What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

Editor’s note: on this day in the year 2007, Pope Benedict XVI promulgated the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, one of the most important acts of his pontificate, the fruit of his long and thoughtful consideration of the theological and pastoral problems which arose from the post-Conciliar liturgical revolution. This column on the opposition to it was originally published ten years ago, and although the landscape has changed since then, very much for the worse, its analysis of that opposition remains just as pertinent as it was a decade ago. Let us not allow this day to pass without a prayer of thanksgiving to God for the many benefits that have accrued to the Church from Summorum Pontificum, asking Him to hasten the day of its restoration; and likewise, pray for the eternal repose of His good and faithful servant, Pope Benedict XVI.

At the ordination of priests dedicated to the
usus antiquior: Bp. Marc Aillet, June 28, 2014

In the post-Summorum world, the ancient Roman Rite can no longer be considered forbidden, dubious, marginal, or obsolete. It enjoys equal rights of citizenship with the Novus Ordo: two forms of the Roman Rite—one called Ordinary because most recently promulgated and more widely used, the other called Extraordinary, the usus antiquior, deserving respect for its venerable use—with each able to be freely celebrated by any priest of the Roman Rite, no special permission needed. One would think that, as a gesture of reconciliation at the heart of the Church, the two forms would be flourishing side by side, with Catholics everywhere privileged to experience both of them offered reverently and beautifully.

But this is still far from the reality, and, sadly, there are still far too many bishops and priests who oppose the traditional Mass, tether it with burdensome conditions, or resort to power politics to ensure that its supporters are duly warned and penalized for their rash embrace of our Catholic heritage.

As we commemorate today the seventh anniversary of the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, whose provisions went into effect on September 14, 2007, it will be both edifying and sobering to consider the meaning Joseph Ratzinger himself attached to opposition to the traditional Mass. What does it mean when someone opposes this Mass, or those who celebrate it, or those who cherish it as a form of prayer dear to them?

In the book-length interview Salt of the Earth, published in 1997, Ratzinger said:

I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden, and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. Can it be trusted any more about anything else? Won’t it proscribe tomorrow what it prescribes today?  (176-77)

Ten years prior to Summorum, he was placing his finger on the crux of the matter. If the liturgy that was the Church’s holiest and highest possession for centuries, the object of total reverence and honor, the means of sanctification for countless Catholics, is suddenly forbidden, and if the desire to worship as our forefathers did is treated as wrong, what does that say about the Church herself, about her past, her tradition, her very saints? Truly, her credibility vanishes entirely, her proclamations become arbitrary diktats. Was there something fatally flawed, all this time, with our central act of worship? Were all the popes of the past who lovingly cultivated this liturgy mistaken, were all the missionaries who brought it around the globe misguided? Could they say, in the words of Gatherer, son of Vomiter, “I have not learned wisdom, and have not known the science of saints”? (Prov 30:1, 3, Douay).

In God and the World (2002), another of those splendidly insightful and doctrinally robust interviews which now, in retrospect, make for such wistful reading, Ratzinger returned to the point:

For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don’t understand why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliations within the Church.  (416)

Here we have language strikingly akin to what we will find five years later in Pope Benedict’s Letter to the Bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum. Once again, we find the telltale insistence on possessing the right attitude towards the undying and life-giving heritage of the Church. The liturgical rites that arise from apostolic seeds in the Church’s sojourn through history are the fruits of Him who is the Lord and Giver of Life, and they cannot, in themselves, either die or bring death—nor can they be legitimately prohibited.

This would explain why Pope Benedict XVI, in Summorum Pontificum, says that the traditional Latin Mass “must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage” and, in the Letter to the Bishops, adds:

What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.

The giving of due honor, which translates into the actual celebration of the rite, is not an optional matter, and this is why we should politely refuse to allow ourselves or our fellow Catholics to be categorized as people with certain “preferences”: “Oh, you prefer the old and I prefer the new.” No, it goes beyond preferences to the very structure of the Catholic Faith: those things that are venerable and ancient must be given due honor; what earlier generations held as sacred must be sacred—and great!—for us, too; it is incumbent on us to preserve these riches and to make sure that they occupy their proper place in the life of the Church today.

Again, a sign that we are reading Pope Benedict correctly is that the clarifying instruction Universae Ecclesiae goes out of its way to emphasize these points. In fact, section 8 of this document is striking in its uncompromising simplicity, its total lack of hedging qualifications or loopholes:

The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum constitutes an important expression of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of his munus of regulating and ordering the Church’s Sacred Liturgy. The Motu Proprio manifests his solicitude as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church, and has the aim of: (a) offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved; (b) effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favorable to the faithful who are its principal addressees; (c) promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church.

*            *            *

At the ordination of priests dedicated to the usus antiquior:
Bishop James Conley, June 14, 2014

With these points established, we can readily see why any move to obstruct or diminish the presence of the usus antiquior in the Church today would only cause great harm and long-term damage.

First, it would be an act and a symptom of disobedience, which is never blessed by God and always punished by Him. More specifically, it would constitute disobedience to Pope Benedict XVI’s legal provisions in Summorum Pontificum (and their clarifications in Universae Ecclesiae), as well as to St. John Paul II’s well-known statement that “respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.” As has been demonstrated above, it is not enough to refrain from bad mouthing the traditional sacramental rites; they must be known and loved, re-introduced and promoted, studied in seminaries, offered generously to the faithful as a precious treasure.

Second, and more profoundly, divine worship goes to the heart of a person’s spiritual life, that which is most intimate and cherished. Any refusal to share the treasures of the Church, any heavy-handed restrictions on what is already available (or should be available), can only provoke anger, disappointment, and mistrust, hurting the Church’s unity, which is a fragile good of enormous value. Certain bishops, priests, and laymen may have no great love for the Extraordinary Form themselves, but they ought to recognize and respect the sizeable minority of Catholics who do, and appreciate that depriving them of it, or begrudging it to them, is pretty nearly the most offensive thing that could be done—rather like slapping a man’s wife, mother, or grandmother. To be blunt, those who sincerely want peace and mutual understanding had better act generously or they may end up with another ecclesiastical Cold War on their hands. Who wants that?

It does not require a degree in nuclear physics to see that a significant and growing number of Catholics are flocking to parishes and chapels where the traditional Mass is being celebrated, and with their (on average) very large families and strong commitment to homeschooling, the future belongs to them. In 1988 there were about 20 weekly Sunday TLMs; today there are over 500. There is no reason to fight this movement, and every reason to support it.

In spite of the anxieties of some who find it difficult to give peace and mutual coexistence a chance, the Extraordinary Form is not a problem for the Church, and, as Ratzinger/Benedict helps us to see, never could be a problem in and of itself. Instead, one may encounter unfortunate traditionalist attitudes that alienate or provoke—and, to be quite fair, this cuts both ways, since the promoters of the Novus Ordo frequently exhibit offensive attitudes of their own, such as a peculiar fusion of theoretical liberalism and practical totalitarianism. The thing to do is not jealously to limit and control the usus antiquior as if it were a dangerous addictive substance, an approach that only fuels those unfortunate attitudes, but to teach and model a right attitude, receiving with open arms, with humility and childlike simplicity, all that the Church herself gives, so that it becomes something normal and natural, not something forbidden (and thus, perhaps, more alluring?), controversial, or divisive.

Let us give the final word to Pope Benedict, from his Letter to the Bishops of July 7, 2007:

I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

Change for Change’s Sake? The Orations for Ss Simon and Jude in the Traditional and Reformed Roman Missals

Today’s feast of Saints Simon and Jude, inscribed in both the traditional and reformed Roman calendars on October 28th, provides more insight into the general spirit of the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms, as well as the freedom the members of the Consilium ad exsequendam felt they had when it came to changing the liturgy. In a comparative index of first lines, it would appear as though no changes were made to the prayers of this feast in the course of the reform. However, as we will see, this is far from the case.

The source for today’s Collect in the usus antiquior is as follows: [1]

Deus, qui nos per beatos apostolos tuos
ad cognitionem tui nominis venire tribuisti, 
da nobis eorum gloriam sempiternam
et proficiendo celebrare et celebrando proficere. (CO 1906)

The Mass of Ss Simon and Jude in a Missal produced in the mid-11th century, and long used at the Abbey of St Denis in Paris. This manuscript represents an intermediate stage between the more ancient sacramentaries and the later medieval missals; the Gregorian propers have been integrated into the text alongside the prayers, but the Scriptural lessons have not. Note the interesting way the neume of the Communio strays into the margin. (Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits. Latin 9436, folio 110r)

This prayer, extant since at least the eighth century, has been used in Masses of the Apostles (seven manuscripts) and, more frequently, specifically for Saints Simon and Jude (thirty-eight manuscripts, twenty-six of which insert Simonem et Iudam after apostolos tuos). [2] Its textual transmission is remarkably stable, with the only recorded variations being as follows:

• two manuscripts of the seven where this prayer is used in Masses of the Apostles omit the word tuos;
• one manuscript where this prayer is used for Saints Simon and Jude reads tui sancti nominis instead of tui nominis;
• twelve manuscripts where this prayer is used for Saints Simon and Jude lack any specific mention of the two apostles.

These are all very minor variations. The text as it appears in the 1962 Missale Romanum also differs in one other very minor way from its source, reading agnitionem in place of cognitionem. This change seems to have been consolidated at the time of the first printed Missals. [3] It should be noted, however, that cognitionem is the better-attested and original reading. So, in the course of a reform of the liturgy that claimed to be a “restoration”, [4] one might have expected agnitionem to be adjusted back to cognitionem. Not only did this not happen, but the prayer was changed by the Consilium in a way unknown in liturgical history. 

As it appears in the 1970/2008 Missale Romanum, the Collect is as follows: 

Deus, qui nos per beátos Apóstolos 
ad agnitiónem tui nóminis veníre tribuísti, 
intercedéntibus sanctis Simóne et Iuda, 
concéde propítius, ut semper augeátur Ecclésia
increméntis in te credéntium populórum.

Far from restoring this particular oration, Coetus XVIII bis of the Consilium decided to completely rewrite the second half of the prayer in an entirely novel way, loosely based on Acts 5:14 (Magis autem augebatur credentium in Domino multitudo virorum ac mulierum…) and also adding the intercession of Saints Simon and Jude, who have been moved to slightly further on in the Collect. Curiously, the Consilium decided to omit tuos, following the Gelasianum Vetus (probably the earliest manuscript to contain this prayer), but did not restore agnitionem back to cognitionem. Like we see in many other places in the reformed Missal, the best textual witnesses have only been half-used.

More curious, perhaps, is the change to the second half of the prayer, where the striking (and rather lovely) chiastic phrase et proficiendo celebrare, et celebrando proficere has been replaced with what is, in my opinion, a substantially less striking paraphrase of Acts 5:14. This changes the Collect’s petition somewhat: in the traditional Missal we ask, in a symbiotic way cooperating with God’s grace, to be made more holy through our own participation as members of the Church in today's feast day. It is perfectly possible – indeed, in order to cultivate a proper balance between ‘private’ devotion and ‘public’ prayer, it is necessary – to interpret this petition in both an individual and corporate sense. In the reformed Missal, on the other hand, everything is subsumed into the wider Church: we ask “that the Church may constantly grow by increase of the peoples who believe in you” (2011 ICEL), but there is now little sense in the revised Collect that this actually requires anything of us as individual Christians. 

Suffice it to say, there is nothing in Sacrosanctum Concilium that justifies the Consilium’s novel changes to this well-attested and textually very stable prayer. In fact, the intention of Coetus XVIII bis, at least to begin with, was to keep the traditional Collect for today’s feast intact, along with its Secret and Postcommunion. [5] 

Schema 287, with the proposal for the unchanged propers
for Saints Simon and Jude highlighted 

Speaking of which, how did these other prayers fare in the reform? Well, the source for the 1962 Missal’s Secret prayer is as follows:

Gloriam, domine, sanctorum apostolorum
perpetuam praecurrentes,
quaesumus, ut eandem, sacris mysteriis expiati,
dignius celebremus. (CO 2711)

This prayer is extant in six manuscripts for Masses of the Apostles, and in forty manuscripts for the Mass of Saints Simon and Jude. [6] In the 1962 Missal, tuorum Simonis et Iudæ has been added (as variously in seventeen manuscripts [7]), praecurrentes has been changed to venerantes (as in twelve manuscripts), and eandem changed to eam (as in seven manuscripts). It should be noted that there is no extant textual variation in this prayer’s concluding clause, sacris mysteriis expiati, dignius celebremus.

In the reformed Missal, the first half of the super oblata is identical to the 1962 Missal, but the second half of the prayer has been changed to read ut vota nostra suscípias et ad sacra mystéria celebránda nos digne perdúcas. We now ask the Lord to “receive our prayers and lead us to worthily celebrate the sacred mysteries” (2011 ICEL), rather than asking to be “purified by these sacred mysteries”. This change, without precedent in the manuscript tradition, was made by the Consilium presumably as part of the general drive to get rid of any “anticipatory” sacrificial language from the offertory. [8]

The source for the Postcommunion in the usus antiquior is as follows:

Perceptis, domine, sacramentis, suppliciter rogamus, 
ut, intercedentibus beatis apostolis tuis, 
quae pro illorum veneranda gerimus passione, 
nobis proficiant ad medelam. (CO 4200 d)

The Corpus orationum records eight different variants of this prayer (CO 4200 a-h). The ultimate source (CO 4200 a) is the Leonine Sacramentary, where it is a postcommunion for the June feast of Saints Peter and Paul. From there, it is used quite widely for Masses of apostles generally and individually, especially Saints Andrew (CO 4200 cA, and 4200 h), and Saints Simon and Jude (CO 4200 dA). It is also attested as being used for St Benedict (CO 4200 g). The variant for Saints Simon and Jude is extant in thirty-three manuscripts, with fifteen of them adding Simone et Iuda after tuis, and six reading exoramus in place of rogamus, as the 1962 Missal also does. There is no attested variation in the end of this prayer (nobis proficiant ad medelam) when used for Saints Simon and Jude; in fact, across all its different variations and uses, this postcommunion ends with either nobis proficiant ad medelam or nobis proficiant ad salutem.

In the post-Vatican II Missal, this postcommunion now reads as follows:

Percéptis, Dómine, sacraméntis,
súpplices in Spíritu Sancto deprecámur,
ut, quæ pro apostolórum Simónis et Iudæ
veneránda gérimus passióne,
nos in tua dilectióne consérvent.

A completely new ending has been given to this prayer: nobis proficiant ad medelam from the 1962 Missal is changed to nos in tua dilectióne consérvent, a change without precedent in its entire manuscript history across its many and varied uses. I am at a loss as to why this particular change has been made; possibly medelam was considered to have ‘negative’ connotations, but this vocabulary is used elsewhere in the reformed Missal [9] (although nowhere near as often as in the 1962 Missal). The new ending could be seen as an exceptionally vague reference to Jude 21 (vosmetipsos in dilectione Dei servate, exspectantes misericordiam Domini nostri Jesu Christi in vitam æternam), though I think this is a bit of a stretch. Mention of the Holy Spirit has also been added, and the intercession of Saints Simon and Jude deleted, both further changes that are completely without precedent in the liturgical tradition.

All this means that today's feast is, sadly, yet another example of questionable, novel changes being made to long-standing prayers, as part of a claimed “restoration” of the Roman Rite that the evidence increasingly points towards being nothing of the sort. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what we have for today’s feast is change for change’s sake, something that cannot be justified in any way by the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (see especially n. 23: Innovationes, demum, ne fiant nisi vera et certa utilitas Ecclesiae id exigat…).

NOTES

[1] In what follows, the abbreviation CO refers to E. Moeller, J.M. Clément, B.C. ’t Wallant & L.-M. Couillaud (eds.), Corpus orationum (CCSL 160-160M; Brepols, 1992-2020, 15 vols.).

[2] There is an overlap of three manuscripts where this prayer is used in both of these ways.

[3] See, for example, the 1474 Missale Romanum Mediolani (ed. R. Lippe; HBS 17; London: Harrison & Sons, 1899), which reads agnitionem.

[4] For example, see Schema 186 (De Missali, 27), 19 September 1966, p. 2; English translation from M.P. Hazell, The Proper of Time in the Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms (Lectionary Study Press, 2018), pp. 220-227, at p. 222:

Permulti textus, decursu temporum, vitiati sunt.
Non agitur hic de aliquo archaeologismo, quo lectio antiquior, ipso facto melior aestimaretur. Sed quibusdam mutationibus textus antiqui, sub aspectu theologico vel pastorali, reapse imminuti vel corrupti sunt…
Placetne Patribus, ut, sensu quo modo de his locuti sumus, textus orationum recognoscatur, vel in casu, emendetur? 

[Many texts, over the course of time, have become corrupted.
There is no question here of any archeologism, where older readings are considered better by that fact alone. However, certain alterations of ancient texts, carried out for theological or pastoral reasons, are in truth impairments or corruptions…
Does it please the Fathers that, in the way indicated about which we have spoken, the text of orations is to be revised or, in certain cases, amended?]

[5] See Schema 287 (De Missali, 50), 11 April 1968, p. 35.

[6] There is an overlap of two manuscripts where this prayer is used in both ways.

[7] Five manuscripts add only tuorum, another five add only Simonis et Iudæ, and seven add both.

[8] For more on this, see this series from Gregory DiPippo’s series (especially part three).

[9] Namely: the Postcommunion for Ash Wednesday; the Collect for Monday in Week 2 of Lent; the super oblata for the Easter Vigil; and the super oblata for Saint Luke (18 October). It also occurs in the second option for the priest’s prayer before Communion in the Order of Mass (Percéptio Córporis et Sánguinis tui, Dómine Iesu Christe…), as well as in the hymn Crux fidelis on Good Friday.

“All the Elements of the Roman Rite”? Mythbusting, Part II

Over the last decade in particular, the figure of 17% has been quoted as the proportion of prayers that survived intact from the traditional Roman Missal into the novus ordo of Paul VI. [1] However, in the wake of Traditionis custodes, with renewed attention being given to the comparison of ‘forms’ of the Roman Rite as well as the canonical and theological controversy over what counts as its lex orandi, [2] it seemed opportune to build on my previous efforts and revisit this percentage through a careful and exhaustive analysis of all the orations. By doing this, not only can we arrive at a definitive number, but we can also now have all the relevant data freely and easily accessible in the public domain, so that everyone can see which prayers were preserved, edited or discarded. [3]

The result of this work not only vindicates the labours of those such as the late Rev Fr Anthony Cekada, but it also shows the figure to be too generous. For the actual number, unbelievably, is only 13%.

The Orations of the Traditional Roman Rite in the Reformed Roman Rite: Lists and Texts of the Identical and Edited Prayers (PDF download)

Yes, a mere 13% (165) of the 1,273 prayers of the usus antiquior [4] found their way unchanged into the reformed Missal of Paul VI. Another 24.1% (307) were edited in some way before their inclusion. A further 16.2% (206) were centonised with other prayers - effectively combining parts of multiple prayers together into a new oration. Fully 52.6% (669) of the prayers in the traditional Roman Rite have been excised from the modern liturgy, memory-holed by the Consilium ad exsequendam. [5] How has this happened? And how did so few notice at the time?

Figure 1: Orations of the 1951/1962 Missal in the 1970/2008 Missal
(duplicates excluded)

Since its promulgation, the Catholic faithful have frequently been assured by popes and scholars that the post-Vatican II Missale Romanum is an enrichment, enhancement and fulfilment of the Missal that came before it. In addition, it is often claimed that the liturgical reform has faithfully preserved almost all of the preceding tradition, revising and correcting the texts of prayers on the basis of our much-improved knowledge of the sources while only introducing new prayers for modern needs. A few examples, with my emphases:

[I]t has similarly become clear that the formulas of the Roman Missal need both to be somewhat revised and also to be enriched with additions… In this restoration of the Missale Romanum, not only have the three parts We have already mentioned been changed, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, the Order of Mass, and the Order of Readings, but the others in which it consists have been revised and notably modified, that is: the Temporal, the Sanctoral, the Common of Saints, the Ritual Masses, and the Votive Masses, as they are called. Among these, particular care has been taken with the orations, which have not only been increased in number, so that new prayers respond to the new needs of these times, but also the most ancient prayers have been revised to accord with the ancient texts. [Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, 3 April 1969]

What has always been true throughout the varied and progressive development of the Roman liturgy, from the ancient sacramentaries to the revered post-Tridentine Missal of St Pius V, is true also of the new Roman Missal. While preserving the treasure of tradition, it has been rearranged and enhanced in consequence of the directives of Vatican Council II. [Jean-Marie Cardinal Villot, Letter to Bishop Carlo Rossi on the occasion of the 22nd National Liturgical Week of Italy, 30 August 1971]

What exactly is the Missal of Paul VI, if not that of St Pius V adapted, enriched, completed? If we were to engage in a line-by-line comparison, we would find in the Missal of Paul VI three-quarters if not nine-tenths of the content of the original Missal of St Pius V. [Dom Guy Oury, La Messe de S. Pie V à Paul VI (Solesmes, 1975), p. 30]

Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history. In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. [Joseph Ratzinger, The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1986), p. 87]

The new Missal has eighty-one prefaces and sixteen hundred prayers, or more than twice as many as in the old Missal. Almost all the texts of the old Missal have been used, revised if need be to harmonize them with the reform and the teaching of Vatican II. [Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), p. 398]

While at the Council’s behest further texts were to be added in order to reflect better the riches of the Church's tradition and in response to the needs of the people, and while some existing texts were to be corrected to reflect more accurately the gains of textual scholarship, the lines and substance of the missal of 1970 remain unmistakably those of 1962. The missal of 1970 is the missal of 1962, reinvigorated, enriched, and endowed with new lustre, like a precious stone whose perennial beauty is enhanced by being ensconced in a new setting. [Cuthbert Johnson & Anthony Ward (eds.), Missale Romanum anno 1962 promulgatum (Rome: Centro Liturgico Vincenziano, 1994), p. vi]

[I]t can be noted how the two Roman Missals, although four centuries have intervened, embrace one and the same tradition. Furthermore, if the inner elements of this tradition are reflected upon, it is also understood how outstandingly and felicitously the older Roman Missal is brought to fulfilment in the later one. [General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, 2002, n. 6]

The desire of both the Council Fathers and Saint Paul VI was that the liturgy should be simplified in order to make it more accessible. While the Missal retains the basic structure of that of Saint Pius V, together with ninety percent of the texts of that Missal, it removes a number of repetitions and accretions and simplifies the language and the gestures of the liturgy. At the same time, it uses more sacrificial vocabulary than was the case in the 1570 Missal. Opinions to the contrary are false. [Archbishop Arthur Roche, “The Roman Missal of Saint Paul VI: A witness to unchanging faith and uninterrupted tradition”, Notitiae 597 (2020), pp. 248-258, at p. 251]

Such quotations could quite easily continue to be piled up. However, for the most part, they can be summarised as follows: even if parts of it could be improved, the reformed Missal is one of the major pastoral and scholarly triumphs of the Second Vatican Council. After all, if it is a faithful enrichment of the traditional Roman Rite, preserving almost all of it yet also carefully adapting it for modern times, how could it be anything but a triumph? Indeed, in his accompanying letter to Traditionis custodes (16 July 2021), which itself claims the novus ordo is “the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite” (art. 1), Pope Francis describes this liturgical reform as “willed by Vatican Council II”, going as far to say that:

[T]he instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”… To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church… Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite…

In a sense, these words of the Pope are the culmination of all the claims made about the reformed Missal – claims which, it should be noted, have rarely if ever been substantiated with any evidence. Dom Hugh Somerville-Knapman refers to this “elephant in the room” of the liturgical reform, asking the question:

[H]ow truly do the current liturgical books conform to Vatican II’s decrees? Rather than blindly accepting, in post hoc ergo propter hoc fashion, that simply because this is what the Consilium ended up producing they must necessarily express the lex orandi articulated by the Council, let this be demonstrated clearly and plainly. If Rome wants people to accept with willing heart the liturgical reform as delivered, let it demonstrate how it expresses the will of the Council. It is not self-evident.

Sadly, post-Traditionis custodes, the likelihood of the Holy See or the Roman Curia doing this is basically nil. Rather, it almost seems in some circles as if any critical examination of the reformed rites is now synonymous with the “rejection” of an ecumenical (and pastoral) Council. Those who have legitimate questions and concerns about the reform are dismissed out of hand as “radical traditionalists”, “quasi-schismatics”, “extremists”, and so forth.

Yet, as Dom Alcuin Reid has reminded us, legal positivism cannot change historical facts. An assertion that is not true cannot just be declared to be true by fiat, even if it is the Pope himself who attempts to do so.

The welcome pack given to each peritus of the Consilium
(artist’s impression)

So, are “all the elements of the Roman Rite” present in the reformed books? Faced with the statistics and data about the prayers in the reformed Missal as compared to its predecessor, it is exceptionally difficult to see how this assertion can possibly be accurate. It is, in truth, an oft-repeated myth about the reform, and one that the Church urgently needs to leave behind. [6] To reiterate:

• 52.6% (669) of the prayers in the Missal of the usus antiquior do not occur in the Missal of Paul VI at all;

• 24.1% (307) of them have been used somewhere in the reformed Missal, but edited in some manner - with 86 of these prayers receiving only minor edits;

• 16.2% (206) have been ‘centonised’: this was the term used by the Consilium to refer to the combining of parts of two or more orations to create what is effectively a newly-composed prayer; [7]

• only 13% (165) of the prayers of the usus antiquior made it through the process of reform intact.

It should also be stated that these figures, stark as they are, still do not give the full scale of the changes made by the Consilium ad exsequendam in the name of Vatican II. Even for those prayers that have been retained intact, there is often a change in where they are used in the reformed Missal. For example:

• Br 7: previously the collect for the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, this prayer was moved to Friday in Week 5 of Lent, as one of two options for the collect;

• Br 154: previously the collect for the 14th Sunday after Pentecost, this prayer was also moved to a Lenten weekday - this time, Tuesday in Week 2;

• Br 183: previously the collect for the 17th Sunday after Pentecost, it has been moved to the “Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Occasions” section of the reformed Missal, acting as one of two options for the third formulary of the Mass “In Any Need” (n. 48);

• Br 661: previously the collect for the 20th Sunday after Pentecost, this prayer does not occur in the first (1970) or second (1975) editions of the reformed Missal, only appearing in the third edition (2002/08) as the sixth option for the super populum prayers given in the appendix to the ordo Missae;

• Br 893: previously the secret for the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, this prayer was moved to the “Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Occasions” section, becoming the super oblata for the third Mass formulary “For the Priest Himself” (n. 7), which is the one given for use on the anniversary of ordination.

For the prayers edited before their inclusion in the reformed Missal, there are some definite patterns that can be seen, some quite concerning. For example:

• “Fasting” language is frequently removed from Lenten orations, due to the changes in discipline made by Paul VI in the wake of Vatican II: e.g. ieiunium quadragesimale (Br 143: Monday in Week 1 of Lent) becomes opus quadragesimale in the reformed prayer (used on the same day); Inchoata ieiunia (Br 643: Friday after Ash Wednesday) has been changed to Inchoata poenitentiae opera (used on the same day), etc.

• The intercession and merits of the saints are often edited out: e.g. angelico pro nobis interveniente suffragio (Br 623: St Michael, 8 May and 29 September) is changed to angelico ministerio in conspectum tuae maiestatis delatas (Ss Michael, Gabriel & Raphael, 29 September); eius intercessione from the pre-1950 postcommunion for the Assumption of the B.V.M. (Br 676) was deleted before this prayer was used on the Vigil of the Assumption in the reformed Missal; the gloriosa merita of St Mary Magdalene (Br 697: 22 July) are omitted amidst the numerous changes to this prayer in the reformed Missal (used on the same day), etc.

• The word anima is frequently deleted from the prayers used in Masses for the Dead: e.g. animabus patris et matris meae becomes only patri et matri meae in both the collect (Br 407) and postcommunion (Br 106) of the Mass for the priest’s parents; animabus is deleted from the collect for the first Mass on All Souls (Br 567), which the reformers also moved to the fourth formulary in the “Masses for the Dead: Various Commemorations (For Several Deceased)” section of the reformed Missal, etc.

• Some notable changes have been made to language that could be considered “negative”, whether to eliminate it entirely or soften it in some way: e.g. in tot adversis is deleted from the collect of Monday in Holy Week (Br 192), used on the same day in the reformed Missal; quos perpetuae mortis eripuisti casibus (Br 364: 2nd Sunday after Easter) is changed to quos eripuisti a servitute peccati (14th Sunday per annum); humanis non sinas subiacere periculis, the end of the postcommunion for the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost (Br 947) now reads a te numquam separari permittas (34th Week per annum), etc.

Many more examples are highlighted in the full document. Some edits and changes can be justified when one looks at the manuscript history of the prayer, and to facilitate this research, reference numbers for the Corpus orationum have been given where possible. For example, the change from misericordiam (Br 418: 10th Sunday after Pentecost) to gratiam (26th Sunday per annum, collect) is a restoration of the Gelasianum Vetus text and, in this instance, the majority of manuscripts. However, more often than not, the changes made by the Consilium are entirely novel, with no basis in the manuscript tradition – all of the above examples of changes, for instance, are entirely without precedent!

In an address to the Consilium on 13 October 1966, Paul VI advised its members that:

No predisposition to change everything without reason must govern this investigation [into the liturgy], nor a hastiness, typical of the iconoclast, to emend and revise everything. The guides must be a devout prudence and a reverence combined with wisdom.

Had the post-conciliar liturgical reforms stayed within these bounds, perhaps we would be having very different debates and conversations in the present day. But among themselves, the periti of the Consilium were quite candid about their intentions. For example:

It is often impossible to preserve either orations that are found in the [current] Roman Missal or to borrow suitable orations from the treasury of ancient euchology. Indeed, prayer ought to express the mind of our current age... [Coetus XIII, Schema 306 (De Missali, 52), 9 September 1968, p. 7]

Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with a need to update content of language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods. The Council clearly proposes this, and it was kept in mind when the temporal cycle was revised. It could not have been ignored in the revision of the sanctoral cycle... An entirely new foundation of eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or of a particular way of venerating and invoking the saints. Retouching the text, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives. [Carlo Braga, “Il ‘Proprium de Sanctis’ ”, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970), pp. 401-431, at p. 419]

Suffice it to say, this is not the language of continuity, or fulfilment, or even authentic renewal. The data and statistics for the orations in each Missal - which are now possible for any interested party to easily see and compare - do not justify the assertions that the older Missal is substantially contained in the newer one; in fact, if anything, the situation is closer to the opposite.

In conclusion, if only 13% of the orations in the Missal of the traditional Roman Rite have been kept intact with more than half of them completely discarded, it does not seem possible to say in anything approaching a meaningful way that “all the elements of the Roman Rite” are present in the reformed liturgical books, let alone that the lex orandi of this rite has been properly preserved. There are a number of serious issues present and questions that need to be answered about the supposedly “irreversible” liturgical reform, and they cannot continue to be ignored. In the final analysis, as Dom Alcuin Reid reminds us:

Questioning the continuity of the modern liturgical books with liturgical tradition, and with the sound principles laid down by the Council is not denying the Council or its authority. It is, rather, to seek to defend the Council from those who distorted its stated intentions.

NOTES

[1] Rev Fr Anthony Cekada, whose 17% figure has been cited numerous times over the years, was the pioneer in this regard: see The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1991) and Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI (West Chester, OH: Philothea Press, 2010), pp. 219-245.

[2] Lists of the many and varied reactions to the motu proprio can be found here and here on NLM.

[3] It should be noted that much of the underlying work, such as compiling lists of sources, examining the prayers of each Missal side-by-side, etc., was done in the 1970s and 1980s, before the Internet, before most people had access to personal computers, and also before vital tools such as the Corpus orationum existed. We are fortunate enough to live in an age where, thanks to the work of many diligent scholars as well as huge improvements in technology, this kind of research is easier than it has ever been before!

[4] The figure of 1,273 orations has been slightly revised and corrected from my previous article. It is made up of all the prayers in the Missale Romanum as it was in 1951 (1,191), plus those orations added between 1951 and 1962 (82). Due to the Holy Week and calendar reforms of 1955 onwards, this number is not exactly representative of the 1962 Missal, but as prayers from some suppressed celebrations were repurposed in the post-Vatican II Missal, it seemed fairer to include them in the overall total. I am also defining “orations” as the collects, secrets/super oblata, postcommunions and super populum, as well as other orationes contained in the Missal (e.g. the solemn intercessions on Good Friday, those that follow the readings at the Easter and Pentecost Vigils, blessings on particular days such as Palm Sunday, Candlemas, etc.). All the prefaces, as well as hymns and sequences, are excluded from this analysis.

[5] These percentages total more than 100% because some orations are duplicated in each category. For example, Br 120 (9th Sunday after Pentecost, Secret) is preserved intact but is also used in a centonisation; Br 235 (Wednesday in Week 2 of Lent, super populum) is preserved intact and also edited for use elsewhere.

[6] In what follows, the abbreviation “Br” refers to the “Bruylants number” of a given prayer. As part of the reference system for his workLes oraisons du Missel Romain: texte et histoire (Louvain: Centre de Documentation et d’Information Liturgiques, 1952, 2 vols.), Dom Placide Bruylants arranged all the prayers of the Missale Romanum in alphabetical order, then progressively numbered them starting from 1. This reference system is still often used by scholars and liturgists. A useful online list and concordance, minus Dom Bruylants’ text-critical and source information, can be found here.

[7] For the purposes of this analysis, I have kept edited and centonised prayers in separate categories, and have made no attempt to examine centonised orations. Though centonisation would count as “using” an oration, the way in which parts of different prayers were stitched together by the reformers can be quite complicated, and deserves its own dedicated analysis in the future.

Mythbusting: How Much of the 1962 Missal is Actually Used in the Post-Vatican II Missal?

In a recent article in Notitiae, the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Archbishop Arthur Roche, made the following claim about the textual relationship between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Missals:

While the Missal retains the basic structure of that of Saint Pius V, together with ninety percent of the texts of that Missal, it removes a number of repetitions and accretions and simplifies the language and the gestures of the liturgy. At the same time, it uses more sacrificial vocabulary than was the case in the 1570 Missal. Opinions to the contrary are false. [1]

I will not deal here with the question of “more sacrificial vocabulary”, as this requires further detailed examination. [2] It is, rather, Archbishop Roche’s claim about the number of prayers from the 1962 Missal used in the post-Vatican II Missal that struck me as odd and, frankly, scarcely believable.

In fairness, the new Prefect is not the only one to make such a claim: no less a figure than Annibale Bugnini wrote that:

The new Missal has eighty-one prefaces and sixteen hundred prayers, or more than twice as many as in the old Missal. Almost all the texts of the old Missal have been used, revised if need be to harmonize them with the reform and the teaching of Vatican II. [3]

This assertion stuck out to me because I have recently finished my project to detail the sources of every postcommunion oration in the 2008 Missale Romanum, [4] and in the course of that work I found that only about a third of those prayers have the older Missale cited as their direct source in the various published lists. It is, however, true that some prayers where the source is given as, e.g., the Gelasianum Vetus or the Leonianum are also contained in the 1962 Missale Romanum. Some centonised prayers, i.e. those that have been composed using parts of two or more pre-existing prayers, also have the older Missal as at least one of their sources. So, to arrive at the most generous and reliable figure possible, some extra work with the source lists and the ever-helpful Corpus orationum [5] was necessary. 

Some of the tools of Coetus XVIII bis (artist's impression)

With regards to what follows:

• “Orations” are defined as Collects, Secrets/Prayers over the Offerings, Postcommunions, Prayers over the People, and other prayers such as the Good Friday intercessions. This definition does not include anything from either Ordo Missae (aside from the twenty-eight optional Prayers over the People tucked away right at the end of the OF ordo), and also does not include any Prefaces.
• The number of unique orations in the OF (1,606) is correct as of July 2021; I have included prayers for those celebrations added to the OF General Roman Calendar since the promulgation of the editio typica tertia emendata (2008).
• I have calculated the number of unique orations in the EF (1,269) principally with the use of Dom Placide Bruylants, Les oraisons du Missel Romain: texte et histoire (Louvain: Centre de Documentation et d’Information Liturgiques, 1952, 2 vols.), adding in those post-1952 orations contained in the 1962 Missal. This figure is thus not quite accurate for the 1962 Missal, as it includes some feasts and Masses abolished in the 1950s, but as some prayers from these were taken up by the post-conciliar reformers it seemed better to include them in the figures.
• The definition of “use” is as broad as possible – for instance, even if the reformers only took a small phrase from an oration found in the 1962 Missal and effectively built a newly-composed prayer around it, I have counted that 1962 oration as “used” in the post-conciliar Missal. [6] 

So, with all this in mind, are we anywhere near close to “ninety percent” or “almost all” of the prayers from the 1962 Missal being used in the post-Vatican II Missal?

No. We are, in fact, some considerable distance from that figure.

Of the 1,269 unique orations in the usus antiquior, I calculate that 613 (48.3%) of them are used in some way in the post-Vatican II Missal. 

This figure obviously starts to shrink if centonised prayers are excluded, or if a more substantial threshold is established for what constitutes the “use” of an oration. Readers who wish to examine the data in more detail can download the table using the following link:

Table of prayers from the 1962 Missale Romanum used in the post-Vatican II Missale Romanum (PDF) 

Put in a slightly different way, and accounting for centonised prayers, 673 (41.9%) out of the 1,606 unique orations in the 2008 Missale Romanum have the older Missal as their source (or one of their sources). 

I should reiterate that these figures make no distinction between orations from the 1962 Missal that remain intact in the post-Vatican II Missal and those that were edited before their inclusion. Of the prayers from the 1962 Missal that were not changed [7] by Coetus XVIII bis, one source puts the figure of intact orations at only 17%. [8] It will take some further work to verify this figure, but at first glance it seems about right to me; the number of orations edited by Coetus XVIII bis is surprisingly high. [9] 

There are a number of seemingly pervasive myths about the reformed liturgy that, although long since shown to be without any basis in fact, still get bandied about from time to time. For instance, I still hear people say that the reformed lectionary allows ‘the whole Bible to be read in three years at Mass’, something that could only be asserted by people who have never really read the Bible. (When do they think we read the entire book of Proverbs or the entire Jewish Law at Mass, for example?) The claim of Bugnini and Archbishop Roche that “almost all” the prayers of the ‘old’ Missal are used in some way in the ‘new’ one would seem to fall into this same category of myth.

As neither of them provide a citation for their respective figures, I have no idea how this myth came to be. I find it greatly disappointing, however, that the new Prefect of the CDWDS did not bother to check what those of us familiar with both forms of the Roman Rite already knew was a dubious and highly-unlikely figure. Myths and myth-making about the liturgical reform will, ultimately, not serve us well.

NOTES

[1] Arthur Roche, “The Roman Missal of Saint Paul VI: A witness to unchanging faith and uninterrupted tradition”, Notitiae 597 (2020), pp. 248-258, at p. 251, my emphasis.

[2] I will here limit myself to the observation that this is not a question that can be answered with an appeal to raw numbers. If, for instance, the older Missal had 100 out of 1,000 prayers that contained “sacrificial vocabulary”, and the equivalent figure for the newer Missal was 120 out of 1,500 prayers, then although 120 is greater than 100 this would actually end up being a smaller proportion of the whole (8% compared to 10%). In any case, the frequency of such vocabulary and where it is contained in the respective Missals is far more important than the raw numbers.

[3] Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), p. 398, my emphasis.

[4] See my book The Post-Communion Prayers in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite: Texts and Sources (Lectionary Study Press, 2020).

[5] E. Moeller, J.M. Clément & B.C. ’t Wallant (eds.), Corpus Orationum (CCSL 160-160M; Brepols, 1992-2020, 15 vols.)

[6] It should be noted that Dom Antoine Dumas, one of the members of Coetus XVIII bis, did the same thing when compiling his list of sources. See “Les sources du nouveau Missal Romain (1)”, Notitiae 60 (1971), pp. 37-42, at p. 37: “Par souci de simplicité et de rapidité, on n’a pas indiqué si la source mentionnée était reproduite intégralement dans le nouveau Missal, ou bien – c’est le cas le plus fréquent – dans quelle mesure elle avait été restaurée ou adaptée. Parfois même, il ne s’agit que d’une source lointaine ou d’une citation implicite utilisée pour une composition nouvelle.”

[7] By which I mean textual changes; it should be remembered that although the text of a given oration may have remained the same, where it is used in the post-Vatican II Missal may have been changed by the Consilium.

[8] Anthony Cekada, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI (Philothea Press, 2010), p. 244.

[9] This is something evident to anyone who has read Lauren Pristas, The Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013). See also my recent article "The Eastertide Collects in the Post-Vatican II Missal: A Problematic Reform".

The Omission of 1 Corinthians 11, 27-29 from the Ordinary Form Lectionary: What We Know, and a Hypothesis

The recent discussion and vote of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on whether to draft a teaching document on the Eucharist [1] has spurred much discussion online, once again, about the omission of 1 Corinthians 11, 27-29 from the lectionary of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Dr Peter Kwasniewski examined this omission here on NLM some years back, and it is one of the better-known omissions in the Mass lectionary of the OF. [2] The passage in question reads as follows (omitted verses in italics):

Brethren: (23) I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, (24) and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” (25) In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (27) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (28) Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (29) For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. (ESV-CE)

As there is a lot of speculation about this particular omission and the reasons behind it, I thought I would share what I have managed to find out in the course of my study and research into the post-Vatican II reform of the lectionary. The picture is not yet complete, but I think there is enough information to form a tentative hypothesis as to how 1 Corinthians 11, 27-29 ended up being omitted from the reformed lectionary.

*     *     *

Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, asked in no. 51 that “the most important parts/a more representative portion” (praestantior pars) of the Bible be read at Mass “in the course of a prescribed number of years” (intra praestitutum annorum spatium). [3] Coetus XI of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia [4] would subsequently be the study group in charge of putting together the reformed order of readings. By July 1967, their work had progressed to the point where a draft Ordo lectionum for Sundays, weekdays and certain Saints’ days was published and sent out for consultation to each episcopal conference, all the participants in the first Synod of Bishops, and around 800 biblical, liturgical, pastoral and catechetical experts. [5] Fr Annibale Bugnini, the secretary of the Consilium, tells us that around 460 responses were received as a result of this consultation, made up of 300 pages of general remarks and 6,650 ‘file cards’ on individual pericopes. [6]

For the feast of Corpus Christi, two sets of readings were provided in the 1967 Ordo lectionum: one designated in die, and one designated in solemnitate. The in die readings are largely similar to the existing ones in the 1962 Missale Romanum, with the addition of an Old Testament reading and responsorial psalm:

• First Reading: Exodus 24, 3-8
• Responsorial Psalm: 115[116]:12+14, 15+16ac, 17-18 (R. 13)
• Second Reading: 1 Corinthians 11, 23-29
• Gospel Acclamation: John 6, 56 [Nova Vg = v. 55]
• Gospel: John 6, 56-59 [Nova Vg = vv. 55-58]

Ordo lectionum pro dominicis, feriis et festis sanctorum (Schema 233, July 1967), p. 74

It is vital to note that the second reading proposed here is identical to the 1962 Missal’s epistle for Corpus Christi. No verses have been omitted. [7] The Gospel reading is also unchanged from the 1962 Missal, with the first half of the Alleluia verse here proposed as the Gospel Acclamation.

The readings designated in solemnitate are as follows:

• First Reading: Proverbs 9, 1-5
• Responsorial Psalm: 22[23], 1-2a, 2b-3, 5, 6 (R. 5ad)
• Second Reading: 1 Corinthians 10, 14-21
• Gospel Acclamation: John 6, 57 [Nova Vg = v. 56]
• Gospel: Luke 22, 14-20

Ordo lectionum pro dominicis, feriis et festis sanctorum (Schema 233, July 1967), p. 75

Aside from the Gospel Acclamation, which is the second half of the 1962 Missal’s Alleluia verse, the readings proposed here are new to Corpus Christi. The Gospel is taken from the votive Mass of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Eternal High Priest in the 1962 Missale.

We can see, then, that at a fairly advanced stage in the reform, 1 Corinthians 11, 27-29 was still going to be included in the revised lectionary. So, what happened?

As a result of the consultation mentioned above, a number of changes were made to the 1967 draft. In his account of the liturgical reform, Bugnini writes that:

[T]he system was radically revised in January 1968: passages regarded as too difficult were eliminated; missing passages were added; the division into verses was improved; the readings for the Sundays of Lent and some major feasts were changed. The most important changes were made on the occasion of the tenth general meeting of the Consilium (April 1968)… It was the periti to whom the international questionnaire had been sent who suggested that on the major solemnities alternative passages be provided at least for the gospel, without the feast thereby losing its characteristic tonality. [8]

Coetus XI themselves give us a little more information in their schema of April 1968:

The feast of Corpus Christi. For this feast, the Ordo distinguished between readings in die and readings in sollemnitate. Many periti doubted the usefulness of the readings in sollemnitate, and proposed that three complete formularies would be better, according to the three-year cycle. The texts would then appear sufficient and also be of great importance. We accepted this proposition. In this way, it is additionally possible to read the pericope from Mark, which otherwise is heard by the people only on Palm Sunday in the context of the whole Passion narrative. [9]

The readings for Corpus Christi were thus changed for the 1969 editio typica of the Ordo lectionum Missae to the following:

Year A

• First Reading: Deuteronomy 8, 2-3; 14b-16a
• Responsorial Psalm: 147, 12-13; 14-15; 19-20 (R. 12a)
• Second Reading: 1 Corinthians 10, 16-17 [note: this lection is taken from the “in solemnitate” formulary in the 1967 draft, and has been shortened]
• Gospel Acclamation: John 6, 51
• Gospel: John 6, 51-58 [note: this lection is taken from the “in die” formulary of the 1967 draft, and has been lengthened]

Year B

• First Reading: Exodus 24, 3-8 [note: this lection is taken from the “in die” formulary of the 1967 draft]
• Responsorial Psalm: 115[116]: 12-13, 15+16bc, 17-18 (R. 13) [note: this psalm is taken from the “in die” formulary of the 1967 draft, with some small changes in the verses used]
• Second Reading: Hebrews 9, 11-15
• Gospel Acclamation: = Year A
• Gospel: Mark 14, 12-16; 22-26

Year C

• First Reading: Genesis 14, 18-20
• Responsorial Psalm: 109: 1, 2, 3, 4. (R. 4bc)
• Second Reading: 1 Corinthians 11, 23-26 [note: this lection is taken from the “in die” formulary of the 1967 draft, and has been shortened]
• Gospel Acclamation: = Year A
• Gospel: Luke 9, 11b-17

Ordo lectionum Missae, editio typica altera (1981), pp. 94-95

With the introduction of the three-year cycle to the feast of Corpus Christi and the changes made by Coetus XI, the traditional epistle reading was thus, lamentably, both shorn of verses 27-29 and relegated to being read only in Year C.

Unfortunately, we are still missing the one last major piece of this puzzle: the 460 responses from the consultation. In the absence of this information, one cannot say for certain why 1 Corinthians 11, 27-29 was removed from the epistle reading for Year C, but I think the existing data allows us to construct a reasonable hypothesis.

I have mentioned previously on NLM the remarks of Dom Adrian Nocent, O.S.B., on “advertising” the lectionary in the context of the debate within Coetus XI: “Some, for example, arguing from modern advertising methods, wanted to have only the ipsissima verba Christi proclaimed in a single sentence. This could have made a deep impression on the hearers.” [10] Although this slightly bizarre idea was rejected by the members of the group, the fact that it was discussed at all would seem to indicate that at least a minority of Coetus XI were generally in favour of shorter rather than longer readings. The group’s early comments on the length of some of the pericopes suggested to them by biblical experts are also indicative of this:

Many have noted that certain pericopes as they have been selected by the biblicists are very long, especially those selected from the Old Testament, while on the contrary others, according to exegetical principles, are divided here or there, and are clearly shorter. […]

What, in our judgement, seems proper according to pedagogic principles?

– if pericopes are brief, there is not enough time for the attention of the listener to be truly established.
– if pericopes are lengthy, they will not sustain the attention of the listener;
– pericopes, especially those intended to explain doctrine, must end with verses which are really attention grabbing, because immediately afterwards the attention wanes. [11]

Coetus XI obviously thought that they had the lengths of readings about right in the 1967 Ordo lectionum pro dominicis, feriis et festis sanctorum, as only seven pericopes in total are provided with optional shorter forms, all on Sundays. [12] After the consultation, however, the number of these drastically increased, and a total of forty-two pericopes on Sundays alone would be given optional short forms in the promulgated Ordo lectionum Missae.

One reason for this is that some readings were combined in order to create space for extra ones. For instance, Ephesians 1, 3-8 and 9-14, which in the 1967 draft were read on Sundays 5B and 6B after Pentecost respectively, were merged into one lection, 1, 3-14, now read on Sunday 15B per annum; this was done to reduce the number of readings from Ephesians and increase the number of readings from 2 Corinthians. [13] To compensate for this, Ephesians 1, 3-14 was given an optional short form, vv. 1-10.

These rearrangements and combinations of pericopes do not explain the majority of the short forms provided in the 1969 Ordo lectionum Missae, however. Thus, even without access to the feedback from the consultation, it seems fairly obvious that a number of the experts recommended that readings be made shorter. I suspect that the minority of Coetus XI who were in favour of shorter readings generally were very keen to highlight these parts of the feedback, which probably played the ‘we told you so’ role in the group’s discussions. I also think it is more than likely that the majority of the ad libitum short forms in the reformed lectionary as promulgated are a last-minute compromise position between those members who felt many pericopes were too long and those on the other hand who were happy with their length. [14]

Further, it also seems obvious that length was not the only consideration in the late edits made to the reformed lectionary. As Bugnini alludes to in the quote above, the experts who were consulted also seem to have suggested the excision of many “difficult texts”. For example, on every occasion in Year A of the Sunday cycle where the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” appears, the Gospel reading (from Matthew) is given a short form that omits this phrase, a fact I have noted in a previous NLM article.

It seems to me that there are, therefore, two possible reasons why 1 Corinthians 11, 27-29 went missing late in the process of the post-Vatican II lectionary reform:

1. the verses were removed because some experts, along with members of Coetus XI, thought that they were a distraction from what they saw as the ‘core’ of the passage (the institution of the Eucharist) and that making the lection shorter by dispensing with them would improve the catechetical focus of the lectionary;
2. they were removed because it was felt that the aspect of “judgement” was too “difficult”; the obvious solution, to my mind, of lengthening the pericope to v. 32 so that it ended on a somewhat ‘positive’ note (“that we may not be condemned along with the world”) was de facto excluded due to the focus on making lections shorter.

In conclusion, as someone familiar with the schemata of Coetus XI, I am fairly confident that my hypotheses here are likely to be close to the truth of the matter. Still, it should be stated that these explanations are not mutually exclusive, and at the moment are only possible rather than definitive, given that we still lack one major piece of information (the feedback from the consultation). Charity would seem to require that malice and ill-will also be ruled out at this stage — as we lack any comments made in the consultation process of the 1967 draft lectionary, there can be no certainty about any ‘good’ or ‘bad’ intentions.

However, even if the intentions behind this omission could be construed as ‘good’ or ‘well-meaning’, it seems undeniable that, over half a century on, the removal of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 from the Ordinary Form’s lectionary has had catastrophic effects on the liturgical, dogmatic and spiritual formation of the Catholic faithful. It is an omission that, along with many others, urgently needs to be corrected.

NOTES

[1] To reiterate: this was not a discussion or vote on a document, but on whether the USCCB Committee on Doctrine should even draft such a document in the first instance. The vote passed, with 168 voting in favour and 55 against, with 6 abstentions. For more information, see here.

[2] See, for instance, this recent article on Corpus Christi Watershed. This omission is by no means the only notable one; see Dr Kwasniewski’s foreword to my 2016 book Index Lectionum: A Comparative Table of Readings for the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite for examples of others.

[3] On the translation of praestantior pars, see Gregory DiPippo, “Sacrosanctum Concilium and the New Lectionary”. For more on the Council Fathers’ suggestions and discussions about the lectionary, see my three-part NLM series “The Second Vatican Council and the Lectionary”: part one, part two, part three.

[4] The Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia was the organism established by Pope Paul VI to carry out the post-conciliar reform of the liturgy. The Consilium was organised into various coetus (‘study groups’), who would each be responsible for drafting particular parts of the liturgical reform; their proposed schemas would be discussed and voted on by the Fathers of the Consilium, adjusted if necessary, and then sent to the Pope for final approval.

[5] Schema 233 (De Missali, 39), July 1967: Ordo lectionum pro dominicis, feriis et festis sanctorum (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1967). In 2018, I compiled a table of readings for this draft ordo; this can be found here.

[6] Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), p. 419.

[7] Though it should also be noted that the epistle reading in the 1962 Missal for the evening of Maundy Thursday, 1 Corinthians 11, 20-32, was shortened in the 1967 Ordo lectionum to 11:23-29, i.e. the same lection as on Corpus Christi.

[8] Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, pp. 419-420. The revision of the readings was discussed by the Fathers of the Consilium on 25th April 1968: see ibid., p. 177 fn. 74, and [n.a.], “Decima sessio plenaria «Consilii»”, Notitiae 40 (1968), pp. 180-184, at p. 184.

[9] Schema 286 (De Missali, 49), 6th April 1968, p. 2:

In festo Corporis Christi. Pro hoc festo Ordo distinguebat lectiones in die et lectiones in sollemnitate. Multi periti dubitant de utilitate lectionum in sollemnitate, et proponunt ut potius fiant tria formularia completa secundum cyclum trium annorum. Textus sufficientes adsunt et sunt item magni momenti. Ideo accepimus propositionem. Hoc modo poterit legi etiam pericopa Marci quae, secus audiretur a populo solum in Dominica Palmarum in contextu narrationis totius Passionis.

[10] See Adrian Nocent, “The Roman Lectionary for Mass” in Ansgar Chupungco (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997-2000, 5 vols.), vol. 3, pp. 177-188, at p. 185.

[11] Schema 148 (De Missali, 18), 31st March 1966, p. 12:

Plures animadverterunt quasdam pericopas prout a biblicis sunt selectae esse plus aequo longiores, praesertim illae quae ex Vetere Testamento sumuntur, dum, e contra, aliae, quae iuxta principia exegeseos, hinc vel inde secantur, breviores apparent. […]

Quid iudicandum vobis videtur de principiis pedagogicis: 

– si pericopa est brevior, tempus non datur ut attentio vera auditoris inducatur; 

– si pericopa est longior, auditor non sustinet attentionem; 

– pericopae, praesertim quae doctrinam explicite intendunt, finire deberent cum versiculo qui attentionem vehementer percutit, quia statim postea attentio deficit.

It is also worth noting that, earlier in the same schema, examples of pericopes that could have longer and shorter forms are given: “Item opportunum videtur ut aliquando celebrans eligere possit inter textum longiorem et textum breviorem eiusdem pericopae pro opportunitate. V.G. Isaiae 6, 6-11 vel 1-11; 1 Regum 8, 22-26 vel 22-53; Isaiae 7, 10-17 vel 2 Regum 16, 1-5 / Isaiae 7, 10-17” (pp. 9-10). The fact that the shorter text is given first, followed by the longer one, could indicate that Coetus XI expected the shorter version to be the ‘default’, with the longer version provided as an option to be used when a priest considered it pastorally beneficial to his congregation.

[12] Namely the following:

• Matthew 15:1, 7-20 [1, 7-11, 15-20] (Sunday 8A after Pentecost);
• John 4:5-42 [5-26] (Sunday 3A of Lent);
• John 9:1-38 [1-13, 24-38] (Sunday 4A of Lent);
• John 11:1-45 [17-45] (Sunday 5A of Lent);
• Acts 1:15-26 [15-17, 21-26] (Sunday 7B of Easter);
• Acts 2:14, 22-32 [14, 22-24, 32] (Sunday 3A of Easter);
• 1 Peter 2:1-10 [1-5, 9-10] (Sunday 2A of Easter). 

Only the Gospel lections for Sundays 3A-5A of Lent would be kept in place with (different) short forms.

[13] In Year B of the 1967 ordo, 2 Corinthians had only three readings on Sundays 2-4 after Pentecost, and Ephesians had ten readings over Sundays 5-14 after Pentecost. In Year B of the 1969 Ordo lectionum Missae, however, 2 Corinthians now has eight readings from Sundays 7-14 per annum, and Ephesians has seven readings from Sundays 15-21 per annum.

[14] This would also go some way to explaining the rather curious declaration in no. 75 of the Praenotanda to the Ordo lectionum Missae (1981 editio typica altera), which claims that “the editing of the shorter version has been carried out with great caution” (in huiusmodi breviationibus conficiendis magna cautela adhibita est), something that is obviously not entirely accurate!

TLM Training Webinars, Oct. 28 to Jan. 13

Beginning October 28, Mr Louis Tofari of Romanitas Press will host a 12-week curriculum of live Zoom webinars for priests seeking to understand better the liturgical requisites of the traditional Roman Mass, and to improve their knowledge and celebration of it. Each weekly session will be held on Wednesday, 3:00—6:00pm EST, and will consist of three 40-minute lessons with 20-minute intervals (thus two hours per week). Topics to be covered include the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, the historical development of the Missale Romanum and a section-by-section examination of its contents, the different tones of voice prescribed by the rubrics, the proper positioning of the hands at various parts of the Mass, and the layout and appointments of the church building. Priests may subscribe to individual sessions or, ideally, to the entire curriculum. These webinars are intended for Catholic priests, but seminarians may also subscribe. Lessons will be recorded for the sake of participants who may be called away or unable to “tune in” live. For detailed information and to register, click HERE.

I would encourage any priest to avail himself of this opportunity, especially those who may be inclined to think they don’t need it because they’ve already attended a training seminar such as Sancta Missa, or have watched an FSSP or SSPX training video, or have been saying the traditional Mass for years now. The more knowledge, experience, and confidence priests accumulate, the more they tend to rely on their quick “already know the answer” instincts. Too many are making mistakes big and small, as I have, because “they don’t know what they don’t know.” I have learned many things, and learned to “unlearn” a few things, from these webinars. Mr Tofari’s “building block” approach provides participants not simply ritual instruction that builds upon previous lessons, but the rationale for it (which often has more to do with practicality than symbolism or aestheticism).