“Development or Decay? The Principles of Liturgical Reform” - My Talk Tomorrow with the ICC

Tomorrow evening (July 17) at 8pm Eastern time, I will be delivering a talk for the Institute of Catholic Culture entitled “Development or Decay? The Principles of Liturgical Reform.” The talk will focus specifically on the much-discussed term “organic development” as it appears in the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. There will be a discussion beforehand, starting at 7:30pm, and time for some questions after the presentation. Registration is required but free: see this link for further information and to register:

https://instituteofcatholicculture.org/events/development-or-decay

My Interview on Holy Week with Christopher Jasper on Pipes with Augustine

A few days ago, I gave an interview to Mr Christopher Jasper, the founder and director of the online Gregorian Chant Academy. The main subject of our interview is the various reforms of Holy Week, but we touched several related issues as well, such as the mindset of the whole project of liturgical reform in the 20th century. I make bold to suggest that those who have followed my work on this subject over the years will find it interesting. I’d also like to thank Mr Jasper for his time and our enjoyable conversation.

Mass of the Ages Hosts a Debate on Organic Development: Kwasniewski & DiPippo

Three years ago (how time flies!) I wrote an article in two parts on the concept of “organic development”, and why I believe it is not a particularly useful way of describing change in the liturgy, which Dr Kwasniewski followed up on with his own take on his view of how it can be useful. (links below) Yesterday, the Mass of the Ages YouTube channel posted a discussion between us about this, with Timothy Flanders, the editor of OnePeterFive, as the moderator. I almost hesitate to call it a “debate”, since, as Peter himself notes in his written article, we aren’t really in disagreement about very much on this point. We hope you find this interesting.

My first article: Against “Organic Development” (Dec. 3, 2021)

My second article: Rethinking “Organic Development” (Dec. 8, 2021)

Peter’s reply: Organic Development as a Useful Metaphor in Liturgical Discussions (Dec. 13, 2021)

My Interview with Dr Jan Bentz of The European Conservative

Earlier this year, on the feast of the Assumption, I had the great pleasure of giving an interview to an old friend, Dr Jan Bentz, who studied in Rome for many years. He is now teaching at Oxford University, and hosting an interview series called Reality Check on the YouTube channel of The European Conservative magazine. Our conversation ranged over a wide variety of topics related to the liturgy: a little bit about the station Masses; the current status of the traditional Roman Rite; the legacy of Pope Benedict XVI, and how it applies to the whole life of the Church; the non-reception of Vatican II; the lectionary; continuity and rupture in the post-Conciliar reform; prospects for future liturgical reform, etc. I hope you find it interesting.

Five Myths Behind Traditionis Custodes and the Attack on the TLM

Several days ago, I recorded an interview with Timothy Flanders, which has just premiered on the One Peter Five YouTube channel. The title is “Five Myths Behind Traditionis Custodes and the Attack on the TLM”; we hope that people will find it a useful resource for understanding some of the Church’s current liturgical problems. My thanks once again to Mr Flanders for a most enjoyable conversation.

There is one thing which I realized just after we finished recording this that I could have said differently, and perhaps better. I compared the overwhelming amount of evidence that the post-Conciliar liturgy is not in any way what the bishops who signed Sacrosanctum Concilium wanted to the overwhelming evidence that miracles are real, and cited some words of GK Chesterton to that effect. I think a more apt comparison would have been the overwhelming amount of evidence that the sexual revolution has been a catastrophe for human society, exactly as Humanae Vitae said it would be. I think this might be a better analogy because there is, unfortunately, a large number of Catholics who want the Church to embrace the sexual revolution, despite the appalling misery it has inflicted on so many people. And likewise, there are still people who insist that the Church must cling like death to the post-Conciliar liturgy, claiming that it is exactly what the Council wanted, despite its innumerable contradictions of the ipsissima verba of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and its total failure to produce any of the results that that document’s opening paragraph says were supposed to come from the reform.

Roundup on the CDF Decrees on New Saints and New Prefaces for the TLM

St Andrew Kim Tae-gŏn (martyred 1845); St Charles Lwanga (martyred 1886)

The decrees from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cum Sanctissima and Quo Magis — the former opening up the possibility of celebrating saints canonized post-1960 with the traditional Roman Missal, the latter introducing into that missal seven prefaces, of varying degrees of authenticity — have generated a fair amount of discussion.

For the convenience of NLM readers, here is a roundup of all of the articles I have noticed, with an attempt to categorize them across the spectrum of opinion. If I have missed anything at other blogs, please let me know in the comments.

Decrees and Official Commentaries

Decree Cum Sanctissima [Latin] (February 22, 2020; released March 25)
Decree Quo Magis [Latin] (February 22, 2020; released March 25)
Vatican Presentation of Cum Sanctissima [English]
Vatican Presentation of Quo Magis [English]
(Curiously, there seems to be no English translation yet of either decree.)

Texts of the New Prefaces

These may be found in various places; Rorate’s post is probably the most useful.

(Unfortunately, I have not yet seen the Prefaces set to chant notation. If there is an enterprising Gregorio programmer out there who has mastery of how the Preface tones work, it would be immensely helpful to produce sheets with at least the common and solemn tones, in a format that would allow their ready insertion into altar missals. Please send PDF and JPG to Gregory DiPippo or me, and we will post them at NLM.)

News

Christopher Wells, “Recent Saints and new Prefaces added to 1962 Roman Missal”
Hannah Brockhaus, “CDF issues new Eucharistic prefaces, optional saint feasts for extraordinary form of Roman rite”

(There are other news reports, but they all say basically the same things.)

Canonical Commentary

Fr. Albert P. Marcello, III, “Canonical Commentary on the New Pontifical Decrees On Saints’ Days and New Prefaces in the Traditional Missal”

Enthusiasm for the Decrees

Fr. John Hunwicke, “‘New’ Saints in the Old Calendar”
Idem, “Old Mass: New Decrees: Prefaces (1)”
Idem, “Old Mass: New Decrees: Prefaces (2)”
Idem, “Old Mass: New Decrees: (3) The Calendar”

Acceptance with “let’s wait and see”

Peter Kwasniewski, “Vatican Issues Two Decrees: More Prefaces and Recent Saints in the TLM”
Dom Alcuin Reid, “The older form of the Roman rite is alive and well”
Anonymous (FSSP), “Bede, Augustine, and Gregory on 21st Century Liturgy”

Concern / skepticism

The International Federation “Una Voce” Press Release

Hostility

Brian McCall, “Vatican’s New Attack on the Old Mass: Take Your Hands Off Our Liturgical Lifeboat”
Andrea Grillo, “Open Letter on the ‘State of Liturgical Exception’”
Concerning Grillo: Peter Kwasniewski, “‘Cancel the Decrees!’: High Dudgeon from Progressive Liturgists”; idem, “Limericks on Liberal Liturgists”

Analysis of Seven Prefaces

NLM’s editor Gregory DiPippo has recently completed a series of in-depth analyses of the seven new prefaces:

“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 1: The Preface of the Angels”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 2: The Preface of St John the Baptist”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 3: The Preface of the Martyrs”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 4: The Preface of the Nuptial Mass”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 5: The Preface of the Blessed Sacrament”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 6: The Preface of All Saints and Patron Saints”
“The New Prefaces of the EF Mass, Part 7: The Preface of the Dedication of a Church”

See also Sharon Kabel, “How New Is the New Traditional Wedding Preface?”

Tentative Judgments

I think it is fair to say that the decree allowing the celebration of saints canonized after 1960 has been widely accepted in the traditional world as rectifying a truly strange situation where it was not possible to celebrate Mass in honor of many saints who spent their entire lives worshiping with the old Roman rite or some analogous traditional use or rite, and, if priests, celebrated it themselves — and I include in this category not just saints who lived more recently, such as Padre Pio, but also those from centuries ago whose canonizations were not completed until recently.

There is, needless to say, anxiety that either a well-intentioned but clueless celebrant or a clever and subversive cleric might try to use this provision as a “Trojan Horse” by which to force upon traditional congregations the veneration of putatively canonized individuals whose sanctity is surrounded by controversy and scandal. Only time will tell whether or not this is a real threat and how it will be dealt with “in the wild.”

Reception of the decree allowing seven more prefaces has been decidedly more ambivalent. While no one questions the legitimacy of adding a preface from time to time, in practice the Roman rite has been characterized for many centuries by a limited number of prefaces and an extremely conservative mind when it comes to expanding the repertoire. Adding seven at once is an upward bump with no historical parallel. Moreover, the sources of the texts have been tampered with, as compared with their actual ancient precedents — some more so than others, as Gregory DiPippo demonstrates in his article series.

It seems to me that the use of the prefaces will have to be a matter of ongoing theological and pastoral discernment. In any case, the utmost caution may be recommended: it would not do to take all of the prefaces on board at once, and whenever any such preface is to be used, it seems advisable to make the Latin text with a translation available as a handout, incorporate it into a worship aid, or print it in the bulletin.

A more refined objection to the two decrees concerns their “ad libitum” status. It is often said, and indeed I have said it frequently, that the old Mass is characterized by a stability, fixity, and objectivity that leaves no room for sacerdotal arbitrariness or subjectivism. This is quite true, but we should not forget that there is a tightly-defined sphere within which choices are allowed and indeed required. The old liturgy is a foe to creativity or spontaneity, but not a foe to ordered liberty. As this matter is of some importance, I will be dedicating next Monday’s article to it.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website, SoundCloud page, and YouTube channel.

All About St Cecilia, Or: When in Rome: New Episode of Square Notes with Gregory DiPippo

Tune in to the latest episode of Square Notes: The Sacred Music Podcast, wherein NLM’s own Gregory DiPippo helps separate truth from fiction in the hagiography of St Cecilia. We also discuss Rome’s stational liturgies, and the music and liturgy of the Russicum in Rome.

You can catch us on our website, YouTube, iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. Please note that we have discontinued publishing on SoundCloud.

The Balance Scale: Nineteen to One

In an article here at NLM, Gregory DiPippo beautifully summed up the fundamental difference between the original Liturgical Movement and its increasingly revolutionary successor prior to, during, and after the Second Vatican Council:

Before World War I, the major figures in the Liturgical Movement believed that instilling true devotion to the liturgy, and curing the neglect thereof, was principally a matter of education. The liturgy was seen as an inexhaustible treasure-trove for the spiritual life, and the goal of men such as Dom Guéranger and Fr. Romano Guardini was to raise both the clergy and the laity up to a greater appreciation of it. In the period between the wars, the attitude shifted towards the idea that if the run of the clergy and faithful were uninterested in the liturgy, the problem lay not with them, but with the liturgy. The cure for this neglect would then become, not to educate the faithful up to the level of the liturgy, but to alter the liturgy to suit the needs of “modern” man.

DiPippo goes on to ask the logical questions that no progressive or liberal or modernist could ever answer without undermining his own position:

Since all of the architects of the post-Conciliar reforms were formed as churchmen in the aftermath of the two World Wars, the question should also be asked: how much of their era’s way of looking at the world, how many of their attitudes and ideas, are as perennially valuable as those of, say, Saints Augustine, Benedict, and Gregory the Great? If they could ask the question “how much longer must we live according to the ideas of the preceding centuries?”, and answer “no longer, starting from today”; can we not also ask “how much longer must we live according to the ideas of the preceding century?” (These questions are pertinent not only to the liturgy, of course, but to all of the aspects in which the Church struggles through the aftermath of the post-Conciliar reforms.)

These questions could sound like an endorsement of perpetual revolt: each generation has to throw off that which came before. But he’s not saying that at all. Rather, he’s saying that there are two views: the one that chucked out tradition, arbitrarily mixing archaic and modernist elements (the decadent liturgical movement), and the one that honored and respected tradition in its slow development over time (the original liturgical movement). The former specializes in throwing the past overboard, or tinkering with it ad libitum and injecting modernity into it — Fr. Gelineau’s concept of the liturgy as “a permanent workshop”[1] — while the latter wishes to hold firm to the received treasures and to live them with the understanding that comes from love.[2] It is the essential difference between the revolutionary and the counter-revolutionary: one tears down and reconstructs on a new plan, the other maintains a sound identity by preserving, repairing, and enriching.

One might think of it this way. Let us say you have a balance scale for the history of the Church, and you want to determine what is heavier, weightier, worthier. In one dish is more than nineteen centuries of tradition (and with it, reverence for the given forms of worship); in the other dish, not even one century of theory-based experimentation (and with it, a notable lack of reverence for given forms). Which way will the balance tilt? Which way will you tilt? For each of us is, in a way, the balance scale, and how we tilt amounts to a small gain or loss in the renewal of the Church.

Consider a different use of this metaphor. Some practices are extremely widespread, and others are rare. Say you are weighing precious metals and common metals. The weight of the common, since there is far more of it, may greatly exceed the weight of the precious, but you would be foolish not to take the precious over the common, the gold over the lead. Here, it is not weight that counts, but quality. Take the one piece of gold over the nineteen pieces of lead.

The traditional Catholic joins his lot with nineteen and a half centuries of organic development rather than half a century of inorganic innovation. He searches for the precious handmade works of great anonymous masters and values them above the lackluster assembly-line products of committee barons. He knows how to use — and how to be — a reliable balance scale.

NOTES

[1] See here for the full quotation.
[2] See my article "Carrying Forward the Noble Work of the Liturgical Movement" for more on the contrast.

Guest Article: a Tribute to Jeffrey Tucker and Gregory DiPippo

Readers have probably noticed a few changes to the masthead of New Liturgical Movement in recent weeks.  They began when our friend Jeffrey Tucker made it official to us that his absence from the duties of Editor was changing to a retirement, while he carries on his work in other spheres as a publisher, writer, and entrepreneur.

This week Managing Editor Greg DiPippo has stepped up into the role of Editor, invited by our Publisher William Mahrt, president of the Church Music Association of America, which is the sponsor of NLM.

All of us on the NLM team are grateful for these two fine writers and the energy they have brought to building this site.

As it happens, today Shawn Tribe, the founder of the site, was inspired to write his own salute to his first two successors; we present it as a guest article.

A Tribute to Jeffrey Tucker and Gregory DiPippo

Shawn Tribe

Transitions can be great times for reflection and during this moment of transition I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to two men: Jeffrey Tucker and Gregory DiPippo.

Many of you will know that recently Jeffrey Tucker stepped down as editor of NLM and Gregory DiPippo has now moved into that role. Anyone who has run a site will know how time consuming a project it can be, especially if it is a project of any seriousness or size. Between writing articles, sourcing out photographs and images, not to mention managing comboxes and private correspondence, time is at a premium -- never mind all of the other things that need to be done to maintain a site, from its coding to other administrative tasks like renewing domains and dealing with broken links and otherwise. All of this comes in addition to editorial tasks when such a site has more than one writer and, what's more, this is not even one's day job in instances such as these; it all happens in one's "spare time" -- whatever that is. Fortunately NLM has now evolved to include people who specifically take care of these different aspects rather than having them fall upon one person's shoulders, nonetheless the burden of an editor should never be underestimated. It is no small commitment of time or energy.

When the NLM project began in 2005, my philosophy then, as well as for the rest of my tenure at NLM, was that the NLM project was multi-disciplinary and if it were to succeed and be relevant, there needed to be good and knowledgeable writers to represent and speak to those various disciplines to a level and quality that would not be attainable -- or sustainable -- by any single person. Accordingly, I sought out writers who I felt were amongst the best in their particular areas. Both Jeffrey and Gregory certainly fit into this category.

Jeffrey was involved from the earliest days of the project back in 2005 and what always amazed me about him, aside from his copious practical and theoretical knowledge of sacred music, was his ability to toss off a quality article seemingly at will. The prodigious volume of his work has always amazed me. To this day I have no idea how he does it and it hardly comes as a shock that in his affairs outside of NLM he is wildly successful. From the earliest get-go Jeffrey was one of the strongest supporters of and advocates for the ideals and goals of the New Liturgical Movement and given his tenacity, when the time came for me to move on, I certainly felt assured that the project would continue under his steadfast watch -- as it indeed did. Now that Jeffrey has himself retired from NLM, it seems only fitting that I should thank him on both counts.

Gregory: I first met Gregory in 2008 when I was travelling to Rome and Milan. This trip had a dual purpose. One was to be present for the inaugural activities associated with Ss. Trinita being assigned to the FSSP in Rome. The second was to attend an event which afforded a rare opportunity to observe the usus antiquior Ambrosianus. Gregory was present for both events and so there was ample opportunity for conversation. I can recall the specific moment when we were sitting in a Roman restaurant enjoying a glass of Limoncello after dinner when the thought crossed my mind that Gregory, with his fluent knowledge of Latin, his immense knowledge of Roman history, his ceremonial knowledge of the Roman rite and general knowledge of Roman liturgical history, would make an excellent addition to the NLM team. Over that same glass of Limoncello I casually tossed out the idea to measure what his reaction would be and, as it was not received with any sort of obvious distaste, a few weeks after I had returned home I contacted Gregory by email and noted that I was actually quite serious in my proposal that he consider joining the team of NLM writers. The rest is, as they say, history -- and what an addition he likewise made.

As I look back, I can say that the NLM project would not be the same without all those writers who have participated in the project over the years and each of them is deserving of their own tribute -- something that I hope I will have the pleasure of doing in the future for each and every one of them. As for Jeffrey and Gregory, both have been key figures and components in the success of the project and I wish to personally thank them for their commitment to it over the years as writers and eventually also as editors. Your efforts, gentlemen, have been of inestimable value. Thank you.

Follow Shawn Tribe on Facebook or Twitter

New Website Makes Available All of the Documents of the Vatican II Liturgical Commission

As the Church marks fifty years since the promulgation of Vatican II’s first document, Sacrosanctum Concilium, a new website has just been launched within the last 2 weeks, FONTES Commissionis Liturgicae (www.fontescl.com). This site contains all of the preparatory materials and documentation of the Constitution, an invaluable resource for the history of the liturgical reform.

Sandro Magister has a brief article by the Italian scholar Don Nicola Bux, describing the site and its contents.

Fifty years after December 4, 1963, when the liturgical constitution of Vatican II was promulgated, the statement of a scholar of that Council comes back to mind: “The fathers did not want a liturgical ‘revolution.’ ”

How can this be proven? A brand-new website is making available the documentary sources concerning the preparation, drafting, and composition of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The objective is to make the documents known for the sake of an impartial history of the liturgical reform and therefore also for an authentic understanding of Vatican II, in continuity with the other councils of the Church, in the route of navigation marked out by Agostino Marchetto:

“In recent decades, the question of the correct celebration of the liturgy has become more and more one of the central points of the controversy surrounding Vatican Council II, or how it should be evaluated and received in the life of the Church.”

The new website, free and easy to access, finally makes a very valuable resource available to all.

One must simply get one’s bearings a bit in consulting it. The home page of the website, which is still under construction, says the following:

“In the next few weeks transcriptions will be presented of the documentation necessary for understanding how before the Council the liturgical commission came to draft the schema of the constitution on the liturgy proposed at the ecumenical Council Vatican II and how, during the two conciliar sessions, this schema was modified according to the wishes expressed by the fathers.”

The Liturgy, Fifty Years after Sacrosanctum Concilium - An Interview with Dom Alcuin Reid

The website of Catholic World Report has an excellent interview with Dom Alcuin Reid on the legacy of Sacrosanctum Concilium, published last Friday on the document’s 50th anniversary. Here are a few excerpts (with my emphases):

CWR: SC was the first of the 16 documents of the Council. Why was it the first? Is that surprising, considering that the Council is widely understood as being focused on ecclesiology?

Reid: ... We need to be a bit careful about saying that the Council was “focused on ecclesiology” as if this occludes everything else the Council did. ...

A school of thought exists which interprets Vatican II as an “event,” whereby is meant that the Council canonized an overriding and ongoing dynamic process of change—overriding, that is, the specific provisions of conciliar constitutions and the contexts in which they were formulated, and ongoing in that this view insist that these texts must be re-interpreted today in the light of this dynamic: “What would the Council have said now,” etc. This elevation of process into a hyper-hermeneutic is utterly foreign to the historical reality of Council itself. This following of a so-called “spirit of the Council” rather than its “letter” is a way of reading into the Council documents whatever one wishes regardless of what they in fact say.

CWR: Specifically, what does SC say?

Reid: There is no substitute for reading the constitution itself—which would be a good way in which to mark its 50th anniversary. As a guide, firstly it teaches a liturgical theology developed amidst the currents of 20th century theological and liturgical renewal. Let’s be clear that the Council does not define any liturgical dogma: one can respectfully prefer another style of liturgical theology and remain a Catholic in good standing. Nevertheless, it articulates its theology of the liturgy which has much to offer.

Then the constitution articulates its raison d’être: because the Sacred Liturgy is the “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed [and] at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows,” a widespread program of liturgical formation and a moderate reform of the liturgical rites are to be carried out in order to facilitate true the participation of all in the Sacred Liturgy. These are its fundamental principles; if we lose sight of them or ignore their interdependence we will interpret the remainder of the constitution erroneously. 

...

It may be surprising to learn that Sacrosanctum Concilium did not ask for, recommend, or order the celebration of Mass facing the people (versus populum). Nor did it call for the inclusion of new Eucharistic prayers in the Mass. These and other sensitive changes to the liturgy were made after the constitution was promulgated and are not directly attributable to the Council itself.

CWR: So why the difference between the constitution and the reformed rites? What happened?

Reid: Pope Paul VI appointed a commission to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium. There was nothing unusual in that—much the same took place after the Council of Trent. But it is a fact that from the moment this “Consilium” began its work in 1964―if not before―there were sharply divergent views as to the direction the reform should take. Personal agendas and ecclesiastical politics played their part—one only needs to read the memoirs of the secretary of the Consilium, Archbishop Bugnini (The Reform of the Liturgy, Liturgical Press, 1990), to learn the extent of them. There were even serious disagreements between the Consilium and Paul VI at times.

There was also a certain opportunism on the part of some of the Consilium’s officials and consulters. It is as if they were seeing “how far they could go,” with the result that the moderate reform called for by the constitution, with its nuanced provisions, was quickly left behind and rites that reflected both personal enthusiasms and political compromises were produced. In his memoirs Bugnini himself boasts that, in respect to the reform, the saying “fortune favors the brave” came true. 

These rites were authoritatively promulgated, of course, and they are valid. But it is a more than open question as to whether they are in fact the reform desired by the Fathers of the Council, the organic development of liturgical tradition for which Sacrosanctum Concilium called.

Sacrosanctum Concilium and the New Lectionary

This article is the last of a five-part series occasioned by a recent article by Dr Kwasniewski. Click the following links to read part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4.

The final question which I wish to address in this series on the lectionary is, “Does the new lectionary fulfill the terms for reform set out in Sacrosanctum Concilium?”

The short answer is “yes”, but with a few very large caveats.

The first caveat is that the new lectionary does what Sacrosanctum Concilium asks for, if what it says about the Scriptures is considered in total isolation from the rest of the document, and from the context in which it was written and promulgated. As with sacred music and the use of a sacred language, Sacrosanctum Concilium called for a reform, and a fairly mild one at that; what came after was a revolution.

The decree gives two instructions concerned the readings in the liturgy. The first is in paragraph 35.1, in the first chapter (paragraphs 5-46), ‘On General Principles for the Renewal and Fostering of the Sacred Liturgy.’ “In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.” As is so often the case with Church documents these days, this translation from the Vatican website is not quite exact; the verb in the official Latin version of this sentence is “instauretur – let there be restored.” This indicates at least ad litteram that something which was done once before is to be done again, not that something wholly new was to be created.

The three words here translated as “more … more varied and suitable” are in the Latin original “abundantior, varior et aptior,” modifying a singular collective noun “lectio - reading”, not “readings” in the plural. A more literal translation would be “In sacred celebrations, let a more abundant, varied and suitable reading of Sacred Scripture be restored.” This would seem, therefore, to be a reference to restoring what the then-standard liturgical scholarship thought (wrongly) was the original tradition of the Roman Rite: a Mass with three readings like the Ambrosian Rite. “Restore” would also refer to the long-disused corpus of readings for the ferias outside of Lent, as found in the ancient Roman lectionaries.

The problem is of course that while this sounds like a great idea, it is sufficiently vague that almost any reform could have fulfilled at least the first two terms. The Council asks for the reading of the Scriptures to be “more abundant”, without saying how much more abundant. Ought we to have three readings at Mass like the Ambrosians? Four like the Syro-Malabars? At every Mass, or at some? It asks for it to be “more varied” without saying how much more varied. Is all repetition to be avoided, or only some? And most importantly, it asks for it to be “more suitable”, without giving any indication of where, if at all, the traditional lectionary then in use for well over a millenium in the majority of its parts was not suitable. All of it? Some of it? If so, how much?

The second indication for reform of the lectionary is paragraph 51, “The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.” Here again, a more literal translation is needed. “That a richer table of the word of God may be provided for the faithful, let the treasures of the Bible be opened up more plentifully, so that, within the (or ‘a’) prescribed period of years, the praestantior part of the Sacred Scriptures may be read to the people.”

The Latin word “praesto”, the participle of which is “praestans”, means, “to stand out, to excel, to be superior”. “Praestantior pars” therefore is not “the better part” in the sense of the larger part, but the better part in the sense of the better passages. It does not mean “more representative”. Fundamentally, paragraph 51 says specifically in the section on the Mass (paragraphs 47-58) what paragraph 35 already says about the liturgy in general, and with the same vagueness. No indication is given as to the length of the presumed multi-year cycle, an innovation which Alfonse Cardinal Stickler deemed a “crime against nature”, nor as to which parts of the Bible constitute the “more excellent parts.” It is not too much of a stretch to imagine the great reformers of the Tridentine period, such as Borromeo and Bellarmine, defending the Roman Missal against Luther, Calvin and Cranmer as containing precisely “the reading of the better part of the Scripture for the faithful.” It is also noteworthy that no recipes are given for the laying out of the richer table. Will it be the ancient lectionaries of the Roman Rite (as most of the scholars of the Liturgical Movement would probably have assumed)? The modern lectionary of the Byzantine or Ambrosian Rite? The Book of Common Prayer?

Under these terms, any reform of the lectionary would achieve what the Council asked for, as long as the mere number of readings in the Mass was bigger. But there is no reason to believe that what the Council Fathers thought they were asking for was the almost complete replacement of the traditional lectionary in use for about 12 centuries (and in parts, even longer than that) with something totally new. There is no indication that they thought the lectionary would be expanded mostly without reference to any of the historical sources that the scholarship of their time associated with the Roman Rite (whether rightly or wrongly).

If, on the other hand, we attempt to understand Sacrosanctum Concilium as a whole, the new lectionary does not to fulfill the precept of paragraph 23, “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” (my emphasis) The new lectionary is not an outgrowth or modification of the traditional one, but a wholly new creation.

There are two other important caveats which must be mentioned, regarding the censorship of the Scriptures in the modern lectionary, and the appalling quality of the translations in liturgical use, both of which have significantly vitiated what Sacrosanctum Concilium wished to achieve. To take an example of the first from the current liturgical season: the Roman Rite traditionally reads Luke 3, 1-6 on the 4th Sunday of Advent, the beginning of St. John the Baptist’s public ministry. The Ambrosian Rite, among others, reads a longer version of this Gospel, adding verses 7-18, John’s speech and instructions to the crowds that came to see him in the desert. In the new lectionary, verses 1-6 are read on the 2nd Sunday of Advent in year C, and verses 10-18 on the 3rd Sunday, omitting the first public words of St. John that Luke records:

He said therefore to the multitudes that went forth to be baptized by him: Ye offspring of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance; and do not begin to say, We have Abraham for our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire.

Censorship of this type abounds in the new lectionary, and is often, as here, a reflection of the false irenicism that reigned supreme in so much of the Church in the 1960s. In other cases, it is no more than a sop to the lazy. Three of the most important Gospels of St. John traditionally read in Lent, those of the Samaritan Woman, the Blind Man and the Raising of Lazarus, and the three Synoptics Passions all appear in the new lectionary with optional shorter forms. (The Passion of St. Mark, the longest in proportion to its Gospel as a whole, may be reduced to a mere 39 verses, and the Gospel of the Blind Man to 15!) It is very much to be hoped that a future reform of the lectionary will treat the Scriptures with greater respect.

And then there is the matter of the translations, a problem which has plagued the post-Conciliar liturgical reform in all of its aspects from the beginning. Simply put, they are awful. In many of the major languages in which the Roman Rite is celebrated today, the faithful do not hear the Bible itself in the readings, but a paraphrase so badly done as to substantially distort it. In the United States, the New American Bible is the only one currently authorized for use in the lectionary. It is full of inaccuracies, (“Hail, favored one!”) and completely devoid of literary merit (“Hail, favored one!”). No passage of it stands up well before either the King James Bible or the Douay, even where the latter are incorrect as translations. (I commend to our readers this very good essay from First Things by a brilliant scholar and literary critic, Dr. Anthony Esolen of Providence College in Rhode Island, for a witty excoriation of the language of the NAB, which he calls “Nabbish” to distinguish it from English.)

If the Church truly wishes to open up the treasure of the Scriptures to the faithful, it is time to do for the Bible what has now been successfully done for the rest of the Mass: eliminate the “colorless, odorless, gaseous paraphrase,” as Dr. Esolen rightly calls it, and make a new translation, or choose an older one, that genuinely conveys the truth and majesty of the Word of God.

Is the Medieval Liturgy a Source for the Modern Lectionary?

This article is the fourth of a five-part series occasioned by a recent article by Dr. Kwasniewski. Click the following links to read part 1, part 2 and part 3.

It is a well-known characteristic of the Missal of St. Pius V that comparatively few ferial days have their own readings, an aspect of it which many consider something of a defect. There are of course quite a few exceptions, most notably the whole of Lent, but also the Ember Days, the Rogations, and the octaves of Easter and Pentecost. Nevertheless, in the majority of the weeks of the year, if the Mass is said of the feria, the Epistle and Gospel are repeated from the preceding Sunday. This was the custom of the Medieval ordinals of the Papal court, which are the basis of the 1570 Roman Missal.

Much less well known is that fact that the Use of Rome is not typical in this regard, and that most medieval Missals did in fact have a well-developed repertoire of ferial readings. They are attested in the oldest lectionaries of the Roman Rite, and present in the Missals of most important sees. Among the religious orders, however, they are found only in the Missal of the Premonstratensians.

In the very oldest Roman lectionary, the “Comes Romanus” (Roman lectionary) of Wurzburg, written around 700 A.D., proper readings are assigned to the Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays of the weeks after Epiphany. In Eastertide, there are very few ferial readings, and they are arranged quite irregularly; in the season after Pentecost, some weeks have readings for Wednesday and Friday, others for only one of those days. In point of fact, the whole arrangement of the Wurzburg lectionary is very irregular, while the second oldest lectionary, that of Murbach, written about a century later, is set out in a much more logical and systematic way. Each week of the season per annum has readings for both Wednesday and Friday, as do the weeks between the octave of Easter and Pentecost. The Saturday readings have disappeared, except for those of major ferias like the Ember Days. This is due in all likelihood to the importance laid upon the weekly votive Mass (and Office) of the Virgin Mary, to be said on Saturday whenever there is no feast on the Calendar.

This brings us to another important point about the arrangement of the lectionary. In the oldest Roman lectionaries, every feast has proper readings assigned to it, although several readings are used more than once; there are no “common” readings for any of the various groups of Saints. In a later period, those which occurred most frequently were grouped together to create what are now known as the Commons of the Saints, i.e., “generic” Masses (in the original sense of the word “generic – related to a group”) to be said on the feasts of One Martyr, Several Martyrs etc. Of course, traditionally in the Roman Rite, all of the variable parts of all Masses, whether of the season or of the Saints, are proper; the chants (Introit, Gradual etc.), the three prayers, and the two readings, are always the chants, prayers and readings of that particular Mass. This is not less true for the fact that in both groups, the temporal and the sanctoral, there are many parts which are used on more than one occasion; nor for the fact that commemorations are often made, since they are made as additions to a wholly proper Mass, and not as substitutions for any of its parts.

If, therefore, the Saturdays per annum always have a Saint’s feast or the votive Mass of the Virgin, the ferial readings for Saturdays found in the Wurzburg lectionary would no longer be needed; hence their disappearance from the Murbach lectionary. This is also the reason why ferial readings are only assigned to Wednesdays and Fridays; given the importance of devotion to the Saints in what is more rightly called the Age of Faith, it was never likely that a week would pass with more than two open ferias occurring in it. (The rubrics of most medieval missals provide for moving these reading to an open feria, since feasts may of course very well fall on Wednesday or Friday.)

In the major seasons of Advent and Eastertide, the ferial lessons are chosen in reference to the season, and often to supplement one of the Sunday Gospels. Thus, for example, St. Mark’s account of the Risen Christ’s appearances to Mary Magdalene and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, (chap. 16, 8-13), and St. Matthew’s of the bribing of the guards at the tomb, (chap. 28, 8-15), are found on the Wednesday and Friday respectively of the week after Low Sunday in the Murbach lectionary. They are found in the same place in most medieval missals, except that of the Papal court; hence neither passage is in the Missal of St. Pius V. Many are connected in some way with the readings of the preceding Sunday, whether as the continuation of it, or, more often, the parallel of the previous Sunday’s Gospel in another of the Synoptics. At Sarum, for example, St. Luke’s version of the parable of the sower on Sexagesima Sunday (chap. 8, 4-15) was followed on Wednesday by St. Mark’s version. (chap. 4, 1-9)

In the post-Tridentine period, when most churches gave up their medieval uses for that of Rome as represented by the reformed liturgical books of St. Pius V, the ferial lectionary tradition disappeared almost entirely, since they had not been in use at Rome. The revival of them in some form was occasionally discussed as part of a general project to broaden the corpus of Scriptural readings at the Mass, in much the same way as the expansion of the corpus of Prefaces was also desired by many.

No one will be surprised to read that very little of the ancient ferial lectionary was revived for use in the post-Conciliar reform, since it was closely tied to a system of Sunday readings that was completely changed. Any comparison between it and the multi-year cycles of “ordinary time” would be quite meaningless. However, we may compare the older set of readings for the season of Advent to get an idea of how little it was actually used.

I have tabulated all of the readings for Advent from the two oldest lectionaries, and added to them the readings from a representative sampling of medieval Missals from all over Europe, one from each major nation. (Sarum, the use of which predominated in later medieval England; Paris; Toledo; Augsburg in Germany; Prague; Krakow; and Aquileia in north-eastern Italy, which was formerly a Patriarchate.)

A page of a Parisian Missal printed in 1481, showing the Epistle and Gospel for the Wednesday of the First Week of Advent, and the Gospel of Friday. The medieval Use of Paris often provided two Gospels for the weekdays, but only a single Epistle.

Of the 36 readings from the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Gospels) added ex novo to the post-Conciliar lectionary for Advent, two are attested on ferias of Advent in the ancient lectionaries and the plurality of medieval Missals: James 5, 7-10 and Jeremiah 23, 5-8. (The former is read on a Sunday in the Novus Ordo.) One of the most common medieval readings, Malachi 3, 1-5 and 23-24, is read in the Novus Ordo without verse 5, “And I will come to you in judgment, and will be a speedy witness against sorcerers, and adulterers, and false swearers, and them that oppress the hireling in his wages; the widows, and the fatherless: and oppress the stranger, and have not feared me, saith the Lord of hosts.” A very large number of the new readings are taken from the prophet Isaiah; this was never the case in the medieval lectionaries, since he is principally read at Matins in Advent.

Of the 28 Gospels added to Advent, four and part of a fifth are attested in the ancient lectionaries; three others and part of a fourth are found in the plurality of medieval Missals. One of the most common of the medieval ferial readings, Luke 3, 7-18, has been shortened by the removal of the beginning of St. John the Baptist’s speech to the crowds, “Ye offspring of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? etc.” Almost every single medieval use of the Roman Rite apart from that of Rome itself read St. Matthew’s account of the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday on the first Sunday of Advent (chap. 21, 1-9); this passage was not added to the Novus Ordo lectionary.

It should also be noted that the reading of the ferial Epistles and Gospels on the feasts of the Saints constitutes a radical divergence from the historical practice of the Roman Rite. On the other hand, the repertoire of readings assigned to the Commons of the Saints has been significantly expanded in the new lectionary.

A Note on the Mozarabic "Alleluja" - In Answer to a Reader

I had occasion to mention in a recent article that in the Mozarabic Mass, Alleluja is sung after the Gospel, rather than before it. A reader then asked in the combox why this is so. Lest the answer be lost forever in the wilderness of paleo-commenting… (with my thanks to Fr. Salvador Aguilera, one of the authors of the Spanish-language liturgical blog lex orandi)

The Mozarabic Mass actually has two Allelujas, both of which are sung as a proclamation of, and act of thanksgiving for, the presence of Christ in the liturgy, both in the Word of God and in the Sacrament of the Altar. It turns out that this is not a discovery which was made in 1965.

The first of these Allelujas, after the Gospel is called a Lauda; that of last Sunday, the Second of Advent in the Mozarabic Rite, is as follows:

Alleluja. V. Deus convertens vivificabis nos: et plebs tua letabitur in te. Alleluja.
(O God, turning Thou shalt give us life, and Thy people shall rejoice in Thee.)

The second is almost invariable through out the year, and corresponds roughly to the Communion antiphon of the Roman Rite.

Refecti Christi corpore et sanguine, te laudamus Domine. Alleluja: alleluja: alleluja. (Refreshed by the Body and Blood of Christ, we praise Thee, o Lord.)

The Mozarabic Mass also has a chant called the “Cantus ad Accedentes – the chant as they come forth”, which is sung in roughly the place of the Roman Agnus Dei, as the priest makes his Communion, and prepares to distribute the Sacrament to the faithful. The full text is as follows; note the slightly longer form of the doxology, “Glory and honor to the Father etc.” The Mozarabic liturgy also uses a different text of the Psalms from that found in the Clementine Vulgate and the Roman Breviary.

Gustate et videte quam suavis est Dominus, alleluja: alleluja: alleluja. V. Benedicam Dominum in omni tempore: semper laus ejus in ore meo. Alleluja: alleluja: alleluja. V. Redimet Dominus animas servorum suorum: et non derelinquet omnes qui sperant in cum. Alleluja: alleluja: alleluja. V. Gloria et honor Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto in secula seculorum. Amen. Alleluja: alleluja: alleluja.
(Taste and see how sweet is the Lord. I will bless the Lord at all times, His praise always in my mouth. The Lord will redeem the souls of His servants, and will not abandon any that hope in Him. Glory and honor etc.)