The Normative Mass of 1967: Its History and Principles as Applied to the Liturgy of the Mass ([Complete pre-corrected Draft] Doct. Diss., Sant&#39;Anselmo, 2012)

Christiaan  Kappes

Catholics and Orthodox often desire and discuss modern and contemporary liturgical reform. There are many ways to go about such reform. The largest experiment to date occurred from 1964-1967, yet it is little known and little studied. Most scholarship concentrates on the "Novus Ordo Missae" (1969). My doctoral dissertation attempted to undercover the rationale and methodology for the original reform of the Mass that failed to gain general acceptance at a 1967 Synod of Bishops in Rome. The ambiguous results stemming from episcopal votes on the text and celebration of the "Normative Mass" nonetheless allowed it to survive in a modified version as the skeleton upon which the current dominant order of the Latin liturgy (Novus Ordo Missae) is now enfleshed. This investigation serves as a point of reflection to consider the adoption of consistent and a priori values of reform before engaging any practical reform process. Any particular or universal Church that does so will likely minimize mistakes and maximize its possibility of achieving its ends. Finally, this study shows the absolute necessity of a good analogical application of metaphysics (genus, species, specific difference, essential properties) in order first to come to a knowledge of "what specifies a rite" so as to avoid the risk of expunging defining characteristics....the nature of which is often debated among many liturgists and liturgiologists of the various rites of Christendom. I have attached organizational charts for individuals who are interested in the actual function of the reforming groups and their interaction with other quasi-agencies of the reform process.

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

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The Normative Mass of 1967: Its History and Principles as Applied to the Liturgy of the Mass ([Complete pre-corrected Draft] Doct. Diss., Sant'Anselmo, 2012)

The Normative Mass of 1967: Its History and Principles as Applied to the Liturgy of the Mass ([Complete pre-corrected Draft] Doct. Diss., Sant'Anselmo, 2012)

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS