th century had already prescribed the hymn for papal stational Mass,
which represented the liturgical practice of the great basilicas of Rome.299 The Pope/bishop
presumably had the privilege of intoning this hymn. Therefore the Gloria was viewed as an
episcopal privilege. Priests could only intone it on Easter. Eventually they were given the same
privilege at their ordination Mass.300 However, the tradition consistently records that the hymn
294
G. DIX, The Shape of the Liturgy, 456-457.
295
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), tr. Raymond Davis, Liverpool University
Press, Liverpool 22000, 4.
296
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), 4.
297
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 1, 356.
298
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), 48.
299Les
300
Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2, 84.
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 291-293.
109
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
was severely restricted in use as a privilege of a feast or of the prelate. There is doubt that it was
an ordinary part of the Mass of the presbyter in the Roman tituli, whereas it became a normal
part of the episcopal led stational Masses.301
Sound Tradition and Legitimate Progress: In light of modern thought, this hymn
could be considered superimposed on the liturgy and, as such, could be criticized as obscuring
the ancient entrance rite which historically begins with the procession to the altar that leads
immediately to the salutation of the Pax-Dominus vobiscum, as already mentioned above. So, it
not surprising that the periti imposed a restriction of usage of the Gloria to 1st and 2nd class feasts
(equivalent to solemnities and feasts) as a general rule. The hymn’s use, under the Pian
Commission in the 1950’s,302 was already gradually being curtailed. This placed it more in line
with its initial historical use on only higher feasts. In the Normative Mass it was finally curtailed
in its use for the most important feasts of saints and for solemnities of the principle mysteries of
the faith.
Substantial unity not rigid Uniformity: Although the hymn might have been
transferred to the Liturgy of the Hours in the interest of Ecumenism and to restore a simple
entrance rite and salutation as the opening of Mass, this was not done. This kind of practice
would be in imitation of some Oriental liturgies that use the hymn as an important piece of
morning Orthros. In the end the Consilium left the hymn in the Mass. The faithful had over the
centuries grown especially accustomed to this venerable hymn. This factor, as well as the fact
that the hymn was guaranteed a place in the Ordinary of the Mass in Sacrosanctum Concilium,
secured its retention. Even the Pian Commission, outside of penitential seasons, had seen it
necessary to greatly reduced its frequency,303 just as the reform of the rubrics under John XXIII
in 1960. 304 In the last editio typica of the Pian Missal before the Council, the hymn was used for
301
G. DIX, The Shape of the Liturgy, 27, 371.
302
SACRA CONGREGATIO RITUUM, «Decretum Generale. De Rubricis ad simpliciorem
formam redigendis», Acta Apostolica Sedis 47 (1955) 218-224.
303
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Decretum Generale. De Rubricis» 218-224.
304
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Decretum Generale quo novus rubricarum Breviarii
ac Missalis Romani Codex promulgatur», Acta Apostolica Sedis 52 (1960) 706-722.
110
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
nearly any feast of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd class. This was the case anytime there was of a mystery of
salvation or a saint´s commemoration, with the addition of a few votive Masses as well.
Ecumenical Dimension: In the East the Gloria was never used as a Mass prayer, but
merited a place in the liturgy. For instance the Byzantine rite uses it as a song of joyous praise
immediately before the Divine Liturgy at orthros.305 It was and is still in use among many of the
confessional Protestant denominations (e.g., Anglicans, Lutherans). It was a means of common
glorification of God by means of popular hymnody.306
4.6 THE COLLECT
The next important text, which is among the most authentic parts of the liturgy, is the
collect. All experts agree on the fact that this form of prayer is one of the essential elements of
the Roman rite. The treatment of the collect in this study will not go over individual texts of
particular collects, since they are not part of the Ordo Missae. However, there are some rubrical
points that need to be made in regard to the reforms pertaining to how the collect was to be
carried out within the Normative Mass celebration. The inclusion of the following rubrics may be
helpful:
“7.) Deinde sacerdos, versus ad populum, cantat vel clara voce
dicit: OREMUS. Et omnes per aliquod temporis spatium in silentio orant.
Deinde sacerdos, manibus extensis, cantat
vel clara voce dicit orationem,
quam populus concludit, acclamans: AMEN.”307
305
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 289-291.
306
For example, with the Lutherans and Anglicans: «Deutsche Messe», in Liturgies of the
Western Church, ed. Bard Thompson, Meridian Books, New York 1961, 123-140; «The Book of
Common Prayer», in Liturgies of the Western Church, ed. Bard Thompson, Meridian Books,
New York 1961, 269-286.
307
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schema Primum», in
RCOM, 438.
111
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Sound Tradition and Legitimate Progress: In regard to the rubrics, there had already
been a near absolute prohibition of multiple Collects within the same Mass following the
publication of Tres abhinc annos in 1967.308 Following the reform of the Missal of Pius V in
1570, the rubrics dictated the practice of saying the main collect of the day. It also mandated the
use of the readings from the Proper of the same day.
However, in addition to this was the
necessity of commemorating any saint-day, feastday or oratio imperata that occurred
concomitantly. For example: after the opening prayer and its conclusion, the priest would
immediately recite a succession of other collects representing any lesser ranked saint, feast or
special prayer according to the order of its liturgical rank. Initially the only bounds set on this
practice were that the number of collects should be always odd.309 The last revision of the Pian
Missal before the Council allowed a maximum of three Collects and permitted that the even
number of two Collects could likewise be recited.310 Tres abhinc annos in 1967 still permitted
the method of reciting multiple orations but it was practiced by joining all the collects together
into one large prayer and then finally ending that combined prayer with the Per Dominum.311
Both of these methods were no longer permitted in the rubrics of the Missa Normativa.
Commemorations of other saints and feasts had already been forbidden, for the most part, in the
last edition of the transitional post-Conciliar Pian Missal (i.e., Tres abhinc annos 1967). This was
especially the case on first and second class Sundays and on first class feasts. The rank of each
Sunday had been given an enhanced liturgical precedence after Pope Pius XII’s revisions of the
308
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Instructio altera ad exsecutionem Constitutionis de
sacra Liturgia recte ordinandam», Acta Apostolica Sedis 59 (1967) 444.
309
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «De Orationum numero, diversis in circumstanciis», in
Decreta authentica. Que ab anno 1588 ad annum 1848 prodierunt, J.-G, Lardubius Typographus,
Leodii 21851, 94-95.
310
Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum summorum
pontificum cura recognitum, Decleè et Socii, Tornaci 1961, cap.VIII, nos. 433-465.
311 A.
FORTESCUE, «The Collect», in The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue, ed. Michael
Davies, Roman Catholic Books 1999, 257.
112
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Mass in 1955.312 The Consilium Fathers desired to omit all commemorations whatsoever in the
reformed Mass. This was gradually accomplished by permitting only a few privileged prayers a
commemoration on certain liturgically important days in the 1967 revision. All periti
unanimously agreed to limit the Mass to one collect.313 However, this decision was prompted in
part by the assumption that any commemoration, formerly recited after the principle Collect, was
to be transferred to the concluding oration of the Prayer of the Faithful. Instead of having two
opening collects of the Mass, the lower ranking collect would be transferred to the petitionary
prayers that had already been restored in obedience to the Council to their place before the
offertory.314 Before the reign of Pius XII, the number of collects to be said at Mass could be a
very burdensome affair. To resolve this problem a historical exemplar was proposed by the periti
from the practice of the Ordines Romani I (OR I, 53-54). There it was the practice to recite one
collect only.315 This naturally resolved the difficulty of reciting an excessive amount of collects.
The number had already been reduced anyway under the commissions of Pius XII and John
XXIII, as already noted. There was little resistence to this measure since everyone remembered
when seven possible Collects could have been recited at each Mass in earlier editions of the Pian
Missal. Obviously this could be taxing on both the celebrant and the people and made Mass
unnecessarily long from the perspective of pastoral liturgy.
4.7 READINGS: THE LITURGY OF THE WORD PROPER
The Normative Mass reformed very little of the lectionary and its rubrics. The reform
of the Lectionary was left to Coetus XI.316 However, the following four rubrics did allow for
312
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Decretum Generale. De Rubricis ad simpliciorem
formam redigendis», 218-224.
313Acta
et documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Antepraeparatoria 2,
Typis polyglottis vaticanis, Romae 1960, 263-264.
314
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», 356-357.
315
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucharistica, 292.
316 A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 409.
113
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
variations in the ordinary celebration of Mass that had been unknown in the last editions of the
Pian Missal. The text reads as follows:
“8.) Deinde lector ad ambonem pergit, et profert primam lectionem, quam
omnes sedentes auscultant.
9.)
Psalmista vero, seu cantor, populo pro opportunitate responsum
proferente, psalmum cantat vel clara voce dicit.
10.) Postea si habenda sit secunda lectio, quae non est de Evangelio, lector
eam in ambone profert, ut supra.
11.) Sequitur ALLELUIA vel alter cantus, prout tempus aut qualitas Missae
postulat.” 317
The Pian Missal had a schema of readings that functioned unlike the Normative Mass.
The schema for both weekdays and Sundays, apart from ember days and other unique occasions,
was as follows:
a.) Lector/Priest reads first lesson from Epistle or Acts of the Apostles or Revelation.
b.)
Priest reads Gradual Psalm then Alleluia verse unless the season replaces these with the
Tract, which contains no Alleluia.318
c.)
The deacon/celebrant reads the Gospel.
Historical Evaluation: In comparison with the original ancient lectionaries, or books
of Epistles and Gospels, the format that exists in the Pian Missal is practically the same. There
was nothing particularly non-Roman about the format just provided. The most authoritative
opinions and studies currently point to a general Gallican practice of two readings before the
317
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 May 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 438-439.
318
Of course, the schola was required to chant what the celebrant read privately for
solemn and sung Masses.
114
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Gospel, while the apparent Roman practice was more usually one reading before the Gospel. The
ancient lectionaries of the Roman rite also bear witness to this fact.319 One can generally say that
both types of lectionaries (with one and with two readings) were in use at one time or another in
the Latin Church of the early Middle Ages. Therefore, the Consilium did not have a rigid
historical precedent by which they were constrained to have but one reading before the Gospel.
One cannot strictly assert that one or the other practice is a less authentic tradition among Roman
lectionairies. However, on the subject of the lectionary, A. Bugnini asserted that, with a more
ample set of readings:
“...la comunità cristiana realmente si riunisce per la preghiera comune,
restituendo ai fedeli, poco per volta, l’intelligenza e il gusto della parola di Dio, la cui
vena fresca e genuina si era persa, in secoli di negligenza e di abbandono, in rivoli e
anfratti infecondi.” 320
If this was a reference to the lectionaries with but one reading before the Gospel, i.e., the
Roman lectionaries of the 6th-8th centuries,321 it would not seem to make sense. It has already
been noted that there is no consensus on a rigid or even regular praxis among the Churches in
Italy during this period. Only if Msgr. Bugnini were referring to the presumably more ancient
method of lectio continua could some sort of conjecture be proferred about a more ample reading
of the Bible.322 At that period the bishop often appointed the lector to read a pericope for an
appropriate amount of time. The celebrant chose the texts with a certain amount of freedom. It is
with this in mind that one might make sense of this citation. In this regard, the new lectionary
does provide the president at certain Masses the option of changing or adapting the readings. He
319
C. VOGEL, Medieval Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources, tr. W. Storey, Niels
Krogh Rasmussen, The Pastoral Press, Washington D.C. 21986, 300-304.
320 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 415.
321
C. FOLSOM, «I libri liturgici romani», in Scientia Liturgica, vol. 1, ed. A. Chupungco,
Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1998, 274-277.
322
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman rite 1, 398, 402.
115
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
may even extend their length according to its rubrics.323 In regard to the psalmody, the Consilium
decided to restore the use of the responsorial Psalm. It was the Graduale simplex (1967) that
reintroduced the responsorial Psalm as a customary feature of parochial liturgy, even before the
new lectionary was published.
However, the lectionary reform would need to be treated as a separate subject of study
since both its cycle and content do not concern the Order of Mass proper. The present
investigation interests itself merely in the general structure of the Liturgy of the Word.
Full, conscious, and active participation: The pastoral principle of active participation
and of making the Scriptures more available guided the lectionary reform. The readings’ didactic
nature had already been somewhat emphasized, as mentioned above, when treating Sacram
Liturgiam in Chapter one. The lessons were proclaimed facing the people and in the vernacular.
An instituted lector, or even a designated laymen, were ordinarily to carry out this liturgical
action according to the same motu proprio. Secondly, the use of the responsorial Psalm allowed
the faithful to take an active vocal role in the proclamation of the Word of God by uniting their
voices and hearts in singing the Psalm for any and all Masses.324 This was a means to encourage
the faithful to a visible and vocal activity after listening to the first reading from the
Scriptures.325
Sound tradition and legitimate progress: Although the new Consilium liturgy was to
be ordinarily celebrated with the responsorial Psalm, the traditional Gradual and Tract could still
be used ad libitum. This made sense for choirs in religious houses or in cathedral churches. This
was an allowance which preserved the musical and scriptural heritage of chant within the Latin
323
Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II
Instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum.Lectionarium 1, Typis polyglottis vaticanis,
Città del Vaticano 1970, 10. See: De Ordine Lectionum Missae. Praenotanda generalia: cap. 6,
no.7.
324
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 438-439. See the commentary presented by J. Wagner (relator) and A. Hänggi
(secretarius).
325
J. WAGNER, «Memorandum sull’attività Del Coetus X», 276-277.
116
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Church.326 At the same time it allowed prioritizing active participation of the faithful by
presuming the use of the responsorial Psalm as the normal parochial praxis.
Language: Here it can be asserted that the proclamation of the Gospel is made more
accessible to the hearers because all can understand both what is being read. This is possible by
merely listening or additionally following along with a hand missal. The use of the vernacular
would especially have been a concern in countries in which the majority of the population could
neither afford to buy a missal nor read because of illiteracy. Unlike the ordinary of the Mass, the
sense of what is being said in Latin cannot be grasped since the readings are variable; therefore
the Council itself gave permission for the Liturgy of the Word to be carried out in the vernacular
language.327 This was done immediately. The Consiium hoped for great spiritual and didactic
benefit to the faithful with the readings in their spoken tongue.
Singing: Singing is here encouraged among the ordinary celebrations of Mass which both
solemnizes the celebration and also aesthetically makes it more attractive. Most of all it involves
the faithful actively in the liturgical action, removing the obstacle that had practically been
consequent upon the exclusive use of the Gradual. Formerly, the faithful were often unable to
sing chants along with the schola cantorum.
The Word of God: It is no surprise that A. Bugnini, along with other periti, had little
desire to retain and merely expand the ancient cycle of readings since they thought of
reorganizing the readings as the most “important part of the work of restoring esteem and
appreciation of the word of God in the liturgy.”328 The old structure was simply not conducive to
a continuous and relatively uninterrupted reading of the whole Bible. This seemed to be
demanded of them in obedience to the Council.329 Furthermore, the lectionary of the Pian Missal
was limited by having only one reading before the Gospel. This caused most of the Old
Testament to be neglected during the liturgical year. Some periti made a case, then, that “only by
326
J. WAGNER,«Memorandum sull’attività Dell Coetus X», 276-277.
327
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUMVATICANUM II, «Sacrosanctum Concilium», 109-110.
328 A.
329
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 409-410.
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Sacrosanctum Concilium», 106-107, 114.
117
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
a habitual three readings will Catholics rediscover Scriptures.”330 Scripture reform was thought
to be the most valuable means to meet the “needs of today’s faithful.”331 Since the Council itself
had been very explicit about its desire for an increase in the use of the Word of God at Mass, the
Consilium resolved to provide for a true lectio continua. A new cycle of readings would then
encompass the whole of the Scriptures.332
Ecumenical Dimension: One problem with the reform, however, was in the field of
ecumenism. Many confessional Protestant churches (who were recognized by the Consilium as
having a great esteem for Scripture in their liturgies)333 were using the lessons and cycles as
found in the Pian Missal. In fact, it was suggested by some members of Coetus X of the
Consilium that this ecumenical concern should at least allow for the preservation of the
traditional cycle of readings, if not for reverence of tradition, at least for reasons of ecumenism.
However, it was finally successfully argued that such a reform would be welcome to other
confessions and it would not create a further division between the Catholic Church and other
Churches and ecclesial communities.334
However, leaving lectionary reform aside, there was an additional change to the Order of
Mass for the Missa normativa. This refers to the celebrant’s preparation for proclaiming the
Gospel. The Pian Missal’s formula for the private preparation for the celebrant was as follows :
“Munda cor meum, ac labia mea, omnipotens Deus, qui labia Isaiae
prophetae calculo mundasti ignito: ita me tua grata miseratione dignare mundare, ut
330 A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 415.
331 A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 410.
332 A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 416-417.
333
The Protestant Church lectionaries were also studied in harmony with more traditional
ancient sources as being materially important for any considerations for a new Catholic
lectionary. See A. BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75, 412.
334 A.
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-75, 415-417.
118
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
sanctum Evangelium tuum digne valeam nuntiare. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.
Amen.”335
The Consilium chose not to eliminate the celebrant’s private prayer of preparation for the
Gospel. Yet it did reduce the number of preparatory prayers, eliminating one of the two
compositions. Two prayers were still recited in the Missal following Tres abhinc annos of 1967.
Instead of following the Tridentine format, the Consilium chose to eliminate the former Munda
cor meum prayer of the celebrant and permitted only the the second preparatory prayer (Jube,
Domne, benedicere.R/. Dominus sit...) to be used by the priest, or whoever was to proclaim the
Gospel. The Normative Mass contained the new order as follows:
“12.) Interim diaconus, Evangelium prolaturus, ante sacerdotem inclinatus,
benedictionem petit, submissa voce dicens: IUBE, DOMNE, BENEDICERE. Sacerdos
dicit:
DOMINUS SIT IN CORDE TUO ET IN LABIIS TUIS: UT DIGNE ET
COMPETENTER ANNUNTIES EVANGELIUM SUUM IN NOMINE PATRIS, ET
FILII, + ET SPIRITUS SANCTI. Diaconus respondet: AMEN.
13.) Si vero non adest diaconus, sacerdos ante altarem inclinatus secreto,
dicit: MUNDA COR MEUM AC LABIA MEA, OMNIPOTENS DEUS, UT SANCTUM
EVANGELIUM TUUM DIGNE VALEAM NUNTIARE.” 336
Historical Evaluation: This reform simplified greatly the previous formula and did not
at all change the rubrics for the individual act of preparation of the priest celebrant to read the
Gospel. The new formula, in and of itself, finds an historical base in the history of the Roman
rite. For instance the simplest of Roman rite usages, i.e., Carthusians, uses the following:
335
Missale Romanum, 310. See also: Ritus Servandus Missae, cap. VI, no. 5.
336
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 439.
119
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“Dominus sit in corde meo et in labiis meis ut recte nobis pronunciem
Evangelium pacis.” 337
In the idealized Roman rite of Ordo Romanus Primus (OR I, 59) there is a brief formula
that is presumably only used by the Pope/bishop to bless the deacon about to read the Gospel. He
says: Dominus sit in corde tuo et labiis tuis.338 This is not unlike the blessing that the celebrant
gives to the deacon before the Gospel in both the Pian Missal and the Normative Mass: Iube
Domne benedicere R/. Dominus sit in corde tuo et labiis tuis: ut digne et competenter annunties
Evangelium suum: In nomine Patris et Filli et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Both the Pian Missal and
the Missa normativa have an expansion of the more simple prayer as found in the 8th century Ord
Romanus I.
Following the Gospel, in the Pian Missal, a private formula had also been added after the
Gospel’s proclamation. It asked for the remission of sins through the reading of the Gospel (Per
evangelia dicta, etc...). The periti of the Consilium once again seem to have applied the principle
of simplifying formerly complicated rites to make the liturgy more intelligible as a result of
greater simplicity. The meaning of the rite should then require little explanation for the assembly.
As a general rule, those rites considered to be Gallican accretions were kept only if they actually
fostered active participation. Obviously the private devotional prayer of the celebrant did not.
Substantial Unity not Rigid Uniformity: The Per evangelica dicta is a prayer of
petition said for the Gospel reader as well as for those who have just heard it read it included a
kissing of the Gospel book to accompany the prayer. It is not found in the most ancient witness
of the Ordines Romani (OR I, 59-63).339
One would expect, unless it served for active
participation, that the Consilium would reject it. Yet the Consilium periti nuanced their response
to this by taking into account the psychological situation of various cultures. They permitted
either a kiss, or any other appropriate cultural sign of respect (that would be easily understood
337
A. KING, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, Milwaukee, Bruce Publishing Company
1955, 43.
338
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2, 88.
339
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 2, 89.
120
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
within the worshiping community), to be used as a sign of reverence. This alternative sign of
reverence needed to be established by the proper authority in any given region.340
Full, Conscious, and Active Participation: Although the Consilium judged much of the
Gospel rite as Gallican341 (the private celebrant’s prayer, the initial signing of cross on the
Gospel book, the three crosses on the head, lips and breast of the Gospel reader, and the final kiss
along with its prayer), one of these rites was considered helpful for active participation. The
signing of the head, lips, and heart aided the faithful to follow the rite through symbolic gesture.
Apart from this, the other rites were judged to be superfluous ceremonial, as well as foreign
impositions and private in nature. This obviously meant that it would be inimical to the new
liturgy. Still the ceremony of signing the Gospel book was curiously retained.
4.8 THE CREDO
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed has the same composition in both the
Normative Mass and Pauline Missals (save rubrical differences):
“18.) Item omnibus diebus dominicis et festis de pracepto (in
sollemnitatibus) dicitur symbolum, quod sacerdos inchoat, dicens: CREDO IN UNUM
DEUM. Populus posequitur: PATREM OMNIPOTENTEM, FACTOREM CAELI ET
TERRAE VISIBILIUM OMNIUM ET INVISIBILIUM.
ET IN UNUM DOMINUM
IESUM CHRISTUM, FILIUM DEI UNIGENITUM, ET EX PATRE NATUM ANTE
OMNIA SAECULA. DEUM DE DEO, LUMEN DE LUMINE, DEUM VERUM DE
DEO VERO, GENITUM, NON FACTUM, CONSUBSTANTIALEM PATRI: PER QUEM
OMNIA FACTA SUNT. QUI PROPTER NOS HOMINES ET PROPTER NOSTRAM
SALUTEM, DESCENDIT DE CAELIS. ET INCARNATUS EST DE SPIRITU SANCTO
340
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 May 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 497.
341
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 106, De Missali, n. 12 (19 septembris1965)», in RCOM,
385-386.
121
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
EX MARIA VIRGINE, ET HOMO FACTUS EST. CRUCIFIXUS ETIAM PRO NOBIS
SUB PONTIO PILATO, PASSUS, ET SEPULTUS EST, ET RESURREXIT TERTIA DIE,
SECUNDUM SCRIPTURAS, ET ASCENDIT IN CAELUM, SEDET AD DEXTERAM
PATRIS. ET ITERUM VENTURUS EST CUM GLORIA, IUDICARE VIVOS ET
MORTUOS. CUIUS REGNI NON ERIT FINIS.
ET IN SPIRITUM SANCTUM,
DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM: QUI EX PATRE FILIOQUE PROCEDIT. QUI CUM
PATRE ET FILIO SIMUL ADORATUR ET CONGLORIFICATUR. QUI LOCUTUS
EST PER PROPHETAS. ET UNAM, SANCTAM, CATHOLICAM ET APOSTOLICAM
ECCLESIAM. CONFITEOR UNUM BAPTISMA IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
ET EXSPECTO RESURRECTIONEM MORTUORUM, ET VITAM VENTURI
SAECULI. AMEN.”342
Historical Evaluation of the Creed: The text has remained exactly the same in both
Masses (1962 & Normative Mass). The rubrics envision its use in the Normative Mass for only
1st class feasts and Sundays.343 In many ways the problems of the Creed parallel the problems of
the Gloria. It is equally true that both prayers are considered important compositions throughout
the Church. This is why they were retained by expertsin theliturgical reform. There are few
liturgiologists that debate the Creeds usefulness to encourage unity of faith and communion with
the greater Church. There are two major problems for the reformers in regard to the Creed. First,
parallel to a medieval “accretion”, the Creed suffered an accident of history in the sense that it
reflects imperial practices of the Holy Roman Empire much different than the classical authentic
Roman liturgy. The German imperial origins and imposition of this addition to the Mass were
generally know among the periti and so its inclusion in the Roman Mass presented a challenge to
the application of the Consilium’s guiding principles. The Creed was historically considered an
artificial addition of the 11th century imposed on Rome liturgy by the Emperor Henry II.344 In an
342
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum», in
RCOM, 440.
343
J. WAGNER, «Memorandum sull’attivitá Dell Coetus X», 277.
344
G. DIX, The Shape of the Liturgy, 485-488.
122
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
ecumenical environment, however, the Gallico-Roman form seemed to emphasize doctrinal
differences between East and West (through the filioque).345 The Apostles’ Creed enjoyed a more
ample use in the West (for example in the ordinary baptismal rite). On the other hand, the
Gelasian Sacramentary (c. 6th century) testified to the liturgical use of the Nicene Creed recited
within the Mass liturgy (even if only at baptism).346 This recitation of the Creed in the Roman
rite lacked the filioque in the original manuscripts. It mentions only the Holy Spirit ex patre
procedentem. 347 Additionally the Creed was criticized for not being apt for communal recitation.
For, it begins: “I believe…”, and thus it is stylistically not appropriate to use with a congregation
within the Latin tradition. 348 Additionally it is considered an importation from the East where it
first saw its Western liturgical use in Mass in the environs of Spain. this happened around the
latter part of the 6th century.349
Reform of the Liturgy: ecumenically speaking the argument that this text should be
retained in imitation and with respect to the Eastern Churches is weak. It is difficult to assert
since the Gallico-Roman form is rather a source and reminder of disunity instead of unity. In
regard to its didactic nature, it is difficult to understand since it is beyond the comprehension of
the illiterate and the uneducated. The Apostles’ Creed could be argued to be more suited to
didactic purposes: it is brief, it is recited in first person plural which lends itself to liturgical use,
and it is uniquely used in the Roman Liturgy. This was eventually adopted as a legitimate option
within the Mass. 350 Before presenting the synod of bishops the final schema of the Normative
Mass to be celebrated before the synod Fathers in October of 1967, an addendum had already
permitted the Apostle’s Creed as a legitimate option at Mass. This took into account the pastoral
345
G. DIX, The Shape of the Liturgy, 485-488.
346
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Cod. Vat. Reg. Lat.
316/Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, Sacramentarium Gelasianum. Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta,
ed. L. Mohlberg, (Series Maior Fontes 4), Casa Editrice Herder, Roma 1960, 48-49.
347
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli, 49.
348
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2 (17 June 1964)», in RCOM, 341, 346.
349
G. DIX, The Shape of the Liturgy, 485-488.
350
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 113, De Missali, n. 14 (19 octobris 1965)», in RCOM, 415.
123
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
and ecumenical advantages of both the didactic nature of the Apostle’s Creed and its convenience
in order to de-emphasize doctrinal division between the churches of the East and West.351
Ecumenical Dimension: Furthermore, the famous filioque is still considered a point of
division between the the Catholics and Eastern Christians.352 It still continues to cause a visible
division among the faithful of the East and West since they cannot together profess the same
faith. The two compositions’ differences have historically symbolized division between churches
through professing two diverse theologies. For many in the Russico-Greek Church, this
symbolizes two completely different faiths. 353 Considering the mentality of the Consilium periti,
it was a sensitive issue. It is possible that the Consilium concern for ecumenism could have led to
blocking the inclusion of the Nicene Creed into the Mass at all. For the current form of the Latin
text seemed quite unsuited to liturgical worship, especially in an ecumenical age.
4.9 PRAYER OF THE FAITHFUL: PETITIONS
The last reform of the Liturgy of the Word, according to the Order of Mass as revised by
the Consilium, is known as the “Prayer of the Faithful”.354 The Consilium restored an ancient
practice which had, “by an accident of history”fallen into disuse.355 Using the Consilium’s own
fundamental principles of “substantial uniformity” and “legitimate progress”,356 the Consilium
attempted to return to what was thought to be a universal practice of popular liturgical prayer. It
hoped to actively engage the people and, furthermore, to provide a liturgical means for seeking
351 A. BUGNINI,
Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 348.
352 A. BUGNINI,
Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 348.
353
M. POMAZANSKY, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Platina, CA, St. Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood 21997, 86-91.
354
In actuality, this part of the Mass was reformed by Coetus XII, not Coetus X.
However it shared several of the same periti and was a relatively rapid insertion into the existing
Pian Missal. See P. MARINI, «Attività complessiva dei gruppi di studio», 300-301, 309.
355
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia», 114.
356 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 39-45.
124
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
divine aid for modern needs. These compositions always take into account the modern conditions
of man. Sacrosanctum Concilium required the rites to be restored to the vigor that they enjoyed
during the age of the Fathers. This was one of the weighty considerations prompting the
Consilium’s to update the liturgy. The reform sought to create something more advantageous for
today’s Catholic. It composed new rituals meant to achieve a vitality that had not been seen
among the faifhful since patristic times. 357
Historical Evaluation of the Prayer of the Faithful: The first rite to be chronologically
restored by the Council (via the Consilium) was the Prayer of the Faithful. Paragraph no. 53 of
Sacrosanctum Concilium relates that the Prayer of the Faithful is to be restored according to the
liturgical theory of the time. Liturgical opinions had proposed this place in the liturgy as the
location of the prayer in the early Church. The experts also described its general outlines.358 It
had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that this prayer was originally part of
the ancient Roman rite and had been lost. The first official-Consilium production, De Oratione
Communi seu Fidelium,359 summarizes the Consilium’s historical perspective on the prayer in
both the East and West. This document represents the Consilium’s unanimous effort to
demonstrate the Prayer of the Faithful’s existence in the Roman rite and begins with references
as early as St. Justin Martyr. 360 The most important historic period, however, in regard to the
classic Roman liturgy is the patristic period that can be dated from the 4th to the 7th centuries.361
The document makes a convincing appeal to the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. St.
Hippolytus was near universally believed to have been the author of an ancient text of worship
for the Church in Rome in the 3rd century. Nowadays there is little historical consensus about
many aspects of this document and its author. The noted author C. Vogel observes:
357
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia», 114.
358
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia», 114.
359
CONSILIUM, De Oratione communi seu fidelium, 163-169.
360
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 368.
361
E. ZOFFOLI, «Padri», in Dizionario del Cristianesimo, ed. L. Bogliolo, Sinopsis
Iniziative Culturali, Roma 1992, 372.
125
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“[T]he Apostolic Tradition is not the typical and official liturgy of the Roman
Church; rather, it is one example -in Greek- of the way some Roman Christians
worshipped, even though it claims for itself normative and even ‘apostolic’ authority.”362
Yet again, another noted author summarizes the insoluble situation as follows:
“Moreover, the composite character the document displays extends also the
individual ritual units within the text, such as ordination, baptism, and even the Eucharist
itself, which appear to be artificial literary creations, made up of elements drawn from
different local traditions rather than comprising a single authentic rite that was ever
celebrated in that particular form anywhere in the world.”363
Another difficulty in simply restoring the Hippolytan model of the Prayer of the Faithful
is that it is difficult to tell at just what point in his liturgy such a thing takes place. The ambiguity
of the text necessitates much hypothesizing in order to fill in these blanks. Nonetheless, generally
there is agreement that the prayer must have existed before the offertory.364 Obviously, historical
references to Eastern Fathers are of value but they do not necessarily express the practice of the
Roman rite. The same can be said for any allusions to Gallican liturgies. There does seem to be
much strong evidence in favor of the reformers. Their document quotes western Fathers like
Augustine, Arnobius, Siricius and Ambrose in support of the Prayer. However, from more recent
research in some circles, it has been objected that these texts are ambiguous and that they could
362
C. VOGEL, Medieval Liturgy, 33.
363
P. BRADSHAW, The search for the origins of Christian Worship, Oxford University
Press, New York 22002, 83. For an even more recent and critical look at the Apostolic Tradition
of “Hippolytus” see P. BRADSHAW, -M. JOHNSON, -E. PHILLIPS, The Apostolic Tradition,
Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, MN 2002. The first scholar to convincingly challenge B.
Botte’s interpretation of the text and its use was Marcel Metzger. See MARCEL METZGER,
«Enquêtes autour de la prétendue Tradition apostolique», Ecclesia Orans 9 (1992) 7-36. See
also MARCEL METZGER, «Nouvelles perspectives pour le prétendue Tradition apostolique»,
Ecclesia Orans 5 (1988) 241-259.
364
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 358.
126
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
very well refer to intercessions at the Canon of the Mass. Perhaps, the replacement of the Prayer
of the Faithful was accomplished through a series of intercessions made for the Pope, bishops,
clergy, laity, living and dead after the Te igitur. These intercessions are found at the beginning of
the Te igitur and end before the Communicantes. In other places in the West, the local king was
also often mentioned here in the Canon, or even other petitions.365 The latest liturgical
developments rely on the interpretation of the words of Pope St. Innocent I where he writes that
the nomina, or list of names for intercession, is to recited only after the gifts have already been
offered so that the petitions can be made “within the sacred mysteries.”366 When prayers were
offered for intentions and needs, it was always accomplished within the oratio fidelium vs. the
oratio catechumenorum.367 This has been interpreted to mean that faithful’s prayer was the
Eucharist. The catechumens had only the Liturgy of the Word along with its Sermon and
dismissal.368 The more traditional interpretation that assumed such petitions were found in a preoffertory Prayer of the Faithful, as Joseph Jungmann writes, is unlikely nowadays. During the
days of the Consilium’s work on the Normative Mass, J. Jungmann’s opinion carried the greatest
weight. It was actually the Council’s ante-preparatory commission that had already determined
the necessity of involving the faithful in communal supplications during the Liturgy of the
Word.369 Even if such a reform were based on an historical error, the Consilium was simply
realizing the explicit desires of the Council. It promoted this reform which effectively resulted in
an active involvement of the faithful in the Liturgy of the Word. The Consilium’s De Oratione
365 A.
FORTESCUE, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, 329.
366
INNOCENT I, La lettre du pape Innocent Ier a Decentius de Gubbio (19mars 416), ed.
R. Cabié, Louvain 1973, 22. The citation follows: “De nominibus vero recitandis antequam
precem sacerdos faciat, atque eorum oblationes quorum nomina recitanda sunt sua oratione
commendet quam superfluum sit, et ipse pro tua prudentia recognoscis, ut cuius hostiam necdum
Deo offeras, eius ante nomen insinues, quamvis illi incognitum nihil sit. Prius ergo oblationes
sunt commendandae, ac tunc eorum nomina quorum sunt edicenda, ut inter sacra mysteria
nominentur, non inter alia quae ante praemittimus ut ipsis mysteriis viam futuris precibus
aperiamus.”
367
Prayer of the baptized vs. prayer of the non-baptized catechumens.
368
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 360-1.
369
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2 (17 junii 1964)», in RCOM, 346.
127
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Communi seu Fidelium was a fairly convincing attempt to historically demonstrate and restore
the Prayer of the Faithful in the Roman rite.370 Even A. Bugnini, as secretary of the Consilium,
referred to the Prayer of the Faithful as “a precious stone that had been lost and then recovered in
its entire splendor.”371 Given the more recent historical data in regard to this rite, a historical
problem of a ‘doublet’ may now exists in the Roman liturgy. Several petitions at both the Prayer
of the Faithful and within the eucharistic prayer are tautologies. The appearance of such a
doublet is somewhat relieved by the fact that the Normative Mass project was also commissioned
to eventually write and to add three new Eucharistic prayers to the celebration (although they had
not yet been finished).372 Some of these later compositions were the prototypes of what would
be produced (excepting Eucharistic prayer IV) in the Novus Ordo Missae. In their celebrative
form, these Eucharistic prayers lack a few of the intercessions and commemorations made in the
Roman Canon. The fact that the more recently composed Eucharistic prayers are used more often
than the Roman Canon (outside of certain festal times which presume its use, i.e., Holy
Thursday, Easter, Pentecost) means that the tautological prayers are reduced. Nonetheless there
is still the doublet of mentioning the Pope, bishop of the diocese, intentions of the Mass, and
saint of the Day. All of these were just mentioned in the oratio communis.
370
CONSILIUM, De Oratione communi seu fidelium, 8-9.
371A.
372
BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy , 404.
RCOM, 509.
128
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5.0 CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 THE OFFERTORY: THE BREAD
Several actual liturgical actions accompany the offertory rite. These include all the prayers
and actions until the dialogue and preface. Even if the Consilium’s descriptions of these
individual rites (in its proposed Ordo Missae) appear to be rather abbreviated compositions of
the former rite, this is not due to external pressures of time.373 The offertory rite will be shown to
have been conceived as a locus for liturgical creativity for the genius of any particular people or
nation (as approved by the national conference of bishops). The offertory chant, procession, and
lavabo rite were matters that went through several notable changes. These are described in more
detail below:
“20.) Quibus absolutis, incipitur cantus ad offertorium, qui protrahitur usque dum
dona ad altare allata sunt.
21.) Sacerdos sedens lavat manus, ministro aquam fundente.374
22.) Deinde ministri missale, corporale et calicem velo coopertum in altari collocant,
et sacerdos ad altare accedit.375
23.) Tunc patena -et si opus est, etiam aliae patenae vel pyxides- cum pane, atque
vinum et acqua ad altare deferuntur. Quod pro opportunitate fit a fidelibus, secus a ministris.
373
In order to secure efficiency and to prevent unnecessary delays, one peritus was
selected to do all the necessary relevant studies to reform in this rite quite early (1964). T.
Schnitzler was given the task to study the offertory rites. See P. MARINI, «Attivitá complessiva
dei gruppi di studio», 296-298.
374
In the schema of 24 May 1967 the celebrant, sitting, washed his hands. This was
omitted and placed instead as 28a, in the final schema, before the celebration before the synod
Fathers.
375
In the schema published following the synod Fathers’ critiques there was inserted
here: “22a.) Sicubi vero mos est ut fideles dona ad altare deferant, sacerdos, antequam ad altare
accedat, ea recipit ad cancellos, adiuvantibus ministris, qui illa opportuniore loco collocant.”
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», RCOM, 623.
129
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Alia dona si fideles offerunt -a diacono, si adest, secus a sacerdote- recipiuntur et a ministro
loco apto prope altare collocantur.
24.) Sacerdos accipiens -de manu diaconi, si adest- patenam cum pane eamque
ambabus manibus aliquantulum elevatam super altare tenens dicit:376 SICUT HIC PANIS
ERAT DISPERSUS ET COLLECTUS FACTUS EST UNUS, ITA COLLIGATUR ECCLESIA
TUA IN REGNUM TUUM. GLORIA TIBI, DEUS, IN SAECULA. Deponit deinde patenam
cum pane super corporale.377”
Historical evaluation: The Consilium remained faithful to J. Jungmann’s biographical
sketch of the liturgy. This history and explanation of the rites is still valid today.378 The original
offertory was a practical action. The expansion of the rite with private prayers of offering can
only be dated from the 9th century. Its origins were traced to the Frankish Ordo Missae of
Amiens. Here the Consilium dispensed with the complicated post-Tridentine rubrical precision
for setting the altar, returning to a simpler form.379 Furthermore, the periti attempted to strike a
376
This was later clarified to be said: secreto. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali,
n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», in RCOM, 623.
377
P. Jounel was personally sollicited by A. Bugnini to compose new offertory prayers
different from the originally voted schema. These were then used in place of the original. At the
first live liturgical celebrations of this rite in 1967, the offertory ran as found below. The
offertory prayers were said privately: a.) bread: Suscipe, Sancte Pater, hunc panem, quem de
operibus manuum nostrarum offerimus, ut fiat unigeniti Filii tui corpus. Mixing of sacred
elements: Per huius aquae et vini mysterium eius efficiamur, Domine, divinitatis consortes, qui
humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps, Iesus Christus, Filius tuus Dominus noster.
Wine: Offerimus tibi, Domine, calicem hunc, in quo populi tui unitatis mysterium exprimitur ut
sanguis fiat Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Lavabo: Cor mundum crea in me, Deus, et spiritum
rectum innova in visceribus meis. A. BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 362.
378
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica, 366-367.
379
Further below, there will be a general historical evaluation of the offertory. This will
compare the general outlines of the Consilium’s liturgy to that of OR I. Once again, the value of
this evalution is due to the Consilium’s explicit modelling of its liturgy on the skeleton of the OR
I.
130
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
balance between an historically earlier period of silent private prayer over the gifts and a newer
and (yet longstanding) historical development of composed prayers for the offertory. The
elimination and curtailment of the offertory prayers was justifiable by using a commonly
accepted thesis, espoused by J. Jungmann, that the expansion of the composed priestly prayers
for the bread and wine coincided with two different phenomena. First, in the Gallican liturgy
there was a general trend to commemorate the offerers and their intentions aloud at the reception
of the gifts. This expanded into formal prayers. Secondly, as the offertory procession waned, the
additional space left by the defunct offertory procession was filled in with devotional prayers by
the celebrant. 380 The work of the Consilium abbreviates, but does not eliminate, the 9th century
development. At the same time the offertory procession with the faithful has been restored and
given the rubrical freedom to reflect the local cultural conditions. However, the Consilium periti
lamented the fact that –given their practical focus on the offertory- they could not find a single
prayer in Western liturgical books that contained something of the theological emphasis of the
new offertory. This was the situation they found themselves in since all surviving prayers merely
anticipated the sacrifice to be effected during the Canon.381 Generally, it is difficult to locate nonanticipatory offertory prayers within any liturgical tradition, but especially the Roman rite.
Full Conscious and Active Participation: Paul VI eventually intervened in this part of the
reform process following the failure of the Normative Mass to gain approval at the synod of
bishops in 1967. He required verbal-active participation by the faithful in this rite.382 This desire
was not new since, as Archbishop, he had explicitly experimented with the offertory procession
in Milan in the 1960’s.383 Before Papal and curial interventions, however, the original prayers
that the Consilium Fathers had voted for in the liturgy were simply lifted from the Didache and
380
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 41-50.
381
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). », in RCOM, 499.
382 A.
383
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 3.
J. MONTINI, «De re pastorali liturgica», Ephemerides Liturgicae 77 (1963) 237-238.
131
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Scriptures. The principle of active participation was not considered to have been satisfied by the
people’s verbal responses, rather by the inclusion of the offertory procession into the rite of
Mass.384 This allowed the faithful a different mode of playing an active role in the rite of
offering.
Manifestation of the Church: The introduction of the offertory procession was a Consilium
milestone. Still, the offertory prayers themselves remained a problem until the publication of the
Novus Ordo Missae. For example (see Chapter five, footnote no. 4), there was notable
dissatisfaction with the Consilium’s previously approved offertory compositions such that a last
minute fix was implemented. In both of these compositions (ordered either by the Consilium or
its Secretary) there was no apparent concern by Consilium members that the priest had a
“clerical monopoly” at the offertory. The faithful had already played their active role. This is the
point at which the priest recited a prayer explaining the gifts’ relation to man symbolically and
the sanctification to be effected by the transformation of human gifts and efforts into the Paschal
Mystery.
Substantial Unity & Legitimate Progress: Besides the Prayer of the Faithful, the next most
important rite to embrace these principles was the offertory. At the discretion of the local parish
and national conference of bishops, many adaptations and local traditions may be represented by
both the offertory procession, as well as its contents (food, materials, etc.). By ignoring any quest
for rubrical precision and explicitly deferring to local custom, the inventiveness of the local
community and the national or ethnic church were given a venue for expression.
5.2 THE OFFERTORY: THE WINE
Although the bread and wine offering are one rite, the addition of a prayer of “commixture”
for the wine and water merits mention in the Consilium’s reform. An accompanying prayer for
the mixture is conspicuously absent. The Consilium’s text reads the following:
384
RCOM, 258-259.
132
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“25.) Deaconus si adest -secus sacerdos-
infundit vinum et parum aquae in
calicem.385
26.) Sacerdos accipiens -de mano diaconi, si adest- calicem eumque, -diacono
adiuvante- ambabus manibus aliquantulum elevatum super altare tenens,386
dicit:
SAPIENTIA AEDIFICAVIT SIBI DOMUM, MISCUIT VINUM ET POSUIT MENSAM. GLORIA
TIBI, DEUS, IN SAECULA. Deponit deinde calicem super corporale.”
Historical Evaluation: The preparation of the chalice remained a simply ritual action
in the OR I, the Roman Ordo succinctly prescribes:
“Deinde descendit subdiaconus sequens in scola accipit fontem de manu
archiparafonistae et defert archidiacono et ille infundit, faciens crucem, in calicem (OR I,
80).387 ”
Subsequently, in the Ordo Romanus I, the celebrant goes to the altar, kisses it, and receives
the gifts from the hands of the clerics according to precedence. He eventually returns the offered
chalice to the lower clergy to arrange it. The absence of a private prayer of commixture is easily
explained by the absence of such a prayer in OR I. In the earliest Roman ceremonial books,
however, a notable and unexplained absence stands out. The deacon, in both OR I, 84 and the
Normative Mass, help offer the chalice. Yet, both OR I and the Missale Romanum of 1962 had
preserved (in one way or another) the rite of mixing the water with a sign of the cross. The
amount of water employed in the OR I allowed for it to be poured in the sign of a cross.388 Later
385
In the original schema there was no private prayer to accompany this ritual action.
386Again,
this was later clarified to be silent. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n.
44 (21 decembris 1967)», in RCOM, 624.
387
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 2, 93.
388
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 2, 82.
133
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Gallican custom prevailed to bless the water by the hand of the celebrant.389 This ceremony is
now conspicuously suppressed in the Normative Mass.
Full, conscious and active participation: The principles were already mentioned with
regard to the offertory of bread. Active participation of the faithful is foreseen in the offertory
procession. The text of the wine offering is taken from Proverbs 9:1-2. It was universally
approved by the Fathers of the Consilium. In contrast, the Didache prayer over the bread was
rejected by five voting Fathers. 390
Reform of the Roman Liturgy: This operational principle was proposed for the reform of
the offertory, removing the anticipatory theology (considered medieval and inaccurate) of
sacrifice. 391 These compositions had been eliminated in order that the practical rite of the
offertory could be restored. The formerly detailed rubrics of the Pian Missal are simplified in
order to indicate that a practical action of preparing the chalice occurs. The rubrics presume that
each minister has no need to divide into ritual moments the exact movements of preparation of
the elements on the altar.
“27.) Inclinatus sacerdos subiungit: IN SPIRITU HUMILITATIS ET IN ANIMO
CONTRITO SUSCIPIAMUR A TE, DOMINE. ET SIC FIAT SACRIFICIUM NOSTRUM IN
CONSPECTU TUO HODIE, UT PLACEAT TIBI, DOMINE DEUS.
28.) Pro opportunitate, accepto thuribolo, incensat oblata.392
389
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 60.
390 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 341.
391
This very theological shift is mentioned by Cardinal Gut and A. Bugnini in their last
edition of the GIRM. See CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, «Appendix 1. Appendix to the
General Instruction for the United States of America», in General Instruction of the Roman
Missal (Liturgy Documentary Series 2), United States Catholic Conference Inc., Washington
D.C., 1982, 100.
392
In the 21 December 1967 schema, hereafter was added: “28a.) Sacerdos deinde lavat
manus, dicens:...”. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», in
RCOM, 624.
134
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
29.) Manibus extensis cantat vel clara voce dicit orationem super oblata. Populus
respondet: AMEN.”
Historical Evaluation: The In spiritu is the most universal of the offertory prayers to be
found in the various Roman usages, especially the religious orders. Even the austere and
parsimonious Carthusian liturgy has retained it as its only real offertory prayer.393 It –among
other prayers- can be argued to have a liturgical pride of place. It is both scriptural (Dan. 3:39)394
and of relatively early composition (9th century). 395 J. Wagner, as Relator of Coetus X, was still
cognizant of the fact that it was a private prayer (Gallican) and violated the goals of the
Consilium reform. It was because of psychological considerations (i.e., complaints) that the need
was felt to have some sort of private preparatory prayer instead of complete silence.396 The Ordo
Romanus I conspicuously lacks a set of offertory prayers. It merely describes the offering of the
celebrant in silence. 397
Sound tradition and legitimate progress: Missa Normativa no. 28 has preserved the rite of
incensing. This is not due to any paradigm in OR I. It appears to be a continuation of the
offertory preparation from the Missal of Pius V. Although the accompanying prayers have been
suppressed, the rite itself remains. This aspect of liturgy was already visited by the Council periti
early on in 1966 where they recognized that some rites (even if remotely Eastern and
393
Missale sacri ordinis Cartusiensis, auctoritate apostolica approbatum, ed. R. Pater D.
Anselmus Maria, Cartusiae S. Mariae de Pratis 1883, 196.
394
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). », in RCOM, 499. See
the commentary of the Consilium in footnote 31.
395
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 41-51.
396
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des Ordo Missae», 278.
397
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 2, 93.
135
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
proximately Gallican)398 can be admitted if they involve greater participation of the faithful.399
However, this rite does not mention explicit allowance for the incensation of the people,
formerly permitted in the Missal of Pius V. It does not include greater participation of the faithful
and its origin is late. Thus, it is puzzling to find this rite here in the Normative Mass.
The Consilium Fathers had already approved the recitation aloud of the offertory secreta in
1964400 and this rubric was published (along with its chants) in the official liturgical books of
1965.401 This restoration of the secreta to a communal offertory prayer said aloud returned the
rite to a pre-Gallican tradition that was in line with the original intent and principles of the
Fathers and periti. There was no debate concerning the original recitation of this prayer aloud. In
fact the Fathers voted unanimously to reform this rite.402
398
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 71. Note that there are at least three
types of participation in the reform process: a.) verbal responses by the faithful b.) ritual
reception or performance of non-verbal actions c.) active mental attention (especially permitted
by the introduction of the vernacular). This is an example of involving the faithful through their
reception of a ritual act symbolic of their dignity in the assembly.
399
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). », in RCOM, 435. See
the commentary as compiled by J. Wagner (relator) and A. Hänggi (secretarius).
400
CONSILIUM, «Quaestiones tractandae, n. 6 (17 aprilis 1964)», in RCOM, 334-335.
401
CONSILIUM, Cantus, qui in Missali Romano desiderantur, iuxta instructionem ad
exsecutionem Constitutionis de sacra Litrurgia recte ordinandam et iuxta ritum concelebrationis,
Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Città del Vaticano 1965.
402
RCOM, 282-284.
136
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5.3 CANON MISSAE: THE PREFACE
Like the last edition of the Roman Missal (2002), the Consilium periti desired rubrically to
reconnect the the preface to the Canon as one grand prayer. This is witnessed in following
rubric:
“30.) Deinde sacerdos incipit actionem eucharisticam. Manibus super altare positis,
cantat vel clara voce dicit: DOMINUS VOBISCUM. Populus respondet: ET CUM SPIRITU
TUO. Sacerdos, manus elevans, prosequitur: SURSUM CORDA. Populus: HABEMUS AD
DOMINUM. Sacerdos, manus iungens, subdit: GRATIAS AGAMUS DOMINO DEO
NOSTRO. Populus: DIGNUM ET IUSTUM EST. Sacerdos, extensis ut prius manibus,
prosequitur praefationem: VERE DIGNUM....iungit manus.
31.) Populus una cum sacerdote praefationem concludit cantans vel clara voce
dicens: SANCTUS, SANCTUS, SANCTUS DOMINUS DEUS SABAOTH. PLENI SUNT
CAELI ET TERRAE GLORIA TUA. HOSANNA IN EXCELSIS. BENEDICTUS QUI VENIT
IN NOMINE DOMINI. HOSANNA IN EXCELSIS.”
Historical Evaluation: The Missa Normativa clearly sought to restore the more ancient
manuscripts’ conception of the Canon of the Mass. In the oldest versions of the Gelasianum the
Canon begins with the prefatory dialogue. 403 The gestures of the celebrant continue to reflect the
rubrics of the Pian Missal. The only change from the previous discipline is found with the
Sanctus. Just as the rubrics of the reformed Missal of 1965, the Normative Mass presumes a
common recitation of the Sanctus. It also imitates the Missal of 1965 by no longer requiring the
celebrant to bow or cross himself during the recital of the prayer. To this extent, only a slight
rubrical adjustment can said to have been made. It requires little explanation by the periti.
403
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium
Gelasianum, 183.
137
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Full, conscious, and active participation: The rite, again imitating the changes in 1965,
allows and presumes a communal recitation of these parts. This is an obvious application of the
principle of active participation. However, this mode of participation also coincides with the
rubrics of the OR I. In the Roman Ordo the celebrant stands erect and sings the Sanctus along
with the circumstantes.404
Language: The use of the vernacular for the prefaces had already been presented to Paul
VI in an audience in April of 1964. However, there was not yet harmony in thinking on the
subject and so a decision was postponed. The Fathers of the Consilium decided to delay the
question for two official reasons: a.) the Preface was considered part of the Canon, which was to
remain in Latin b.) the Preface would require time to compose vernacular prefaces in Gregorian
chant. Additionally, A. Bugnini mentions an important, even if unofficial, reason. The Fathers
felt that they had already been conceded so much in the vernacular that they were loathe to go
any further lest it seem like too much was being asked.405 At the fourth plenary adunanza this
general push for translating the prefaces was officially discussed by the Consilium (15 March
1964).406 A. Bugnini writes:
“Le due motivazioni ‘ufficiali’, riesaminate, furono facilmente superate. Che il
prefazio faccia parte del canone è vero. Ma in practica al sec. VIII il canone comincia al
Te igitur.407”
It is difficult to comprehend the logic here. Having just shown that the Consilium
restored the link between the preface and the “Canon”, it would seem -liturgically- contradictory
404
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 2, 95.
405 A.
406
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 115.
P. MARINI, «Attività complessiva dei gruppi di studio», 303.
407 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 116.
138
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
to argue from an opposite principle in order to translate the Preface. The danger that exists here
is to invoke a liturgical principle of identity between Preface and eucharistic prayer as the real
“Roman Canon” in order to give new parameters to what constitutes the eucharistic prayer in the
Normative Mass. At the same time, A. Bugnini invokes the non-existence of the same principle
in pre-Consilium liturgical texts as the justification for treating the preface as a separate rite of
the liturgy. This is an argument, nonetheless, justifying the liturgical reform of the rite in spite of
the objection that the Canon and preface are historically and authentically parts of a whole.
5.4 CANON MISSAE: THE ROMAN CANON
The question of revising and “correcting” the Roman Canon was recognized by all as a
grave question.408 Some preliminary questions had been proposed by J. Jungmann on 17 June
1964.409 After permitting the experts a period of study,410 a second discussion formally ensued on
30 September 1964.411 By late 1965 the periti had passed from considering some initial
suggestions to proposing an overhaul of the Roman Canon.412
408
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 113, De Missali, n. 14 (9 octobris 1965)», in RCOM, 424.
409
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2 (17 junii 1964)», in RCOM, 346-347.
However, J. Jungmann had forcefully been calling for a major restructuring of the Roman Canon
(especially the suppression of the Te igitur) since 1951 at a liturgical conference in Trier. See B.
BOTTE, Il Movimento Liturgico. Testimonianza e ricordi, 206-207.
410
P. MARINI, A Challenging Reform, 122.
411
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», in RCOM, 363.
412
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 113, De Missali, n. 14 (9 octobris 1965)», in RCOM,
424-425.
139
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Initially, the points of consideration were as follows:413
1.) A drastic reduction in the crosses in the Canon and elimination of them at the final
doxology.
2.) The replacement of these gestures with the traditional Roman orans position.
3.) The removal of the Amens from the various sections of the Canon.
4.) The reading of the Hanc igitur to the Supplices te rogamus, inclusively, aloud.
5.) The saying of the final doxology aloud.
6.) The imitation of oriental liturgies’ post-consecratory acclamations.
To these points were later added:414
7.) The Canon is to be considered the prayer beginning with the Preface until the
doxology.
8.) Prefaces are to be increased.
9.) The Sanctus is always to be recited by both priest and circumstantes together.
However, there was total disagreement, as mentioned in the official Consilium schema,
on certain points:415
a.) Some want absolutely nothing changed in the Canon.
b.) Others want all intercessions to be located after the consecration.
c.) Others want the names of the saints to be revised.
d.) Others desire post consecratory acclamations.
413
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2 (17 June 1964)»,, in RCOM, 347-348.
414
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», 362-363.
415
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», 362.
140
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
e.) Others want the Canon intact and a new eucharistic prayer composed.
f.) Others want a Byzantine eucharistic prayer added to the Roman rite.416
Ultimately the periti opted to preserve, for the most part, a critical edition of the Roman
Canon (with ritual simplifications) and to compose two new eucharistic prayers modelled upon
the Roman Canon. The reasons for this sort of solution may seem obvious. From the fourth until
the twentieth century the Roman rite was distinguished by its one eucharistic prayer. This unique
attribute of the Roman liturgy was the specific difference which distinguished it from other rites,
including its Gallican relatives.417 Despite these considerations, the relator J. Wagner admitted
that the periti –upon further study- were ever “lessening their esteem” for the Roman Canon
because of its complicated historical problems. It was also seen as liturgically inferior to its
contemporaries. As such, the hope was to at least save its “substance.”418
These imputed
theological and structural deficiencies of the Canon directly resulted in the Consilium proposing
three different corrected and “retouched” versions of the Roman Canon. This was heralded as an
attempt to respond to the needs of “the mentality of men of our times.”419
5.4.1 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Te igitur
Given the Consilium’s competency to direct the reform process and then present its work
for approval in audiences before the Holy Father, the periti initially enjoyed great liberty to
416
This project was forcefully argued by Louis Bouyer in a debate form before the
Fathers of the Consilium, against his rival Cipriano Vagaggini. See B. BOTTE, Il Movimento
Liturgico. Testimonianza e ricordi, 209-212.
417
C. VAGAGGINI, The canon of the mass and liturgical reform, tr. P. Coughlan, Geoffrey
Chapman Ltd., Great Britain 1967, 84. In 1966, while the new eucharistic prayers were being
fashioned, C. Vagaggini published his proposals as a consultor of Coetus X.
418
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», , 279-81.
419
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», , 285, 279.
141
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
employ their expertise and theoretical approaches to solving the “problem” of the Roman
Canon.420 In this section the critical edition of the Roman Canon, as ammended by the
Consilium, will be presented section by section. After evaluating it, forms B and C will be
contrasted to it in the manner by which they differ. Following this investigation, it will be
necessary to explain briefly how these prayers failed to gain acceptance for the Normative Mass
in its celebratory form before the Synod of Bishops in 1967. This lack of approval by Pope Paul
VI ultimately resulted in the creation of new eucharistic prayers composed by members of
Coetus X. Section 32 of the Normative Mass reads:421
“Sacerdos, extensis manibus, clara voce dicit: TE IGITUR, CLEMENTISSIME
PATER, PER IESUM CHRISTUM, FILIUM TUUM, DOMINUM NOSTRUM
SUPPLICES ROGAMUS AC PETIMUS UTI ACCEPTA HABEAS ET BENEDICAS signat
semel super calicem et panem simul HAEC DONA, + HAEC MUNERA, HAEC SACRA
SACRIFICIA ILLIBATA. Extensis manibus prosequitur: IN PRIMIS, QUAE TIBI
OFFERIMUS PRO ECCLESIA TUA SANCTA CATHOLICA: QUAM PACIFICARE,
CUSTODIRE, ADUNARE ET REGERE DIGNERIS TOTO ORBE TERRARUM: UNA
CUM FAMULO TUO PAPA NOSTRO N. ET ANTISTITE NOSTRO N. ET OMNIBUS
ORTHODOXIS ATQUE CATHOLICAE ET APOSTOLICAE FIDEI CULTORIBUS.”
Historical Evaluation: The restoration of the recitation of the Canon aloud and the
simplification of the complex ritual acts at the beginning of the Canon constitute the only
significant changes in the revised version. First, per J. Jungmann’s suggestions, the Canon’s
rubrics were adjusted to be recited aloud and these were immediately accepted by both the periti
420
In the opening chapter, J. Jungmann’s prominence came to the fore, since his
Missarum Sollemnia was officially adopted as an historical guide for the task of liturgical reform.
However, J. Jungmann himself was invested particularly with the weighty task of studying the
Roman Canon and preparing the salient points of discussion and reform for the Coetus X. See P.
MARINI, «Attivitá complessiva dei gruppi di studio», 296-298.
421
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). », in RCOM, 445.
142
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
of Coetus X and the voting Fathers of the Consilium. 422 Furthermore, all the Fathers approved
the recital aloud of the whole Canon.423 Lastly, All Fathers approved of the Roman Canon as the
new Form A of the first eucharistic prayer of the Normative Mass.424 J. Jungmann’s presentation
of the Canon and its development was well known, as mentioned in previous chapters, and his
leadership was decisive in revising these two aspects of the Roman Canon.425 The continued
inclusion of the antitiste nostro, although not in the oldest manuscripts, need no defense because
of its long history since the time of the oldest extent Gelasianum.426 It is surprising that no debate
or suggestion of praying for rulers was suggested by the periti in their schemata, since it is found
in both the Gelasian sacramentary and had been in use in some countries until 1918.427 It had
been of great pastoral advantage in countries where Catholics demonstrated their goodwill
toward the secular authorities.
422
CONSILIUM, «De Ordine Missae. Conspectus Suffragationum quae in Sessione
plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 octobris 1965, de schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae
sunt», In RCOM*, 446-447.
423
CONSILIUM, «De Ordine Missae. Introductio Generalis in novas “anapohoras” seu
“preces eucharisticas”», in RCOM*, 449.
424
CONSILIUM, «De Ordine Missae. Introductio Generalis in novas “anapohoras” seu
“preces eucharisticas”», in RCOM*, 447.
425
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 138-152. Jungmann explains the
diversity of gestures and the origin of the silent recitation of the Canon. The current rubrics are
simple (like the Dominican rite) using the orans.
426
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium
Gelasianum, 184.
427
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium
Gelasianum, 184. Austria continued to prayer for the ruler (rege nostro) at this point. See .
JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 158.
143
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Full, conscious, and active participation: Obviously, as mentioned above, the recital
aloud of the entire Canon, from this point forward, is meant to reintroduce the didactic element
of the eucharistic prayer.428 Its immediate appeal, being in the vernacular, is obvious in regions
where either Missals are not available or where people are found to be illiterate.429 The
consideration of translating the whole Canon into the vernacular, however, was proposed by the
Holy Father to the Consilium through the Secretary of State (Amleto Cicognani). On 21 October
1966 the Secretary of State, as a result of requests for concessions from the Netherlands, asked
the Consilium to consider the question. This would eventually lead to its recommendation for
vernacular in the eucharistic prayer.430 One difficulty arises in the mind of A. Bugnini about a
vernacular Canon. He muses along the these lines: “Has the Consilium gone beyond the dictates
of Sacrosanctum Concilium?”431 An attempt will be made to respond this question in the
conclusions of this chapter.
428
However, the actual impetus for this transition began with requests from episcopal
conferences to the Holy Father and Consilium in March of 1966 leading to the concession of the
recital of the Canon in the vernacular, but only for Masses of Ordination. The concession was
granted so that “the Christian people[ …]better understand the spiritual riches of these
celebrations and […] draw from them yet greater profit.” See CONSILIUM, «Dans sa récente
allocution», Notitiae 3 (1967) 289-296.
429
It should be remembered that since 1965 the Consilium had published the Rite of
Concelebration (although the work on the project had begun “in anticipation” by A. Martimort in
1963 and later by P. Vagaggini and P Franquesa in March of 1964. See P. MARINI, «Il
“Consilium” in piena attività in un clima favorevole», 131.). This allowed the Canon to be said
aloud in concelebrated Masses, as had been the custom at ordinations concelebrated by the
ordinands in the Missal of St. Pius V. This practice had already de facto begun the transition to a
Canon recited aloud before Tres abhinc annos (no. 11& 28) conceded the additional practice of a
celebrant alone reciting the entire Canon aloud and even in the vernacular. See SACRA RITUUM
CONGREGATIO, «Tres abhinc annos», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967) 442-448.
430 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 117-119.
431 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 121.
144
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Sound Tradition and Legitimate Progress: Clearly, the simplification of the initial
lifting and lowering of hands, as well as the kiss of the altar, hearkens back to the Ordines
Romani (OR I, 88), where the Pontiff recited the the beginning of the prayer in simple orans.432
Nonetheless (as above mentioned in this chapter), J. Jungmann initally suggested only decreasing
the number of the signs of the cross, especially eliminating those after the institution narrative.
A more sober number would have been in keeping with the earliest Gelasian sacramentary,
which preserved five signs of cross in this very section of the eucharistic prayer.433 However, as
in 5.4 above, the evolution of the Consilium’s simplifications eventually led to only one sign of
the cross in this section of the eucharistic prayer.
Ecumenical Dimension: Surprisingly, it is at this very point of the Mass that the periti
wish to emphasize the influence of ecumenism and ecumenical theology. In the Adnotationes ad
Canonem Missae, Coetus X notes the following:
“Multi catholici ritus latini norunt et amant nunc divitias theologicas, praesertim
oeconomiam salutis quod attinet, et pulchritudinem compositionis, quae inveniuntur in
anaphoris orientalium.
Fratres quidam separati occidentales in liturgiis suis ad preces eucharisticas
redierunt, resumentes in genere traditionem Canonis Missae romanae, et quidem de
consulto, quia origines suas negare nolunt, sed tamen illum cum elementis quibusdam
orientalibus (vel antiquae christianitatis) ditantes, et aliquomodo, mentalitati hominum
nostrae aetatis aptantes.” 434
432
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 2, 96.
433
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium
Gelasianum, 184.
434
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 113, De Missali, n. 14 (9 octobris 1965)», in RCOM,
424-425.
145
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
These lines attempt to argue that there is an appreciation for the universal liturgical
heritage of the Church by at least some camps of various Protestant denominations. They have
greatly benefitted from a resourcement by both affirming their Roman heritage while enriching it
with foreign or ancient testimonial elements of the Fathers. As a sign of deference to their
thinking in matters liturgical, the periti propose a similar solution. Secondly, they assert that such
a return to the sources is, in fact, something that speaks to the mentality of the current epoch (as
opposed to a retrograde outlook preserving rigid liturgical forms of one limited liturgical
tradition). In effect the implication is that both Catholics and their “western separated brethren”
will find themselves in a sort of liturgical “synergy” by opening themselves to the same sources
and methods in approaching liturgical reform (at least within the context of the Canon). As such,
it would be a practical means of repproachment between theologians. The Consilium is now
opposed to rigid doctrinal distinctions that were emphasized in the past by liturgical praxis (e.g.,
communion under one kind).435
5.4.2 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Memento
C o m m e m e r a t i o p ro v i v i s . M E M E N TO , D O M I N E , FA M U L O R U M
FAMULARUMQUE TUARUM N. ET N. Iungit manus, orat aliquantulum pro quibus
orare intendit: deinde manibus extensis prosequitur: ET OMNIUM CIRCUMSTANTIUM,
QUORUM TIBI FIDES COGNITA EST ET NOTA DEVOTIO, QUI TIBI OFFERUNT
HOC SACRIFICUM LAUDIS,436 PRO SE SUISQUE OMNIBUS: PRO REDEMPTIONE
435
C. Vagaggini also attempts to “correct” the Roman Canon based on sources and the
Fathers in his own work Il canone della messa e la riforma liturgica. While working on this
very question of the reform of the canon, he suggests several interesting experiments that blend
the Roman Canon with different patristic and sacramentary selections. See C. VAGAGGINI, The
canon of the mass and liturgical reform, tr. P. Coughlan, Geoffrey Chapman Ltd., Great Britain
1967, 153-195.
436
The additamentum Alcuini was proposed to be dropped by the Consilium here.
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966) », 502.
146
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
ANIMARUM SUARUM, PRO SPE SALUTIS ET INCOLUMITATIS SUAE: TIBIQUE
REDDUNT VOTA SUA AETERNO DEO, VIVO ET VERO.
Historical Evaluation: The following argument of J. Jungmann,437 accepted by the
Consilium periti, remains just as valid today. Relying on the witness of Pope St. Innocent I, the
commemorations of the living seem to have their origins in the faithful’s desire to have their
beloved mentioned inter sacra mysteria.438 This places the intercessions around the first quarter
of the fourth century. From an historical perspective, they are eminently patristic because of their
authenticity within the period in question. The additamentum Alcuini was dropped for historical
reasons since it was universally recognized as a later addition and was missing from the recently
published critical edition of Dom Botte.439 Despite the initial suggestions of J. Jungmann
(mentioned above) the Consilium periti decided not to divide the Canon into silent and aloud
parts. Intead, they simplified the question and prescribed the entire Canon to be said aloud like at
concelebrated Masses.440 Many experts in the liturgical debate about the reform of the Canon
considered the double memento (one for the living and the other for the dead) to be a defect of
the Roman Canon (while admitting that other Oriental liturgies have done the same thing).
Nonetheless, there was a belief that a better and more logical structure would result by
437
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 158-159.
438
Prex Eucaristica. Volumen I: Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus selecti, ed. A.
Gerhards –H. Brakmann, Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, Freiburg 1998. The editors of the
critical text of the Roman Canon note all the patristic references to this practice in the fourth
century.
439
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 502. See
also B. BOTTE –C. MOHRMANN, L’Ordinaire de la messe. Texte critique, traduction et études, Les
éditions du cerf Paris, Louvain 1953, 72-93. See also B. BOTTE, Le Canon de la Messe romaine.
Edition critique, introduction et note (Textes et études liturgiques 2), Louvain 1935.
440
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966). », in RCOM, 501.
147
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
combining both intercessory prayers after the institution narrative and Unde et memores.441 J.
Wagner wrote:
Non si può negare che tutte queste interpolazioni, per quanto comprensibili,
abbiano danneggiato il Canone romano. Mons. Pietro Borella ha espresso in questi
termini tale consequenza meno felice: ‘Intercessio in Canonem romanum inducta,
unitatem et continuitatem precis eucharisticae turbavit.’442
This critique will become central for the Consilium when explaining the need to
introduce forms B and C of the Roman Canon to actualize the reforms of the Council. The new
forms avoid the “defects” of form A.
5.4.3 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Communicantes
“Infra actionem. COMMUNICANTES ET MEMORIAM VENERANTES, IN
PRIMIS GLORIOSAE SEMPER VIRGINIS MARIAE, GENITRICIS DEI ET DOMINI
NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI: SED ET BEATI IOSEPH, EIUSDEM VIRGINIS SPONSI, ET
BEATORUM APOSTOLORUM AC MARTYRUM TUORUM, PETRI ET PAULI,
ANDREAE, IACOBI, IOANNIS, THOMAE, IACOBI PHILIPPI, BARTHOLOMAEI,
MATTHAEI, SIMONIS ET THADDAEI: LINI, CLETI, CLEMENTIS, XYSTI, CORNELII,
CYPRIANI, LAURENTII, CHRISOGONI, IOANNIS ET PAULI, COSMAE ET DAMIANI:
ET OMNIUM SANCTORUM TUORUM; QUORUM MERUISTIS PRECIBUSQUE
CONCEDAS, UT IN OMINBUS PROTECTIONIS TUAE MUNIAMUR AUXILIO. Iungit
manus PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.”443
441
C. VAGAGGINI, The canon of the mass and liturgical reform, 111-114.
442
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente» , 283.
443
The Amens are also proposed to be dropped for historical and pastoral reasons. See:
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). », in RCOM, 502.
148
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Historical Evaluation: The list represents an extension of thought of the intercessory
prayer of the Memento.444 Because of its intimate connection (and grammatical dependence)
upon the former thoughts of the Momento, it will merit reform along the same lines as the
Momento. J. Jungmann refused to consider the Momento and the Communicantes two separate
“sections,” the Consilium composed forms B and C of the Roman Canon to realize this vision of
unity between the two “sections” of the Canon by combining them rubrically and in their official
published version. As mentioned at the Te igitur, The entire Roman Canon was left –except for
stylistic and critical corrections- unchanged. The reforms of the other two versions of the Roman
Canon will touch on any other changes made to this section of the eucharistic prayer. The
innumerable difficulties and the prolonged study required to change the venerable Canon simply
prompted the periti to leave it almost completely untouched. They were to accomplish their task
of reform only with the eucharistic prayers that were designed to be pro opportune options for
the priest in the Roman rite (i.e., B & C).445 It should be noted that the later historical addition of
all the Amen’s has been dropped. These omissions attempt to reunite the Canon –even if still
considered theologically fragmented- 446 into one flowing prayer that concludes with the great
doxology and a great Amen.447
444
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 169-171.
445
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 283.
446
The periti were of general accord that the Canon’s theology was fragmented and
lopsided (over-sacrificial) and that cosmetic corrections could not heal its real gaping wounds.
See C. VAGAGGINI, The canon of the mass and liturgical reform, 108-109, 110-111.
447
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 284. The restoration
of the great Amen is the real motivating factor. See CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n.
23. (24 May 1966). », in RCOM, 502.
149
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5.4.4 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Hanc igitur
“Tenens manus expansas super oblata, prosequitur: HANC IGITUR
OBLATIONEM SERVITUTUIS NOSTRAE, SED ET CUNCTAE FAMILIAE TUAE,
QUAESUMUS, DOMINE, UT PLACATUS ACCIPIAS: DIESQUE NOSTROS IN TUA
PACE DISPONAS, ATQUE AB AETERNA DAMNATIONE NOS ERIPI, ET IN
ELECTORUM TUORUM IUBEAS GREGE NUMERARI. Iungit manus: PER
CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.” 448
Historical Evaluation: Once again, the only notable change is that the celebrant omits
the Amen along with his continued recitation aloud. The problem that was present in the debates
of the periti was that the Hanc igitur was considered to have merely reduplicated the Te igitur
and the themes of the festal inserts for the Communicantes. Since it seems to have been
originally composed as something both changeable (according to a feast) and for uniquely
special occasions, its recital should be restricted to these occasions. The finality of these debates
will be presented below in the reformed version of the Roman Canon.449
5.4.5 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Quam oblationem
“QUAM OBLATIONEM TU, DEUS, IN OMNIBUS, QUAESUMUS,
BENEDICTAM, ADSCRIPTAM, RATAM, RATIONABILEM, ACCEPTABILEMQUE
FACERE DIGNERIS: UT NOBIS CORPUS ET SANGUIS FIAT DILECTISSIMI FILII
TUI DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI.”
448
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). »,
502-503.
449
C. VAGAGGINI, The canon of the mass and liturgical reform, 109.
150
in RCOM,
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Of course, this section of the Roman Canon is commonly referred to as the epiclesis.
However, an obvious epiclesis directed to the Holy Spirit is missing. This caused considerable
problems for J. Jungmann in the 1940’s when explaining the theology of the epiclesis. 450 The
presumably more ancient formula of Ambrose (De sacramentis)451 draws attention to the fact
that these gifts are a figura or immaterial representation of the true Christ. This aspect –
seemingly lost in this post-Ambrosian edition of the Canon (compounded with an undeveloped
pneumatology)- was a source of conflict for the periti as well.452 Again, the solution that the
Consilium arrived at will be explored in forms A and B.
5.4.6 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Institution narrative: Qui pridie & Simili modo
“Deinde cantat vel clara voce dicit: QUI PRIDIE QUAM PATERETUR accipit
panem ambabus manibus eumque paulum super altare tenens elevatum, prosequitur
ACCEPIT PANEM IN SANCTAS AC VENERABILES MANUS SUAS, elevat oculos ET
ELEVATIS OCULIS IN CAELUM AD TE DEUM PATREM SUUM OMNIPOTENTEM,
caput inclinat TIBI GRATIAS AGENS, BENEDIXIT, FREGIT, DEDITQUE DISCIPULIS
SUIS DICENS: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM
CORPUS MEUM. Quibus verbis prolatis, statim hostiam consecratam ostendit populo, et
reponit super patenam.453
Tunc, detecto calice, cantat vel clara voce dicit: SIMILI MODO POSTQUAM
CENATUM EST, accipit calicem ambabus manibus eumque paulum super altare tenens
elevatum prosequitur ACCIPIENS ET HUNC PRAECLARUM CALICEM IN SANCTAS
450
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 189-191.
451
B. BOTTE –C. MOHRMANN, L’Ordinaire de la messe, 78-79.
452
C. VAGAGGINI, The canon of the mass and liturgical reform, 100-101.
453
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966). », 502-503.
151
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
AC VENERABILES MANUS SUAS: caput inclinat ITEM TIBI GRATIAS AGENS,
BENEDIXIT, DEDITQUE DISCIPULIS SUIS, DICENS: ACCIPITE , ET BIBITE EX EO
OMNES. HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI:
MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN
REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HAEC QUOTIESCUMQUE FECERITIS, IN MEI
MEMORIAM FACIETIS.
Quibus verbis prolatis, statim calicem ostendit populo et
reponit super corporale. Deinde adorat, genuflexus, vel profunde inclinatus, si hoc pro
regione statutum est.” 454
Historical evaluation: The periti, in light of the recommendations of the Preparatory
Commission of the Second Vatican Council,455 chose to reduce the genuflections in the Mass.
However, they remained flexible with regard to the fact that –following the consecration of the
bread- it could still be advisable (depending on the results of experiments) to reinsert a
genuflection here. This simplification hearkens back to the desire, already adopted by the
Consilium, to eliminate Gallican additions that either did not promote active participation or
were seen as unnecessary complications of formerly simple rites.456 For example, the medieval
custom of guarding the fingers had already been dropped by the Consilium on 4 May 1967 (Tres
abhinc annos). This had been obligatory after touching the sacred Host. A variety of ways were
observed for washing and guarding the celebrants fingers, the oldest method mentioned in
454
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). », 435-436.
455
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966). », 504. See footnote.
“Proinde pro experimento unam tantum genuflexionem retinuimus post utramque
consecrationem in adorationem Corporis et Sanguinis Domini quam reverentissime peragendam.
Si vero patefiet illam unicam genuflexionem ad sensum adorationis experimendum non sufficere,
tunc fiat genuflexio etiam post elevationem hostiam.”
456
T. SCHNITZLER, «The Revision of the Order of the Mass», 137-144.
152
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
liturgical books from about the 11th century.457
More immediately, the Consilium periti
accentuated the introduction of meaningful symbolic gestures for a particular region (e.g.,
bowing instead of genuflecting). This permitted a sign more meaningful than a genuflection to be
adopted according to the the mentality of a particular people.
Sound Tradition and Legitimate progress: Citing the preparatory commission of the
Council (as mentioned above) it was deemed advantageous to reduce and even replace the
genuflection with something more symbolic according to the demeanor of this or that nation/
people. The genuflection itself was (in the current form) only known as a liturgical practice in the
late 14th century, as J. Jungmann mentioned above. Its relatively recent introduction and
imposition in the Roman Liturgy naturally did not lend itself to any great historical importance in
the chronicles of Roman liturgy, at least according to Consilium principles.458 The former rubrics
requiring the priest to retain his “canonical digits,” following the consecration of the Host until
the second ablution, had already been eliminated in Tres abhinc annos. The last edition to revise
the Missal of St. Pius V, the Missal of 1967, had already incorporated these rubrics. The
Consilium had previously voted upon and published all this legislation before the edition of the
Normative Mass here in question.459
457
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 205. For example, Durandus allows for
the unjoining of the fingers every time the celebrant makes a sign of the cross in the Canon, even
after the consecration. Interestingly enough, in some places the fingers were joined at the
offertory or after the lavabo so that unconsecrated particles could not adhere to the fingers and in
order to preserve them “pure” for what they were preparting to treat and touch.
458
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 212.
459
The Roman Missal, for Sunday, Feast, Ferial and Votive Masses. According to Tres
Abhinc Annos of May 4, 1967, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 1967. This was
published on 4 May 1967. See no. 12: “Post consecrationem, celebranti licet pollices et indices
non coniungere; si vero aliquod fragmentum hostiae digitis adhaeserit, digitos super patenam
abstergeat.”
153
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5.4.7 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Unde et memores
“Postea, extensis manibus, dicit: UNDE ET MEMORES, DOMINE, NOS SERVI
TUI, SED ET PLEBS TUA SANCTA, EIUSDEM CHRISTI FILII TUI, DOMINI NOSTRI,
TAM BEATAE PASSIONIS, NECNON ET AB INFERIS RESURRECTIONIS, SED ET IN
CAELOS GLORIOSAE ASCENSIONIS: OFFERIMUS PRAECLARAE MAIESTATI TUAE
DE TUIS DONIS AC DATIS HOSTIAM PURAM, HOSTIAM SANCTAM, HOSTIAM
IMMACULATAM; PANEM SANCTUM VITAE AETERNAE, ET CALICEM SALUTIS
PERPETUAE.” 460
Historical Evaluation: Absolutely no changes were introduced by the periti into the
formula the Normative Mass at this point. However, since one cross alone was permitted for the
entire Canon, each section of the Roman Canon obviously omits any mention of blessing.
5.3.9 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Supra quae & Supplices te rogamus 461
“SUPRA QUAE PROPITIO AC SERENO VULTU RESPICERE DIGNERIS: ET
ACCEPTA HABERE, SICUTI ACCEPTA HABERE DIGNATUS ES MUNERA
PUERI
TUI IUSTI ABEL, ET SACRIFICIUM PATRIARCHAE NOSTRI ABRAHAE: ET
QUOD
TIBI OBTULIT SUMMUS SACERDOS MELCHISEDECH, SANCTUM
SACRIFICIUM, IMMACULATAM HOSTIAM.
Profunde inclinatus, inunctis manibus, prosequitur: SUPPLICES TE ROGAMUS,
OMNIPOTENS DEUS: IUBE HAEC PERFERRI PER MANUS SANCTI ANGELI TUI IN
SUBLIME ALATARE TUUM, IN CONSPECTU DIVINAE MAIESTATIS TUAE: UT,
QUOTQUOT EX HAC ALTARIS PARTICIPATIONE SACROSANCTUM FILII TUI
460
461
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). », in RCOM, 574.
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966). », in RCOM,
575-576.
154
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
CORPUS ET SANGUINEM SUMPSERIMUS, OMNI BENEDICTIONE CAELESTI ET
GRATIA REPLEAMUR. PER EUMDEM CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.” 462
Historical Evaluation: The text of the Supra quae and Supplices te rogamus remain
exactly the same with only the foreseen rubrical changes of omitting any signs of the cross and
the kiss of the altar. Nonetheless, among periti, there was a general sense that the Supplices is
inexact and its theological message is not clear. It does not seem clear –in many experts view- as
to whether or not the petition here is for the eucharistic prayer or the sacrifice itself to be
accepted, as contained in the haec. It is also supposed that that the Supplices may have lost an
epiclesis, since its line of thought seems to some specialists to be incomplete. Between the Iube
and the ut, quotquot a petition for transformation of the gifts would be a logical sequence of
thought.463 As a minor matter, the Consilium cited –as mentioned above- the critical edition of
the Roman Canon as prepared by Dom Botte as a source for liturgical reform. Thus, it is curious
(and lacking comment by the Consilium) as to why the stylistic eumdem was not removed from
the Canon here since it doesn’t appear in the most authentic manuscripts as judged by the same
Dom Botte.464
5.3.10 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Momento465
Commemoratio pro defunctis: MEMENTO ETIAM, DOMINE, FAMULORUM
FAMULARUMQUE TUARUM N. ET N., QUI NOS PRECESSERUNT CUM SIGNO
462
Later this was clarified, that after the prayer Erigit se. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266,
De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967) », in RCOM, 626.
463
For a summation of these arguments, see C. VAGAGGINI, The canon of the mass and
liturgical reform, 104-105.
464
B. BOTTE –C. MOHRMANN, L’Ordinaire de la messe, 82.
465
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). », in RCOM, 505.
155
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
FIDEI, ET DORMIUNT IN SOMNO PACIS. Iungit manus, et orat aliquantulum pro iis
defunctis,466 pro quibus orare intendit; IPSIS, DOMINE, ET OMNIBUS IN CHRISTO
QUIESCENTIBUS, LOCUM REFRIGERII, LUCIS ET PACIS, UT INDULGEAS
DEPRECAMUR. Iungit manus: PER EUNDEM CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.
Historical Evaluation: As above, this text is completely unmodified by the Consilium as
well. It also suffers the same anomaly as the eundem in the Supplices te rogamus. It remains in
the untouched version A, but not without problems. J. Jungmann had already underlined its
problematic appearance in the Roman Canon rather late. He notes that some liturgical books up
to the 8th century do not mention it.467 It seems, if anything, to have been a gradual addition
serving especially for special Masses celebrated for the dead, apart from Sundays and common
festivals.468 The Consilium will propose its own solutions for the “overburdened” Roman Canon
in forms A and B further below.
5.3.11 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Nobis quoque peccatoribus469
“Manu dextera percutit sibi pectus et clara voce dicit: NOBIS QUOQUE
PECCATORIBUS FAMULIS TUIS, extensis manibus eadem voce prosequitur DE
MULTITUDINE MISERATIONUM TUARUM SPERANTIBUS, PARTEM ALIQUAM ET
SOCIETATEM DONARE DIGNERIS, CUM TUIS SANCTIS APOSTOLIS ET
466
Later this was clarified, that after the prayer manibus extensis, dicit. CONSILIUM,
«Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967)», in RCOM, 626.
467
Specifically, J. Jungmann is relying on the officially sanctioned Consilium work of B.
Botte on the Canon of the Mass. In this commentary on the Roman Canon, the book sent to
Charlemagne (i.e., the Hadrianum) lacks this content. See B. BOTTE, Le Canon de la Messe
Romaine, Abbaye du Mont César, Louvain 1935, 44.
468
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 238-239.
469
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966). », in RCOM, 505.
156
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
MARTYRIBUS: CUM IOANNE, STEPHANO, MATTHIA, BARNABA, IGNATIO,
ALEXANDRO, MARCELLINO, PETRO, FELICITATE, PERPETUA, AGATHA, LUCIA,
AGNETE, CAECILIA, ANASTASIA, ET OMNIBUS SANCTIS TUIS: INTRA QUORUM
NOS CONSORTIUM, NON AESTIMATOR MERITI, SED VENIAE, QUAESUMUS,
LARGITOR ADMITTE. Iungit manus PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.”
Historical Evaluation: J. Jungmann noticed that the universal textual tradition linking
the Memento and the Nobis quoque forces one to conclude they were linked together from the
beginning. He interprets the Nobis quoque as a continuation of thought of the Supra quae.470 C.
Vagaggini was critical of the list of saints since there were still historical problems in some of the
lives of the lesser know saints mentioned in the Canon.471 The distinction between the Nobis
quoque peccatoribus said aloud and the rest said submissa voce has been definitively eliminated.
This is not surprising since it seems to be merely the result of Gallican copyists’ retaining a relic
of the Roman practice of the clergy. They straightened up from their bowed positions at this
moment (OR, 89). 472 Practically, this action was simply the uniform return of the clergy to their
ceremonial places during the upcoming fractio panis.473
Sound Tradition and Legitimate Progress: C. Vagaggini, while working in Coetus X,
was heavily critical of the traditional list of the saints. He writes:
“The lists […] lend themselves to a great deal of criticism: the length of the lists
[…] the limited representation of Catholic holiness. With regard to this last point: the lists
470
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 248-249.
471
C. VAGAGGINI, The canon of the mass and liturgical reform, 106-107.
472
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 2, 95.
473
For J. Jungmann’s explanation of the historical oddity, see J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of
the Roman Rite 2, 258-259.
157
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
mention only early saints whose cult was a local one in the Church of Rome, while today
use of the Roman canon has spread to all parts of the world. It is not as if there have been
no saints in the Church since the seventh century.”474
His solution, in the same work, is to open this list to saints known in the local community
and abbreviate the lists for the sake of avoiding a heavy dose of lists of unknown names to the
vast majority of Christians. With these historical critiques in mind, the Consilium’s Forms B and
C are an attempt -to some extent- to address these criticisms.475 These same considerations can
also fall under the aegis of Substantial unity not rigid uniformity.
5.3.12 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Per quem 476
“PER QUEM HAEC OMNIA, DOMINE, SEMPER BONA CREAS,
SANCTIFICAS, VIVIFICAS, BENEDICIS ET PRAESTAS NOBIS.”
Historical Evaluation: The text, once again, has been completely preserved. There is the
historical question of the authentic blessings of objects (other than the sacred elements) at this
474
C. VAGAGGINI, The canon of the mass and liturgical reform, 106.
475
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», , 284-5.
476
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). », in RCOM, 506.
158
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
point.477 The crosses, as above, have been omitted. The priest’s hands remain presumably closed
(as in the last mentioned 1965 and 1967 missals) until the point of transition to the doxology.478
5.3.13 CANON MISSAE: FORM A. Per Ipsum479
“Accipit hostiam et calicem et elevans eum cum hostia, cantat vel clara voce
dicit: PER IPSUM, ET CUM IPSO, ET IN IPSO, EST TIBI DEO PATRI OMNIPOTENTI,
IN UNITATE SPIRITUS SANCTI, OMNIS HONOR ET GLORIA, PER OMNIA SAECULA
SAECULORUM.
Populus respondet: AMEN.
Calice et hostia depositis, sacerdos
profunde se inclinat.”
Historical Evalution: The simplified version of the doxology rubrics appears to follow
more closely Ordo Romanus I (OR, 90), which succinctly states:
“Pontifex autem tangit a latere calicem cum oblatis, dicens: Per ipsum et cum
ipso, usque: Per omnia saecula saeculorum, et ponit oblationes in loco [suo] et
archidiaconus calicem iuxta eas, [dimisso offerturio in ansas eiusdem].”480
477
There are still extent three authenticated prayers; namely, Cena Domini (oil), In
Pentecosten (milk and honey), & In natale Sancti Xysti (grapes). See «Liturgia Romana», in Prex
Eucaristica. Volumen I: Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus selecti, ed. A. Gerhards –H.
Brakmann, Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, Freiburg 1998, 437.
478
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO -CONSILIUM, «Tres abhinc annos», Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 59 (1967) 444-445.
479
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966). », in RCOM, 507.
480
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age 2, 96.
159
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
However, the Normative Mass had merely repeated the rubrics and simplifications that
had been instituted in the missal earlier on 4 May 1967.481 The only difference was to replace
the 14th century genuflection482 with the more generic ceremonial action of a bow.
General Reform of the Liturgy: This operational principle called for the simplification
of rites that needed explanation. In the new liturgy the general tendecy should be toward simply
and easily explanable rites. Here the transition in the 1965 and 1967 missals was from a
multiplicity of signs of the crosses (which had varied according to the various Latin liturgies)483
to a form more simplified meant to convey the idea of offering during the doxology.
Singing: This operational principle, with regard to the Canon, had already been applied
to the rite in 1965 and was published in the Graduale Simplex. It was an attempt to restore the
“Great Amen” of the doxology, which had been reduced to one of the several ekphoneses of the
Roman rite before the production of the reformed missal in 1965. 484
5.5 CANON MISSAE: FORM B.
As mentioned in the sections above, forms B and C were an attempt by the Consilium to
“correct” the Roman Canon. 485 A. Bugnini explains Coetus X’s work thus with regard to form B:
481
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO -CONSILIUM, «Tres abhinc annos», Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 59 (1967) 444.
482
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 205.
483
A. KING, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, Longmans, Green, London 1955. Here one
can see a variety of practices within several of the Roman usages.
484 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 131.
485
This is word employed by one of the more famous periti, C. Vagaggini in The canon
of the mass and liturgical reform, 108.
160
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“Questo schema tenta di ridimensionare, almeno parzialmente, la mole delle
interpolazioni nel canone romano tradizionale. I due memento infatti sono leggermente
contratti; le serie dei nomi dei santi non vengono totalmente soppresse, ma ambedue (del
‘Communicantes’ e del ‘Nobis quoque’) riunite in una sola, mantenendo i soli nomi dei
santi bibilici: e questo perché si è voluto tener presente la proposta che ormai da lungo
tempo avevano affacciato gli studiosi in materia.
Il gruppo non si era sentito di accogliere le proposte che volevano comporre
nuove liste di santi di tutti i tempi e di tutti i paesi, escludendo quelli locali della città di
Roma.”486
The differences between the the “Roman Canon” form A and B are few. First of all, all
the gestures and rubrics are exactly the same as form A.487 Secondly, the series of saints is
merely abbreviated and slightly reworked. The Commemorations are also reworked. Finally the
Per Christum Dominum nostrum and Amen of each section is dropped along with the gesture of
joining one’s hands, since those phrases occasioning the closing of the celebrant’s hands are now
omitted.488
486
A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 342. In fact, A. Bugnini is simply repruducing,
verbatim, the official explanation of the periti of the Consilium found in Schema 170 on 24 May
1966. See RCOM*, 397-416.
487
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 450. In a
footnote (no. 40) the periti detail the few differences and the overal structural and textual
similiarities between form A and form B.
488
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966)», in RCOM, 450.
This is the first of two similar schemata.
161
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5.5.1 CANON MISSAE: FORM B. Memento & Communicantes
The following are the approved texts (by the Fathers of the Consilium). The formerly
separate Momento and Communicantes are now combined. This schema was later presented to
Paul VI for approval (which audience will be treated further below):
“Commemeratio pro vivis. MEMENTO, DOMINE, FAMULORUM
FAMULARUMQUE TUARUM N. ET N. Iungit manus, orat aliquantulum pro quibus
orare intendit: deinde manibus extensis prosequitur: ET OMNIUM CIRCUMSTANTIUM,
QUORUM TIBI FIDES COGNITA EST ET NOTA DEVOTIO, QUI TIBI OFFERUNT
HOC SACRIFICUM LAUDIS,489 PRO SE SUISQUE OMNIBUS490
COMMUNICANTES491 ET MEMORIAM VENERANTES, IN PRIMIS
GLORIOSAE SEMPER VIRGINIS MARIAE, GENITRICIS DEI ET DOMINI N O S T R I
IESU CHRISTI: SED ET492BEATORUM IOSEPH ET IOANNIS BAPTISTAE, NECNON
ET BEATORUM APOSTOLORUM AC MARTYRUM TUORUM, PETRI ET PAULI,
ANDREAE, IACOBI, IOANNIS, THOMAE, IACOBI, PHILIPPI, BARTHOLOMAEI,
MATTHAEI, SIMONIS ET THADDAEI, MATHIAAE ET STEPHANI ET OMNIUM
489
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966).», 502. This is the
first Schema.
490
Missing, from this point on, from form A is the following: : “PRO REDEMPTIONE
ANIMARUM SUARUM, PRO SPE SALUTIS ET INCOLUMITATIS SUAE: TIBIQUE
REDDUNT VOTA SUA AETERNO DEO, VIVO ET VERO.”
491
In form A the introductory Infra actionem has been dropped here.
492
Form A departs from B at this point thus: “BEATI IOSEPH, EIUSDEM VIRGINIS
SPONSI, ET BEATORUM APOSTOLORUM AC MARTYRUM TUORUM,[…] LINI, CLETI,
CLEMENTIS, XYSTI, CORNELII, CYPRIANI, LAURENTII, CHRISOGONI, IOANNIS ET
PAULI, COSMAE ET DAMIANI: […] Iungit manus PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.”
162
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
SANCTORUM TUORUM; QUORUM MERUISTI PRECIBUSQUE CONCEDAS, UT IN
OMINBUS PROTECTIONIS TUAE MUNIAMUR AUXILIO”
Historical Evaluation: The periti, commenting upon their own text, noted that there was
still some discussion about both the hagiographies and studies yet to be done in order to verify
some of the saints in the traditional list as well as their true histories. The Fathers of the
Consilium themselves did not want to get weighed down by seemingly controversial and
elongated studies. As a result they simply decided to omit the names of non-scriptural saints and
to include those saints that were universally appreciated in the Roman Catholic Church.493 Other
aspects of the historicity of this part of the Canon, relevant to the current discussion, where
delineated above when treating form A.
Sound Tradition and Legitimate Progress: A further reason exists for this edited list.
There was an agreement by the periti to provide a list that mentioned the founders of the Roman
Church (i.e., Peter and Paul) and those saints who should be universally known. However, there
was a question as to whether or not it might be preferred to even more severely curtail the
present list in preference to simplicity and brevity. However, considering the lack of familiarity
with the main founders of the faith (particular in non-western cultures), it was deemed fitting to
provide this essential list.494
The Word of God: It should also be noticed that the list is comprised of only biblical
saints. This is an approach, adopted by the Consilium, to put the maximum emphasis on biblical
sources for liturgical texts, versus reliance on traditions of lesser authority. However, it can be
argued as well –from the commentary in the paragraph above- that the operational principle of
catechesis was at work here.495 This is due to the fact that the Consilium periti, as cited in the
above paragraph, felt that an essential mention of the saints was not imprudent when dealing
493
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966). Schema Primum»,
494
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schema Primum»,
383.
383.
495
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 170; De missale n. 23 (24 May 1966). Memorandum», in
RCOM, 467.
163
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
with non-western cultures. However, on the other hand, a list of little known or little celebrated
saints would seemingly serve little purpose at a liturgical celebration. In fine, a list of the biblical
saints would be equally acceptable to anyone in question.
5.5.2 CANON MISSAE: FORM B. Hanc igitur and Quam oblationem through the Unde et
memores through the Supplices te rogamus.
The only important difference here is the aforesaid universal omission of the Per
Dominum. In all other respects form B follows form A.496 The Quam oblationem differs in no
way from form A. In fact, there is no rubrical or textual variation from this point on until
reaching the Supplices te rogamus. The Supplices, as in previous sections, merely omits the Per
Christum, etc. This was already amply explained in the treatment of form A.
5.5.3 CANON MISSAE: FORM B. Momento & Nobis quoque peccatoribus.
This text was modified in significantly. One can anticipate the omission of the list of the saints
in light of the reformulation of the Memento of the living before the consecration. This section
reads:
“Commemoratio pro defunctis: MEMENTO ETIAM, DOMINE, FAMULORUM
FAMULARUMQUE TUARUM N. ET N.,497ET OMNIUM IN CHRISTO QUESCENTIUM,
IPSIS, QUI NOS PRECESSERUNT CUM SIGNO FIDEI, ET DORMIUNT IN SOMNO
PACIS. Iungit manus, et orat aliquantulum pro iis defunctis, pro quibus orare intendit.
496
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schema Primum», in
RCOM, 451-452.
497
In place of the: et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus Form A reads here: “QUI NOS
PRECESSERUNT CUM SIGNO FIDEI, ET DORMIUNT IN SOMNO PACIS. Iungit manus, et
orat aliquantulum pro iis defunctis, pro quibus orare intendit; DOMINE, ET OMNIBUS IN
CHRISTO QUIESCENTIBUS, LOCUM REFRIGERII, LUCIS ET PACIS, UT INDULGEAS
DEPRECAMUR. Iungit manus: PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM NOSTRUM.”
164
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Manu dextera percutit sibi pectus et clara voce dicit: NOBIS QUOQUE
PECCATORIBUS FAMULIS TUIS, extensis manibus eadem voce prosequitur DE
MULTITUDINE MISERATIONUM TUARUM SPERANTIBUS, PARTEM ALIQUAM ET
SOCIETATEM DONARE DIGNERIS, CUM498
OMNIBUS SANCTIS TUIS: INTRA
QUORUM NOS CONSORTIUM, NON AESTIMATOR MERITI, SED VENIAE,
QUAESUMUS, LARGITOR ADMITTE.
Iungit manus PER CHRISTUM DOMINUM
NOSTRUM.”
Historical Evaluation: Most points of interest have already been covered in the first
commemoration and the historical section of the Nobis quoque treating form A. Still, one will
notice immediately that the intercessory formula for the dead is merely abbreviated and made
more concise. There is no attempt by the Consilium to argue this reform from critical texts or
sources. There purpose here is pastoral not historical corrections.
The periti explained, earlier above, that the needs of modern culture in the liturgy were
better suited to the new arrangement of the Nobis quoque. Secondly, the list of saints was
abbreviated and combined in the Memento of the living. This served –as already mentioned- to
reduce the number of saints in the Canon and avoid those whose identities suffered from
historical scrutinies. Additionally, in the Nobis quoque, the final Christum Dominum nostrum
was not expunged. This is due to the fact that Dom Botte found in his research that this
christological intercessory invocation seems to be integral to the most primitive extant texts.499
5.4.4 CANON MISSAE: FORM B. Per quem & Per ipsum
There are no rubrical or textual differences here between forms A and B.
498
At this point form A contains: “TUIS SANCTIS APOSTOLIS ET MARTYRIBUS: CUM
IOANNE, STEPHANO, MATTHIA, BARNABA, IGNATIO, ALEXANDRO, MARCELLINO,
PETRO, FELICITATE, PERPETUA, AGATHA, LUCIA, AGNETE, CAECILIA, ANASTASIA, ET
OMNIBUS SANCTIS TUIS:”
499
B. BOTTE –C. MOHRMANN, L’Ordinaire de la messe, 84.
165
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5.6 CANON MISSAE: FORM C.
Bugnini further elucidated the reasoning behind form C, as he did for form A. He writes:
“Il suo contenuto corrisponde esattamente a quello dello schema precedente B,
differenziandosi solo nel fatto che acosta e fonde in un unico complesso il memento dei
vivi e quello dei defunti e il ‘Nobis quoque’ (Memento….Memento etiam…Nobis quoque).
Tale complesso viene inserito, dopo la consacrazione, tra il Supplices e la d o s s o l o g i a
finale.”500
Once again, all the gestures are the same as in forms A and B. However, the problem of
the intercessions caused the introduction of this third composition.501 In fact, it was still under
debate within the Coetus whether or not there should be any intercessions in the Canon
whatsover, due to the fact that the Prayer of the Faithful had been restored. This situation would
cause a “useless doublet.” Coetus X decided that this arguments were unconvincing.502 In the
same remarks, the Consilium mentions that a vote among its members resulted in a “majority”
vote among the periti for a.) combining the intercessions and b.) placing them after the
institution narrative. Lastly, for the sake of clarity, the same explanatory note mentions some of
the other positions that were argued for, but these did not obtain a majority vote. J. Wagner, as
relator of Coetus X, explains that the new configuration was deemed desirable to simplify the
Canon from the point of the Sanctus until the consecration. He remarks:
“Scopo di questi ritocchi è unicamente quello di sveltire il tratto dal Sanctus alla
consecrazione, cercando di riportare almeno in questa prima fase la preghiera
eucaristica alla primitiva grandiosità ed elevatezza. L’accostamento che ne viene nel Te
500 A.
501
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 342.
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 May 1966). », 383-384.
502
See the official Consilium explanation in the footnote (no. 42). CONSILIUM, «Schema,
n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 454.
166
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
igitur, tra ‘in primis quae Tibi offerimus’ con il ‘Comunicantes’ che contiene la serie dei
santi (biblici) rappresenta certamente un vantaggio, perché è l’accostamento di due
gruppi, di coloro cioè che ‘in terris offerunt’ e della Chiesa trionfante (Jungmann),
elemento che era sembrato già al Card. Schuster perfettamente consono all’attuale
Canone romano.”503
J. Wagner goes on to note that: a.) these three schemata were discussed among periti, the
voting Fathers, and the Consultors to the Consilium in October of 1965 b.) that there was
dissension as to whether or not to touch the Roman Canon (form A), but that all were agreeable
to create a “second” Canon c.) The Fathers of the Consilium (by secret ballot) voted by a 2/3
majority to allow ad experimentum a second version of the Canon. 504
In short, form C reflects form B exactly. It only differs in structure as follows:505
1.)Te igitur
2.)Communicantes
3.)Hanc igitur
4.)Quam oblationem
5.)Qui Pridie
6.)Simili Modo
7.)Unde et memores
8.)Supra quae
9.)Supplices te rogamus
10.)Memento of the living
11.)Memento of the dead
12.)Nobis quoque peccatoribus
13.)Per quem
14.)Per ipsum
503
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 285.
504
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 285.
505
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966)», in RCOM, 454-458.
167
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5.7 THE ROMAN CANON: CONCLUSIONS
In general, the reform of the Roman Canon has required less historical commentary
because little has changed and little was “corrected” by the periti. The most obvious reason for
this, in light of the information above, is that there was simply too much diversity of opinion.
However, as an official body (publishing documents and decisions of the voting Fathers), some
observations may further be made with regard to the Canon. These observations are about the
periti and their approach to the question of the Roman Canon.
First of all, A. Bugnini was referred to above as having responded to a query as to
whether or not the Consilium had “gone beyond its competence.” He responds to this objection
in his chronicle of the liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council. Ultimately, he reveals
to the reader that the Consilium had gone beyond its competence as established by the Liturgy
Constitution’s directives. He writes:
“Col movimento iniziato ufficialmente il 7 marzo 1965 il volgare entrò
praticamente in tutte le parti della liturgia[…]Vi fu un cedimento o addirittura un
travisamento delle disposizioni conciliari? Alcuni lo affermarono (e lo affermano).
Non si può negare che il principio della lingua materna, sancito dal Concilio,
abbia avuto una interpretazione extensiva. Essa, però, non fu fatta con spirito
avventuristico o per prurito di innovazione, ma con ponderatezza e dall’autorità
competente, e in linea con lo spirito delle disposizioni conciliari.”506
A. Bugnini makes an important point and defense from his critics. He uses a point that
has been more than verified in the present study. Each one of the reforms taken singly and on the
whole was subject to the personal approval of Pople Paul VI. This is an appeal to the legitimate
authority as the ultimate justification for the reforms. Secondly, A. Bugnini defends the motives
of all the periti and Fathers. However, the point of interest for this study is the fact that A.
Bugnini, as the foremost authority on the liturgical reforms, makes an important admission for
506 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 121.
168
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
understanding methodology and any proposed hierarchy of principles for reforming the Roman
liturgy. The reform of the Roman Canon exposes an important consideration (principle?), ignored
until now. When a particular reform of the Consilium is in conflict or goes beyond an ad litteram
reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium, it still may be a case provided for “in line with the spirit of
the consiliar dispositions.” It should not be considered –in some manner or other- a violation of
the Consilium’s mission to actualize the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The (implicit)
argument proposed by A. Bugnini would seem to be that one can have certainty that a reform is
within the “dispositions” of the Council because it has received Papal sanction. The difficulty
becomes, if this principle is accepted, all arguments for authentic reform can simply be reduced
to arguments by authority. This excludes, in the end, arguing from the altiora principia of the
Second Vatican Council. These principles as adopted by the Consilum would not in fact be
absolute principles but guideposts. Appeal to authority also cancels any historical considerations.
The historicity or authenticity of any rite within the context of the liturgical tradition logically
may become irrelevant. This form of argumentation (appeal to authority) makes the fundamental
and operational principles only reference points, but not absolute theological and liturgical
principles by which one judges the authenticity of any given reform. It also explains why
historical considerations might be of little weight since Papal sanction and imposition of a
reformed rite is the ipso facto deciding factor as to whether or not a rite belongs to the “Latin
rite.”
Secondly, sometimes the Consilium Fathers seemed to have had one vision of liturgical
reform, while the Roman Pontiff another. Papal intervention into the reform process has already
been noted in regard to the penitential rite, for example. Yet, in this case, the intervention does
not to seem to have its roots in complaints by the Roman Curia or SCR. Instead the Consilium
Fathers resolved the thorny question in the following manner:
A.) The Fathers and Consultors debated the issues at their plenaria and because of
discord on many issues, they agreed not to touch the original Canon but to create one new
Canon. This would preserved the traditional Canon untouched and allow for reform at the same
time.
169
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
B.) The Fathers voted with 2/3 majority (secret vote) to allow three possible versions of
the Reformed Canon ad experimentum.507
As an addendum to the official text, the Consilium presented to the Pope a text for
approval explaining that the Consilium periti of Coetus X, if the current solution was deemed
unacceptable, would be happy to compose one new eucharistic prayer (ex novo). They promised
to keep in mind the Roman genius of composition and the spirit of the Roman liturgy when
doing so.508 A. Bugnini’s chronicle of the liturgy provides insight as to why the periti remained
open to this option, even if never voted on by the Consilium Fathers. A. Bugnini recounts that
there was a tension between reverencing the tradition and meeting the many pastoral requests for
a prayer that was more practically useful and with a more logical structure. 509
A. Bugnini is also informative for understanding why the Fathers only allowed the periti
to write the new Canon (forms B and C) ad experimentum. They had hoped that experiments
with the three new compositions would yield positive fruits after discussing their observations
from controlled experimental celebrations. However, the entire plan needed to be scrapped after
unauthorized extra copies of the three Canons were circulated in public. They were disseminated
without discretion. This resulted in frenzy and shock from bishops, faithful, and even scholars in
507
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 170; De missale n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum», in
RCOM, 479-480.
508
CONSILIUM, «Schema n. 170; De missale n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum», in
RCOM, 480.
509 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 341.
170
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
various disciplines.510 In short, the entire process had not been tranquil, even within the precincts
of the Consilium’s own discussions.511
The final result of the Consilium labors was presented before Pope Paul VI in a private
audience with Cardinal Lercaro on 20 July 1966. It was at that audience that Paul VI intervened
in the reform process and changed the direction of two reforms. As mentioned above and in
Chapter four, the Pope ordered a revision of the penitential rite. More importantly, he directed the
Consilium Fathers to leave the Canon “unchanged.” He also ignored the request for one new
Eucharistic prayer. He asked for “two or three” new anaphoras to be used for differing times and
circumstances.512
510 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 343.
511
A. –G. MARTIMORT, «Le rôle de Paul VI dans la réforme liturgique», in Mirabile
laudis canticum. Mélange liturgique (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 60), CLVEdizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1991, 221-222.
512 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 344.
171
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
6.0 CHAPTER SIX
6.1 THE OUR FATHER
Now that the question of the Roman Canon has been covered, it still remains to
investigate the rest of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Often times the reform of the Mass rite
following the Canon was a less complicated problem. The order of these rites and prayers often
matches the general outline of Ordo Romanus primus. The first rite that follows the Per ipsum is
the Our Father. The Consilium Fathers approved the following:
74.) Deinde erectus, iunctis manibus, cantat vel clara voce dicit:
OREMUS. PRAECEPTIS SALUTARIBUS MONITI, ET DIVINA INSTITUTIONE
FORMATI, AUDEMUS DICERE: extendit manus et, una cum populo, cantat vel
clara voce dicit: PATER NOSTER, QUI ES IN CAELIS: SANCTIFICETUR
NOMEN TUUM: ADVENIAT REGNUM TUUM: FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA, SICUT
IN CAELO, ET IN TERRA.
PANEM NOSTRUM COTIDIANUM DA NOBIS
HODIE: ET DIMITTE NOBIS DEBITA NOSTRA, SICUT ET NOS DIMITTIMUS
DEBITORIBUS NOSTRIS ET NE NOS INDUCAS IN TENTATIONEM; SED
LIBERA NOS A MALO.513
Historical Evaluation: An interesting problem arises here from an historical perspective.
The tradition of the Roman rite and its Oremus seem to have more than just the connotation of a
general invitation to prayer. The Oremus, in particular, appears to be the consistent invitation by
the celebrant inviting the faithful to unite their intentions with his. At least this is the case in the
Latin rite. It is peculiar that he invites them to unite their intentions to the prayer that he will say
on their behalf. This is why its removal was certainly justifiable in the Novus Ordo at the
beginning of the Our Father. The Oremus originally signified an invitation for the faithful to
513
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schema Primum»,
505-506.
172
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
participate in silence in the president’s prayer, which he said in their name.514 The rubric above,
inviting all to prayer together, would then be a violation of this historical peculiarity of Roman
genius in prayer.515 Since Pius XII’s reform of the liturgy in 1958, the Our Father was permitted
to be recited una cum populo. 516This pre-Conciliar reform was the origin of the Consilium’s own
rubrical prescriptions of the Our Father. The oldest known custom in the Latin rite is first
referred to in the Rule of St. Benedict. Here the president (Abbot) is accustomed to recite the Our
Father in the name of the brethren until the libera nos. In the Missarum Solemnia of J. Jungmann
the transfer of the Pater noster, along with its introductory exhortation, was attributed to the
work of St. Gregory the Great. It is possible to see a parallel between the monastic custom in the
Regula Sancti Benedicti (RB 13.12-14) and the Our Father following the Gregorian reforms.517
This aspect of liturgical history is significant since the Consilium ex professo wished to “respect
the Roman tradition” with regard to the recital of the Pater noster.518 With this history in mind,
A. Bugnini independently suggested that the omission of the Oremus merely reflected a
514
With this theory in mind, it is interesting to note that the most ancient testimonies to
this liturgical prayer include the Oremus. This suggests that, like the Rule of St. Benedict, there
was a tradition of this prayer being recited on behalf of the people for some time. See BENEDICT
OF NURSIA, RB 1980: the Rule of St. Benedict in Latin and English with Notes, ed. T. Fry,
Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1981, 208-209. Compare this with Liber sacramentorum romanae
aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium Gelasianum, 186.
515
RCOM, 292. This fact did not go unnoticed by the periti. They continued to debate
the issue and finally only managed to remove the Oremus after November Masses (ad
experimentum) before the Synod of 1967. This occurred on 21 December 1967. M. Barba
referrs to J. Jungmann’s interpretation of the Oremus as the historical point of reference for this
interpretation of the Pater noster’s introduction.
516
The Consilium did not revisit this question and debate it but simply accepted the
rationale and decree that referred to the Pater noster according to the Instructio de Musica sacra
et sacra Liturgia (1958). See P. MARINI, «L’instruzione “Inter Oecumenici”», Ephemerides
Liturgicae 108 (1994) 229.
517
BENEDICT
208-209.
This is not an etiological explanation. For Benedict’s practice of the Our Father, see
OF NURSIA, RB 1980: the Rule of St. Benedict in Latin and English with Notes,
518
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170; De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum», in
RCOM, 480.
173
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
correction of the text of the Roman Mass in line with the early known testimonies of the recital
of the Pater noster.519 This patristic Latin tradition of recital by the celebrant alone, however,
found itself in conflict with the more recent emphasis on communal vocal recitation of the entire
prayer. Through a minor textual omission of the Oremus a significant change has taken place.
Additionally, the former Amen found in the Missal of Pius V has been eliminated. This was
justified from both the sacramentary tradition as from the literary function of the embolism, since
it was meant to expand the Our Father.520 The Amen, of course, can be easily argued to give the
impression of dividing this expansion of the prayer of the Our Father from the very text it is
meant to elucidate.
Full, conscious, and active participation: Permission for communal recitation of the
Our Father (3 September 1958) during sung Mass was reaffirmed on 26 September 1964 in Inter
Oecumenici.521 Here, like the Novus Ordo, the prayer became the right of the assembly and the
normative mode of recital of the prayer. Obviously, the Consilium simply mandated the
legitimate option that had already been promulgated during the reign of Pope Pius XII.
6.2 THE OUR FATHER: THE EMBOLISM
75.) Manibus extensis, sacerdos solus prosequitur, cantans vel clara voce dicens:
LIBERA NOS, QUAESUMUS, DOMINE, AB OMNIBUS MALIS, PRAETERITIS
PRAESENTIBUS ET FUTURIS: DA PROPITIUS PACEM IN DIEBUS NOSTRIS: UT,
OPE MISERICORDIAE TUAE ADIUTI, ET A PECCATO SIMUS SEMPER LIBERI ET
AB OMNI PERTURBATIONE SECURI: EXPECTANTES BEATAM SPEM, ET
ADVENTUM SALVATORIS NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI. Iungit manus. Populus una c u m
519 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 377.
520
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium
Gelasianum, 186.
521
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Instructio ad exsecutionem Constitutionis de sacra
Liturgia recte ordinandam», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964) 888.
174
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
sacerdote orationem concludit, cantans vel clara voce dicens: QUIA TUUM EST
REGNUM, ET POTESTAS, ET GLORIA IN SAECULA.522
Historical Evaluation: The official notes that accompanied the Consilium’s mature
version of the Normative Mass noted the variations in the Gallican liturgies and the historical
additions to the Roman embolism as historical precedents for their own changes.523 In fact, these
evaluations are in perfect harmony with J. Jungmann’s own summation of the embolism’s history
in the Roman rite.524 He had concluded that the Latin liturgies knew a variety of embolisms over
the centuries. Nonetheless, the oldest sacramentary tradition for the Roman Mass had conserved
a text that was retained in the various editions of the Missal of Pius V. The only major difference
in the earlier textual tradition -in the list of saints Mary, Peter & Paul, and Andrew- was the
absence of the phrase: et omnibus sanctis.525
Ordo Romanus I presented a further historical difficulty, i.e., the carrying and
presentation of the paten to the celebrant. The rubric reads:
Finito vero canone, subdiaconus regionarius stat cum patena post
archidiaconem.
Quando dixerit: et ab omni perturbatione securi, vertit se archidiaconus et
osculatam patenam dat eam tenendam diacono secundo (OR I, 93-94).
522
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 506.
523
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 507.
524
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 288-289.
525
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium
Gelasianum, 186. “Libera nos, quaesumus, domine, ab omnibus malis praeteritis praesentibus et
futuris, et intercedente pro nobis beata et gloriosa semperque virgine dei genetrice Maria et
sanctis apostolis tuis Petro et Paulo atque Andreas da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut ope
misericordiae tuae adiuti et a peccatis simus liberi semper et ab omni perturbatione securi: per
(Gelasianum, 1260).” One can see that there are some slight variations, e.g., pro nobis.
175
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
It was not unexpected that this practice was eliminated. It could have been justified under
the notion of “simplification of rites.” This is suggested by call to simplification of this rite by
the periti in their studies submitted to the Consilium Fathers early on, i.e., 22 October 1964.526
The transitional Missal of 1965 had already incorporated simplifications in the Our Father and
embolism.527 At this point, much of the complicated ceremonial had already been eliminated in
the transitional missals of 1965 and 1967. These reforms reflect an affirmation of an earlier
simplification of this rite in the drafts of the Normative Mass (before the synod in 1967).528
Reform of the Roman Liturgy: In the interest of removing doublets, the Consilium
periti decided to modify this prayer. Initially, the Secretary of the Consilium, A. Bugnini, had
merely specified that the embolism should be said aloud or sung, as on Good Friday, which was
considered to reflect the more authentic and ancient historical practice in the Roman liturgy.529
However, already in mid-1964 experts had been asked to study particular questions with regard
to the embolism. Some of the Bollandist fathers and V. Kennedy 530 were asked specifically about
the mention of the saints commemorated in the embolism in its relation to the Canon. Their
conclusions encouraged an alteration of the text.531 The list of the saints (Peter, Paul, Andrew,
526
527
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 44, De Missali, n. 9. (22 octobris 1964)», in RCOM, 368.
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Ordo Missae», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965)
126-127.
528
The notable exception of the question or the Oremus for the Pater noster was already
mentioned above. Given the fact that it is an addition in 1967 after the Synod of bishops, it is
beyond the scope of this dissertation.
529
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 39; De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964)», in RCOM, 363.
530
V. Kennedy was a Consultor for the Consilium of the reform of the Mass. See A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 30.
531
The Fathers were unanimous in voting to completely replace this prayer with the
newer version and rubrics, as well as the new doxology at the end. See CONSILIUM, «Coetus X:
“De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21,
22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae sunt (2 martii 1967)», in RCOM,
513.
176
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
etc) was considered to be a doublet. At that time the Roman Canon was the only anaphora
(whether in versions A, B or C), so the periti argued that it was not necessary to seek these
saints’ intercession yet a second time. After all, their intercession had already been sought in the
eucharistic prayer.532 There was a further logical reason proposed for curtailing the mention of
the saints. This omission eliminated “excessive length” of the prayer with a more concise
formula.533
Ecumenism: There had been many suggestions to eliminate the embolism altogether.
Nonetheless, the parallels to the embolism in most of the Eastern liturgies was the decisive factor
to retain the prayer, even if in a modified version. In fact this was the explicit motive for
retaining the embolism. The removal of the Saints Peter and Paul, Andrew, etc., was primarily
due to the lack of such a pattern in the Eastern liturgies.534 The secondary justification for the
removal of this prayer is that it represents the above mentioned doublet of saints mentioned in all
of the proposed versions of the Roman Canon. Not only was the embolism’s retention justified
by the quasi-principle of ecumenism, furthermore it was directly responsible for the addendum of
the doxology to the embolism. This was done to create a parallel between the Roman and
Oriental liturgies.535
6.3 THE PAX DOMINI
Despite the fact that this rite is simple (as far as the text is concerned), the ceremonies
that surround the fraction rite have often been complex enough to cause significant confusion
when attempting to explain this facet of the Roman rite. The reformed Mass of the Consilium
postponed the fraction. It formerly occurred in the Missal of Pius V toward the end of the
532
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170; De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum», in
RCOM*, 412-413.
533
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 286-287.
534
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170; De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum», in
RCOM*, 413.
535
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170; De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Memorandum», in
RCOM*, 413.
177
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
embolism. The Consilium then restored it to the location it had occupied in Ordo I of the Ordines
Romani. The ancient text for both the Roman Ordo I and the Normative Mass are virtually the
same (with the exception of the omission of one word and a slight refrasing of the prayer of
commixture and the additional formula introduced for the exchange of the sign of peace):536
76.) PAX DOMINI SIT SEMPER VOBISCUM.537 Populus respondit: ET
CUM SPIRITU TUO.
Historical Evaluation: J. Jungmann concluded that the original sign of peace (when
comparing his available ancient sources) was intimately connected with the Pax Domini.538 This
thesis has subsequently proved to be justified.539 Initially, the question of the sign of peace and
fraction was to be investigated on the grounds that it was ceremonially disorganized or
confusing.540 Soon after this, the periti suggested that the rite should be reorganized for the sake
of a communal act of reconciliation (i.e., the sign of peace). The fraction rite did not compete
with or impede such an exchange of peace.541 Yet, some historical considerations eventually
entered into the relocation of the fraction to the Agnus Dei. At this point of the liturgy, in the
most ancient texts, there is only mention of the fact that the celebrant says the Pax Domini and
then communicates, followed by the orders of clergy and people. 542 The ceremonial elements that
accompanied these texts are first found in the first Ordo Romanus (OR I, 95-107). An important
distinction in the Eucharistic terminology of the time complicates the Roman liturgy. The Pope
536
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 97-100.
537
Later this was clarified, that: “Sacerdos statim subdit...” See CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.
266, De Missali, n. 44 (21 decembris 1967) », in RCOM, 627.
538
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 322-323.
539
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucharistica, 522-523.
540
CONSILIUM, «Questiones Tractandae, n. 6 (17 aprilis 1964) », in RCOM, 335.
541
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2 (17 junii 1964) », in RCOM, 349.
542
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium
Gelasianum, 186.
178
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
handles the Sancta (e.i., reserved Sacrament; OR I, 95, 97). The other Roman churches make use
of the fermentum (a piece of the Pope’s Host, consecrated on the same day).543 The fermentum
was taken from the Pope’s liturgy of the day to be mixed in the chalices of other celebrants in
particular Roman churches.544 the Sancta was first referred to when treating the Pope’s entrance
into the basilica on the day of celebration. It received a reverence by the Pope before beginning
the Liturgy of the Word. This consecrated element was used again by the Pope at the Pax
Domini.
It may be useful to follow V. Raffa’s division of the fractio panis into three separate
fraction rites that existed at this period. First, there is the more ancient fraction rite. It is the
simple act of dividing the consecrated bread and distributing it to clergy and faithful.545 This is
effectively carried out in the Ordo Romanus I at the Agnus Dei. Although it is the most ancient
and practical fraction, it now occurs diachronically last. In the second fraction rite, the Pope
performs the commixture of the Sancta with the precious Blood with the Sancta. Lastly, there
occurs the “reunion” of the separated elements of the “Body” and the “Blood”, which is
historically the most recent rite of the three (and is likened to the oriental liturgies).
Although many details are still obscure, Gallican confusion about the differences between
these three fractions resulted in fusing them into one fraction at the moment of the Pax
Domini.546 Here, choosing not to restore either the Sancta or fermentum customs, the Consilium
instead fuses the rite of “reuniting” the separated elements and the practical fractio panis (for
Communion) into one rite. Due to many historical and theological ambiguities in this rite, the
periti explicitly made mention of the fact that there is no agreement as to what this ritual can
543
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2 (17 junii 1964) », in RCOM, 349. The
Fathers quite early on had explicited decided that they would not discuss or allow the restoration
of the fermentum as a way of restoring the rite or clarifying its theological symbolism. Another
avenue would have to be chosen.
544
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucharistica, 530-534.
545
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucharistica, 540-547.
546
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 321-332. J. Jungmann, also notices the
Gallican fusion. However, both J. Jungmann and V. Raffa notice that the many aspects of this rite
are still obscure.
179
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
really be said to even mean.547 However, there was still an historical justification for its retention.
Despite the aforementioned difficulties, the rite is found in the oldest texts and testimonies of the
Roman liturgy.548
Reform of the Roman Liturgy: There are variants within the manuscript tradition for
the Pax Domini. the triple sign of the cross with the Sancta is absent in older versions of Ordo
Romanus primus (OR I, 95). For example, one of the older 9th century manuscripts is missing
the rubric that prescribes three crosses. A reasonable conclusion drawn from this is that a later
Gallican tradition is ultimately responsible for this ceremony. A considerable variety of numbers
of the signs of the cross (and even consignation of the Host with the precious Blood) suggests a
multitude of customs once existed in Gaul.549 Despite these variants, the real reason why the
cross is omitted is simpler. in the Normative Mass, the fraction has been postponed to the Agnus
Dei. There no longer exists the possibility of accompanying the Pax Domini with signs of the
cross by using the fractured Host. It is still unbroken. The postponement of the fraction is not
possible because the rite of the Sancta and fermentum are unrestored.550 This explains the natural
absence of any commentary by the periti on the omission of this rite. If the chronological rite of
the fraction is postponed, the commingling is necessarily delayed.
6.4 PAX
The reformed rite of the pax is something completely ex novo, as far as the rubrics are
concerned, in the history of the Roman liturgy. Nonetheless, the rite is collocated in a justifiable
547
Nonetheless, the voting Fathers unanimously voted to retain the text, location and rite
of the Pax Domini.
See CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus
suffragationum quae in Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de
Schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae sunt (2 martii 1967)», in RCOM, 513.
548
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schema Primum», in
La riforma conciliare dell’ “Ordo Missae”, in RCOM, 508.
549
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 314-315.
550
B. Botte and D. Jong were given the task (1964) of trying to sort out the theology for
these obscure rites. The Consilium’s decision was based on the impasse that these two scholars
came to since the men were unable to convince the experts or Fathers that they had found a
solution. See CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2 (17 junii 1964) », in RCOM, 349.
180
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
place according to the historical studies of J. Jungmann, as will be discussed below. The rite of
the Consilium is as follows:
77.) Deinde diaconus, vel sacerdos, pro opportunitate subiungit cantans
vel dicens: OFFERTE VOBIS PACEM et omnes, modo convenienti,
pacem et caritatem sibi invicem significant.
Historical Evaluation: The first historical justification for this rite in the sources was the
Ordo Romanus primus. In OR I, after the commingling, the text abruptly mentions:
Pax tecum. Et cum spiritu tuo. Et ita confirmatur ab archidiacono.551
J. Jungmann emphasizes the fact that this is a peculiarly Roman (or rather Roman and
Gallican) rite. The peace at this point (inter mysteria) is a Roman practice par excellence.552 The
periti seemed to have this in mind enthusiastically when they wrote early on:
De Pace. Pax locum suum teneat immediate post embolismum. Momentum
vero Pacis vicissim dandae et exoptandae necnon mutuae reconciliationis per ritum
liturgicum significandae magni habeatur. Forma tamen congruat oportet conditionibus
diversarum communitatum et moribus populorum.553
However, the reform of the “kiss of peace” is not invoked on historical grounds. Instead
the Consilium restricted itself to developing the “kiss” out of the Tridentine forms and simply
grafting onto it the exhortation of the Ambrosian rite: Offerte vobis pacem.554 Thus, it is not
primarily according to any historical precedant that this rite’s “restoration” can be argued.
551
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 102.
552
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 323-325.
553
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964) »,297.
554
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», , 287.
181
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Furthermore, the Consilium’s official commentary did not claim to be restoring an ancient
Roman formulary to exhort the faithful to reconciliation.555
Full, Conscious and Active Participation: The use of the Offerte vobis pacem is an
attempt by the Consilium to avoid a search for an exhortation to peace in the manuscript past.556
This borrowing is made from the Ambrosian rite. Perhaps it seemed logical to use an expression
from a Western rite that had actually retained an exhortation to exchange peace. One could argue
that the inspiration among the periti was to include something that spoke to the mentality and
needs of the modern man and simultaneously used a local custom (of the Church of Milan) that
had proved its worth over centuries.
Secondly, the rite of peace was both optional and adaptable. The pro opportunitate nature
of the this rite allows a celebrant to omit it any time it is not appropriate (e.g., cultural situations
in which it would be considered too solemn or conversely too festive). Secondly, the Consilium
explicitly constituted this rite with a view to be open to variants according to moribus
populorum.557
Reform of the Roman Liturgy: This operational principle seems to be applied here in
the formula of peace exhortation. The Consilium wishes to avoid any rites that are complex and
difficult to explain. This exhortation is short and was still in use in the Ambrosian rite. Thus, it
needed no comment.
555
For example, J. Jungmann argues that the “Roman” manuscript tradition contains
exhortations like: Habete vinculum pacis. However, this and others are relatively late and admit
of variation. See J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 328-331.
556
However, it was not pleasing to all the Fathers. Of thirty-three voting Fathers, five
rejected the formula out of hand. See CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus
suffragationum quae in Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de
Schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae sunt (2 martii 1967)», in RCOM, 513.
557
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schema Primum», in
RCOM, 507.
182
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
6.5 THE COMMINGLING AND AGNUS DEI
The actual fraction of the Host and its relation to the Sancta and fermentum has already
been treated. Nonetheless, the prayer of commixture was retained in the new liturgy. This
retention of a private prayer to company a ceremonial action was incorporated into the new
liturgy as follows:
78.) Sacerdos profunde se inclinat. Deinde accipit hostiam eamque super
patenam vel calicem frangit, et particulam parvam immittit in calicem dicens
secreto: HAEC SACROSANCTA COMMIXTIO CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS
DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI FIAT ACCIPIENTIBUS NOBIS IN VITAM
AETERNAM.
79.) Interim cantatur vel dicitur: AGNUS DEI, QUI TOLLIS PECCATA
MUNDI: MISERERE NOBIS. Quod repetitur ter, vel etiam pluries, si fractio
panis protrahitur.
Historical Evaluation: Although the prayer of commingling is clearly reflective
of the Gallican penchant to accompany ceremonial actions with private prayer, this prayer
was maintained by the Consilium. J. Wagner explained that the Consilium was at a loss to
come to any sort of common agreement on the theological significance of the
commingling. It was shrouded in historical mystery.558 J. Jungmann had noticed that the
medieval commentators and manuscripts were neither committed to a particular order nor
to a particular formula for the commingling.559 This same very point was used by the
official Consilium commentary on the Missa Normativa.560 Even since the time of
Jungmann’s investigation little has been gained by way of a definitive explanation. V.
Raffa, exploring J. Jungmann’s passing comments on the meaning of consecratio, also
558
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 287.
559
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 316-319.
560
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schema Primum», in RCOM,
508.
183
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
records that some medieval authors were probably uncomfortable with the vagueness of
its meaning. This accounts for the Ordo Romanus I formula being revised or replaced in
subsequent redactions of the liturgy during the rite of commixture.561 Some versions of
OR I contain this prayer, indicating its relatively early use.562 In the Missa normativa the
mysterious term consecratio was removed since its meaning and history is highly
speculative. If, for example, it refers to consecratio per contactum, it would represent a
primitive theological understanding of consecratory formulae at Mass. In the end, the
Consilium Fathers were at odds with one another to approve the Tridentine formula and
its accompanying theological ambiguity. Only following B. Botte’s retouching of the
prayer did all the Fathers agree to allow it into the liturgy.563
The Agnus Dei is an important transitional point in the Classic Roman liturgy. The
Ordo Romanus I (OR I, 107-109) supposes that this chant accompanies the breaking of
the consecrated loaves, i.e., a confractorium.564 Considering J. Jungmann’s intuitions
about the early introduction of the rite, it was probably sung as many times as was
necessary to complete the fraction. However, the sacred number of three was the most
logical number of repetitions to expect after the fraction had ceased to take place here.
When the confractorium chant became a relic with no practical function, a triplet
invocation was simply preserved. This made this rite analogous to the Kyrie, Eleison, i.e.,
in triplet.565 The Consilium clearly has dispensed with the obligation to terminate the
561
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucharistica, 557-558.
562
The original text of the first Roman Ordo is similar to what was printed in the Missal
of Trent: “Fiat commixtio et consecratio corporis et sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christi
accipientibus nobis in vitam aeternam. Amen (OR I, 110).” See Les Ordines Romani du haut
moyen age I, 102. The consecratio, although retained by the Missal of Trent, was omitted by the
Consilium...still lacking a satisfactory theological explanation. See V. Raffa, Liturgia
eucharistica, 556-560.
563
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in
Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae
habitae sunt (2 Martii 1967)», in RCOM, 513.
564
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 101-102.
565
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 338-339.
184
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Agnus Dei with the dona nobis pacem. This invocation was judged to be a relatively later
development, and so it would make sense to omit it for historical reasons.566 However, it
will become clear that the Consilium allowed it to be retained for certain pastoral reasons.
Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Given the fact that a private formula
accompanies the commingling, the Consilium wished P. Botte to retouch the formula to
be theologically intelligible.567
As mentioned above, the historical account in J.
Jungmann’s Missarum solemnia (which is still current) chronicles a fair amount of
ambiguity in the understanding of this rite. However, for ecumenical reasons (explained
below), the prayer was to be retained. In conclusion, this retouched theological formula
was an attempt to put a better theological stamp on an otherwise ambivalent symbolic
action within this section of the liturgy.568
Singing: This operational principle was invoked by the periti in order to conserve
the traditional chants and compositions of the Agnus Dei. Although the text above
presupposes one or many invocations of miserere nobis, The official Consilium
commentary approved the replacement of the ultimate invocation to end with the dona
nobis pacem.569 This took into account the musical tradition of the Latin Church.
Ecumenism: The periti were not opposed to eliminating the rite of commingling
and the accompanying formulae. It was only the testimony of the Oriental liturgies that
566
However, it was universally agreed by the voting Fathers to retain the rite and to
return it to its original use as the point of departure for the confractorium. See CONSILIUM,
«Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in Sessione plenaria
“Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae habitae sunt (2
Martii 1967)», In RCOM, 513.
567
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2 (17 junii 1964) », in RCOM, 349.
568
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 508.
569
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 508. There is also an interesting point that was brought up by J. Wagner. Some
Consilium periti also suggested introducing other appropriate confractoria, not unlike formulae
that were akin to the Ambrosian rite. See J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei
Dokumente», , 287.
185
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
caused the periti to salvage (even if in a simplified form) the fusion of multiple sundry
rites into one symbolic rite at this point of the Roman Liturgy. 570
6.6 THE COMMUNION PREPARATION
The Consilium presented the reformed Mass text with a retouched version of one of the
two preparatory prayers from the Pian Missal. The retouched prayer runs as follows:
80.) Sacerdos, secreto: DOMINE IESU CHRISTE, FILI DEI VIVI, QUI
EX VOLUNTATE PATRIS, COOPERANTE SPIRITU SANCTO, PER MORTEM
TUAM MUNDUM VIVIFICASTI: LIBERA ME PER HOC SACROSANCTUM
CORPUS ET SANGUINEM TUUM AB OMNIBUS INIQUITATIBUS MEIS ET
UNIVERSIS MALIS: ET FAC ME TUIS SEMPER INHAERERE MANDATIS, ET A
TE NUMQUAM SEPARARI PERMITTAS.
Historical Evaluation: As opposed to the Pian Missal, only the second of the three
private prayers for the priest’s communion is preserved. The first and third (i.e., Domine, Iesu
Christe, qui dixisti and the Perceptio Corporis) were simply dropped from the Mass plan. The
peace prayer (Domine, Iesu Christe, qui dixisti) was not ostensibly dropped for being either
Gallican or for stylistic reasons. Its fate is explained further below. The Domine, Iesu Christe
was known by the periti as the older of the two communion prayers in the Gallican manuscript
tradition.571 The earliest compositions of these private prayers within the manuscript tradition
consistently had a trinitarian doxology in the conclusion. This is also the case with the version of
the prayers found in the Pian Missal.572 However, the most interesting feature of this prayer with reference to the liturgical reform- was the fact that it was included in the new Order of Mass
at all. The prayer, from its inception, was both Gallican and a “private” prayer. This conclusion is
based on the fact that it is not addressed to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit,
570
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 287.
571
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 345.
572
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 345-347.
186
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
rather it is a devotional prayer to Christ.573 This fact was uncontested by the Consilium. J.
Wagner notes:
“Quindi, in esecuzione delle direttive del concilio di restaurare l’«Ordo
Missae» «ad pristinam sanctorum Patrum normam», le due orazioni dovrebbero
essere soppresse. In verità i Padri del «Consilium» decisero invece di
manternene una e precisamente la seconda: «Domine Iesu Christe, qui ex
voluntate...»” 574
The Consilium Fathers remained divided on this issue. The Consilium Fathers, when
voting on the retention of a private Communion prayer, were not in agreement.575 Of thirty-three
voting Fathers, twenty-four wished the prayer to be imposed as obligatory, whereas nine Fathers
voted it to merely be a model ad libitum. 576
Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Because of the reform of the sign of peace, the prayer
Domine, Iesu Christe, qui dixisti had simply been omitted. The Consilium decided that this was a
straightforward matter of simplification.577 The rites had been condensed and rearranged. The
sign of peace now came too early for the peace prayer to be relevant at this point of the liturgy.
Secondly, even if the prayer were to be transferred to the earlier part of the liturgy (i.e. the new
position of the sign of peace), it would simply unnecessarily complicate the rite. Strangely, no
573
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 345-350.
574
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 288.
575
Earlier drafts had explicitly directed: Sacerdos secreto dicere potest. This was
subsequently debated and rejected. Due to the controversy, the new rubric made the prayer’s
recital preceptive. For the original rubric see CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 106, De Missali, n. 12 (19
septembris 1965)», in La riforma conciliare dell’ “Ordo Missae”, in RCOM, 385.
576
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in
Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae
habitae sunt (2 Martii 1967)», in RCOM, 513.
577
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 287-288.
187
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
reference was made by the periti to the fact that the prayer is of medieval origin and is both
private by nature and lacks the normal form of address to the Father.578
6.7 THE ECCE AGNUS DEI
The Consilium presented a thoroughly revised schema for the communion of the priest
and the faithful. It began with a rite formerly found in the Roman Ritual for distribution of
communion outside of Mass. It reads as follows:
81.) Sacerdos accipit partem hostiae confractae, eamque aliquantulum
elevatam super patenam tenens, ad populum versus, clara voce dicit: ECCE
AGNUS DEI, ECCE QUI TOLLIT PECCATA MUNDI. BEATI QUI AD CENAM
AGNI VOCATI SUNT. Omnes ter subdunt: DOMINE, NON SUM DIGNUS, UT
INTRES SUB TECTUM MEUM SED TANTUM DIC VERBO, ET SANABITUR
ANIMA MEA.
Historical Evaluation: The Pian Missal contained no rite for preparing or exhorting the
faithful to Holy Communion within Mass.579 However, this ommission was along the lines of the
structure of the communion rite in the first Ordo Romanus. From the time of the commingling
and fraction until the end of the people’s communion, Ordo Romanus I presupposes only that
there is Holy Communion offered to the clergy and people.580 The ancient author’s only concerns
seem to be for the announcements of the next stational church, and the rank and file in the order
of reception of the Host and Chalice. Although the celebrant’s private preparation for
Communion in the various editions of the Pian Missal was extensive, the rubrics and ritual in the
Pian Missal for the faithful’s communion remained quite simple. This is just like the earlier
578
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 508.
579
However, the Ritus servandus missae (IX. 6-7) contains rubrics describing how the
communion of the faithful should be performed.
580
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 102-103.
188
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Roman Orders.581 J. Jungmann notes the fact that, ironically, the Ecce Agnus Dei entered the
liturgy as a result of popular vernacular devotion influencing the post-Tridentine liturgical books.
First of all, it was only the Domine, non sum dignus that reflected the priest’s personal
preparation in the Pian Missal. This prayer had numerous variants built around the kernal of the
Centurion’s prayer to Christ (Mt. 8:8). The First part (Ecce Agnus Dei, etc.) of the rite represents
a real communal prayer originally recited in the vernacular around 1585. Gradually, following its
popular vernacular use in several countries before the faithful’s communion, it was translated
into Latin for use in the Roman Ritual.582 It’s first official entrance into any Tridentine edition of
the Roman Missal had to wait until 1967. It was then that the transitional Missal finally fused the
celebrant’s communion preparation with the Ecce Agnus Dei in order to make one simple
communal rite. 583 However, the Normative Mass had one major difference from the text of the
rite as it appeared in Tres abhinc annos (i.e., the Missal of 1967). The Consilium voted
unanimously to make an addendum to the Ecce Agnus Dei, i.e., Beati qui ad cenam Agni vocati
sunt to the original formula.584
Full, Conscious, and Active Participation: The Consilium wished to emphasize, by the
reform and fusion of the celebrant’s and people’s communion preparation that an expressly
communal act of preparation take place.585
They explicitly wished to avoid any thing that
seemed private in nature and so both the priest and faithful participate in the same kind of
preparation. 586
581
Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum summorum
pontificum cura recognitum, Marietti, Romae 191961, xxxviii. See the Rubricae generales,
chapter viii, nos. 502-504.
582
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 370-373.
583
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO -CONSILIUM, «Tres abhinc annos», Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 59 (1967) 442-448.
584
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 288.
585
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 508.
586
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 288.
189
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Reform of the Roman Liturgy: The Beati qui was expressly desired by the periti for the
sake of highlighting the eschatological image of the Lamb of God. The inclusion of the reference
to the Book of Revelation gave the rite a deeper anagogical thrust than just John the Baptist’s
exhortation. The Consilium joined the image of the Lamb in Revelation (Rev. 19:9) to John the
Baptist’s exclamation. This was for greater theological clarity.587
6.8 THE COMMUNION RITE
The Consilium presented a simplified schema for the communion of the priest and the
faithful as follows:
82.) Et sacerdos, ad altare versus, submissa voce dicit: CORPUS
CHRISTI CUSTODIAT ME IN VITAM AETERNUM. Et reverenter sumit Corpus
Christi.
83.) Deinde dicit:588 QUID RETRIBUAM DOMINO PRO OMNIBUS,
QUAE RETRIBUIT MIHI? CALICEM SALUTARIS ACCIPIAM, ET NOMEN
DOMINI INVOCABO. Accipit calicem et prosequitur: SANGUIS CHRISTI
CUSTODIAT ME IN VITAM AETERNAM. Et reverenter sumit sanguinem Christi.
84.) Postea accipit patenam vel pyxidem, accedit ad communicandos, et
hostiam parum elevatam unicuique eorum ostendit, dicens: CORPUS CHRISTI.
Communicandus respondet: AMEN. Et communicatur. Eo modo agit et diaconus,
si pro opportunitate sacram communione distribuit.
85.) Si adsint sub utraque specie communicandi, servetur ritus suo loco
descriptus.
86.) Dum sacerdos sumit Corpus Christi, incipitur cantus ad
communionem.589
587
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 508.
588
Later this rubric was clarified so that it be said secreto. The clarification ran as
follows: “Sacerdos statim subdit...” CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 266, De Missali, n. 44 (21
decembris 1967) », in RCOM, 628.
589
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 508-509.
190
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Historical Evaluation: The periti and voting Fathers maintained this simplified
communion rite since the composition of their first Mass schemata had been proposed in 1965.590
The Ordo Romanus I has no special rite or private prayers for the celebrant’s reception of Holy
Communion, or for the other clergy. 591 This general observation of simplicity of the Communion
rites during a more “authentic” period of the Roman liturgy (according to the Consilum’s
previous declarations) was further supported by J. Jungmann. He referred to this absolute
simplicity of the original rites of Communion before Gallican additions.592 Despite these
considerations, the Consilium voted to retain the priest’s private prayers here (taken from the last
edition of the Pian Missal). The Consilium’s official commentary to the Missa normativa did not
consider the presence of these prayers in the Mass rite worthy of comment. However, all the
voting Fathers were in agreement to retain these private prayers derived from the primitive
schemata of the Normative Mass in 1965. 593 The Communion antiphon’s use remained consistent
with the Pian and transitional missals. 594 This merely reflected a continuous tradition since the
time of the early Roman Orders of Mass.595 Furthermore, the Graduale Simplex was already in
use for the chants and transitional liturgies earlier in 1967.
Full, Conscious, and Active Participation: The formula that replaced the Tridentine
formula of communion distribution was continued in the Normative Mass. It provided for the
590
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 106, De Missali, n. 12 (19 septembris 1965)», 385-386.
591
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 102-105.
592
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 351.
593
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in
Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae
habitae sunt (2 Martii 1967)», in RCOM, 514.
594
The obvious rubrical difference here is found in the fact that it must be recited to
accompany communion. M. Barba argues that the Consilium wished to restored the antiphon’s
functional character here. He also appeals to J. Jungmann’s historical exposition that the
antiphon served this purpose on a practical level. See RCOM, 251.
595
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 106.
191
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
convenience of a large number of faithful that might communicate and was an attempt to have
the faithful make an act of personal faith before communicating.596
Sound Tradition, Legitimate Progress: The early Consilium discussions of the periti
often pushed for abbreviating the formula for the priest’s Communion. The new formula merely
paralleled the change of the faithful’s formula in 1964 (i.e., Corpus Christi).597 The old formula
from the Pian Missal was the well known: Corpus (Sanguis) D. N. I. C. custodiat animam meam
in vitam aeternam. The abbreviation reduced and simplified the formula in line with the desire to
eliminate Gallican flourishings. Secondly, the reference to the me instead of the animam meam
was an attempt to emphasize the integrity of the person in distinction to isolation of the soul of
the viator. The communicant was receiving in the temporal circumstances of his earthly sojourn
as an integral person.598 Communion under both species was already mentioned in Chapter one.
This reference was made when describing the transitional forms of the Mass.599 Early in the
reform the Consilium had already approved Communion under both kinds and had simply
incorporated the appropriate rubric into the Mass that referred back to previous legislation. 600
6.9 THE POST-COMMUNION RITE
The Consilium’s most simplified rite occured with the elimination of the the communion
rite prayers of the priest and the intricate rubrics that accompanied the purification of the vessels.
The simplified rite is as follows:
596
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Quo actuosius», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964)
337-338.
597
T. Schnitzler had been put in charge of the studies, early on, for the simplification of
the Communion rites. These simplifications represent the fruit of his personal research. See P.
MARINI, «Attività complessiva dei gruppi di studio», Ephemerides Liturgicae 112 (1998) 298.
598 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 377.
599
C. BRAGA, «De novis precibus eucharisticis litrurgiae latinae», Ephemerides liturgicae
82 (1968), 217-238.
600
For a treatment of the time and circumstances of publishing the decree on Communion
under both kinds, see P. MARINI, «Il “Consilium” in piena attività», Ephemerides Liturgicae 107
(1993) 101-103, 112.
192
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Distributione communionis expleta, sacerdos et diaconus ad altare reversi,
colligunt fragmenta, si quae sint, et purificant patenam super calicem et ipsum
calicem. Deinde calix aqua purificatur et linteo extergitur a diacono ad abacum
vel, si non adest diaconus, a sacerdote pro opportunitate sive ad abacum, sive ad
altare, quo in casu vasa purificata a ministro deferuntur ad abacum. Sacerdos
lavat manus et redit ad sedem. Licet tamen vasa purificanda, praesertim si sint
plura, in altari super corporale, velo cooperta, relinquere eaque post Missam,
populo dimisso, purificare.
Pro opportunitate deinde, praemissa, si placet, admonitione, canuntur vel
dicuntur sive hymnus, sive psalmus, sive aliae preces laudis.601
Historical Evaluation: The periti and voting Fathers unanimously approved this
simplified communion rite and the permission of the priest to be seated and wash his hands.
There was also unanimous agreement for prayers and/or a meditation song after communion.602
The ritual nearly exactly followed the actions of the Roman Pontiff in Ordo Romanus primus
(OR I, 117-118). The text is as follows:
Nam, mox ut pontifex coeperit in senatorio communicare, statim
scola incipit antiphonam ad communionem <per vices cum subdiaconibus> et
psallunt usquedum communicato omni populo, annuat pontifex ut dicant Gloria
patri; et tunc repetito versu quiescunt.
Nam pontifex, mox ut communicaverit in partes mulierum, redit in
sedem et communicat regionarios per mulierum redit in sedem et communicat
regionarios per ordinem <et eos> qui in filo steterant.603 Qui tamen, data
601
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.170, De Missali, n. 23 (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 508-509.
602
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in
Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae
habitae sunt (2 Martii 1967)», in RCOM, 514
603
This seems to refer to dignitaries that receive communion at a moment proper to their
rank.
193
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
statione, ascendunt ad altare. Post pontificem archidiaconus eos confirmat.
Pontifex vero, postquam omnes communicaverint, sedet et abluit manus suas.604
The parallel between the Roman Order and the reformed liturgy is striking. The basic
elements of the rubrics of both liturgies are parallel. The only noteworthy addition to the
Normative Mass is the inclusion of rubrics for cleansing. The option of the celebrant to cleanse
the vessels at the altar reflected the practice of the Pian Missal. The option to delay the ablutions
until the end of Mass, as well as to do them on a credence table, was an innovation. One could
argue that this had some weak support in the tradition during the early Gallican period.605 The
real reason for this rubric is not to be found in the history of the Latin liturgy. It will be discussed
below. Yet, upon voting, there was no unanimity among the experts. Two opposing tendencies
resulted in the compromise formula above.606 First, a significant portion of the periti wanted the
Gloria in excelsis Deo moved to the post-Communion rite.607 This was to reflect the joy of
reception of Communion. On the other hand, another significant portion of the periti argued that
the historical nature of the Roman rite demands the Mass to end briefly and abruptly following
the Communion rite.608
604
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 105-106.
605J. JUNGMANN,
Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 407-408.
606
This comprise formula was unanimously approved by all the voting Consilium
Fathers. See CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in
Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae
habitae sunt (2 Martii 1967)», 514.
607
The debate was intense. As one schema records: “Mota quoque sed etiam non
absoluta est quaestio a multis agitata et etiam in Aula Concilii propositas, utrum haec pars
Missae in liturgia Romana forsitan non sit satis exstructa. A non paucis disiderantur cantus vel
preces ante Postcommunionem ad modum laudis et quasi gratiarum actionis inserendae, e.g.
Canticum trium puerorum vel aliud canticum ex libris novi testamenti desumptum, vel hymnus,
vel etiam hymnus angelicus Gloria;” See CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 16, De Missali, n. 2. (17 junii
1964) », in RCOM, 349-350.
608
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», in RCOM, 354.
194
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
The inclusion of a communion meditation was an innovation that had not existed in the
Pian Missal. J. Jungmann had noticed that a varied (even if private) tradition had existed at one
or other time and place after Holy Communion throughout the Middle Ages.609 However, the
difference here is that a communal meditation is envisaged. This is the main reason for this
reform since there was no historical reason that the Consilium proposed for such an inclusion in
its official commentary.610
Full, Conscious, and Active Participation: The Consilium envisaged this so that both
celebrant and people properly might take advantage of the Holy Communion, i.e., meditation
following reception.611 This was the impetus for the allowance of meditation song and reflection
time. This is especially the case because of the elimination of the Last Gospel in the transitional
Roman Missal of 1965.612 It was purely pastoral motives that drove this communal meditation on
the Eucharistic Lord. In fact, the inclusion of this rubric was inspired by numerous requests for
some sort of prayer time and texts after the communion rite. 613
Manifestation of the Church: The reform of the post-Communion rites foresees that the
deacon is the proper minister to cleanse the vessels. The inclusion of the deacon’s participation
in ministerial functions at the alter had been restricted to solemn Masses in the old rite. Now,
with the elimination of the rigid distinctions in “types” of Masses, the deacon was free to
exercise his service at every liturgy. 614
609
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 406-406.
610
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
442. This was a long and heavy debate. For the initial arguments see CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.
16, De Missali, n. 2. (17 junii 1964)», in RCOM, 350.
611
This was a very controversial part of the reform of the Mass among the experts and
Fathers. See A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 343.
612
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», 282.
613
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 510.
614
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 510.
195
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Substantial Unity not Rigid Uniformity: Psychologically, it was argued by the periti
that it was less becoming to clean and to see a multitude of vessels upon the altar after
Communion. Therefore it should be an option to cleanse them in some more becoming place.615
Again, the rubrics allowing for local religious song in regard to selection, length, and theme. It
was an explicit attempt to inculturate the liturgy to include a meaningful activity for the faithful
to spiritually enter into the most personal and important subjective experience of the liturgy, i.e.,
the reception of the Holy Eucharist.616
Ecumenism: The second justification for cleansing the vessels on the credence table was
due to the predominant custom found in so many of the Oriental liturgies. This seemed to be a
sufficient justification for the inclusion of the option in the new Roman rite.617
6.10 THE POST-COMMUNION ORATION
The Consilium retained a conclusion to Mass similar to that of the 1965 Missal,
mentioned in Chapter one. The oration is carried out as follows:
89.)
Sacerdos, versus ad populum cantat vel clara voce dicit:
OREMUS. Et omnes per aliquod temporis spatium in silentio orant.
Deinde
sacerdos, manibus extensis, dicit orationem post communionem, quam
populus concludit, acclamans: Amen.
90.) Sequuntur, si habendae sint, adnuntiationes breves ad
populum faciendae.
615
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 113, De Missali, n. 14. (09 octobris 1965)», in RCOM, 408.
These considerations were included in the official rationale accompanying the last complete
schema of the Normative Mass before the Synod. See CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali,
n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum», in RCOM, 510.
616
These arguments attempted to widen the scope of the rite. The more narrow view was
to adopt traditional song (the thanksgiving prayers/psalms in gratiarum actione or the Gloria).
This solution allowed each local and national mentality to find expression in the liturgy. See
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 39, De Missali, n. 5 (30 septembris 1964) », in RCOM, 363-364.
617
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 510.
196
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Historical Evaluation: The periti and voting Fathers unanimously approved this
simplified recitation of the oration.618 The closing prayer mirrors, in every way, what was said
with regard to the opening Collect in Chapter four. The reformed rite differs from the Ordo
Romanus I. In the ancient Mass plan the rubrics prescribes:
Finita autem antiphona surgit pontifex cum archidiacono et veniens ad altare dat
orationem ad complendum directus ad orientem; nam in isto loco, cum D o m i n u s
vobiscum dixerit, non se dirigit ad populum.619
The reasons for the omission of the Dominus vobiscum will be provided below, since they
are obviously not historical.
The interesting rubric for public announcements is reminiscent of the announcements
made before distribution of the Holy Communion in Ordo Romanus primus (OR I, 108).620 This
tradition of announcements is found in the earliest sources of the Roman liturgy.621
Reform of the Liturgy: The official commentary of the periti mention that it simply
seemed to be better to drop the double Dominus vobiscum. This is, of course, an oblique
reference to the elimination of useless doublets.622 As the new liturgy begins with a greeting, so it
is appropriate that it end with the traditional greeting of the celebrant. This creates a certain
symmetry in the rite.623
618
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in
Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae
habitae sunt (2 Martii 1967)», in RCOM, 514.
619
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 107.
620
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 102.
621 Liber
sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Sacramentarium
Gelasianum, 186.
622
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in La riforma conciliare dell’ “Ordo Missae”, in RCOM, 510.
623
M. Barba argues this to be the case. See RCOM, 252.
197
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
6.11 THE CLOSING RITES
The brief and succinct termination of the liturgy in the Normative Mass reflects very
much the transitional Missal of 1965, as mentioned in Chapter one. The rite of Mass terminates
as follows:
91.) Deinde fit dimissio. Sacerdos versus ad populum dicit: D O M I N U S
VOBISCUM. Populus respondet: ET CUM SPIRITU TUO.
92.) Sacerdos benedicit populum cantans vel clara voce dicens:
BENEDICAT VOS OMNIPOTENS DEUS, PATER, ET FILIUS, + ET S P I R I T U S
SANCTUS. Vel orationem super populum, vel aliam benedictionem, sicut pro
tempore vel die statutum est. Populus respondet: AMEN.624
93.) Diaconus, vel si non adest, sacerdos, manibus iunctis, ad popu lu m
versus, cantat vel clara voce dicit: ITE, MISSA EST. Vel, si qua actio l i t u r g i c a
sequatur: BENEDICAMUS DOMINO. Populus respondet:DEO GRATIAS
94.) Denique sacerdos cum ministris, facta altari debita r e v e r e n t i a ,
recedit, et omnes revertuntur ad opera sua bona, collaudantes Deum.”625
Historical Evaluation: The periti and voting Fathers were also unanimous in approving
this schema to terminate the Mass. 626 The first Roman Order of Mass is even simpler. The liturgy
terminates as follows:
Finita vero oratione, cui praeceperit archidiaconus de diaconibus aspicit
ad pontificem, ut ei annuat, et dicit ad populum: Ite missa est. Resp. De gratias.
624
In the original schema of 24 May 1966 nos. 92 and 93 were inversed. However, by
the time the schema had been touched up for the synod, Tres abhinc annos had already mandated
that the blessing precede the dismissal, and so the positions of 92 and 93 have been inverted to
reflect the changing of position in that text. CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24
maii 1966). Schemum Primum», in RCOM, 510.
625
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 492-510.
626
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in
Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae
habitae sunt (2 Martii 1967)», in RCOM, 514.
198
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Tunc septem cereostata praecedunt pontificem subdiaconus regionarius
cum turibulo ad secretarium.
Discendente autem ad presbiterium, episcopi primum dicunt: Iube, domne,
benedicere. Respondit: Benedicat nos dominus. Respondunt: Amen. post
episcopos presbiteri, deinde monachi, deinde scola, deinde milites draconarii, id
es qui signa portant;627
J. Jungmann supposed a connection between the final blessing in the Pian Missal and the
ceremony of Ordo Romanus primus.628 Even if this is still not able to be demonstrated with
certainty, it is still a reasonable hypothesis among liturgists.629 The blessing’s trinitarian formula
was retained in deference to the Pian Missal, even if the order was reversed so as to precede the
Ite. The new order was not proposed for historical reasons. The reasoning of the Consilium will
be treated further below. However, excepting the reversed order of the Ite and final blessing, the
ceremony remains largely the same.
Reform of the Liturgy: The inversion of the Ite with the blessing was due to the simple
desire for the dismissal to really reflect a sending forth. The blessing was considered something
that made the Ite anticlimactic. The Consilium hoped to restore an authentic dismissal.630
6.12 CONCLUSIONS
Chapter five and six have attempted to find the Consilium’s logic in each individual rite
of the Normative Mass (nos. 1-94). The investigation of each ritual section of the Missa
normativa has uncovered several principles at work. Of course, most often, there is the principle
of active participation. There is often a concern for the historical or authentic forms of texts in
the Roman Missal. Also, surprisingly, ecumenism plays a large role in the reform. This is despite
627
Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age I, 107-108.
628
J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 439.
629
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucharistica, 580-583.
630
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 170, De Missali, n. 23. (24 maii 1966). Schemum Primum»,
in RCOM, 510.
199
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
the fact that it was never described as and official overarching principle. Finally, the principle of
Reform of Liturgy, Substantial unity, Legitimate progress, etc., all play a role in some parts of the
reform.
When the synod of bishops was presented the text of this Mass, however, they were not
privy to many (if not most) of these discussions. Instead, they had a rather abbreviated
commentary that was provided in the published edition of the Mass rite. This commentary has
been referred to in this chapter, but it only covers some of the reforms. This factor will be
important for the next chapter. Chapter seven will study the bishops’ reactions to the new liturgy.
Many times they were unable to understand or study the historical background that led to the
reform of any given rite. This chapter (and Chapter five) have provided jsut such a study. The
advantage that this gives the reader cannot be overestimated. The Fathers of the synod most often
had no liturgical training since it was not yet a compulsory subject in seminary. Additionally,
liturgical expertise was in rubricism and not in the history and theology of the various rites of
Mass. The Fathers of the synod, therefore, suffered from a double disadvantage. First, they had
very little knowledge of the justification and reasoning behind each individual rite’s reform.
Secondly, they had little formal liturgical training to contextualize the direction of the liturgical
reforms. These last two chapters have attempted to provide exactly what was unavailable to the
synod of bishops in 1967.
The result of these efforts should allow for a more objective and liturgical criterion for
judging each individual and overall reform. The results of these evaluations, when contrasted
with the responses of the Fathers of the synod, lend a certain degree of credibility to A. Bugnini’s
criticism that the Fathers of the synod voted out of liturgical ignorance. If by liturgical ignorance
one means that the Fathers of the synod were not professionally or academically trained in
liturgical science, A. Bugnini is quite correct. However, despite this critique levelled by A.
Bugnini (and others), the next chapter will also demonstrate that many of the suggestions of the
synod Fathers were very much along the lines and principles of the Consilium as explained in
these two chapters.
200
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
7.0 CHAPTER SEVEN
7.1 THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
In the previous chapter the individual rites of the Mass and their formulas of prayer were
commented upon in order to understand the historical and theoretical considerations of the
Consilium. The commentary attempted to present the theological and pastoral principles by
which such reforms were deemed, if not necessary, at least advantageous to bringing about a full
and active participation of the faithful within the Latin Church and to fulfill the mandate of the
Second Vatican Council to renew the Latin Liturgy.631
It remains, however, to contrast these observations with those of the extraordinary synod
of bishops of 1967. This gathering of bishops was primarily responsible for the failure of the
Normative Mass to gain definitive acceptance and to be imposed upon the Latin Church. This
failure prevented the Missa normative from being the skeleton upon which the reformed liturgy
would be built. The extraordinary synod of bishops had been called by the authority of Pope Paul
VI.632 The synod was an extraordinary event in itself. It was an attempt to make the bishops of
the Church a direct part of the consultation process for the living magisterium of the Church.633
As such, the presentation of the schema of the Mass was not an impromptu suggestion of the
Pontiff, rather he had proposed that the synod Fathers be the first to evaluate the Consilium’s
work more than a year in advance of the synod (22 September 1966).634 The Pontiff repeated the
same idea in his elocution to the Consilum shortly before the synod itself, saying:
631
Of course, this means from the perspective of the Consilium’s official representatives
and publications.
632
PAULUS VI, «Acta Officiorum. Ordo Synodi Episcoporum celebrandae, a Beatissimo
Patre approbatus», Acta Apostolica Sedis 59 (1967) 91-103.
633
F. MURPHY -G. MACEOIN, Synod ’67. A New Sound in Rome, The Bruce Publishing
Company, Milawaukee 1968, 4.
634
A. BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 346. However there had already been a hint
that this would be the case from the Secretary of State as early as 7 March 1966.
201
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“Alia quaestio, inter omnes digna in quam potissimum mentes intendantur,
pertinet ad Ordinem Missae. Iam copertum habemus opus patratum, non ignorantes, quot
disceptationes erudite ac meditate habitae eo referantur, sive circa textum praedicti
Ordinis Missae sive circa compositionem novi libri Missalis et calendarium sacrorum
sollemnium. Agitur autem de re tam gravi et momenti tam universalis, ut facere non
possimus quin antea Episcopos consulamus quam ea, quae considerate sunt proposita,
auctoritate Nostra approbemus.”635
The synod Fathers were to discuss, among other matters, the new proposals and
observations of the liturgy of the Normative Mass.636 On 21 October 1967 Cardinal Lercaro
officially opened the synodal discussion of the liturgical schemas of the Mass and sacraments.
There was also an official explanation for why some rites were reformed along with a series of
queries at the end of the explanation for the change in the rites of the Order of Mass. 637
The organization of the synod was meant to be representative of the Universal Church,
with Fathers being present from all rites and regions.638 Before the actual viewing of the Mass, a
certain number of synod Fathers, representing their respective regions of bishops, were allowed
to speak their views on the liturgical reform proposals. Sixty-three Fathers chose to comment on
the Consilium proposals before actually viewing the rite of Mass. The Mass itself was to be
celebrated in the Sistine chapel. These initial speakers were rather large. It was a significant
635
PAUL VI, «Allocutio Pauli VI ad “Consilium”», in Enchiridion documentorum
instaurationis liturgicae 1963-1973 1, ed. S. Congregatio pro Cultu Divino, Marietti, Roma
1990, 252.
636
CONSILIUM, «De liturgia in primo synodum episcoporum», 353.
637 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 348.
638
The representation is as follows: 13 heads of the oriental churches, 135 delegates
elected by the national bishop’s conferences, 10 superior generals of relgious orders, 13 heads of
Roman Congregations, 25 nominated members by the Pope. In total there were 196 participants
in the voting and debates. See V. COMMELLI, «I memberi dell’assemblea», in Il primo Sinodo dei
vescovi. Gli antefatti. Un primo bilancio. I giorni del sinodo. Gli interventi, interviste, commenti.
Ressegna stampa, ed. V. Comelli (Collana Documenti per il rinnovamento della chiesa), Edizioni
Dehoniane, Bologna 1968, 27.
202
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
representation from among the synod Fathers. In all a total of 183 voted and responded to queries
regarding the Missa normativa. This took place following its celebration on 24 October 1967.639
The Normative Mass celebration before the synod was meant to reflect (even if in an artificial
setting) the atmosphere and praxis of liturgy intended for a regular parish Mass, just as on any
given Sunday. The Lectionary from cycle B (of the new Ordo lectionum which was still being
completed) was used. 640 The recently published Graduale Simplex was used for the chants.641
Following the celebration of the Missa normativa a vote was taken by the synod Fathers
on a number of papal queries. These queries were supposed to shed light on how the Fathers both
experienced and evaluated the Mass used ad experimentum. Positive results were expected in
hopes of confirming the Normative Mass as the prototype for a new missal. The vote was taken
on the same day (24 October 1967) and the votes were published for the Fathers shortly
afterward.642
7.2 QUERY I AT THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
Introductory remarks prefaced the official queries presented to the synodal Fathers. The
actual queries occur in the document presenting the ritus introitales of the Liturgy of the Word.
The first remarks on the Mass structure are the following:
“En autem lineis generalioribus structura «Missae normativae».
1.)
Ritus introitales praevident ingressum sacerdotis, populo et schola cantantibus
antiphonam et psalmum ad introitum, deinde salutationem altaris et immediate
salutationem populi, formula ampliore quam hodierno Dominus vobiscum. Sequitur actus
paenitentialis, ab universo coetu semper participandus, etiam in Missis in cantu. Deinde
639
CONSILIUM, «De liturgia in primo synodum episcoporum», 353-354.
640 A. BUGNINI,
641
The Reform of the Liturgy, 348.
Graduale simplex, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1967.
642 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 350-351.
203
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
habetur Kyrie, cum facultate illud omittendi quoties dicitur Gloria. Ritus concluduntur
oratione.”643
Following these introductory presentations a first query for the Fathers resulted in
overall indecisive response:644
“1.) Placetne Patribus structura in genere Missae sic dictae «normativae» uti
exponitur in Relatione et in Responsionibus? Dixerunt Placet 71; Non Placet 43; Placet
iuxta modum 62.”645
It was mentioned in the opening chapter that A. Bugnini, when reflecting upon the synod
vote some years later, was of the opinion that it was liturgical ignorance and the artificial
environment that had led to such a negative vote. In order to have some idea of the perspectives
on liturgical reform among the synodal the Fathers, one need only look at the iuxta modum
responses in order to evaluate his opinion in light of the suggestions of the synod Fathers. Some
responses to the above mentioned question fall under A. Bugnini’s category of “liturgical
ignorance.” Suggestions generally can be said to fall under two basic categories: a.) liturgical
ignorance b.) legitimate adaptation.
Liturgical ignorance: Several Fathers explicitly called for the missa lecta to be the
foundation upon which the liturgy should be reformed. This is quite incredible! Before the actual
celebration of the Normative Mass before the synod Fathers, the Memorandum was attached to
the schema of the Mass explaining in emphatic terms that one of the very reasons for the reform
was to promote active participation through the promotion of sacred song by both celebrant and
643
Quaestiones in primo coetu synodi episcoporum (21 octobris 1967). See C. BRAGA,
«De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae 81 (1967), 463. The
Quaestiones were first published here.
644
Query I, section 1, a-i.
645
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967), 466.
204
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
congregation. They should be in sung dialogue with one another. 646
Furthermore, this
explanation in the Memorandum merely promoted a foundational principle in the ambit of active
participation upon which the new liturgy was to be constructed, i.e., Missa in cantu. 647 A.
Bugnini, reflecting on this point, added that it was primarily the English speaking bishops who
were responsible for this complaint. They were convinced that the entire English speaking world
could never be induced to sing. It was “against their nature” in some respect or another. In fact
the fear among the Anglophone bishops was that the “read Mass” would be suppressed.648 In
support of A. Bugnini’s understanding of the Anglophone bishops and their position, René
Laurentin remarked:
“Il y eut des avis fort divers sur la musique. Des réticences vinrent d’Angleterre
et d’Irlande: Hiberni non cantant, galli cantant, déclara Mgr Lamont (missionnaire en
Rhodésie, le 24 octobre). L’adage est difficile à traduire, car il comporte un double sens:
«Les animaux de l’hiver ne cantent pas, ce sont le coqs qui cantent», ou bien «les
irlandais ne chantent pas, ce sont les Français qui chantent». Dans la même ligne, le
cardinal Heenan aurait déclaré, selon les termes rapportés par le bulletin officiel du
bureau de presse (25 Octobre): Il n’est pas bien de trop insister sur la musique, autrement
nous n’aurons que des femmes pour assister à la messe.”649
Furthermore there was a popular call for more genuflections and signs of the cross within
the Mass, which counted among the “accretions” that presumably required reforming of the
liturgy in the first place.650 These Gallican elements had already been judged as tending to either
inhibit active participation or obscure the rites of the liturgy with useless gestures or privatization
646
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des Ordo Missae», 274-278.
647
CONSILIUM, «Quaestiones tractandae, n. 6 (17 aprilis 1964)», in RCOM, 335.
648 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 358.
649
R. LAURENTIN, Le premier Synode histoire et bilan, Éditions du seuil, Paris 1968, 197.
650
T. SCHNITZLER, «The Revision of the Order of Mass», 137.
205
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
of otherwise communal rites and prayers.651 Finally, against the very same Consilium principles
(as note in Chapter three), the synod Fathers asked for a more ample proliferation of private
prayers.652 As a result, A. Bugnini could make the argument that the Fathers of the synod were
ignorant of the very principles that had led to the changes already current in the liturgy and the
innovations suggested for the future.
Among many synod Fathers, in regard to the question above, there was an inherent
distrust of leaving any prayers ad libitum sacerdotis. The Consilium had emended some private
prayers as merely models of prayer in places where the original schema of the Ordo Missae of 24
May 1966 had required the celebrant to pray a particular formula in private. This was the case,
for instance, with the private preparatory prayer of the Gospel (Munda cor meum...) and
preparatory communion prayer in private. The original schema was emended so that the rubrics
of such prayers read: dicere potest, i.e., at his own desire.653 The availability of “options” in the
old Roman Missal had essentially been restricted to the choice of votive Masses since the
reforms of St. Pius V. Although there were also some other minor rubrical options (e.g. as
whether to sit at the chair or stand at the altar during sung Masses), these tended to be rare.654
The first attempts to allow the celebrant a guiding role in choice of readings or prayers ad libitum
was first accomplished in the Missal of St. Pius V in its 1962 edition. In this edition of the Missal
651
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 218, De Missali, n. 34 (19 aprilis 1967). Variationes in
schema ordinis missae normativae (Schema 170 - De Missali 23) inserendae», in RCOM, 566.
652
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967), 466.
653
On 19 April 1967 Variationes in schema primum ordinis Missae normativae were
inserted thus: “Agitur ero de sequentibus variationes in fasciculo (roseo) de Ordine Missae
introducendis: a.)...n. 13 [The same paragraphs and schema as in Chapter two]: loco
‘sacerdos...dicit: Munda cor...’ dicatur: ‘dicitur potest’. b.)...n. 24: loco:
‘sacerdos...patenam....tenens dicit: Sicut hic panis...’ dicatur: ‘Dicere potest’. c.)....n. 26: loco:
‘sacerdos...calicem tenens...dicit: Sapientia aedificavit...’ dicatur: ‘dicere potest’. d.) ...n. 27:
loco: ‘Inclinatus subiungit: In spiritu...’ dicatur: ‘subiugnere potest’. e.)...n. 80: loco: ‘sacerdos
secreto: D.N.C. Filii’ dicatur: ‘Sacerdos potest dicere secreto.’” See CONSILIUM, «Schema, n.
218, De Missali, n. 34 (19 aprilis 1967)»,in RCOM, 566.
654
P. MARINI, «Il Consilium in piena attività in un clima favorevole», Ephemerides
liturgicae 112 (1998) 120.
206
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
the celebrant could choose to shorten the number of readings and collects for days like the
Saturdays of Quatuor Temporum, or ember days. 655 Yet, generally speaking, the concept of
leaving a variety of choices to the preference of the celebrant was something quite foreign to the
previous legislation of the Roman Missal. Other suggestions of some of the Fathers of the synod
shortened the Liturgy of the Word. Others both suggested the elimination of silence or its
increase at moments of the Mass.656 However, the recommendation to re-introduce the concept
of sacred silence, particularly after Holy Communion, was argued by some to be foreign to the
modern man’s pursuit of constant activity.657
Legitimate Adaptation: In the first query cited above there were suggestions for further
legitimate adaptation according to the fundamental and operational principles of the Consilium.
For instance, in the overall structure of the Mass, it was suggested to insert local traditions into
the Liturgy of the Word (as approved by the national conference of bishops). This hearkens back
to the principles already mentioned in Chapter three of “Full, conscious and active participation”
and “Substantial unity not rigid uniformity.” Along the same lines there were suggestions to give
greater liberty in the choice of readings and composition of prayers for the Mass itself. Finally,
there was the suggestion for more moments of silence in the liturgy, which the conference of
bishops could establish according to the mentality of its own culture.658 This was meant to guard
the meditative nature of the liturgical rites.
In the first major query above, there were additional questions regarding the Liturgy of
the Word. In their responses the synodal Fathers’ suggestions can be divided into those reflecting
655
This indication is found in the rubrics for the Saturday Masss of Quatuor Temporum in
the last edition editions of the Roman Missal following Rubricarum Instructum of John XXIII.
Missale Romanum, xviii. See Rubricae generales, chapter x.
656
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967), 466.
657 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 354.
658
The numerous contradictory iuxta modum responses of the Fathers of the Synod did
not escape the eye of A. Bugnini. He was good natured in noticing the contradictions when
discussing the synod, but nonetheless noticed that they existed and did not contribute to any
confidence in a united and informed group of bishops on the subject of liturgical reform. See A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 354.
207
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
“ignorance” of the principles of the Consilium (in so far as they imply contradiction to explicit
Consilium principles), and those that do not fall into this category. The latter suggestions are
generally pastoral and practical in nature.
7.2.1 QUERY I, SECTION 2
The second part of query one to the Synod Fathers ran as follows:659
“Liturgia verbi praevidet tres lectiones S. Scripturae, unam e Vetere Testamento,
aliam ex Apostolo, tertiam ex Evangelio. Post primam canitur psalmus responsorius, post
alteram Alleluia cum suis versibus. Post Evangelium fit homilia, deinde professio fidei et
oratio fidelium, quae, diversis sub formis, obligatoria est in qualibet Missa.”660
Again, the response of the Fathers was noted above. What is now of concern here are the
suggestions of the Fathers regarding the Liturgy of the Word proper.
Liturgical ignorance: Some Fathers had the notion (which is difficult to ignore) that it
was better to suppress the chants between the readings. Of course, it has already been discussed
in Chapter four that the ancient chants were historically known as a particularly Roman part of
the liturgy. Suppression could not be argued for historical reasons. The Consilium, as mentioned
in Chapter four on the Kyrie, generally held itself to the standard of not suppressing a rite unless
one could argue that the good of the entire Church somehow demanded it. Furthermore, the
Memorandum produced by the Consilium, which accompanied the Normative schema, had
already explained that the chants played an important pastoral role and so were included in the
Normative Mass to reinvigorate a meditative song between the readings.661 The readings were
659
Query 1, section 2, a-e.
660
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 463.
661
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des Ordo Missae», 272, 276.
208
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
envisioned as being somewhat more ample for the most part and truly didactic. However, the
psalms and verses between the readings were thought to aid meditating upon scripture.
Legitimate Adaptation: The Consilium periti, as already explained, envisioned the
Normative Mass as a skeleton, not a finished product in all its detail, and so welcomed
suggestions and critiques in order to meet the pastoral needs of the universal Church.662 With this
in mind there was no difficulty in adjusting most minor things; for instance rubrics or some mode
of expression of any given rite.663 Overall, the suggestions for the Liturgy of the Word proper
were relatively minor. The introductory rites provoked many suggestions. it was requested that
the Kyrie never be omitted. Its use might also be theoretically determined by the national
conference of bishops. More interestingly, on the subject of the Gloria, there were requests to
leave the Gloria in use under the current rubrics of the Roman Missal following Tres abhinc
annos of 4 May 1967. These rubrics were essentially the same as the use of the 1962 revision,
wherein every 3rd class feast and some particular votive Masses presumed the use of the Gloria.
Further suggestions were for silence after the readings and an optional Prayer of the Faithful.664
The question of silence was already treated above. On a different score, the Consilium had
already engineered the Prayer of the Faithful, to be something employed according to local
genius and custom.665 Thus, by its very nature, it was fluid. It was not threatened if used ad
libitium. However, this must have escaped the notice of some Fathers who made suggestions
unaware of the Consilium’s work on the Prayer of the Faithful.
662
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des Ordo Missae», 276.
663
P. MARINI, «Il Consilium in piena attività in un clima favorevole», Ephemerides
liturgicae 112 (1998) 100.
664
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 466.
665
CONSILUM AD EXSEQUENDAM CONSTITUTIONEM DE SACRA LITURGIA, «Quinta sessio
plenaria “Consilii”», Notitia 4 (1967) 101.
209
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
7.2.2 QUERY I, SECTION 3
The last section of Query I concerned the liturgy of the Eucharist. The general schema of
the liturgy of the Eucharist was introduced by the Consilium text as follows:666
“3.) Liturgia eucharistica initium sumit per depositionem donorum super altare,
comitantibus formulis pro opportunitate dicendi: non sunt tamen formulae hodiernae,
quae anticipant ideas oblationis, quae tantum in Canone locum habere potest;
concluditur autem Oratione super oblata. Prex eucharistica dicitur tota elata voce; et in
novis precibus praevidetur etiam acclamatio populi post consecrationem.
Ritus communionis incipiunt cum oratione dominica et embolismo. Sequitur
deinde immediate osculum pacis, fractio dum canitur Agnus Dei, et deinde communio
modo iam recentissime inducto
4.) Ritus conclusionis praevident eundem ordinem ac ordo nuper invectus:
salutatio, benedictio, dimissio.”667
History of Innovations: Chapters four through six covered all the rites that were
reformed by the Consilium as an official organ of Pope Paul VI. However, Chapters four through
six covered those reforms (for the most part) that reflected the Consilium’s work as guided
internally by its own principles and discussions. A major exception was, of course, the forcible
inclusion of a penitential rite (confiteor, etc.) in addition to the Kyrie, eleison. In the present
schema of the Normative Mass before the bishops another novelty occurred. Since the
production of the last schema of the Normative Mass in 1966 (with subsequent corrections), but
before the experimental Masses before the synod of bishops in 1967, new Eucharistic prayers
666
Query III, section 3, a-i.
667
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 463.
210
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
were composed. This massive change in the schema of the Mass will be explained below when
treating the Papal queries on the question of the eucharistic prayers.668
Liturgical Ignorance: As mentioned above, the overall vote for the structure of the Mass
was a failure (Placet 71; Non Placet 43; Placet iuxta modum 62).669 Among the voting fathers,
several suggestions once again appear to be irreconcilable with several Consilium principles.
First, the new liturgy -modelled on the earliest Roman Orders- had eliminated both the medieval
offertory texts (anticipatory of the sacrifice in the Canon) and reintroduced an offertory
procession in their place. The old prayers were thoroughly Gallican and many of them quite late.
The prayers were of considerable variety within the manuscripts of the Gallican liturgical
tradition. This is also true of the Orate, fratres. 670 This prayer had only one possible advantage,
i.e, active participation.671 However, this was a debatable point, since the people’s response was
so lengthy that it rendered it clumsy in Masses with large groups.672 There was also the repetition
668
For understanding the general liturgical problems with the Roman Canon that inspired
the creation of new eucharistic prayers independent of inspiration from the “Eucharistic Prayer
I”, see C. BRAGA, «De novis precibus eucharisticis litrurgiae latinae», Ephemerides liturgicae 82
(1968) 217-238.
669
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967), 466. J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 288-289.
670
B. LUYKX, «Der Ursprung der gleichbleibenden Teile der heiligen Messe», Liturgie
und Mönchtum 26 (1960) 84-90. J. Jungmann gathers and presents an impressive variety of
exhortations while noting anything from no response to lengthy ones. In the end, even if this
prayer has its roots in monastic exhortations of the 9th century, there cannot be said to be a fixed
early text and response. See J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 85-90.
671 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 354.
672
The Orate, fratres was controversial enough. Thirty of thirty-one consultors had
opposed the use of it in the Mass. The voting Fathers of the Consilium were split with 20
opposing its use and 12 voting Father desiring it retained. However, because of difficulties with
people making the response together, it seemed especially inopportune to translate. This
difficulty also impeded active participation. The objections by the periti were multiple: the
prayer was theological vague (sacrificium meum vs. vestrum), its historical use was in a low
voice, it detracted from the dialogue of the preface, and it costituted a doublet by repeating some
themes to be included in the prayer of the faithful. This only represents a sample of the scholarly
rejections to its inclusion. See A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 354.
211
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
of a complaint that clerics should not be able to choose prayers ad libitum. They should be
obligated to everything in the definitive schema. This can be attributed to an old rubricist
mentality. Finally, there was the desire to retain the Gallican prayer for peace: Domine Iesu
Christe, qui dixisti. also there were desires to retain the priest’s private prayers both before and
after Mass.673 Actually, these two iuxta modum responses suggesting the return of the Orate,
fratres and Domine, Iesu Christe, qui dixisti were the impetus for their final inclusion in the
Novus Ordo Missae.674 The section numbered “4” in the citation above provoked only one iuxta
modum response, i.e, the aforementioned retention of solemn blessings for bishops. Tres abhinc
annos (4 May 1967) had already been in force for some time. The only difference between that
rite and the Normative Mass was the pro opportune rubric for the Placeat. The celebrant had the
choice to say the prayer before he left the altar.675
Legitimate Adaptation: The iuxta modum responses also expressed desires for a
reduction in the number of saints in the obligatory list of the Roman Canon. This echoed the
dominant opinions of the periti and Consilium Fathers themselves, as mentioned in Chapter five.
There were also several suggestions of a rubrical or territorial nature. For example, Holy
Communion under both species should be determined (as to manner and final permission) by the
national Conference. 676 Furthermore, the rubric suggesting solemn benedictions asked to restrict
the use of these blessing to bishops.
673
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967), 467.
674
Both of the these prayers are called “precious pearls” by the Pontiff. A. Bugnini
records Paul VI and his comments on their omission, later after the Synod, writing: “Si toglie
‘l’Orate, fratres?’ Non è una bella, antica, appropriata conversazione fra celebrante e assemblea
prima di iniziare l’orazione super oblata e la liturgia sacrificale? Sarebbe una gemma perduta.”
See A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 376.
675
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO -CONSILIUM, «Tres abhinc annos», Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 59 (1967) 442-448.
676
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 467.
212
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
7.3 QUERY II
With second query, the subject matter continued to concentrate on the ritus introitales of
the Mass, particularly the penitential rite. This was still a matter of debate among the Consilium
periti and also the Fathers of the Consilium. This was especially the case following Pope Paul
VI’s intervention in June of 1966. On his own initiative he specifically requested that an
alternative rite to the Kyrie be provided for in the schema of the Normative Mass. 677 The second
query to the Fathers was posed as follows:
“Placetne patribus ut in Missa semper habeatur actus paenitentialis, variis
quidem formis, iuxta tempora litugica vel alia adiuncta, ab omnibus tamen participatus?
Dixerunt: Placet 108; Non Placet 23; Placet iuxta modum 39.” 678
The responses (iuxta modum) about the penitential act varied. It should be remembered
that the penitential act, added as a result of the explicit wishes of Pope Paul VI, was in imitation
of the formula for confession as found in the Pian Missal. This had been rejected (as mentioned
in Chapter four) by the periti and Fathers as a Gallican accretion. As a result, the Consilium had
initially left it out of the rite of Mass. After the Pontiff urged its reintroduction, a communal form
of confession was introduced. Yet, by its very existence it created problems for a reformed
liturgy that was attempting to escape from forms deemed reminders of a period which was
commonly considered one of foreign liturgical contamination. In summary, the suggestions
recommended that: the penitential act should be above all brief (which the Kyrie had already
accomplished in the original schema), and that the penitential act should involve choices ad
libitum and in accord with local mentality and needs. This judgment should be determined by the
677
The votes, debate and intervention were already treated in Chapter four.
678
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 467.
213
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
conference of bishops.679 The most noteworthy suggestion was to eliminate the Misereatur or
Indulgentiam since it was considered theologically confusing (since no sacramental absolution
was being provided). Additionally it was reflective of the private apology-prayer structure of the
medieval period.680 In Chapter four it was mentioned that the Consilium itself, due to the same
difficulties, was undecides whether or not to add the penitential act either to the beginning of the
Liturgy of the Word or to Liturgy of the Eucharist (for Communion preparation). Finally, the
form of the Confiteor that the Fathers of the Consilium adopted was not only acceptable to some
of the Fathers.681 The very inclusion of a penitential rite at all was the origin of many problems in
the Mass rite. Its form, place, and historicity made it a constant source of tension. This was the
case first among the Consilium Fathers and then the Fathers of the Synod. The votes of both
show a lack of unanimity on the matter.682
7.4 QUERY III
Regarding query three, the Fathers were asked:
“Placetne Patribus ut, tempore experimentorum, in Missa tres statuantur
lectiones, ita ut, post experimenta, attentis experientiis pastoralibus, quaestio de numero
679
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 467-478.
680
The Misereatur was used for a different form of the Missa normativa posterior to the
Mass schema of 24 May 1966. It was developed as a result of the wishes of the Pope.
Furthermore, the Indulgentiam was added onto the 24 May 1966 schema a little before the synod
of bishops. It was the result of an intervention on the part of the Pontiff as well. See CONSILIUM,
«Schema, n. 218, De Missali, n. 34 (19 aprilis 1967)», in RCOM, 573.
681
The original form was as follows: “Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, coram Angelis et
Sanctis eius, et tibi, frater, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione, mea culpa.
Et precor te, orare pro me.” See CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 224, De Missali, n. 36 (11 aprilis
1967)», in RCOM, 574.
682
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 224, De Missali, n. 36 (19 aprilis 1967)», 573. See also
CONSILIUM, «Schema, n. 258, De Missali, n. 42 (21 novembris 1967)», in RCOM, 612.
214
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
lectionum opportune solvi possit?
Dixerunt: Placet 72; Non Placet 59; Placet iuxta
modum 41.”683
It is surprising that the synod Fathers reacted so negatively to the attempt of the
Consilium to introduce a habitual reading of three lessons in each Mass. In fact, it is quite
startling to see how many bishops were outright opposed to adding an additional reading.
Among the iuxta modum responses, were suggestions to actually shorten the Liturgy of the Word
as a whole because it was judged to be too protracted. This seems to be a logical follow up by
many synod Fathers to simply reject anything that would prolong the Liturgy of the Word. It is
puzzling to see that fifty-nine Fathers completely rejected the system of three readings within the
Normative Mass.684 The Council had already called for an explicit enrichment of the Missal and
that the Word of God should be more amply used, as explained in Chapter three. When the
Consilium practically applied this mandate of the Council in its reform, pastoral concerns
(perhaps fear of fatigue at having three readings) resulted in a disastrous vote. Query two
suggested experiments with extra readings in order to determine its utility. Nonetheless, the iuxta
modum responses tended to be negative. The Fathers commented that the extra reading was not
necessary. If such an experiment was allowed, it should be limited to particular conferences of
bishops who approve it. Additionaly the approval should only be for a short time.685 Concering
the question about the number of readings (two or three readings in the new lectionary), the iuxta
modum responses where generally as follows: it should not be imposed unless it is a complete
success, it should not be obligatory except for particular Masses, although there may be three
readings they should not be obligatory, and in some cases (missions, Mass sine populo) there
should be the option of but one reading for the entire Mass. These responses are hardly consistent
683
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 468.
684
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 468-9.
685
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 468.
215
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
with the Council’s explicit desire to lavishly provide for a more ample diet of Scripture for the
faithful.686
7.5 QUERY IV
Regarding the chants of the Mass, the Fathers were asked query four below:687
“Placetne Patribus ut antiphonae ad introitum, ad offertorium et ad
communionem substitui possint per alios congruos cantus iudicio Conferentiarum
Episcopalium, et iuxta textus ab ipsis approbandos? Dixerunt: Placet 126; Non Placet
25; Placet iuxta modum 19.”688
The response by the synod Fathers was much more positive on this theme. In part, this
could have been due to the 5 May 1967 instruction on sacred music (Instructio de musica in
sacra liturgia) that the Consilium had recently written. It was subsequently approved by the
SCR. This had already opened the door to the local church to substitute certain chants of the
686
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 468.
687
The quereies covered the Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist (as well as
the Liturgy of the Hours). Only the queries on the Mass are of interest here. In total there were
eight queries, including those that mention the Divine Office.
The schema for the queries is the following:
1.) Query I: General structure of the Mass: a.) question regarding overall structure of the Mass
b.) questions about the Liturgy of the Word c.) question about the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
2.) Query II: Regarding the penitential act.
3.) Query III: Regarding the readings and their number: a.) question regarding overall structure
b.) whether there should be two or three readings.
4.) Regarding the antiphons and song.
5-8.) Queries IV-VIII: Divine Office.
See Quaestiones in primo coetu synodi episcoporum (21 octobris 1967). Cf., C. BRAGA,
«De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae 81 (1967), 468-470.
688
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 468-469.
216
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Proper of the Mass by means of local sacred and vernacular song. 689 Considering the date of this
instruction, it had already been used for the transitional Missal of 1967, i.e, the missal according
to the Instructio altera, Tres abhinc annos. As such, the synod Fathers had only a few
suggestions on this subject. Like the penitential rite in query two, they made relatively minor
suggestions. These can be summarized as: making sure there is a logic to the order to the sacred
song, making sure the conference of bishops has a certain degree of control of decisions made on
new texts, composing songs and psalms that can be adapted to conditions of the celebration. In a
different vein, there was even a request for a guarantee to preserve the treasures of the past
repertoire of sacred song. Apart from this exception, the responses merely took into account
pastoral concerns. The last suggestion to guard the Church’s tradition of sacred chant had already
been addressed. The Consilium Fathers had already in principle acknowledged (ceteris paribus)
this preference in liturgical celebrations. They had reiterated their desire to promote chant and
sacred polyphony more than a few times in their official acts. They had this along with affirming
other principles in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
7.6 PAPAL QUERIES ON THE NORMATIVE MASS690
Following the first four queries there was an additional series of papal queries that
reflected the Pope’s personal concerns for the liturgy of the Normative Mass. These papal queries
689
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «Instructio de musica in sacra liturgia», Ephemerides
liturgicae 81 (1967) 207-209.
690
The order of the queries is as follows:
Query I: The addition of new Eucharistic prayers. Should others be permitted besides the
Roman Canon?
Queriy II: The words of institution. Should the words quod pro vobis tradetur be added?
Query III: The words of Institution. Should the Myseterium fidei be completely removed
from the words of of institution?
Query IV: Should the Apostle’s Creed be able to substitute for the Nicene Creed, and if
so, under what conditions?
See C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 465.
217
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
addressed a series of innovations ordered to be inserted by the Roman Pontiff. Pope Paul VI
attached these queries to those of the Mass (and the Divine Office) for the Fathers’ vote.
7.6.1 PAPAL QUERY I: EUCHARISTIC PRAYERS
The first query of the Pontiff is as follows:
“Placetne ut in liturgiam latinam, praeter Canonem Romanum, in usu manentem,
tres aliae novae preces eucharisticae inducantur? Dixerunt: Placet 127; Non Placet 22;
Placet iuxta modum 34.”
History of the Innovations: The Consilium presented its case for the new eucharistic
prayers as one that arose out of its own desires following its work culminating in the Normative
Mass, especially the definitive text of 24 May 1966.691 This statement is true, insofar as it refers
to the task that was intrusted to the Consilium by the desires of Pope Paul VI. However, it can be
misleading. The original plan of the Consilium Fathers was simply to revise the Roman Canon,
or construct a new eucharistic prayer based on the “Roman” tradition and genius. 692 By the 2
July 1966 the Consilium had completed touching up its mature schema of the Mass and
presented it to the Pope. In response, the Pope partially accepted the Consilium proposition for
the reform of the Roman Canon. However he changed the direction of the reform by ordering
several new compositions.693
The question arises, how did the Consilium transition from Canons A, B, and C in the 24
May 1966 Normative Mass, which was studied in previous chapters? The first impetus for the
691
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 376.
692
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des Ordo Missae», 284-285, 289.
693
J. WAGNER, «Zur Reform des Ordo Missae», 263. Here the dates of these facts are
provided. The official assignment for the Consilium to compose these prayers came from a
request of the Pope to Cardinal Lercaro in a private audience on 1 May 1967. See CONSILIUM,
«“Preces eucharisticae” per la liturgia romana (1 maii 1967)», in RCOM, 579.
218
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
transition came after the Fathers of the Consilium voted on the reformed Canons A-C. All the
Fathers unanimously approved formula A. It had been merely revised, but the text was
essentially unchanged. The question of forms B and C were thorny ones. Canon B was admitted
by a majority vote: Placet: 25; Non Placet 6; iuxta modum 1. Canon C was admitted into the text
more controversially: Placet 22; Non Placet 10. 694 These constituted problems since the Canon/
eucharistic prayer was of central importance for the Mass liturgy. It should be here, if anywhere,
where one ought to have unanimity. Fortunately, J. Wagner, recorded minutely the entire history
of the debate that can be summarized as follows:
1.) Following the the Fathers’ approval of forms A, B, and C, debate and disagreement
about the fate of the Roman Canon continued.
2.) For this reason the Consilium decided that “ad latus” of the Roman Canon it would be
best to compose one additional eucharist prayer in order to meet the needs and mentality of
modern man. The Roman Canon (in its original form) was not able to do this.695
3.) The Consilium periti, as cited by the Consilium Fathers when presenting their
definitive text of the Mass to the Holy Father, asked for the honor to compose one new
eucharistic prayer to meet the needs of the Roman rite. They wished to compose it using the
“Roman Genius.”
4.) On 20 June 1966 the Pope both forbade any tampering or innovation in the text of the
traditional Roman Canon. Simultaneously he decided that two or even three new eucharistic
prayers were to be composed for the Roman rite.696
694
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Conspectus suffragationum quae in
Sessione plenaria “Consilii”, diebus 21, 22 et 26 Octobris 1965, de Schemate I Ordinis Missae
habitae sunt (2 martii 1967)», in RCOM, 515.
695CONSILIUM,
«“Preces eucharisticae” Textus emmendatus. Schema n. 266, De Missali
n., 37 (1 maii 1967)», in RCOM, 580. The Consilium speaks of the pastoral and spiritual work
that can be actualized by these prayers, which is impossible for the Roman Canon.
696
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Introductio generalis in novas
“anaphoras” seu “preces eucharisticas” (17 mar 1967)», in RCOM, 518-519.
219
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
In fact, A. Bugnini makes it perfectly clear that the Pope was the source of inspiration for
the introduction of a multiplicity of eucharistic prayers into the Roman rite.697 However, this
determination by the Pontiff was not an unhappy one. Rather, it was welcomed enthusiastically
by the periti when communicated by Cardinal Lercaro.698 This resulted in the composition of
four eucharistic prayers (including an adapted version of the anaphora of St. Basil).699 These
eucharistic prayers (and not Canon A, B and C) represent the eucharistic prayers that the Synod
Fathers were to vote upon. The first Papal query on these prayers is quite general. He asks if
should there be other eucharistic prayers. Besides the Roman Canon, the Consilium had,
composed four prayers that could have been used at the synod of bishops.700 In fact, they were
given the text of four out of the original five compositions. The anaphora of St. Basil was
dropped because it had failed to gain general acceptance when voted on by the Fathers of the
Consilium.701
697
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 344.
698
In the words of J. Wagner: En mandatum quod coetus X libenter accipit. See
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Introductio generalis in novas “anaphoras” seu
“preces eucharisticas” (17 martii 1967)», in RCOM, 518.
699
In the eighth plenary session of the Consilium Fathers the full scope of the plan was
revealed. See CONSILIUM, «Octava sessio plenaria “Consilium”», Ephemerides liturgicae 81
(1967) 430-434. The anaphora of Basil was referred to in the copies of liturgical texts given to
the Fathers, but they were only given texts of the Roman Canon and the other three prayers,
without the text of Basil. See P. HEBBLETHWAITE, Understanding the Synod, Gill and Son,
Dublin 1968, 100.
700
CONSILIUM, «“Preces eucharisticae.” De Missali, n. 37, Schemata n. 266 (1 May
1967)», in RCOM, 591-605.
701
B. BOTTE, Il Movimento Liturgico. Testimonianza e ricordi, 213-214. In fact, 16
Fathers voted against the prayer, while only 15 voted for it. Cardinal Confalonieri (viceopresident of the Consilium) remitted to the Holy Father. However, the Consilium emphasized
that the prayer was still in many ways advisable, since it had been explicitly requested by several
National Conferences of Bishops. See CONSILIUM, «“Preces eucharisticae.” Schemata n. 266, De
Missali, n. 37 (1 maii 1967)», 591-605.
220
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
7.6.2 EUCHARISTIC PRAYER III
Of the four eucharistic prayers composed by the Consilium, Eucharistic Prayer III 702 was
chosen for the celebration of the public Mass before the synod of bishops.703 The text celebrated
before the synod runs as follows:704
“haec prex eucharistica potest semper adhiberi
I.
VERE DIGNUM...Hosanna in excelsis.
II.
VERE SANCTUS es Domine et merito te laudat omnis a te condita creatura quia
per Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, Spiritius Sancti operante virtute,
vivificas et sanctificas universa et populum tibi congregare non desinis ut a solis ortu
usque ad occasum oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo.
III.
SUPPLICES ERGO te Domine deprecamur ut haec munera quae tibi sacranda
detulimus eodem Spiritu sanctificare digneris ut corpus et sanguis fiant Filii tui Domini
nostri Iesu Christi cuius mandato haec mysteria celebramus
IV.
IPSE ENIM, in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem et tibi gratias agens
benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis dicens: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes:
702
B. BOTTE, Il Movimento Liturgico. Testimonianza e ricordi, 206-2015. This eucharistic
prayer is also significant since it departed from the Roman tradition. B. Botte, as a peritus of
Coetus X, traces the history of the eucharistic prayer controversy. He notes that a diversity of
prayers led to drawing inspiration from a diversity of traditions. This prayer was inspired by
purely Gallican models in its composition.
703
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 346. N. b. The Holy Father wished the prayers inserted
due to the following explanation: In the introductory explanation to the Quaestiones a Summo
Pontifice propositae it reads: “De novis precibus eucharisticis introducendis in liturgiam latinam,
Patres certiores iam facti fuerant in Argumentis Conferentiis Episcopalibus significatis.
Agebatur enim de proposito ‘Consilii’ introducendi tres novas formulas precis eucharisticae, in
usu retento Canone Romano traditionali. Hae preces eucharisticae traditionem romanam
servant, diverso tamen et clariore ordine elementa disponunt, ut fidelium participatio et ipsius
sacerdotis oratio facilior reddatur.” See C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi
episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae 81 (1967) 464.
704
CONSILIUM, «“Preces eucharisticae.” De Missali, n. 37, Schemata n. 266 (1 May
1967)», in La riforma conciliare dell’ “Ordo Missae”, in RCOM, 591-596.
221
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur. Simili modo, postquam cenatum est,
accipiens calicem et tibi gratias agens, benedixit deditque discipulis suis dicens: Accipite
et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti qui pro
multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.
Hic fit acclamatio populi his vel similibus verbis ab auctoritate territoriali approbatis
Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et resurrectionem tuam confitemur donec venias.
V.
MEMORES IGITUR, Domine eiusdem Filii tui salutiferae passionis necnon
mirabilis resurrectionis et ascensionis in caelum sed et praestolantes alterum eius
adventum offerimus tibi gratias referentes hoc sacrificium vivum et sanctum.
VI.
RESPICE, QUAESUMUS, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae et agnoscens Hostiam
cuius voluisti immolatione placari concede ut qui corpore et sanguine Filii tui reficimus,
Spiritu Sancto repleti, unum corpus et unus spiritus inveniamur in Christo. Ipse nos tibi
perficiat munus aeternum ut cum electis tuis hereditatem consequi valeamus
VII.
in primis cum beatissima Virgine, Dei Genitrice, Maria, cum beatis Apostolis tuis
et gloriosis martyribus (cum Sancto N./ sanctus ve patronus/) et omnibus Sanctis quorum
intercessione perpetuo apud te confidimus adiuvari.
VIII.
HAEC HOSTIA nostrae reconciliationis proficiat, quaesumus Domine, ad totius
mundi pacem atque salutem. Ecclesiam tuam peregrinantem in terra in fide et caritate
firmare digneris cum famulo tuo, Papa nostro N. et episcopo nostro N., cum episcopali
ordine universo et omni populo adquisitionis tuae. Votis huius familiae, quam tibi adstare
voluisti, adesto propitius. Omnes filios tuos ubique dispersos tibi, clemens Pater,
miseratus coniunge. Fratres nostros defunctos et omnes qui ex hoc saeculo transierunt
quaerentes faciem Christi tui in regnum tuum benignus admitte ubi speramus simul
gloria tua perenniter satiari, per Christum Dominum nostrum per quem mundo bona
cuncta largiris.
IX.
PER IPSUM et cum ipso et in ipso est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate
Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.
222
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Liturgical Ignorance: Among the iuxta modum responses to introduce any new
eucharistic prayers, there was the usual and constant dissatisfaction that a liturgical choice be left
up to the celebrant. It was already seen that the private priestly prayers were pro opportune. This
also reflected the instruction given to the Fathers of the Consilium about the choice of eucharistic
prayers.705 Liturgical and pastoral adaptation were, in part, founded on the idea of adjusting the
liturgy to times and conditions. This iuxta modum response did not suggest that the National
Conference of bishops prescribe the times and conditions that merited the use of any one
eucharistic prayer. It merely requested that a universal set of norms be published with the prayer.
Besides this one negative response, all other iuxta modum responses were amenable to the
Consilium’s presentation of new eucharistic prayers.
Legitimate Adaptation: There was the suggestion to prescribe the Roman Canon for
feasts and Sundays. 706 The actual rubric gave no suggestions when it should be used. The Fathers
of the synod were familiar with the Roman Canon from Tres abhinc annos. 707 This suggestion
was also something that had, in fact, been approved for the amended texts of eucharistic prayers.
Still, it was eventually dropped from the rubrics.708 In the same vein, it was suggested that there
should be conditions to introduce these prayers: a.) the groups using them were first catechized
b.) the conference of bishops should have already reviewed and studied them with their people.
This was, of course, already within the bounds of the call for liturgical education. Both the
Council and the Consilium emphasized such education numerous times. Lastly, there was also a
call to revise the Roman Canon (to further correct it). This was an initiative that reflected the
705
CONSILIUM, «“Preces eucharisticae” per la liturgia romana (1 maii 1967)», in RCOM,
591-602. Only Eucharistic Prayer IV had any restrictions. It was restricted to Sundays and days
with no obligatory preface.
706
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 471.
707
CONSILIUM, «“Preces eucharisticae” per la liturgia romana (1 May 1967)», in RCOM,
591. Already in May of 1967 the Canon was “permitted” to be said aloud and eventually in the
vernacular as well. See CONSILIUM, «Instructio altera. Ad exsecutionem constitutionis de sacra
liturgia recte ordinandam», Ephemerides liturgicae 81 (1967), 299-332.
708
CONSILIUM, «“Preces eucharisticae” Textus emmendatus. Schema n. 218, De Missali
n., 34 (13 aprilis 1967)», in RCOM, 547.
223
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Consilium’s thinking. There were even requests for numerous eucharistic prayers, perhaps
composed on a national level. This suggestion can be thought of as a logical expansion of the
Consilium’s desire for inculturation and local adaptation.
Perhaps the most important point in the composition of the eucharistic prayers is the
history behind the shift. First, the periti had suggested only one new prayer based upon the
Roman Canon. Secondly, the Pope proposed completely new creations. Thirdly, the Consilium
gladly accepted the proposal of three new additional prayers for the Roman rite. Because this had
not been envisioned by the Consilium, it is no surprise that no “magic number” of eucharistic
prayers had been proposed to meet the needs of modern man. Who was to say if three or thirty
was the optimal number given the diversity of people, languages, and pastoral needs of the
Church of the the mid-twentieth century?
7.7 QUERY II & III: THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION
The inclusion of new eucharistic prayers had abruptly changed the direction of the
Consilium’s reforms. Formerly its structural model was more strictly based on Ordo Romanus I.
This had been a main point of reference and imitation for many of the Consilium’s reforms. With
new eucharistic prayers, the Normative Mass looked very different from all its known
predecessors in the Roman rite. This was not initially the work of the Consilium, since its official
production and its explicit requests had been to both correct the Roman Canon and to compose a
second eucharistic prayer based upon the timeless Roman tradition and the literary style referred
to as “the Roman genius.”709
709
Even though this statement is made as if there were an objective “litmus test” for the
new composition, the situation was far more tenuous that it appears. There was terrible
disagreement as to what constituted “the Roman Genius.” “De hoc ingenio romano per longum
et latum coetus disputavit, theoretice et in concreto.” See CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine
Missae”. Introductio generalis in novas “anaphoras” seu “preces eucharisticas” (17 martii
1967)», in RCOM, 519.
224
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
In addition to the shift of direction in the reform of the Roman Canon, there was yet an
additional novelty.710 This was in the realm of the words of institution. The new eucharistic
prayers were composed with new institution narratives. All the while the words of institution in
the Roman Canon were initially left untouched.711 The queries on the institution narrative ran as
follows:
“Placetne Patribus ut in novis precibus eucharisticis formula consecrationis panis
sit: Hoc est enim Corpus meum QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR? Dixerunt: Placet
110; Non Placet 12; Placet iuxta modum 61.
Placetne Patribus ut in novis precibus eucharisticis formula consecrationis vini
sit: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro
multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum, scilicet eadem ac hucusque, demptis
710
The use of the word “novelty” is not accidental. It was recognized by both J.
Jungmann and the Consilium that no actual liturgies in the East or West used a single biblical
narrative for the recounting of the Last Supper. Each had interpolations or admixtures of various
narratives. The new Roman liturgy would become the first known Liturgy of the Eucharist to use
a direct citations only from the Holy Scriptures (in fact it does have some slight variations from
the Biblical texts). “In all known liturgies the core of the eucharistia, and therefore of the Mass,
is formed by the narrative of the institution and the words of consecration. Our very first
observation in this regard is the remarkable fact that the texts for the account of institution,
among them in particular the most ancient (whether as handed down or as reconstructed by
comparitve studies), are never simply a Scripture text restated. They go back to a pre-biblical
tradition.” See J. JUNGMANN, Mass of the Roman Rite 2, 194-195.
This fact is strangely not alluded to by the Consilium periti when theoretically
considering the question of changing the words of institution by adding exact biblical narratives.
They settled for adding exact biblical narratives to the texts, while allowing some slight
variations to persist in the narrative. See CONSILIUM, «De verbis Domini in instituione
eucharistiae. Schema n. 218, De Missali, n. 34 (15 aprilis 1967)», in La riforma conciliare dell’
“Ordo Missae”, 489-491.
711
This actually provoked iuxta modum requests to adjust the Roman Canon’s words of
institution to the those of the new eucharistic prayers. See C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu
synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae 81 (1967) 471.
225
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
tamen verbis: mysterium fidei? Dixerunt: Placet 93; Non Placet 48; Placet iuxta modum
42.”712
History of the Innovation: The question of changing the words of institution was one
that originally affected only the newly composed Eucharistic prayers. Only later did their
revisions affect the Roman Canon itself.713 The first impetus to change the words of institution
came from the desire to follow the model of the eucharistic prayer of Hippolytus.714 The
institution narrative was first changed in reference to and in comparison with this ancient
model.715 It was the iuxta modum responses to the general structure of the Normative Mass (see
above: Q. I, section 3) that suggested once again (after the Pontiff’s moratorium on changing the
Canon) revising the Roman Canon to agree with the newly formed acclamations after the
consecration. This change was in imitation of the other three anaphoras provided by the
Consilium.716 This also became a point of reflection to make each institution narrative parallel in
712
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 471.
713
CONSILIUM, «Coetus X: “De Ordine Missae”. Relatio peculiaris de prece eucharistica
secunda breviori (17 martii 1967)», in RCOM, 523-527.
714
C. BRAGA, «De novis precibus eucharisticis litrurgiae latinae», Ephemerides liturgicae
82 (1968) 228-229.
715
CONSILIUM, «De verbis Domini in instituione eucharistiae. Schema n. 218, De
Missali, n. 34 (19 martii 1967)», in RCOM, 557-559.
716
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 467.
226
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
in wording.717 So, the imperfect or “theologically confusing” words of institution of the Roman
Canon were substituted by those considered more apt to an orthodox interpretation.718
Liturgical Ignorance: There was the suggestion to take the mysterium fidei out of the
words of institution and to use it as the introduction to an acclamation of the people.719 This was
ordered to be done by Pope Paul VI on his own volition at a later date.720 The Consilium had
formerly had only harsh words for the mysterium fidei. It was considered something that was
theologically confused and an historical oddity (to be found in no other rites). Furthermore, it
would eventually be objected that such an acclamation would split the eucharistic prayer into two
parts. On the contrary, the eucharistic prayer of the Roman rite should be a homogenous
composition.
Legitimate Adaptation: Besides the requests to conform the Roman Canon to the other
eucharistic prayers, there was one other iuxta modum request.721 The request was of grammatical
significance. It served for theological clarification. The request was to change a portion of the the
words of institution. First, a change was suggested for the chalice consecration, from the future
effundetur to the present tense. This request resulted in a detailed biblico-liturgical study by the
Consilium periti. Originally, the adjustment of the words of consecration was meant to overcome
any theological ambiguities that periti had criticized in the old Roman Canon. Instead, the periti
717
CONSILIUM, «De verbis Domini in instituione eucharistiae. Schema n. 218, De
Missali, n. 34 (21 novembris 1967)», in RCOM, 615-620.
718
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 347-449. Here A. Bugnini summarizes the pastoral
disadvantages of the old formula of the Roman Canon and the theological confusion
emcumbered by periti with the mysterium fidei. Despite complaints about the mysterium fidei by
pastors of souls, the Consilium weighed the ambiguous formula against the advantage of leaving
the Roman Canon untouched. This was a pastoral advantage of preventing “scrupulosity” with
the “quasi-magic” words of the consecration. Multiple formulas would make the concentration
on recitation less of a neurotic obsession. See CONSILIUM, «“Preces eucharisticae” per la liturgia
romana. Schema n. 266, De Missali, n. 37 (1 maii 1967)», in RCOM, 582-583.
719
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 471.
720 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 367.
721
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 471.
227
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
found themselves embroiled in a new insoluble problems. There is also a problem for the bread
narrative in the word tradetur. A number of iuxta modum suggestions had been made for this text
as well.722 Part of the problem came from the complications in the Oriental tradition. It varied in
its interpretion of the words of Christ as both referring to the present and the future. The West
was fairly consistent in using the future tense. Therefore, the question was referred to the
commission revising the Vulgate. The biblical commission’s response was a double blow to the
Consilium’s attempt to clarify the institution narrative’s grammatical meaning. First, the
Commission mentioned the fact that it was not able to resolve the present/future sense of the
words either in the original Greek or in reference to the Latin tradition. There was exegetical
debate about the sense in the original Greek.723 On the other hand, the Latin manuscript tradition
of the Lukan verses of the Last Supper are impossible to resolve. This is even the case when
taking into acount the most critical reading of the passages. In short, the biblical commission
simply recommended that the Consilium follow the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. This was a
course, unfortunately, which had already been abandoned in the Conslium’s work. The
application of the iuxta modum responses to the work of reform had made it unlikely to return to
the Roman tradition of the institution narrative.724
7.8 THE NICENE AND APOSTLE’S CREED
The fourth of these papal queries actually concerns the Liturgy of the Word. It runs as
follows:
“Placetne Patribus ut Conferentiis Epicopalibus facultas fiat statuendi ut in
Missa, praeter Symbolum Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum, etiam Symbolum Apostolorum
722
CONSILIUM, «De tempore grammaticali adhibendo in verbis consecrationis panis et
vini. Schema n. 258, De Missali, n. 42 (21 novembris 1967)», in RCOM, 607-616. For the body
of Christ, in place of tradetur, it was suggested: datur (26 out of 61 Fathers iuxta modum);
traditur (6 out of 61) & frangitur (1 out of 61).
723
P. HEBBLETHWAITE, Understanding the Synod, Gill and Son, Dublin 1968 104-105.
724
CONSILIUM, «De tempore grammaticali adhibendo in verbis consecrationis panis et
vini. Schema n. 258, De Missali, n. 42 (21 novembris 1967)», in RCOM, 607-616.
228
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
adhiberi valeat?
Dixerunt: Placet 142; Non Placet 22; Placet iuxta modum
19.”725
Logically, the bishops emphasized in the iuxta modum responses that the concession to
use the Apostle’s Creed should come from the Apostolic See. It was particularly needed for
places where illiteracy was a problem. 726 Cardinal Lercaro had already argued the use of the
Apostle’s Creed as a more “ancient” source of the faith and because of its pastoral advantage
over that of the Nicene Creed. He made his arguments in a presentation to the synod Fathers.727
Furthermore, it was emphasized that for Mass in cantu the Nicene Creed should be used. Also, it
was pastorally recommended that every nation should observe uniformly the same custom in
order to have unity of worship. Others wished to limit the Apostle’s Creed to weekdays. On the
contrary, others wished that only the Apostle’s Creed be used. In short, the overwhelming
majority saw the pastoral advantage of the Apostle’s Creed’s insertion into the Mass.728 However,
a point of contention existed between Fathers that responded iuxta modum. They seem to have
been in disagreement as to the regularity or frequency of the Creed’s recitation.729
7.9 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE SYNOD
First of all, the synod of bishops was seen as an important step for ratifying and
promulgating a new liturgy for the Latin Church according to the express will and desire of Pope
725
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 464.
726
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 472.
727
F. MURPHY -G. MACEOIN, Synod ’67. A New Sound in Rome, 23, 148.
728
P. HEBBLETHWAITE, Understanding the Synod, 105-106.
729
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 472.
229
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Paul VI. 730 The opening elocution of Paul VI at the head of this chapter succinctly summarized
his position. He did not wish to impose anything on the Church as a whole until he had the
opinion and support of his brother bishops for a reform of such “gravity.”731
As such, Msgr. Bugnini remarked frankly in his reflection upon the Normative Mass’
celebration before the synod of bishops:
“Occorre dire subito che l’esperimento non riuscì. Anzi, in certo modo, produsse
l’effetto contrario e pesò sulla votazione in senso negativo. Pochi erano i Padri disposti e
preparati all’esperimento. Ma ancora meno quelli che avevano compreso
intrinsecamente il valore e l’essenza della messa normativa. La maggior parte si recò
alla Sistina con animo prevenuto e mal disposto.”732
A. Bugnini makes an arguable point that perhaps the vote was not really reflective of the
national conferences of bishops and how they would have voted in every case. He noted that the
liturgical schemata that the synod Fathers had in hand were also sent out to the national and
regional conferences of bishops and were also voted on by these groups. In at least ten cases a
conference had voted with a Placet or Placet iuxta modum where, on the contrary, their
representative had voted with a Non Placet. 733 It is indeed a valid critique that the synod may not
have reflected accurately the attitudes of various conferences of bishops toward the printed
Normative Mass schema. It may have only reflected many bishops partial or whole negative
730
V. COMMELLI, Il primo Sinodo dei vescovi, 97-98.
731
PAULUS VI, «Allocutio Summi Pontificis ad peritos “Consilii”», Ephemerides
liturgicae 81 (1967) 436-439. Before the Synod the encomium of the Consilium was so lofty that
there could have been no suspicions by the Pope that the Fathers of the synod would not be
pleased.
732 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 347.
733 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 347-348.
230
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
attitude toward the reform.734 As an example, Msgr. Dwyer, representing the English bishops
conference, voted negatively during at the synod. He did so even though he had consulted and
was fully conscious of the fact that the English bishops had already approved of the schema of
the Normative Mass as a conference.735
Secondly, according to A. Martimort (himself a peritus for reform of the Mass), the
celebration of a “Sunday parish Mass” was unable to be imagined in its celebration in the Sistine
Chapel. He, and others, noted that the atmosphere and architecture within the chapel was far
removed from any sense of communal celebration that encouraged active participation.736 His
views were echoed by others as well. Finally there was the fact that, during the synod of bishops,
several curial members and other polemical types where sowing discord about the Consilium’s
work and intentions. This began well before the Fathers were able to look at the first schemata of
the liturgical reform.737 All of this, of course, must be taken into account. Yet it is difficult to
evaluate what effect, if any, such circumstances had on any one bishop. Despite the surprising
number of abstentions and negative votes of the Fathers on various parts of the Missa normativa,
the peritus C. Braga saw the results of the vote as merely a means to review the Consilium’s
work. These votes were useful in order to see if any new legitimate observations could be made.
The process was merely another legitimate means to an end, i.e. liturgical reform, and hardly the
last word on the matter.738 On the other hand, dissension and public comments opposing the
liturgical changes multiplied so that an atmosphere of serenity or tranquility was not possible in
734
A. Bugnini was conscious of accusations against himself that made his position
precarious, and defends himself several times in his chronicle of the liturgy (A. BUGNINI, The
Reform of the Liturgy, 278-301). However, it is interesting (even a little amazing) to see that his
reputation as a “modernist” was so prominent. His progressive spirit was explicitly mentioned in
“objective” publications of the time. Even the accusations against Cardinal Lercaro as a Lutheran
found a place in the synod “informal” discussions. See F. MURPHY -G. MACEOIN, Synod ’67. A
New Sound in Rome, 23, 145-146.
735 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 355.
736 A.-G. MARTIMORT,
737 A. BUGNINI,
«Adaptation liturgique», Ephemerides liturgicae 79 (1965) 3-16.
The Reform of the Liturgy, 347.
738
C. BRAGA, «De liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides liturgicae
81 (1967) 472.
231
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
the area of liturgical discussion. Often times hot blooded exchanges occurred, even among
Cardinals.739
Among these inauspicious circumstances, the result was that the experiment was seen as
a failure. Looking at the votes, one might find it surprising that the individual rites’ reforms were
often approved by super-majorities. Conversely, the overall structure of the Mass resulted in a
very negative vote. The overall negative vote was probably due to the live celebration of the
Mass. However, there were also some individual rites that were notable failures (e.g., the sign of
peace). This observation comes from an analysis of the individual rites that were the subject of
the queries. 740 Many of the individual reformed rites received positive votes, whereas the overall
structure was seen negatively. As a result, the Pope found himself taking a more active (or
interventive) role in the reform process.741 Ultimately Paul VI involved a number of other curial
agencies and theologians (in addition to his own personal supervision) in the reform process.
This led to what was to become known as the “new Mass”, or Novus Ordo Missae.742
739
P. HEBBLETHWAITE, Understanding the Synod, 95-96.
740
P. HEBBLETHWAITE, Understanding the Synod, 98-99. Archbishop Dwyer is quoted
saying that Only after the bishops saw the mass did their dissatisfaction become apparent.
741 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 357-380.
742 A. BUGNINI,
The Reform of the Liturgy, 341.
232
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
The previous chapters sought to discover not only the theoretical principles of the
Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia, but especially attempted to
uncover how its principles were used to justify any given reform of the Mass liturgy. The Missa
normativa was the result of the explicit invocation and application of these described principles
by a select chosen group of experts with official approval of the Catholic Church. The first
chapters described the precise number of principles and their definitions. The following chapters
were an attempt to highlight which principles were applied to each section of the new Mass
liturgy. The last chapter described the Synod Fathers’ reactions to the periti and Fathers’ final
product of the “Normative Mass.” This study relied upon the testimonies from the Pontiff,
Roman curia, Consilium Fathers and periti. The goal in evaluating the reform was to avoid
personal interpretations or personal hypothetical justifications for the reform of any given rite.
Instead, there was a search for explicit reasons leading to the changes in the Mass liturgy
according to records and accounts of the very persons officially entrusted with the task of
liturgical reform.
8.1 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The first end, or the aim of the investigation, is none other than to find the pattern, the
logic, and hierarchy of principles applied in the overall reform. The study sought to discover
whether there was a universal or transcending principle consistently invoked and obviously
applied in all the reformed rites. If this sort of principle were discovered in each and every rite,
it would certainly qualify as an overarching principle or principium altius.
Secondly, this study sought to discover the principles by which individual rites were
reformed. An important principle could be only quasi-universal. It would be such that it affects
all instances of a large category of rites, but not all rites. Such a quasi-universal principle should
be observed in every rite that falls within such a categories. A principle like this, theoretically,
should be necessarily applied any time certain recognizable conditions are present. Of course,
this principle’s application also presumes that there is a universal group of categories that can be
233
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
defined. If all rites of type A need reform by principle x, then in every instance of A one should
find traces or inspiration in any reformed rite by the application of principle x.
Like the scientist who uses repeated observation of repeated processes and predictable
patterns to enuntiate probable and even quasi-certain “laws” of the universe, this study hoped to
uncover the “real logic” or the system of actual application of the principles of the Consilium.
These principles and their application were investigated in concrete, i.e., their application by the
Consilium was studied to understand how they really affected the reform of the rite of the
Mass.743 If patterns emerge or cause-effect relationships are discovered through such an analysis,
then one can make a strong case for “laws” or “regulatory ideas” that determine the treatment of
all or any particular rite of a certain category (like a species or genus).
Now, outside of the field of mere theory, there is the practical side of things. This is in the
realm of action. If a theoretical principle is applied to a concrete circumstance, then there should
be an observable effect of its application. This theoretical principle or regulatory idea is nothing
else than an imposed mental category which is a necessary condition for being able to
manipulate the rite or visible ritual that is to be reformed. In the case of the Mass, the Consilium
was responsible for taking the phenomenon of the “Missal of Pius V” and determining what parts
of this Missal were Roman or Latin in structure. Naturally, theological and liturgical
presuppositions needed to be adopted in this task. They would serve as an interpretive key for
judging and interpreting the phenomenon of the Mass of Pius V. Undoubtedly, this was the
privilege of the periti and Fathers in harmony with Pope Paul VI. More specifically, the periti, in
harmony with the Fathers of the Consilium and Pope Paul VI, invoked their own regulatory ideas
from at least three sources: theology, history, anthropology. Their theological and liturgical
principles were described in detail in Chapter three.
Furthermore, there is the question of “laws” of liturgical reform. The theoretical laws
were easily identified and enumerated (Chapter three) with one surprising and major exception.
743
Of course, this is a posteriori. First, there are the observations of what is happening,
then there is are a series of propositions describing the state of affairs, and finally a reasoning
process attempting to arrive at “laws.”
234
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Ecumenism was identified and applied as if it were an explicit and approved “principle” of
liturgical reform. However, strangely, nowhere in Papal pronouncements, or in official lists of
principles enumerated by the Consilium, will one find this as an official “principle of reform.”
Perhaps one should look to Unitatis redintegratio? Yet, if one looked to this document as the
charter or impetus for such principles, ecumenism’s principles do not seem to demand liturgical
reform.744 Certainly liturgical reform does not absolutlely demand ecumenism. Instead, what was
discovered is rather strange. There is no explicit “regulatory idea” of ecumenical sensitivity (or
considerations) in the official liturgical reform of the Catholic Church. The result is something
unable to be explained; namely, the explicit concern for and even explicit use of ecumenism for
the reform. It was used in the adoption or change of many rites of the Missa normativa through
explicitly invoking ecumenical considerations. Several rites underwent significant change by
invoking this quasi-principle. The question becomes, if the principle was so common and if it
were so important, how did it escape the members of the Consilium to enuntiate it? Like the
other principles, one would expect that “ecumenism” would be either a fundamental or
operational principle of liturgical reform. However one would look in vain to find it mentioned.
It is clear, from the investigation in Chapters four through six, that both the Pope and the
Consilium Fathers were comfortable and encouraged with regard to ecumenical considerations in
liturgical reform. However, it must be said that one can not find it invoked as a formal principle.
One can only conclude that it was something that “creeped” into the liturgical process of reform
as a commonly accepted a priori.
In conclusion, other than the quasi-principle of ecumenism, a clear delineation was
provided by the Consilium for how it was to consider reforms, i.e., the application of the
principles in Chapter three.
744
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Unitatis redintegratio», Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 57 (1965) 243-274. For an exptrapolation of the “principles” of ecumenism see the
summary: VATICAN COUNCIL II, «Catholic Principles of Ecumenism», in Documents on the
Liturgy 1963-1979. Conciliar. Papal and Curial Texts, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1982,
47.
235
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
8.2 ALTIORA PRINCIPIA: PRINCIPLES ONE AND TWO
Next, the study needs to ask whether or not there arose out of the reforms an overarching
or universal principle? Was there one principle or were there many applied in concrete reforms?
First of all, there is the principium altius that considers the the Liturgy as an exercise of
the priestly office of Jesus Christ. This was meant to underline the paschal mystery as the central
liturgical theme. It emphasized that all liturgical actions are by their nature public. This is due to
the fact that the paschal mystery is the common inheritence of all men. For example, when the
Mass is offered the sacrifice is potentially efficacious for all who willfully participate in it. No
one person can be the unique or private recipient of the graces of the paschal mystery to the
exclusion of another who wishes to participate in the same sacramental graces. Sanctifying grace
is available to all depending on their subjective dispositions. Each Mass, then, is directed toward
the entire Christian community for its sanctification. The Mass is never directed uniquely to one
individual to the exclusion of another to receive sacramental graces. The Mass cannot be
exhausted by one person. Also this principle was considered a foil against sacramental
minimalism. Any attempt to reduce the sacrament to its bare essentials so that one could
celebrate it “validly” was foreign to the mystery’s nature. Each mystery has rituals and presumes
a generous participation of the faithful. Any attempt to discourage an ample use of rich liturgical
symbolism or the assistance of the faithful tends to psychologically convey that the act is a
private possession for an exclusive number of individuals. With this in mind, there is no question
that all the reformed rites within the Normative Mass conformed to this principle. It is a
transcendent principle of Consilium liturgical reform. No rites that were reformed attempted to
make a distinction between “public” and “private” liturgy.745 They attempted always to show
conscious inclusion of the hierarchical structure of the Church. There was special consideration
to include lay participation in the sacred rites of Mass. In this regard, one has little difficulty
745
Of course, even this has a notable exception. See RCOM, 573. A missa since populo
seu de missa privatim celebrata was composed before the synod of bishops (in fact long before
aggressive curial interference). However, this is just another illustration of the point that no
principle can be said to be absolutely trans-ritual except that of active participation in virtue of
the vernacular.
236
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
seeing that the Consilium was always concerned with the public nature of the celebration of the
Mass.
The second of the altiora principia, i.e., the liturgy is the summit and source of Church
life, is presumed by the Consilium members in the reform process. It simply states the centrality
of the Mass and that it is a hierarchical celebration expressing unity. This was a consistent point
of departure in the liturgical reforms of the Consilium with the Mass.
8.3 THIRD PRINCIPLE: ACTIVE PARTICIPATION
Thirdly, there is the principium altius of full, conscious, and active participation. Looking
at Chapters four through six, what can be concluded -methodologically- from the application of
the principle? First of all, it was indeed often invoked. Many rites (e.g., the offertory, the
acclamation at the Eucharistic prayer, the communion meditation) were all reforms that
attempted to inculcate different forms of active participation. Formerly there had been no
participation by the faithful in these rites. These examples above are not random.
First, there is the offertory reform. However, it does not represent “vocal” participation.
The faithful perform tasks like offering and presenting gifts of bread, wine, and things for the
poor. It is active and conscious participation accomplished by the faithful really performing
liturgical functions according to their rank as laymen before the liturgical assembly. This first
kind of participation is an example of ritual participation through ritual actions of a non-verbal
nature.
Secondly, the acclamation at the Canon represents the reforming of a rite formerly
reserved only to bishops and priests. This rite has now been transformed to include verbal
participation in the liturgical rites, where formerly there was none at all. This represents the
application of “active participation” at the verbal level.
Lastly, the reformed Mass presupposes the use of a meditative communion song
according to local custom. This is an example of something that is neither ritual participation
(like an offertory procession) nor verbal participation (like singing aloud a hymn). Here the idea
237
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
is to inspire active meditation on the words or theme or to produce religious sentiments out of the
experience of culturally meaningful musical compositions. This may or may not be accompanied
by words. This is an example of the “interior” aspect of active participation.
However, it is one thing to say that a principle is often “invoked”, yet another to say that
it is transcendental (trans-ritual) and is applied in the reform of each and every rite. For example,
the offertory prayers in the Normative Mass represent prayers that were not meant to invite
verbal or ritual participation “actively” by the people. They may invite the faithful to interior
reflection and meditation. However, this can be said of each and every rite that is said aloud and
in the vernacular. Because language is, by its nature, something that fosters active participation
(at least internal participation),746 one can argue that this principle is indeed transcendent in the
Normative Mass. This means that every single category of rite of the Mass was penetrated or
“informed” by the principle of active participation. Insofar as the vernacular represents the
application of this principle (See Chapter three, letter c.), it is applied in every rite of the
Normative Mass. The vernacular was also consistently applied to all the rites of the Normative
Mass. The question of active verbal participation and ritual participation is different. Each
reformed rite cannot be said to do this. The celebrant’s silent prayers before communion, his
private prayers at communion, and certain quasi-private gestures (signing of the Gospel book)
obviously exclude ritual or verbal participation by the congregation or even the other clergy.
Thus, a question arises. By what criterion does one judge some rites merit ritual participation of
the faithful (like the offertory) or verbal participation of the faithful (like the Canon)?
Obviously, the liturgical history of the Roman rite is not terribly useful to discover such a
criterion, if it even exists. If history were the source of this regulatory idea that demanded that a
rite include ritual or active verbal participation, then certain reforms would not be justified. For
example, if the history of the Roman Canon in the Latin rite (according to liturgical books and
ancient witnesses) is the norm, then a serious difficulty arises. The history of the eucharistic
746
This is explicitly the case as mentioned by the Consilium as outlined in Chapter three.
238
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
prayer (i.e., the Roman Canon) in the Latin liturgy, at least since the fourth century,747 has no
evidence of an acclamation made by the people during the Canon. The people’s active verbal
participation is limited to the great “Amen.”
One might expect some sort of scientific or systematized evaluation of each rite to reflect
its nature and “adaptability” to ritual and/or verbal participation. For example, one can ask a
series of questions for each rite as divided into sections by the Consilium. There are 94 sections
into which the Mass liturgy is divided. For each on the rites (1-94) a logical series of questions
might be:
1.) Is this rite one that historically contained one of these three forms of active
participation in the manuscript tradition of the Latin rite? If so, which forms?
2.) Is this rite of Mass intrinsically and essentially structured for verbal or ritual
participation by the faithful? Is it composed for only the priest or deacon to perform or
say? Is it meant to be said aloud or silently?
3.) Does this rite represent something that impedes active participation? And if so, by
that fact alone, should it be eliminated or reformed?
Perhaps this might be illustrated by a simple example. An important illustration might be
the Canon of the Mass. If one were to evaluate the historical and intrinsic nature of this
composition one would look in vain to find a justification for a post-consecratory acclamation
within the Latin history of liturgical composition of its eucharistic prayer. This is a question that
bothers the Members of the Consilium too. Writing an apology for this very instance, A. Bugnini
contrasts the the “Latin tradition” of one eucharistic prayer with the “authentic tradition” that
contains many (although not necessarily a determinate number) of eucharistic prayers.748 The
implicit admission here is that the Roman rite has but one eucharistic prayer. At the same time it
747
It is difficult to say anything about the liturgy of the 3rd century, since the chapter
dealing with the eucharistic prayers referred to G. Metzger and P. Bradshaw. They have seriously
called into question the so-called Hippolytus of Rome and his church order.
748 A.
BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 443-445.
239
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
is implied that what is a unique trait of the historically verifiable Roman rite is contrary to the
“authentic tradition.” In many instances this kind of evaluation seems to create irresolvable
problems. This conflict leads to the exposure of deeper underlying methodological questions
about a hierarchy of principles and their relation to one another. It may be of use to look at other
facets of the Roman Canon to illustrate this more fundamental problem. In the absence of a clear
hierarchical order of principles, or an order of precedence in their application, contradictions
arise. For example:
1.) A. Bugnini implies above that the Roman Canon is the only eucharistic prayer in the
entire history of the Roman rite. If this is the case, then it presumably represents the “norm” of
the ancient Fathers for worship in the Roman rite. Is this historical fact the source of an objective
principle for judging something that “defines” or “specifies” the Roman rite with a positive
feature? On the contrary, does the exclusive use of the Roman Canon represent a weakness of the
Roman rite as opposed to the “authentic tradition”? It would seem that the higher principle of the
“authentic tradition” is drawn from what a majority, or at least a plurality, of non-Roman rites
observe in a parallel part of their own liturgies.749
2.) Another example within the Roman Canon is the Mysterium fidei. The Consilium
periti were already cited because they asserted that this insertion into the institution narrative
represents something that is unique to the Roman rite. It is not found in other non-Roman
liturgies. Again, which principle decides that this trait “unique” to the Roman rite is something
that is either specifying (a positive distinguishing trait) or something corrupting? The arguments
for removing it were already seen. There were basically three: a.) it is only in the Latin rite b.) it
is theologically uncertain as to its meaning c.) it is pastorally and linguistically difficult to
explain. Although, certainly letter “b” is a serious consideration, it is not at all clear why letter
“a” is an argument. Differences either specify something or they are accidental. Difference are
749
A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 443-445. This case is just one example from among
many that can be cited. This one is outstanding since A. Bugnini chooses to emphasize the
contrast between authentic tradition and certain practices unique to the Roman rite.
240
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
judged meritorious if they contribute to some end, function, or pertain to the proper definition of
a thing.
3.) One last example within the Roman Canon may again illustrate this point. With regard
to the the words of institution, the complaint was made (in Chapter seven) that the words of
institution were “non-biblical.” Furthermore, certain Latin phrases were argued as undesirable
(e.g., the consecration of the chalice: haec quotiescumque) since they are not citing scripture.
Again, a rite that is uniquely Roman is rejected because it is not found in other non-Roman rites.
However, one would expect an appeal to the “authentic tradition” here (as in other instances) as
the litmus test to judge the haec quotiecumque as unacceptable. Instead, J. Jungmann underlines
just the opposite (in Chapter seven). All known liturgies of the past and present do not cite or
follow any biblical narrative verbatim.
These three examples are merely meant to illustrate the fact that the application of the
principle of “active participation” or other principles could find itself in conflict with seemingly
distinguishing marks of the Roman rite. Sometimes, one principle could be invoked but was in
conflict with another Consilium principle. Either one or the other principle was invoked for any
given reform, but both could not be applied without contradiction.
Finally, whenever a principle does not permeate each and every rite, there must be a
necessary condition when it is applied. When and what is that condition? Also, if one principle is
imposed on an individual rite, how does one solve a conflict that arises when the application of
this principle changes the historical model of the rite (like the Roman Canon)? Serious questions
remain. It is an open question as to whether or not active participation (or other invoked
principles) is sufficiently powerful to override the historical forms of any and all authentic texts
and rituals of the Roman rite. 750
If this principle, or another (e.g., ecumenism), is a
“transcendental” or “trans-ritual” principle, it might be powerful enough to modify any text or
ritual that is commonly agreed upon to be historically “Roman.” Is a super-principle (like active
750
This is a reference to texts and compositions that the periti admit are authentically
Roman, like the Roman Canon. Another example might be the style and content of the Collects
at Mass.
241
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
participation) the dominant principle over and above all others? Is the force of this principle ever
suspended or equal to other super-principles? The answers to these questions are not certain. The
Consilium does not appear to have thought along these lines in the reform process. Rather, it
appears to have invoked certain principles at one time or other according to a certain consensus
of periti that arose out of the debates in the various Coetus.
8.4 OTHER THEORETICAL AND OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES
Generally speaking, each principle was invoked at some time or another in the reform of
the Mass. The difficulty, however, has already been illustrated above. The central debates were
discussed in the reform of each individual rite. Sometimes the debates centered on a concern for
historical authenticity of a text, sometimes a concern for the modern mentality and needs,
sometimes for active participation.
Nonetheless, until one has ascertained securely that a particular rite is properly Roman,
then it would seem logically impossible to know how to restore the rite of Mass as a whole.
Some nuclear or essential qualities of the Roman rite must give it a flavor or character of being
“Roman.” This character is that which distinguishes it from its sister rites. If this character is
eliminated, then the Roman rite ceases to have such a flavor or character. No list of such positive
characteristics was enuntiated by the Consilium before beginning the reform process. This
means, before beginning the process of reform, there was not a universally accepted series
individual rites considered authentic and “irreplaceable” or “irreformable.” There was also no a
priori presumption that forbade the retouching, interpolation, or recomposition of certain
“authentic” Roman prayers or rites. This ambiguity risks conflict with other principles. If the
mentality of modern man or cultural considerations are in conflict with a particular rubric or
composition judged as historically Roman, there is no methodological or hierarchical principle
that has sway or is automatically operative.
In conclusion, many of the principles of the Consilium cannot be considered absolute a
priori principles that are to be applied to each individual rite (1-94) in the reform of the Mass.
Instead one must consider an a posteriori approach. Although there are certain theological truths
242
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
(i.e., dogma) that were a priori’s, most other principles seem to have been applied according to
an evaluation a posteriori. First a rite was investigated by a select number of experts. They
presented their findings to the Coetus. The periti then proposed reforms by suggesting the
application of this or that principle to the rite. Each suggested what seemed to him to be
reasonable. Sometimes this was a prudential judgment of active participation, sometimes of
updating the liturgy, sometimes no revision at all. Sometimes compromises had to be accepted
because it was not clear that a dominant principle had carried the Coetus or persuaded the
Fathers of the Consilium. This means that the theoretical and operative principles were, for the
most part, reference points or guide posts for proposing reforms. There was no apparent
unchangable ritual because of its historical authenticity (e.g., the Canon). Principles were points
of reference or important considerations. However, they do not seem to have been hierarchically
determined or absolutes in reforming any given rite (other than the universal use of the
vernacular). This makes sense in light of the fact that the entire reform was above all a pastoral
attempt to engage the modern man according to his mentality and needs.751 This called for a
series of prudential judgments of a psychological and anthropological nature. Cultural and
temporal considerations like this are always contingent and fluid. As such, the rites were
subjected to reforms based upon what seemed to be a “balance” of considerations from active
participation to any of the other operational principles (mentioned in Chapter three).
8.5 THE NORMATIVE MASS AND ITS OVERALL STRUCTURE
With this in mind, it is not surprising that the initially strict parameters (i.e., principles)
for the reform had to be adjusted. New circumstances and new cultural concerns could always
surface and dislodge a rite. A ritual formerly believed to be on solid footing, from an historical or
theological point of view, might become of little concern because of new developments in
catechesis, psychology or culture. Cultural or psychological needs of the modern man could in
fact relegate the ancient form of a text to only secondary importance in the reform process.
751
G. CAPRILE, Il Sinodo dei vescovi. Prima assemblea generale (29 Settembre-29
Ottobre 1967), La Civiltà Cattolica, Roma 1968, 443-444. The synod was told that the entire
rationale for the the Consilium’s work was pastoral.
243
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
However, even with this in mind, the Consilium had remained rather internally consistent
in its application of a couple points.
First, the Ordo I of the Ordines Romani was consistently used as the structural point of
reference among the Consilium periti. It was only outside curial interference (e.g., F. Antonelli)
or Papal inspiration (e.g., the new eucharistic prayers) that caused the experts to deviate from
their base text meant to be the underlying skeleton for the new liturgy. Ultimately, the periti had
to depart from this model when they composed new eucharistic prayers and were forced to insert
private prayers for the celebrant along with a penitential rite (in addition to the Kyrie, eleison).
Secondly, the Consilium had been fairly consistent about eliminating almost all
genuflections, signs of the cross and other ritual actions that were Gallican in nature. The few
that remained were simple. They served as introductory or conclusory parts of individual rites
and were generally brief or apt to draw active participation in the minds of the periti.
8.6 THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS AND THE NORMATIVE MASS
The work of the Consilium was not unanimously received by the bishops. At least the
votes on individual rites were more promising, because they were supported by the majority
votes of the synod Fathers. This was not true of the voting on the overall structure of the
Normative Mass. Following the iuxta modum responses and the various speeches and
commentaries made by synod Fathers, it became obvious that a pastoral liturgy was difficult for
the bishops to accept.752 If pastoral liturgy is by its nature an application of prudence in contigent
matters, then each bishop voted according to this criterion (unless he merely reflected the vote of
his national conference on the written text of the Normative Mass). Each bishop had presumbly
the same theological principles that animated his life of faith in the realm of dogma. However,
the application of general principles like this into the realm of art, language, mentality, culture
and other factors hardly admits of unity. The failure of the Normative Mass to gain definitive
approval may easily reflect the diversity of opinion and understanding of application of
752
G. CAPRILE, Il Sinodo dei vescovi, 479-524. The author presents abstracts of all the
major speeches for and against the liturgical reform on the part of the members of the synod.
244
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
theological principles to the “situation” of the modern man. How does “man” interpret this or
that sign? How does man interpret a verbal sign or art? What is the best number of crosses or
greetings in this or that culture to optimize an experience of participation or dialogue? These
questions simply cannot be answered apodictically. They can only be answered by proposing
reasonable arguments. However, given the diversity of conditions and knowledge that each man
has, his acts of prudence will vary.
The criticism of the periti that many bishops voted because of (liturgical) ignorance, the
environment in the chapel, or the propaganda in Rome, must be taken into account. However,
this Mass ultimately failed to gain decisive acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church because
the results of the application of prudence in contigent matters cannot be controlled or anticipated.
Each bishop had his own reasons for rejecting the overall structure of the Mass. Some rejected it
because it was too radical, some because it did not go far enough. The Normative Mass’s failure
was a democratic failure. the Fathers cast their votes after taking into account both their personal
experience of a rite and after a detailed study of its texts. The Fathers did not reject the
methodology to arrive at the reform, many did not seem to know what the methodology even
was.
In conclusion, the methodology of the Consilium included utililization of current
structures within the Roman curia as its organizational model. Yet, It adjusted, developed, and
eliminated some of these structures by a process of trial and error. It used a variety of men and
studies for its work. It experienced interference from both the Roman curia and the Pontiff in its
work. Perhaps, one can both find reasons to praise or criticize the rather fluid structure of the
Consilium. However, it is more difficult to justify the lack of a clearly hierarchical and organized
application of liturgical principles to reform the Mass. At this time there is no way that such
principles may be delineated in their hierarchical order of precedence in the overall structure of
the Mass reform, or in many of the individual rites of the Mass.
245
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Sources
a) Magisterial
Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II 1, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Città
del Vaticano 1970.
CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, «Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia», Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 56 (1964) 97-138.
________, «Unitatis redintegratio», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965) 90-107.
________, «Nostra Aetate», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966) 740-817.
FELICI, PERICLE, «Entrata in vigore della Costituzione», in Verso la riforma liturgica. Documenti
e sussidi, ed. A. Bugnini, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1965, 54.
PAULUS VI, «Acta Officiorum. Ordo Synodi Episcoporum celebrandae, a Beatissimo Patre
approbatus», Acta Apostolica Sedis 59 (1967) 91-103.
________, «Allocutio Paui VI ad “Consilium”», Acta Apostolic Sedis 58 (1966) 1145-1150.
________, «Allocutio Pauli VI ad “Consilium”», in Enchiridion documentorum instaurationis
liturgicae 1963-1973 1, ed. S. Congregatio pro Cultu Divino, Marietti, Roma 1990, 249-253.
________, «Allocutio Summi Pontificis ad peritos “Consilii”», Ephemerides liturgicae 81
(1967) 436-439.
________,«Allocuzione del Santo Padre ai Padri conciliari», Acta Apostolica Sedis 56 (1964)
139-144.
________, «De competentia SRC et “Consilium”», in Enchiridion documentorum instaurationis
liturgicae 1963-1973 1, ed. S. Congregatio pro Cultu Divino, Marietti, Roma 1990, 116.
________, «Sacram Liturgiam», Acta Apostolica Sedis 56 (1964) 97-134.
SACRA CONGREGATIO DE INSTITUTIONE CATHOLICA, «In ecclesiasticam futurorum sacerdotum»,
Notitiae 15 (1979) 526-556.
246
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO CULTU DIVINO, «Liturgicae instaurationes», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 62
(1970) 692-704.
SACRA RITUUM CONGREGATIO, «De cantu introitus», in Documenta pontificia ad instaurationem
liturgicam spectantia, ed. A. Bugnini (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae sectio practica 9),
Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1953, 93-94.
________, «Decretum Generale. De Rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis», Acta
Apostolica Sedis 47 (1955) 218-224.
________, «Decretum Generale quo novus rubricarum Breviarii ac Missalis Romani Codex
promulgatur», Acta Apostolica Sedis 52 (1960) 706-722.
________, «De Orationum numero, diversis in circumstanciis», in Decreta authentica. Que ab
anno 1588 ad annum 1848 prodierunt, J. -G, Lardubius Typographus, Leodii 21851, 94-95.
________, «Instructio altera ad exsecutionem Consitutionis de Sacra Liturgia recte ordinandum»,
Ephemerides Liturgicae 81 (1967) 299-332.
________, «Inter Oecumenici», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964) 877-900.
________, «Nuper edita Instructione», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965) 408-409.
________, «Ordo Missae», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965) 408-409.
________, «Quo actuosius», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964) 337-338.
________, «Tres abhinc annos», Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967) 442-448.
SACRA CONGREGATIO DE INSTITUTIONE CATHOLICA, «In ecclesiasticam futurorum sacerdotum»,
Notitiae 15 (1979) 526-556.
________, «de labore a “Consilio” praestando», in Enchiridion documentorum instaurationis
247
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
liturgicae 1, ed. R. Kaczynski, Marietti, Roma 1976, 45.
SECRETARIATUS AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM, «Directorium Oecumenicum», Acta
Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967) 574-592.
SEGRETARIA DI STATO DI SUA SANTITÀ, «de competentia SRC et “Consilii”», in Enchiridion
documentorum instaurationis liturgicae 3/1, ed. R. Kaczynski, Marietti, Roma 1976, 116.
b.) Patristic
BENEDICT OF NURSIA, RB 1980: the Rule of St. Benedict in Latin and English with Notes, ed. T.
Fry, Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1981.
INNOCENT I, La lettre du pape Innocent Ier a Decentius de Gubbio (19mars 416), ed. R. Cabié,
Louvain 1973.
c) Liturgical
«The Book of Common Prayer», in Liturgies of the Western Church, ed. Bard Thompson,
Meridian Books, New York 1961, 269-286.
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), tr. Raymond Davis, Liverpool University Press,
Liverpool 22000.
COMMISSIO PIANA, La riforma liturgica di Pio XII. Documenti. I. La “Memoria sulla riforma
liturgica”, ed. C. Braga (Bibliotecha Ephemerides Liturgicae 128), Edizioni liturgiche Roma
2003.
CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, «Appendix 1. Appendix to the General Instruction for the
United States of America», in General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Liturgy Documentary
Series 2), United States Catholic Conference Inc., Washington D.C., 1982, 100.
CONSILIUM, «Dans sa récente allocution», Notitiae 3 (1967) 289-296.
________, «De liturgia in primo synodo episcoporum», Notitiae 3 (1967) 353-370.
________, «De Missa normativa», Notitiae 3 (1967) 371-380.
________, «Instructio altera. Ad exsecutionem Constitutionis de sacra Liturgia recte
248
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
ordinandam», Ephemerides liturgicae 81 (1967) 299-332.
________, «Labores Coetuum a Studiis “Consilii”», Ephemerides Liturgicae 79 (1965) 431-432.
________, «Octava sessio plenaria “Consilium”», Ephemerides liturgicae 81 (1967) 430-434.
________, De Oratione communi seu fidelium. Natura, momentum ac structura. Criteria atque
specimina Coetibus territorialibus Episcoporum proposita, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del
Vaticano 1966.
________, «Quinta sessio plenaria “Consilii”», Notitia 1 (1965) 99-104
________,«Rilievi alle osservazioni della S. Congregazione dei Riti circa il rito per la
concelebrazione e circa il rito della Comunione sub utraque specie», Ephemerides Liturgicae 108
(1994) 217-219.
________, «VII Sessio Plenaria “Consilii”», Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 402-406.
________, «Septima sessione plenaria “Consilii”», Notitiae 2 (1966) 312-313.
________, Elenchus Membrorum, Consultorum, Consiliariorum, Coetuum a studiis, Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, Città del Vaticano 21967.
«Deutsche Messe», in Liturgies of the Western Church, ed. Bard Thompson, Meridian Books,
New York 1961, 123-140.
L’Eucologio Barbarini gr. 336. Seconda edizione riveduta. Con traduzione in lingua italiana, ed.
S. Parenti, -E. Velkovska (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 80), CLV-Edizioni
Liturgiche, Roma 2000.
Graduale simplex, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1967.
Liber sacramentorum romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuli. Cod. Vat. Reg. Lat. 316/Paris
Bibl. Nat. 7193, Sacramentarium Gelasianum. Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, ed. L.
Mohlberg (Series Maior Fontes 4), Casa Editrice Herder, Roma 1960.
249
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II Instauratum
auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum. Lectionarium 1, Typis polyglottis vaticanis, Città del
Vaticano 1970.
Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum summorum pontificum
cura recognitum, Decleè et Socii, Tornaci 1961.
Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum summorum pontificum
cura recognitum, Marietti, Romae 191961.
Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum summorum pontificum
cura recognitum, Mame, Toronacibus 1962.
Missale sacri ordinis Cartusiensis, auctoritate apostolica approbatum, ed. R. Pater D. Anselmus
Maria, Cartusiae S. Mariae de Pratis 1883.
Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge 2. Les Textes (Ordines I-XIII), ed. Michel Andrieu
(Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense, études et documents fascicule 23), Spicilegium sacrum
lovaniense administration, Louvain 1971, 67-108.
Le Pontificale romano-germanique du dixiéme siècle 2, ed. C. Vogel, -K. Elze, Città del Vaticano
1963.
Prex Eucaristica. Volumen I: Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus selecti, ed. A. Gerhards –H.
Brakmann, Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, Freiburg 1998.
The Roman Missal in Latin and English for Sunday, Feast, Ferial and Votive Masses 1, The
Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1968.
SACRA CONGREGATIO RITUUM, «Osservazioni della SRC sugli Schemi della Concelebrazione e
Comunione sotto le due Specie», Ephemerides Liturgicae 109 (1995) 138-145.
250
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
2. Studies
ALLEN, JOHN, «The Papal Liturgist», National Catholic Reporter 43 n. 2 (2003).
Antonelli, Ferdinando Giuseppe. Omaggio a Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Ferdinando Giuseppe
Antonelli in occasione del suo 90 anno di vita, Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, Roma 1986.
BARBA, MAURIZIO, La riforma conciliare dell’“Ordo Missae” Il percorso storico-redazionale
dei riti d’ingresso, di offertorio e di comunione (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia
120), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 2002.
BARBA, MAURIZIO, La riforma conciliare dell’“Ordo Missae” Il percorso storico-redazionale
dei riti d’ingresso, di offertorio e di comunione (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia
120), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 22008.
BATTIFOL, PIERRE, History of the Roman Breviary, tr. Atwell Baylay, Longmans Green and
Company, New York !1898.
BEAUDUIN, LAMBERT, La pietà della Chiesa. Apostolato della Sacra Liturgia, tr. L. De Beaufin
(Bibliteca Liturgica Popolare 6), Società Anonima Tipografica, Vicenza 1915.
BOTTE, BERNARD, La Tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte. Essai de reconstitution par Dom
Bernard Botte, O.S.B., Aschendorffsch Verlagsbuchhandlung, Münster Westfalen 1963.
________, Le Canon de la Messe Romaine, Abbaye du Mont César, Louvain 1935.
________, Il Movimento Liturgico. Testimonianza e ricordi, Effatà Editrice, Cantalupa 2009.
________, –MOHRMANN C., L’Ordinaire de la messe. Texte critique, traduction et études, Les
éditions du cerf Paris, Louvain 1953.
BRAGA, CARLO, «Instauratio liturgica: anno primo», Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 141-155.
________,«Instructio ad exsecutionem Constitutionis de Liturgia recte ordinandamCommentarium», Ephemerides Liturgicae 78 (1964) 421-518.
________, «De Liturgia in primo coetu synodi episcoporum», Ephemerides Liturgicae 81 (1967)
462-472.
251
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
________, «De liturgia in quarta periodo Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II», Ephemerides
Liturgicae 79 (1965) 377-387.
________, «De novis precibus eucharisticis liturgiae latinae», Ephemerides liturgicae 82 (1968)
217-238.
________, «Ricordo di Mons. Annibale Bugnini», Notitiae 18 (1982) 440-452.
BRADSHAW, PAUL, The search for the origins of Christian Worship, Oxford University Press,
New York 22002.
________, - JOHNSON, M. -PHILLIPS, E., The Apostolic Tradition, Augsburg Fortress,
Minneapolis, MN 2002.
BUGNINI, ANNIBALE, «Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia.
Promemoria circa l’interpretazione della Costituzione liturgica», Ephemerides Liturgicae 107
(1993) 435-436.
________, «Elenco delle correzioni inserite nel Motu proprio ‘Sacram Liturgiam’», Ephemerides
Liturgicae 106 (1992) 314-316.
________, «President of the “Consilium”», in Miscellanea liturgica in onore di Sua Eminenza
Cardinale Giacomo Lercaro 2/2, Tournai, Declée 1966, 9-11.
________, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy 1948-1975, Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN
1990.
________, La riforma liturgica (1948-1975). Nuova edizione riveduta e arricchita di note e di
supplementi per una lettura analitica (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 38), CLVEdizioni Liturgiche, Roma !1997.
CAPRILE, GIOVANNI, Il Sinodo dei vescovi. Prima assemblea generale (29 Settembre-29 Ottobre
1967), La Civiltà Cattolica, Roma 1968.
CHAVASSE, ANTOINE, La liturgie de la ville de Rome (Analecta liturgica18), Centro Studi S.
Anselmo, Roma 1993
252
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
CHUPUNGO, ANSCAR – PECKLER, KEITH, «Storia della liturgia romana», in Scientia Liturgica,
vol. 1, ed. professori del Pontificio Istituto Liturgico S. Anselmo, Piemme, Casale Monferrato
1998, 149-160.
CICOGNANI, GAETANO, «Opening Address», in The Assisi Papers. Proceedings of the First
International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy. Assisi-Rome, September 18-22, 1956 (Worship
Supplement), The Liturgical Press, St. John’s , MN 1957, 1-6.
COMMELLI, VALENTINO, «I memberi dell’assemblea», in Il primo Sinodo dei vescovi. Gli
antefatti. Un primo bilancio. I giorni del sinodo. Gli interventi, interviste, commenti. Ressegna
stampa, ed. Valentino Comelli (Collana Documenti per il rinnovamento della chiesa), Edizioni
Dehoniane, Bologna 1968, 27-29.
The Commentary on the Constitution and on the Instruction of the Sacred Liturgy, ed. A.
Bugnini, -C. Braga, tr. Vincent Mallon, Benzinger Brothers, New York 1965, 83-106.
DIX, GREGORY, The Shape of the Liturgy, Continuum, London 142003.
FOLSOM, CASSIAN, «I libri liturgici romani», in Scientia Liturgica 1, ed. Anscar Chupungco,
Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1998, 274-277.
________, «Mysterium fidei and ST. Leo the Great (440-461)», Ecclesia Orans 15 (1998)
289-302.
FORTESCUE, ADRIAN, «The Collect», in The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue, ed. Michael Davies,
Roman Catholic Books 1999, 256-258.
________, The Mass. A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam, NJ 42003.
FRANCIS, MARK, «Liturgical Inculturation. The State of the Question», Liturgical Ministry 6
(1997) 96-107.
253
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
GIAMPIETRO, NICOLA, Il Card. Ferdinando Antonelli e gli sviluppi della riforma liturgica dal
1948-1970 (Analecta liturgica e sacramentum 21), Centro Studi S. Anselmo, Roma 1998.
HEBBLETHWAITE, PETER. Understanding the Synod, Gill and Son, Dublin 1968.
JUNGMANN, JOSEPH, «De actu poenientiali infra Missam inserto conspectus historicus»,
Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 257-264.
________, The Early Liturgy. To the Time of Gregory the Great, tr. F. Brunner, University of
Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN 1959.
________, The Mass of the Roman Rite. Its Origins and Development 1-2, tr. Francis A. Brunner,
Benzinger Brothers, New York 11951.
KING, ARCHDALE, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, Milwaukee, Bruce Publishing Company
1955.
________, The Liturgy of the Roman Church, Longmans, Green and Company, New York 1957.
KLAUSER, THEODOR, A Short History of the Western Liturgy, Oxford University Press, New York
!1979.
LAURENTIN, RENÉ, Le premier Synode histoire et bilan, Éditions du seuil, Paris 1968.
LERCARO, GIACOMO, Lettere dal Concilio 1962-1965, ed. G. Battelli, Dehoniane, Bologna 1980.
________, «Principia seu normae ad confirmanda acta coetuum episcopalium a Consilio
approbata in coetu plenario deirum», Ephemerides Liturgicae 107 (1993) 437-439.
LUYKX, BONIFATIUS, «Der Ursprung der gleichbleibenden Teile der heiligen Messe», Liturgie
und Mönchtum 26 (1960), 72-119.
MARINI, PIERO, A Challenging Reform. Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal
1963-1975, ed. M. Francis, -K. Pecklers, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 2007.
254
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
________, «Attivitá complessiva dei gruppi di studio del “Consilium ad exsequendam
Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia”(Gennaio1964-Marzo1965)», Ephemerides Liturgicae 112
(1998) 289-309.
________, «Elenco degli “Schemata” del “Consilium” e della Congregazione per il Culto Divino
(Marzo 1964-Luglio 1975», Notitiae 18 (1982) 453-771.
________, «Il “Consilium” in piena attività in un clima favorevole. (Ottobre 1964-Marzo1965)»,
Ephemerides Liturgicae 109 (1995) 97-158.
________, «L’Istruzione “Inter Oecumenici”, una svolta decisiva (Luglio-Ottobre 1964)»,
Ephemerides Liturgicae 108 (1994) 205-231.
________, «Il primo Periodo de attività del “Consilium”: prospettive e difficoltà (Marzo-Giugno
1964)», Ephemerides Liturgicae 107 (1993) 401-439.
MARTIMORT, AIMÉ-GEORGES, «Adaptation liturgique», Ephemerides Liturgicae 79 (1965) 3-16.
________, «Le Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro (1891-1976). Souvenirs d’un liturgiste», in Mirabile
laudis canticum. Mélange liturgique (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 60), CLVEdizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1991, 377-388.
________, «L’Histoire de la réforme liturgique a travers le témoignnage de Msgr. Annibale
Bugnini», La Maison-Dieu 162 (1985), 125-155.
________, «Le rôle de Paul VI dans la réforme liturgique», in Mirabile laudis canticum.
Mélange liturgique (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 60), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche,
Roma 1991, 205-232.
MCMANUS, FREDERICK, The Congregation of Sacred Rites (The Catholic University of America
Canon Law Studies 352), The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. 1954.
METZGER, MARCEL, «Enquêtes autour de la prétendue Tradition apostolique», Ecclesia Orans 9
(1992) 7-36.
255
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
________, «Nouvelles perspectives pour le prétendue Tradition apostolique», Ecclesia Orans 5
(1988) 241-259.
MONTINI, JOSEPHUS, «De re pastorali liturgica», Ephemerides Liturgicae 77 (1963) 218-234.
MURPHY, FRANCIS -MACEOIN, G., Synod ’67. A New Sound in Rome, The Bruce Publishing
Company, Milawaukee 1968.
NOË, VIRGILIO, «Storia della Costituzione liturgica. Punti di riferimento», in Costituzione
liturgica “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, ed. Congregazione per il Culto Divino (Ephemerides
Liturgicae Subsidia 38), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1986, 9-24.
POMAZANSKY, MICHAEL, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Platina, CA, St. Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood 21997.
RAFFA, VICENZO, Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla
pastorale practica (Biblioteca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 100), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche,
Roma !2003.
RAMIS, GABRIEL, «Celebrazione eucaristica nell’occidente non romano», in Scientia Liturgica 3,
ed. professori del Pontificio Istituto Liturgico S. Anselmo, Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1998,
261-263.
SCHNITZLER, THEODORE, «The Revision of the Order of the Mass», in The Commentary on the
Constitution and on the Instruction of the Sacred Liturgy, ed. A. Bugnini, -C. Braga, tr. Vincent
Mallon, Benzinger Brothers, New York 1965, 137-144.
SEASOLTZ, KEVIN, New Liturgy New Laws, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 1980.
TIROT, PAUL, Un“Ordo Missae” monastique. Cluny, Cîteaux, La Chartreuse (Biblioteca
Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 21), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 1993.
VAGAGGINI, CIPRIANO, The canon of the mass and liturgical reform, tr. P. Coughlan, Geoffrey
256
THE «MISSA NORMATIVA» OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Chapman Ltd., Great Britain 1967.
VOGEL, CYRILLE, Medieval Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources, tr. W. Storey, -N. Krogh
Rasmussen, The Pastoral Press, Washington D.C. 21986, 37.
WAGNER, JOHANNES, Mein Weg zur Liturgiereform 1936-1986, Herder, Freiburg 1993.
________, «Memorandum sull’attività del Coetus X “De Ordine Missae” e sulle esigenze
possibilità e mete della riforma dell’ “Ordo Missae” in conformità ai decreti conciliari», in
Liturgia opera divina e umana.Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini
in occasione del suo 70º compleanno, ed. P. Jounel, -R. Kaczynski, -G. Paqualletti (Bibliotheca
Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 26), Edizioni liturgiche, Roma 1982, 267-289.
________, «Zur Reform des “Ordo Missae”, zwei Dokumente», in Liturgia opera divina e
umana.Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in occasione del suo
70º compleanno, ed. P. Jounel, -R. Kaczynski, -G. Paqualletti (Bibliotheca Ephemerides
Liturgicae Subsidia 26), Edizioni liturgiche, Roma 1982, 263-290.
ZOFFOLI, ENRICO, «Padri», in Dizionario del Cristianesimo, ed. L. Bogliolo, Sinopsis Iniziative
Culturali, Roma 1992, 372.
257