“The Sacrifice of the Mass” - Papers of the Fota XIV Conference

The collected papers given at the Fourteenth Fota International Liturgical Conference, held in Cork, Ireland, in 2023, are now available for pre-order from Smenos Publications. The topic of the conference is the centrality of the concept of sacrifice in understanding the Eucharistic liturgy, and is treated from various Biblical, theological, liturgical and historical perspectives, ranging from how the Mass fulfils the sacrifices of the Old Testament, to aspects of Joseph Ratzinger’s theology of the Eucharist, to the reform of the offertory in the Mass, and to the effects of modern liturgical reform on ritual itself. These proceedings are an important contribution to the ongoing post-conciliar recovery of the Church’s perennial teaching on the sacrifice of the Mass, a teaching deeply rooted in both Scripture and tradition. The papers have been edited by our own Matthew Hazell, who is also one of the contributors.

Foreword (Matthew P. Hazell)

1. “Christ our Passover Lamb” (1 Corinthians 5:7): Continuity, Completion, Newness—Old Testament Fulfilment in Eucharistic Sacrifice (Joseph Briody)
2. Sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae: The Aqedah in the Bible and the Canon of the Mass (Dieter Böhler SJ)
3. Christ’s Death as a Sacrifice of Atonement (Serafino M. Lanzetta)
4. The Sacrifice of the Mass in the New Testament (Thomas Lane)
5. The Heart, Sacrifice, and Koinonia in the Eucharistic Theology of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI (Peter J. McGregor)
6. The Idea of the Holy Mass as Sacrifice in Joseph Ratzinger and Matthias Joseph Scheeben (Sven Leo Conrad FSSP)
7. Why does Participation of the Faithful in the Eucharist require their physical Presence (during Mass)? (Michael Stickelbroeck)
8. The Importance of the offertorium as an Integral Part of Eucharistic Sacrifice: The Offertory as a Challenge to Liturgical Reforms in History (Manfred Hauke)
9. The Reform of the orationes super oblata in the Proper of Time of the 1970/2008 Missale Romanum (Matthew P. Hazell)
10. Sacred Liturgy and the Ritual Process (D. Vincent Twomey SVD)

Sacrosanctum Concilium at 60: Still Dead and Buried

As we all remember, just a few short days ago we had the grand celebrations of the sixtieth anniversary of the promulgation of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963), the magna carta of the liturgical reforms that followed the Council, and that faithfully implemented its provisions.

Or, at least, this is what could have happened, if things had turned out differently. The reality is that this anniversary has gone by almost completely unnoticed: nothing from the Vatican (unless one speaks Albanian!), very little mention from bishops (apart from the Irish), and even liturgists do not seem to have been all that bothered. An exception is provided by Mr Paul Inwood, but even he does not actually seem all that enthusiastic about this anniversary!

Contrary to this general all-round apathy (and not forgetting the contribution of NLM's editor or of Dr Kwasniewski!) is an article by Dom Alcuin Reid, in which he states that:

[I]t has to be said frankly that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not celebrate its sixtieth birthday as tranquilly as we might ourselves hope to do, for the shocking fact is that it has been battered, beaten and abused for decades since its infancy. Sixty sees it staggering across the line without, frankly, much hope of lasting very much longer—despite the ingenious and valiant attempts throughout the different stages of its life of popes, prelates and scholars to prop it up, heal its wounds and get it back on its feet.

Why is this? He goes on to explain:

Putting it quite bluntly, Sacrosanctum Concilium was like a newborn child left out in the cold and ignored whilst people stole its authority to advance their own liturgical agendas… 

Sacrosanctum Concilium had been systematically and thoroughly abused—and the Council made to look foolish—by an adeptly orchestrated Consilium intent on its own modernising liturgical agenda, which had the good fortune of having a pope who would authoritatively sign off its proposals.

Preliminary results of liturgical formation in the Novus Ordo,
June 1971, "Hofheimer Mess-Festival", Germany

This abuse of the Council’s liturgical constitution necessarily came alongside a rewriting of liturgical history, in which certain features of the reformed Roman Rite – supposedly “recovered” through ressourcement – were deemed to be “more traditional” when compared to the usus antiquior. This rewriting of history continues today and, post-Traditionis custodes, is perhaps more prevalent now than it has been for some time. For instance, in a rather poor attempt at satire a few weeks ago, one particular website provided “A brief critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae (1570) by a group of Roman theologians”. The article itself is risible, and a thorough critique by Dr Peter Kwasniewski can be found here, but one part stood out to me in particular (emphasis mine):

The changes we have recalled so far, though disadvantageous, are not necessarily harmful to the faithful. Not so, however, the Offertory Rite. If any part of the Roman rite needed reform, it was surely this. The peculiarity of offering the “unspotted host,” which is still bread, is of course done in anticipation of what it will become, and is perfectly orthodox in context. Nevertheless, in the light of the claim of the Protestants that the elements of bread and wine are not changed, it would be easy for the unlearned to be scandalised… It seems to us that the revisers of the missal might have delved into the treasury of liturgical tradition to suggest some better worded formulae.

The claim here is that the offertory of the traditional Roman Rite is potentially “harmful to the faithful” and that the post-Tridentine reform should “have delved into the treasury of liturgical tradition” for “better worded formulae.” The subtext is that this is precisely what the post-Vatican II Missal does in its reformed offertory texts: the usus recentior is thus more “traditional” and perhaps even theologically superior to the usus antiquior in this regard. Still, for satire to work, it needs at least some basis in reality – and in this case, such a basis is entirely lacking, historically and theologically. How so?

Well, Coetus X of the Consilium ad exsequendam were responsible for the reform of the Order of Mass, and like the failed ‘satirist’ above, they were quite open about their opinion that the traditional offertory prayers were too “anticipatory” of the Canon and needed changing. Indeed, this is expressed very early on in their work, in June 1964:

Everything, therefore, that prefigures the appearance of the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ and in some way anticipates the manner of speaking proper to the Canon of the Mass must be removed or changed. [1] 

This was done so that “what the offertory really means may be expressed more clearly and be more easily perceived by the Christian people.” [2] However, by May 1966 they had ran into unexpected difficulties with regard to this:

We have tried to achieve this end in various ways, either by adapting the Ambrosian and Dominican rites, or by using oratio super oblata formularies taken from the [ancient] sacramentaries, or by drawing up new texts to accompany the rites. It does not seem sufficient simply to lay down the bread and the chalice without reciting any text and only reciting the super oblata prayer, as was done in antiquity. But it was very difficult to find texts which did not anticipate either the super oblata prayer or the Canon of the Mass. [3]

It is almost as if this anticipatory and proleptic nature of the offertory prayers is part of the “treasury of liturgical tradition,” in both East and West, going all the way back to the earliest extant manuscripts we have. Fancy that! Who could have foreseen this? But, of course, this did not mean that the Consilium rethought their working assumptions and ideological viewpoints about the ritual texts of the offertory. They just proceeded to make up entirely new prayers that were in line with what they thought the liturgical tradition ought to have been, rather than what it actually is. Scholars and liturgists often seem to think that: 

the “authentic” and “original” liturgy is to be found in reconstructions of what scholars believed, or wanted to believe, things must have been like before the period from which we have our earliest sources. [link]

A scholarly "reconstruction" of "Piltdown Man", ultimately based on
a hoax combination of human, chimpanzee and orangutan bones 

And as if they were trying their best to demonstrate this, for their reformed offertory Coetus X started with adapting a text from chapter 9 of the Didache and Proverbs 9:1-2 – with changes and omissions they considered ‘suitable’: 

Schema 170

Sicut hic panis erat dispersus et collectus factus est unus,
ita colligatur Ecclesia tua in regnum tuum.
Gloria tibi, Deus, in saecula.

[As this bread was scattered and, having been gathered, is now one,
so may your Church be gathered into your kingdom.
Glory to you, O God, for ever.]

Didache, ch. 9

Sicut hic panis erat super montes, et collectus factus est unus, ita colligatur Ecclesia tua a finibus terrae in regnum tuum.

[As this bread was scattered upon the mountain tops and, having been gathered, is now one, so may your Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.] 

Schema 170

Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum,
miscuit vinum et posuit mensam.
Gloria tibi, Deus, in saecula. [4]

[Wisdom has built herself a house;
she has mixed her wine and set her table.
Glory to you, O God, for ever.]

Proverbs 9:1-2

Sapientia ædificavit sibi domum:
excidit columnas septem.
Immolavit victimas suas, miscuit vinum,
et proposuit mensam suam. 

[Wisdom has built herself a house;
she has hewn her seven pillars.
She has immolated her victims, mixed her wine,
and has also set her table.]

By March 1968, these prayers had been changed for those used today in the Novus Ordo (“Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation…”)—but without the phrase “we offer you.” Coetus X explained these revised prayers as follows: 

In these new formulas various elements may be seen as organically composed: the bounty of God, from whom all gifts come; the work of the earth, which yields fruit in its season; the industry and labour of men; the holy Eucharist, for the preparation of which these gifts are offered. No element is contained that might possibly be falsely understood: either as ‘a sacrifice of bread and wine,’ or as an anticipated offering of the body and blood of Christ, or as a consecratory epiclesis. [5]

Notably, at this point, Paul VI had to step in and effectively force Coetus X to insert quem/quod tibi offerimus to these new formularies. [6] It perhaps should also be noted that no sources are given for these newly-composed prayers: their Jewish berakah background, often cited, [7] is not actually mentioned by the group. But all this is more incidental to my main point, which is that far from being rooted in the liturgical tradition of the Church, whether East or West, the revision of the offertory – or, rather, its changing into the “Preparation of the Gifts” (Præparatio donorum: see GIRM 33, 43, 72-77, 214) – is a thoroughly modern, rationalist innovation, one that goes against Sacrosanctum Concilium 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.” 

The idea of Coetus X and others that everything that anticipates the Eucharistic Prayer “must be removed or changed” finds no basis in the liturgical tradition, which prominently and frequently features prolepsis and anticipatory language. And although the group wanted their ideology to be adopted by the other working groups of the Consilium, [8] this did not happen – indeed, unless one were to completely rewrite many of the super oblata prayers, it could not have happened! For example, on the most solemn day in the liturgical calendar, Easter Sunday, the following super oblata is prayed in the Novus Ordo, where one will note that the word “offer” is in the present tense:

Exultant with paschal gladness, O Lord,
we offer [offerimus] the sacrifice
by which your Church
is wondrously reborn and nourished.

Battered, beaten, distorted, little-read, unloved... still relevant?

At the conclusion of his recent article, Dom Alcuin Reid states that:

Are we to celebrate Sacrosanctum Concilium’s 60th birthday? That hardly seems possible. It is surely a moment for sombre recollection—of remembrance of its noble aims and sound principles, certainly, but also of realistic recognition of the abuse and distortion and banishment it has suffered since its infancy at the hands of those who were charged faithfully to implement it.

The ink was barely dry on the signatures of the Council Fathers before the reformers cast aside the liturgical constitution in favour of their own ideologies and pet theories for ‘reform.’ And today, Sacrosanctum Concilium arguably remains as dead and buried as it was a few short years after its promulgation. As Gregory DiPippo has said:

Sacrosanctum Concilium begins with a statement of what the Council hoped to achieve: “This sacred Council… desires to impart an ever-increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.” None of this has happened. The Christian life of the faithful has not become more vigorous; its institutions have not become more suitably adapted to the needs of our times; union has not been fostered among all who believe in Christ; the call of the whole of mankind into the household of the Church has not been strengthened…
[T]he gardeners are not always correct in discerning which plants are flourishing and which are not. We can only continue to pretend for so long that the recent ones have made a good job of it, or that the garden in its current condition is anywhere near as beautiful or fruitful as it used to be. For the time being, the current chief gardener is busy with a sad and doomed attempt to make the new plants flourish by yelling at the remaining old plants. The day will come, however, later than we hope, but sooner than we realise, when another chief gardener will have the honesty to say, “I don’t care who put these here or why. They are not growing properly at all. I hear there used to be some other plants that grew quite well in this soil…”

It seems inevitable that, at some point in the future (God willing), the colossal legislative mistake that is Traditionis custodes will be abrogated, and questions about a “reform of the reform” will no longer be completely verboten. But at that point – the seventieth anniversary? eightieth? – perhaps it may be time for the Latin Church to consider whether or not to exhume Sacrosanctum Concilium and attempt to stich back together and reanimate its corpse, or to leave its remains discreetly buried with the little dignity they still possess and quietly return in large part to her traditional liturgical praxis.

NOTES

[1] Schema 16 (De Missali, 2), 17 June 1964, p. 7: Tollenda ergo vel mutanda sunt omnia quae speciem oblationis Corporis et Sanguinis Christi prae se ferunt et modum loquendi Canoni missae proprium quodammodo anticipiant.

[2] Ibid., pp. 6-7: Omnibus rei liturgicae peritis constat preces et ritus offertorii plus aliis recognitione indigere, ut id, quod offertorium revera significat, clarius exprimantet a populo christiano facile percipiantur (cfr. [Sacrosanctum Concilium] art. 21, 2).

[3] Schema 170 (De Missali, 23), 24 May 1966, p. 11: Variis modis conati sumus ad hunc finem pervenire, sive adaptando ritum ambrosianum et dominicanum, sive adhibendo formulas orationis super oblata e Sacramentariis desumptas, sive exarando novos textus, qui ritus comitentur. Non sufficere videtur simplex depositio panis et calicis sine ullo textu recitando, oratione super oblata tantum subsequente, sicut agebatur in antiquitate. Sed difficillimum erat invenire textus, qui nec orationem super oblata, nec Canonem Missae anticiparent.

[4] This text is also one of the antiphons for Corpus Christi (Ant. 1, Lauds) in the Breviarium Romanum, but, of course, the function of an antiphon is different from that of an offertory prayer!

[5] Schema 281 (De Missali, 47), Addendum I, 23 April 1968, p. 5: In his novis formulis varia elementa organice composita videntur: largitas Dei, a quo omnia dona perveniunt; opus terrae, quae fructum praebet suo tempore; industria ac labor hominum; sacra Eucharistia, ad quam praeparandam haec dona afferuntur. Nullum elementum continet quod forte false intelligi possit: vel tamquam "sacrificium panis et vini"; vel tamquam oblatio corporis et sanguinis Christi anticipata; vel tamquam epiclesis consecratoria.

[6] Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), p. 371, fn. 37: “In the schema, which was then submitted for study to the prefects of the curial agencies and to the Holy Father, the phrase “which we offer to you” (quem/quod tibi offerimus) was lacking. The Pope was the one who added it.”

[7] See, for example, Michael Witczak, “The Sacramentary of Paul VI,” in Anscar J. Chupungco (ed.) Handbook for Liturgical Studies. Volume III: The Eucharist (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), pp. 133-175, at p. 153: “The Consilium had proposed a rite in which the basic action was simple and clear: preparing the altar and placing the gifts upon it with prayer. The new prayers, beautiful adaptations of the Jewish berakah, complicate the action somewhat. The texts proposed in the experimental liturgy spoke of unity and preparation; the new texts praise God for creation and for giving us bread and wine to offer, a return, obliquely, to the language of offering that was so dominant in the former Missal of 1570.”

[8] See Schema 16, p. 7: “The discussion about the application of these principles in each coetus continued in both the first and second sessions, but the members felt that the matter still needed a longer discussion, to be resumed in the third session” (Horum de principiorum applicatione ad singula coetus et in prima et in secunda sessione disceptationem protraxit, tamen sodalibus visum est rem longiore adhuc indigere deliberatione in tertia sessione iterum resumenda).

Paul VI Against the Council: The Censorship of the Psalms in the Divine Office

The other day, I noticed that the problem of the psalter in the post-Vatican II Liturgy of the Hours was being mentioned again on social media. To reiterate: three psalms were removed entirely from the psalter in the reformed Office (57, 82 and 108), with parts of nineteen others also deleted (see here for a full list). It seems an appropriate moment, therefore, to demonstrate that this censorship of the Psalms goes directly against the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, notwithstanding the desires of a tiny minority of the Fathers.

Shortly after Pope John XXIII announced the Council, a letter was sent out to all bishops and prelates asking them for their suggestions about what should be discussed. Over two-thousand responses were received; these are collectively known as the vota, and make up the antepreparatory (or pre-preparatory) part of the Acta of Vatican II. In my contribution to the 2019 Fota International Liturgical Conference, “The Proposals for Reform of the Roman Breviary in the Antepreparatory Period of Vatican II”, I noted that the omission of the imprecatory psalms from the Roman Breviary was mentioned in only three vota:

• “That it be examined whether some psalms (e.g. the imprecatory psalms) that are difficult for Christians to fruitfully pray may be omitted from the Divine Office”. (Julius Cardinal Dopfner: Bishop of Berlin, Germany: ADA II.1, p. 588)
• “Regarding the Breviary… that several Psalms, full of curses, be substituted [for others].” (Amerigo Galbiati, P.I.M.E., Bishop of Jalpaiguri, India: ADA II.4. p. 149)
• “That in the Breviary the whole of sacred scripture in the New Testament be included; and from the Old Testament, the books of Moses, the historical books, and the four major prophets. Omit the [accounts of] wars and the imprecatory psalms.” (Gaspar Lischerong, S.J., Apostolic Administrator of Daming, China: ADA II.4, p. 568)

Three vota out of over two-thousand is a vanishingly small proportion. However, this idea that some psalms were not suitable for modern prayer would actually be discussed in some detail at the Council’s Central Preparatory Commission, when the draft constitution on the liturgy was being considered in the spring of 1962. This is mostly thanks to the remarks made by Arcadio Cardinal Larraona in his relatio (presentation) of chapter 4 to the Commission, in which he claimed that the omission of the imprecatory psalms was a possibility justifiable by what was then art. 71 of the constitution:

For art. 71: In the arrangement of the psalter, these things need to be revisited… that some psalms which seem less in keeping with the spirit of evangelical charity may be omitted, or recited less frequently… (ADP II.3, p. 331)

In the subsequent discussion by the members of the Commission, Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini gave Psalms 55, 58, 83, 109, 129, 137 and 140 as examples that could be omitted from the psalter in whole or in part (ADP II.3, p. 338), and Carlo Cardinal Confalonieri declared that he had no objection to omitting verses from imprecatory or long historical psalms (ADP II.3, p. 342). In the voting on chapter 4 of the draft constitution, Valerio Cardinal Valeri, Giovanni Cardinal Montini (who would, of course, be elected Pope Paul VI in 1963), Archbishop Victor Bazin and Bishop Johannes Suhr, O.S.B., declared their agreement with Ruffini, with Paolo Cardinal Marella agreeing with both Ruffini and Confalonieri (see ADP II.3, pp. 360-362). Abbot Benno Gut, O.S.B., was alone in his defense of the preservation of the whole psalter in the Breviary (ADP II.3, p. 368). 

The issue of the imprecatory psalms would also be mentioned at the Council itself, with Cardinal Ruffini being the first to raise the issue, just as he was at the Central Preparatory Commission. At the Council’s 14th General Congregation (7 November 1962), Ruffini proclaimed:

However, in the recitation of the Divine Office, especially in the vernacular or by the people—at least by nuns and laity—I think that some psalms should be omitted: those that are called “imprecatory”. Indeed, there is none who does not see how sharply they can pierce souls: e.g. vv. 23-29 of Psalm 68, in which the psalmist calls for the chastisement of enemies… also, almost all of Psalm 108… Saint Thomas Aquinas, with the wisdom and clarity for which he is famed, best interprets and explains the imprecations in the psalms… Nevertheless, because the people are not well-versed in biblical exegesis, many would easily fall into wrath and curses against their neighbours. (AS I.2, p. 329)

Two days later, at the 15th General Congregation (9 November 1962), Antonio Cardinal Bacci would also declare that, in his opinion, various psalms—in fact, almost a third of the psalter!—should be omitted from the Breviary, because the imperfect revelation in the Old Testament has been perfected and fulfilled by the “law of charity and mercy” of the Gospel:

There are not a few psalms which reflect the particular condition of the Hebrew people, and so contribute little to our piety, as well as those which look to the law of retaliation, in force at that time. I give only two examples: Psalm 136… and Psalm 108… Those psalms which are either imprecatory or refer to the particular condition of the Hebrew people are about a third of the psalter. In my opinion, it is appropriate that all these psalms, that are in other respects divinely inspired Sacred Scripture, and consistent with the particular conditions of their times, should be expunged from the Breviary, which is primarily a book of sacred prayer and sacred meditation. Let us recall what the Divine Redeemer said: “You have heard that it was said to those of old… But I say to you.” The law of the Gospel is the perfection of the Old Testament, and in the present-day the law of retaliation is no longer valid, but rather the law of charity and mercy. (AS I.2, p. 409)

Two of the Fathers would say similar things to Cardinal Bacci during the same General Congregation. Bishop Fidel García Martínez (emeritus of Calahorra y La Calzada, Spain) suggested that readings from the Old Testament, including some of the psalms, are difficult to understand because of their incomplete revelation of God, and thus the bulk of the readings in the revised Breviary should be from the New Testament (AS I.2, p. 439). Rev Fr Aniceto Fernández Alonso, O.P., the Master General of the Dominicans, thought that it would perhaps be better to delete the imprecatory psalms from the Breviary. These psalms, he said, are obviously the inspired word of God, and can be read according to their correct interpretation, but “their expressions represent the very imperfect revelation of the Old Testament and reflect the very imperfect morality of that time”, giving the examples of Psalms 68, 108, and 136. Such psalms, according to him, are “less suitable in our day for fostering and expressing the sublime effects of charity.” (AS I.2, pp. 461-462)

Psalm 108 in the 9th century Utrecht Psalter, fol. 64r

Three other Fathers mentioned the possible removal of the imprecatory psalms from the Breviary in their written submissions to the Conciliar Liturgical Commission:

• Bishop Anton Reiterer, M.C.C.I. (Lydenburg, South Africa), wanted to “remove from the Breviary all the psalms which cannot be properly said, namely: historical and imprecatory psalms” (AS I.2, p. 560);
• In his comments, Rev Fr Mariano Oscoz, E.C.M.C. (Prior General Emeritus of the Camaldolese Hermits of Mount Corona), expressed the same logic as others (i.e. the imperfect morality of the Old Testament), and suggested it would be “sufficient” for the Council to “approve the general principle” of the removal of the imprecatory and other obscure psalms; in fact, Fr Oscoz used the Rule of Saint Benedict (RB 19.7) as justification for this! (AS I.2, p. 555)
• Archbishop Domenico Luca Capozi, O.F.M., in a slightly more vague manner, asked for the breviary psalms “to be selected in such a way that they are not too long, and those that do not foster piety are abandoned.” (AS I.2, p. 505)

Contrary to this, a number of Fathers defended the principle of the entire psalter being prayer in the Breviary. Again, at the Council’s 16th General Congregation, Abbot Jean Prou, O.S.B. (Solesmes), stated that it was “most desirable that the entire psalter be preserved in the sacred liturgy, not excluding the so-called imprecatory psalms, which can be more easily understood in a spiritual sense”. He also mentioned the fact that similar material in the New Testament and the liturgy would have to be deleted (he cites the Book of Revelation and the introit to the Mass formulary Intret in conspectu, in the Common of Several Martyrs outside Easter: see AS I.2, p. 446). Bishop Emilio Guano (Livorno, Italy) stated that “In my opinion, it is preferable to preserve the entire psalter, including the so-called imprecatory psalms, over one week, so that more and more priests, religious and the Church are imbued with the prayer of the Old Testament and of Christ himself.” (AS I.2, p. 458)

Abbot Benedikt Reetz, O.S.B. (Beuron), in a written intervention, forcefully defended the integrity of the psalter in the Breviary, contra Cardinal Ruffini:

I see no reason at all why one or the other psalm should be excluded from the Divine Office because of curses and imprecations, as proposed by His Eminence Cardinal Ruffini… The whole psalter belongs to the treasury of the sacred Scriptures, and we believe it is also inspired in those parts which are not fully understood by us now because of the fragility and weakness of our intellect. Who claims the right to exclude certain psalms from the Divine Office, and what will be the criteria for this exclusion? … For nearly twenty centuries, the Catholic Church has sung all 150 psalms in their entirety, and there is no reason why she should deviate from this tradition in the 20th century. (AS I.2, p. 559)

It is this latter group of Fathers who would prevail in the discussion. When the revised chapter IV of the constitution on the liturgy was presented to the Council Fathers on 21 October 1963, Bishop Joseph Martin (Nicolet, Canada) gave the relatio explaining the various changes made. In these remarks, he also explained that the Conciliar Liturgical Commission had considered the suggestions that the imprecatory and historical psalms should be removed from the Breviary:

However, another question of no small importance, which does not derive its origin from the text [of the Constitution], has arisen concerning the psalter. Some of the Fathers wish to expunge from the breviary those psalms which express imprecations and vengeance, or even those which provide insufficient revelation about the latter, or, indeed, historical psalms or those that ‘foster insufficient piety’. Other Fathers rejected these opinions, and our Commission adheres to this rejection: the whole psalter belongs to the treasury of the sacred Scriptures, and we believe it is also inspired in those parts which are not fully understood by us now because of the fragility and weakness of our intellect. In such an arbitrary selection of the psalms, one might perhaps indulge ‘rationalist’ tendencies; moreover, we fear that such a thing would be astonishing to the brethren who have separated from us. ‘For whatever was written was written for our instruction’ (Romans 15:4) Otherwise, those parts of the sacred liturgy, taken also from the New Testament, which speak of the same things would have to be expunged. (AS II.3, pp 136-137, emphasis mine).

So, to reiterate: the Council Fathers were told by the Conciliar Liturgical Commission that it was in no way envisaged that the constitution on the liturgy would justify the omission of certain psalms from the Divine Office. Sacrosanctum Concilium did not mention this, and the Commission explicitly excluded the possible interpretation or use of article 91 to justify it. This is important, because for many other specific suggestions for the future reform of the liturgy, the Commission told the Fathers that they would be referred to the “post-conciliar commission” to deal with, since the constitution was intended mainly to give the general principles of the reform. [1] In this instance, however, the Council Fathers were specifically told that the provisions in SC 91 did not envisage or allow for any psalms or parts of psalms to be deleted.

How, then, did we end up with a reform of the breviary in which parts of the psalter have been arbitrarily removed due to “certain psychological difficulties” (General Instruction on the Liturgy of the Hours, n. 131)? The blame for this lies almost entirely with Pope Paul VI. Both the consultors and members of the Consilium ad exsequendam voted numerous times in favour of keeping the entire psalter in the revised Office. [2] Paul VI ignored them. The 1967 Synod of Bishops voted overwhelmingly to keep the entire psalter in the revised Office — 117 placet, 25 non placet, 31 placet iuxta modum. [3] Paul VI ignored them.

It is true to say that the secretary of the Consilium had a hand in Paul VI sticking with his decision, as Bugnini attached his own observations to the Consilium’s final vote in favour of retaining the whole psalter, in what has been described as “bold and unwarranted interventions against the majority opinion of the Consilium.” [4] Equally, however, as we have seen above, Paul VI seemed to have had already made up his mind about censoring the psalter years before he was even elected Pope. And, ultimately, the final decision was his and his alone.

I don’t think it should be controversial — though in the current climate of the “unique expression of the Roman Rite”, it may be politically incorrect! — to say that Paul VI was wrong here: wrong to go against the specifically expressed intentions of the Council, wrong to go against the vote of the Synod of Bishops, and wrong to go against the majority of the members and consultors of the Consilium. As Gregory DiPippo has written elsewhere, “The Church lives as it lives now very largely because Paul VI rejected and did not fulfil the will of the Second Vatican Council” and I would certainly concur with that.

I would also concur with many others that the full psalter needs restoring to the post-Vatican II Liturgia horarum as a matter of urgency. As I have demonstrated above, this is in fact an issue of fidelity to the Second Vatican Council. It is also a corrective to the incredibly flawed notion that it is somehow ‘psychologically’ or ‘spiritually’ impossible to pray the full psalter in the modern world. The danger with continuing to censor the psalter in this manner is well-expressed by Trevor Laurence in his recent book, Cursing with God: The Imprecatory Psalms and the Ethics of Christian Prayer (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2022), published just last year:

The sanitized liturgies of many modern churches fail to accurately reflect the realities of life in this kind of world… the community that does not learn together through Scripture’s psalmic script how to bring its wounds and the wounds of the world before God, cultivate a rightly ordered anger, and plead in prayer for the justice of divine judgment will be uncertain whether their longings for justice belong in the presence of God at all and will risk inadvertently shaping its members to nurse wounds, vent anger, and pursue justice after the pattern of the world—contributing to, rather than confronting and challenging, the seemingly perpetual cycles of violence. (pp. 5-6)

Realistically, however, the reintroduction of the integral psalter to the post-conciliar liturgical books won’t be happening, at least any time soon, as the logic of both Traditionis custodes and Desiderio desideravi (in particular, nn. 31 and 61) mitigate against any such notion of this “reform of the reform.” Even though Pope Francis has (albeit obliquely) critiqued this censoring of the psalms, those that pray the post-Vatican II Liturgy of the Hours will have to live for the foreseeable future with Paul VI’s personal opinion that the Roman psalter should be deformed. Still, there’s always the traditional Breviarium Romanum, or the traditional monastic offices, and also the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship: Daily Office, which preserves the whole psalter in course, spread over one month at Mattins and Evensong.

NOTES

[1] See, e.g., AS II.3, p. 274, where the details of what feast days will be on the revised calendar is left to the “post-conciliar commission”; AS II.4, p. 26, where details about sacred art are left to the “post-conciliar commission”; AS II.2, p. 307, where a whole list of specifics is left to the “post-conciliar commission”, etc.

[2] See Stanislaus Campbell, From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours: The Structural Reform of the Roman Office 1964-1971 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), pp. 151-154.

[3] See Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), p. 507.

[4] Campbell, From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours, p. 71.

The Acta of the Second Vatican Council: Now Freely Available in Their Entirety

It gives me great joy to announce, nearly eight years since I first started this project and three years after the last update, that all sixty-two volumes of the Acta et Documenta and Acta Synodalia of the Second Vatican Council have now been digitised! This means that the entire primary documentation of Vatican II is now freely accessible to both researchers and the general public, via archive.org.

We currently find ourselves in an era where even the highest authorities in the Church are claiming, for example, that the Council changed our fundamental liturgical theology, that the celebration of Mass versus populum is a sign of the “concrete manifestation of the acceptance of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council”, and even that the current farce that is the “synod on synodality” is “at the heart of the work of renewal the Council was encouraging”. All of this revisionist history would, of course, be very surprising to the Council Fathers, and the Acta makes this abundantly clear. As Archbishop Agostino Marchetto has put it, the Council’s Acta are (or should be) the “secure basis” for its interpretation. Now that this mammoth digitisation project has been finished (Deo gratias!), it is my hope that this neglected body of primary source material will be better utilised by historians, theologians, scholars - indeed, by anyone who is interested in what Vatican II actually said!

I would like to express my deep gratitude to all those people who, over the years, have been very encouraging and generous in their support of this project. Particular mention should go to Rev Fr Damonn Sypher, F.S.S.P. and Mr Roger McCaffrey, who were incredibly helpful during my acquisition of some of the out-of-print volumes of the Acta et Documenta, and Mr Fernando Penachin, whose help with scanning AS III.2, III.4 and III.6 has been absolutely invaluable. Many, many thanks!

Pope John XXIII during the preparation of Vatican II

The Antepreparatory Period of Vatican II (1959-60)

Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II Apparando.
Series I (Antepraeparatoria)

Volumen I: Acta Summi Pontificis Ioannis XXIII

This volume contains all the documents, letters, speeches, etc. given by Pope John XXIII in the antepreparatory period of the Second Vatican Council.

Volumen II: Consilia et vota Episcoporum ac Praelatorum

The eight parts of this volume contain the written submissions and replies (vota) to the letter sent to the bishops and prelates of the world asking what they would like to see discussed at the upcoming Council. Parts 1-3 are for Europe, part 4 for Asia, part 5 for Africa, part 6 for North and Central America, part 7 for South America and Oceania, and part 8 for religious congregations.

• Pars I: Europa: Anglia, Austria, Belgium, Dania, Finnia, Gallia, Gedanum, Germania
• Pars II: Europa: Gibraltaria, Graecia, Helvetia, Hibernia, Hispania, Hollandia, Hungaria, Islandia, Iugoslavia, Lettonia, Lucemburgum, Lusitania, Melita, Norvegia, Polonia, Portus Herculis Monoeci, Suetia, Turchia Europaea
• Pars III: Europa: Italia
• Pars IV: Asia
• Pars V: Africa
• Pars VI: America Septemtrionalis et Centralis
• Pars VII: America Meridionalis - Oceania
• Pars VIII: Superiores generales religiosorum

Appendix voluminis II: Analyticus conspectus consiliorum et votorum quae ab episcopis et praelatis data sunt

The two parts of this appendix to Volume II provide an analytic overview of the vota. They are distilled into 9,348 brief propositions, organised by subject, with each proposition having one or more diocese/religious order cited in the footnotes.

• Pars I: Doctrinae capita, Normae generales C.I.C., De personis, Disciplina cleri, De seminariis, De religiosis, De laicis
• Pars II: De sacramentis, De locis sacris, De praeceptis ecclesiasticis, De cultu divino, De magisterio ecclesiastico, De beneficiis et de bonis Ecclesiae temporalibus, De processibus, De delictis et poenis, De missionibus, De oecumenismo, De actuositate Ecclesiae

Volumen III: Proposita et monita SS. Congregationum Curiae Romanae
This volume contains the vota of the various congregations of the Roman Curia.

Volumen IV: Studia et vota Universitatum et Facultatum ecclesiasticarum et catholicarum.

The two parts of this volume contains the vota of the various Catholic faculties and universities around the world. Part 1 (in two tomes) deals with the institutions in Rome, and part 2 contains the vota of the institutions outside of Rome.

• Pars I-1: Universitates et Facultates in Urbe, 1
• Pars I-2: Universitates et Facultates in Urbe, 2
• Pars II: Universitates et Facultates extra Urbem

Indices

The antepreparatory series ends with this index volume, which includes detailed statistics of the responses and response rates for the worldwide Church.

Pope John XXIII signing the apostolic constitution Humanae salutis (25 Dec 1961), solemnly convoking the Second Vatican Council.

The Preparatory Period of Vatican II (1960-62)

Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II Apparando.
Series II (Praeparatoria)

Volumen I: Acta Summi Pontificis Ioannis XXIII

This volume contains all the documents, letters, speeches, etc. given by Pope John XXIII during the preparatory period of the Second Vatican Council.

Volumen II: Acta Pontificiae Commissionis centralis praeparatoriae Concilii oecumenici Vaticani II

The four parts of this volume contains the acts of the Central Preparatory Commission, which met over seven sessions from June 1961 to June 1962 in order to discuss and refine the schemata that would be put before the Council at its first session.

• Pars I: Sessio prima: 12-20 Iunii 1961; sessio secunda: 7-17 Novembris 1961
• Pars II: Sessio tertia: 15-23 Ianuarii 1962; sessio quarta: 19-27 Februarii 1962
• Pars III: Sessio quinta: 26 Martii-3 Aprilis 1962; sessio sexta: 3-12 Maii 1962
• Pars IV: Sessio septima: 12-19 Iunii 1962

Volumen III: Acta Commissionum et Secretariatuum praeparatoriorum Concilii oecumenici Vaticani II

The two parts of this volume contain the final drafts of the schemata from the ten Preparatory Commissions and two Secretariats.

• Pars I: Commissiones: Theologica, De episcopis et dioceseon regimine, De disciplina cleri et populi christiani, De religiosis, De disciplina sacramentorum
• Pars II: Commissiones: De sacra liturgia, De studiis et seminariis, De Ecclesiis orientalibus, De missionibus, De apostolatu laicorum. Secretariatus: De scriptis prelo edendis et de spectaculis moderandis, ad christianorum unitatem fovendam

Volumen IV: Acta Subcommissionum Commissionis centralis praeparatoriae Concilii oecumenici Vaticani II

The three parts of this volume (part 3 in two tomes) contain the acts of the various subcommissions of the Central Preparatory Commission that also examined the draft schemata before the Council started.

• Pars I: Subcommissio de normis condendis
• Pars II: Subcommissio de materiis mixtis
• Pars III-1: Subcommissio de schematibus emendandis. Sessiones I-VII, 22 Ianuarii-11 Maii 1962
• Pars III-2: Subcommissio de schematibus emendandis. Sessiones VIII-XIV, 15 Iunii-20 Iulii 1962

The bishops and prelates of the world at the Council

The Second Vatican Council (1962-65)

Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II

Volumen I: Periodus prima

The four parts of volume I cover the first session of the Council (October 11 - December 8, 1962).

• Pars I: Sessio publica I. Congregationes Generales I-IX
• Pars II: Congregationes Generales X-XVIII
• Pars III: Congregationes generales XIX-XXX
• Pars IV: Congregationes generales XXXI-XXXVI

Volumen II: Periodus secunda
The six parts of volume II cover the second session of the Council (September 29 - December 4, 1963).

• Pars I: Sessio publica II. Congregationes generales XXXVII-XXXIX
• Pars II: Congregationes generales XL-XLIX
• Pars III: Congregationes generales L-LVIII
• Pars IV: Congregationes generales LIX-LXIV
• Pars V: Congregationes generales LXV-LXXIII
• Pars VI: Congregationes generales LXXIV-LXXIX. Sessio publica III

Volumen III: Periodus tertia
The eight parts of volume III cover the third session of the Council (September 14 - November 21, 1964).

• Pars I: Sessio publica IV. Congregationes generales LXXX-LXXXII
• Pars II: Congregationes generales LXXXIII-LXXXIX
• Pars III: Congregationes generales XC-XCV
• Pars IV: Congregationes generales XCVI-CII
• Pars V: Congregationes generales CIII-CXI
• Pars VI: Congregationes generales CXII-CXVIII
• Pars VII: Congregationes generales CXIX-CXXII
• Pars VIII: Congregationes generales CXXIII-CXXVII. Sessio publica V

Volumen IV: Periodus quarta
The seven parts of volume IV cover the fourth and final session of the Council (September 14 - December 8, 1965).

• Pars I: Sessio publica VI. Congregationes generales CXXVIII-CXXXII
• Pars II: Congregationes generales CXXXIII-CXXXVII
• Pars III: Congregationes generales CXXXVIII-CXLV
• Pars IV: Congregationes generales CXLVI-CL
• Pars V: Congregationes generales CLI-CLV. Sessio publica VII
• Pars VI: Congregationes generales CLVI-CLXIV. Sessio publica VIII
• Pars VII: Congregationes generales CLXV-CLXVIII

Volumen V: Processus verbales
The three parts of volume V contain the documentation relating to the Central Coordinating Commission of the Council in its various forms.

• Pars I: Consilium praesidentiae (1962). Secretariatus de Conc. negotiis extra ordinem (1962). Commissio de Conc. laboribus coordinandis (Sessiones I-VII: 21 ianuarii - 23 octobris 1963)
• Pars II: Commissio de Concilii laboribus coordinandis (Sessiones VIII-XVII: 29 octobris 1963 - 7 octobris 1964)
• Pars III: Commissio de Concilii laboribus coordinandis (Sessiones XVIII-XXIII: 15 octobris 1964 - 1 decembris 1965). Moderatores (30 octobris 1963 - 26 octobris 1965)

Volumen VI: Acta Secretariae generalis
The four parts of this volume contain the documentation relating to the General Secretary of the Council, Archbishop Pericle Felici, covering the four sessions of the Council (with some of part 4 also going up to 1967).

• Pars I: Periodus prima : MCMLXII
• Pars II: Periodus secunda : MCMLXIII
• Pars III: Periodus tertia : MCMLXIV
• Pars IV: Periodus quarta : MCMLXV

Indices
This volume, keyed into Volumes I-IV, contains various indices, the major one being the index of names of bishops and prelates at the Council.

Appendices

Although published as part of the Acta Synodalia, the two parts of the appendix also partly cover the antepreparatory and preparatory periods. The first part mainly contains extra material and documentation found in the archives after the publication of the Acta. The second part is mostly extra indices, to be used in conjunction with the relevant volumes of the Acta.

• Appendix: Prima
• Appendix: Altera

Yves Congar: Liturgical Prophet?

Though I have read many of his works, I do not lay claim to being an expert on the theology of Yves Congar, one of the most prominent figures in 20th century Catholic theology, and contributor to many of the documents of Vatican II. However, I think it would be fair to say that, for Congar, liturgy is ecclesiology in action — “liturgical realism”, as he called it. But how was the post-Vatican II liturgical reform to be carried out in a way faithful to tradition, while at the same time being open to the needs of “modern man” and able to be “authentic” in the modern world? (I leave aside the question of how desirable this reform is today!) In this interesting extract from an essay of his, published in La Maison-Dieu at the beginning of 1969, we can see this (post-)conciliar tension between ressourcement and aggiornamento, and some of the dangers Congar prophesied if the reform was to go awry:

The liturgy, which has long been and which seemed forever immutable, is today in full mutation: “They're changing our religion on us.” The changes come from a powerful appeal to a greater authenticity: either in reference to the original forms, by a recourse to a purer tradition beyond the over-encumbrances so mixed up with history, or in reference to the requests of evangelism so alive today in the midst of a world without faith, or finally by virtue of a need, characteristic of one-dimensional man, to express himself, personally or collectively, in the truth of his feelings — this, obviously, entails a certain danger of attributing decisive importance to psychological and sociological data, which are likely to soon give way to other data. With these changes, we have already lost incomparable wealth: probably not on the side of the faithful, for whom the change seems resolutely beneficial to us, but on the side of the clerics. Men who, like me, are aware of having benefitted immensely from the Latin liturgy, find it difficult to see whole sections of an age-old treasure fall into the abyss of oblivion, from which only a few specialists will drag them out from time to time. We entered into this heritage, not without requests, but peacefully. Petitions for authenticity are not, in fact, new, and more than one reform had been undertaken by Pius X or Pius XII. But we still lived in the ancient mass of the liturgical building. Today, we have left it, and we aspire to new creations. [...]

In the face of all this, the liturgy provides very fine resources, but it also poses demands relating to its very nature, and therefore to its truth. It is, by definition, everyone's thing. It cannot simply marry the psychological and sociological data of a group or moment. It includes an invitation to go beyond them in the name of the demands of a broader agape. It should be a place of peace. Entering, without dispute, into an objectively fixed order is certainly favourable to peace, but it also gives rise to dissatisfaction. Personally, we are deeply impressed by this specific character of the liturgy of assuming the living heritage of the centuries and of always being, as a jewellery box preserving the whole Tradition, “the great didascalia of the Church.” For, on the one hand, the symbolic expression contains the totality of a reality, well beyond what can be expressed or understood conceptually. On the other hand, the conservative character of the liturgy allows it to preserve and transmit intact those values whose importance one era may have forgotten, but which the following era is happy to find intact and preserved, so it can live from them again. Where would we be if liturgical conservatism had not resisted the taste of the late Middle Ages for sensitive devotions, or the individualistic, rationalist and moralising imperatives of the eighteenth century, or the criticism of the nineteenth century, or the subjective philosophies of the modernist era? Thanks to the liturgy, everything has been preserved and transmitted to us. Oh, let us not expose ourselves to incurring, in sixty years, the reproach of having squandered the sacred heritage of the Catholic communion as it unfolds in the gradual progress of time.

Yves Congar, “Autorité, initiative, coresponsabilité”,
La Maison-Dieu 97.1 (1969), pp. 34-57, at pp. 53-55

(English translation by Matthew P. Hazell)

“Enrichment” by Impoverishment? The Fate of the Propers for the 4th Sunday after Epiphany in the Modern Missale Romanum

The collect, secret and postcommunion in the traditional Roman Rite for this coming Sunday, the 4th after Epiphany, have over a millennium of attested use in the liturgy. It is concerning, therefore, to note that, despite this, neither the collect nor the postcommunion for this Sunday are contained anywhere in the Novus Ordo, a book so often described as an “enrichment” of the Roman Rite, and more recently as containing “all the elements” of it. Let us take a brief look at the history of this Sunday’s prayers, and their fate in the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms.

The 4th Sunday after Epiphany (Dom IIII post Theophaniam), in the
Sacramentarium Triplex, Zürich, Zentralb. Ms. C 43, ff. 35r-35v

Collect (CO 1898)

Deus, qui nos, in tantis perículis constitútos, pro humána scis fragilitáte non posse subsístere: da nobis salútem mentis et córporis; ut ea, quæ pro peccátis nostris pátimur, te adiuvánte vincámus.

O God, who know that our human frailty cannot stand fast against the great dangers that beset us, grant us health of mind and body, that with your help we may overcome what we suffer on account of our sins.

The Corpus orationum tells us that this prayer appears in a total of forty-three manuscripts, dating from the 8th century. In all of these, it is an Epiphanytide collect, and in the vast majority of them (thirty-seven), it is used on the 4th Sunday after Epiphany, just as we find in the 1962 Missale Romanum.

It has completely disappeared from the Novus Ordo. It seems more than likely that the phrase in tantis perículis constitútos, pro humána scis fragilitáte non posse subsístere was deemed not suitable for the new, post-Vatican II “modern mentality”. [1]

Secret (CO 749)

Concéde, quǽsumus, omnípotens Deus: ut huius sacrifícii munus oblatum fragilitátem nostrum ab omni malo purget semper et múniat.

Grant, we pray, almighty God, that what we offer in sacrifice may cleanse us in our frailty from every evil and always grant us your protection.

This prayer has a variety of use in the tradition, the two main groups being:

• as an Epiphanytide secret, in forty manuscripts from the 8th century onwards (thirty-three of which use it on the 4th Sunday after Epiphany);
• as a Lenten secret: thirty-one manuscripts, from the 9th century onwards (note that in twenty-five of these, it is also used as an Epiphanytide secret).

The Corpus orationum also gives a third group of ten manuscripts, dating from the 8th century onwards, which use this prayer in diverse ways, with frequent duplication: in Advent (five manuscripts), Lent (three manuscripts), the Proper/Common of Saints (four manuscripts), and Votive Masses (two manuscripts). In one of these manuscripts, this secret/super oblata prayer is actually used as a collect!

In the 1962 Missal, this secret is used on Saturday in Week 3 of Lent as well as the 4th Sunday after Epiphany, and in every one of the thirty-one manuscripts where this prayer occurs in Lent, it is duplicated on the 4th Sunday after Epiphany. As per the policies of Coetus XVIII bis of the Consilium, [2] in the Novus Ordo this duplication is eliminated, in this case by removing the prayer’s (slightly earlier and better-attested!) use in Epiphanytide, and retaining its Lenten use. However, it has been moved to Thursday in Week 4 of Lent, a day on which it is never attested in the manuscript tradition. Of course, the post-Vatican II liturgical reformers couldn’t possibly have retained this prayer on a Sunday – after all, the phrase fragilitátem nostrum ab omni malo purget semper et múniat is obviously much too difficult for most of the faithful!

Postcommunion (CO 3321 b)

Múnera tua nos, Deus, a delectatiónibus terrénis expédiant: et cæléstibus semper instáurent aliméntis.

May your gifts, O God, detach us from earthly pleasures and ever renew us with heavenly nourishment.

The Corpus orationum informs us that there is some limited variation in the use of this prayer: three manuscripts use it in the Proper/Common of Saints, with relevant textual additions. In the vast majority of manuscripts (forty-two), however, it is an Epiphanytide postcommunion, with thirty-five manuscripts using it on the 4th Sunday after Epiphany, as we find in the 1962 Missal.

But, like this Sunday’s collect, this postcommunion is nowhere to be found in the Novus Ordo. And, like the collect, it is highly likely it is the phrase a delectatiónibus terrénis expédiant that was deemed unsuitable for “modern man” and what Fr Carlo Braga called the “new perspective of human values”. [3] The only changes the Consilium was originally going to make to this postcommunion were two minor “restorations” to the text as it is given in the Gelasianum Vetus (n. 1267; cf. CO 3321 a): Múnera tua nos... was to become Mensa tua nos... and instáurent adjusted to instruat. Furthermore, it should be noted that all the prayers for the 4th Sunday after Epiphany were originally going to be kept intact as a set in the reformed Missal on the same Sunday: see Schema 186 (De Missali, 27), 19 September 1966, p. 18. [4]

Schema 186 (De Missali, 27), 19 September 1966, p. 18

So, this coming Sunday provides yet more material in the traditional Roman Rite – prayers used for at least 1,200 years in the Church – that was omitted from the post-Vatican II Missal because it was sifted through the ideological filter of the 1960s “experts” and considered “too difficult”. It is difficult to see this so-called “enrichment” of the Roman Missal as anything but an impoverishment in many respects. As Fr John Hunwicke has aptly put it:

[T]he motives controlling the selections [the Consilium] made, and their editorial alterations, have a consistent mens, videlicet, to enforce a levelling-down: [in the Novus Ordo] we end up with a liturgical culture squeezed everywhere into the straight-jacket of one decade. On the other hand, the Authentic Use, having evolved organically over two millennia, picking up like a glacier diverse materials from every age it passed through, contains within it so much more cultural diversity.

NOTES

[1] See, e.g., Lauren Pristas, “The Orations of the Vatican II Missal: Policies for Revision”, Communio 30 (Winter 2003), pp. 621-653, at p. 633 (quoting a 1971 essay by Dom Antoine Dumas): “In the liturgical renewal, from the beginning the revisers regarded concern for truth and simplicity to be particularly indispensable so that the texts and rites might be perfectly—or at the least much better—accommodated to the modern mentality to which it must give expression while neglecting nothing of the traditional treasury to which it remains the conduit.” Of course, more often than not, for the Consilium “accommodating the modern mentality” took priority over “neglecting nothing of the traditional treasury” of prayers, as the statistics show.

[2] See Schema 186 (De Missali, 27), 19 September 1966, pp. 1-2: Ergo, pro unoquoque textu, pluries in missali occurrente, perpaucis exceptis, usum antiquiorem retinuimus. Pro missis, quae exinde orationibus carent, novas selegimus. I QUAESITUM: Placetne Patribut ut, in missali romano recognito, textus orationum non repetatur? (“Therefore, for every text that frequently occurs in the Missal, its ancient use is to be retained, with very few execptions. For Masses which lack orations after this, new texts are to be selected. QUESTION 1: Does it please the Fathers that, in revising the Roman Missal, the text of orations not be repeated?”) It should be noted that this policy is a direct result of Coetus XVIII bis taking n. 51 of Sacrosanctum Concilium out of its original context, and applying it in a manner which was never envisaged by the Council Fathers: see my article “Continuity or Rupture, Again: An Example of the Consilium’s (Ab)use of the Constitution on the Liturgy”.

[3] See part four (of five) of my translation of Braga’s essay “Il «Proprium de Sanctis»”, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84.6 (1970), pp. 401-431 (at p. 419).

[4] For more on Schema 186, and an arrangement of it in parallel with the 1962 and 1970/2008 Missals, see my book The Proper of Time in the Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms (Lectionary Study Press, 2018) (Amazon USA, UK; PDF)

Follow Matthew Hazell’s Work on Facebook

As I am sure our readers already know, our colleague Matthew Hazell has been doing yeoman’s work documenting the post-Conciliar alteration of the liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, meticulously demonstrating what exactly was kept, what was suppressed, what was changed, edited, censored, invented, moved, etc. He regularly posts threads on his Twitter covering specific topics, in addition to articles here and on Rorate Caeli. (See this one, for example, about the mutilation of the prayers of St Nicholas.) For those who prefer Facebook, he now has a new page titled “Ordinary vs. Extraordinary: Comparing the Modern and Ancient Roman Rite.” His research is edifying not only as a demonstration via negativa of how routinely and how thoroughly the work of the Consilium betrayed the wishes of the Concilium, but also, via positiva, how ancient and universal so many of the traditional prayers of the Roman Rite really are. Feliciter tibi, optime Matthaee!

Graphic by Matthew Hazell, from the first post linked above, demonstrating the real percentage of the prayers of the Roman Missal that survived the Consilium unchanged.

What They Requested, What They Expected, and What Happened: An Addendum, from Pope Paul VI

Cardinal Montini, in favour of keeping
the Roman Canon in Latin

As an addendum to Dr Kwasniewski's excellent translations a couple of days ago of what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council requested and expected would happen with regards to the use of vernacular languages in the Mass, I thought I would add something else from the conciliar Acta that NLM readers (and others) may find of interest.

This particular extract comes from the meetings of the Central Preparatory Commission (CPC) of Vatican II, which met over seven sessions held between June 1961 and June 1962. The CPC was the body that was responsible for discussing and refining the schemata drafted by the various preparatory commissions, and which were due to be put before the Council at its first session. The draft Constitution on the Liturgy was discussed by the CPC at its fifth session (26 March to 3 April 1962). Among its members was the Archbishop of Milan, one Giovanni Battista Cardinal Montini, who would be elected Pope Paul VI in 1963, and had the following to say about the use of the vernacular in the Mass (my translation: Montini's own emphases are in italics; my emphasis is in bold):

The Latin language, proper to the Roman Rite, must be preserved, for multiple and serious reasons, frequently confirmed by the Church.

But this statement does not invalidate the other, expressed several times, even publicly from the first speakers in this group or heard from the Commission of the Ecumenical Council, that is, “language is not to be attributed as among the first elements of religion (it is not ‘of the essence of religion’, as the philosophers say), even if one and the same language is a clear sign of unity and an effective instrument for the accurate transmission of truth.”

Do we not see the grave and ultimate loss that is imminent? If the common language is excluded from the sacred Liturgy, we will certainly miss the best opportunity to instruct the faithful, to restore divine worship… indeed, this [missed opportunity] happens because of reasons that are not pertinent to ‘the substance of religion’!

The proper or common language of each nation must be used:

In the first part of the Mass (the Liturgy of the word, as it is called): whether in the oration (Collect), because according to the thinking of Saint Paul, the word “Amen” demands the understanding of the people; or in the Introit, since this announces the mystery to be celebrated; or in the Epistle and Gospel, as is clear; or in the Profession of Faith (Creed), which best concludes the teaching of either the Prophet or Apostle or Christ or the Church; or in the oration at the Offertory [i.e. the secret/super oblata], as this is the most excellent invocation of the whole community, already used since the second century of the Christian era, and which provides an opportunity to declare the “intention of the sacrifice”.

In the rest of the Mass, the Latin language will be kept, except perhaps for the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father), which is, as it were, the summit of public prayer, and is the best preparation of souls for Communion.

Even in hymns (cf. Saint Paul), the common language should be used, so that the people can understand their poetry and beauty, and may be easily lifted up to God.

And the Latin text of his intervention at the CPC meeting:

[Lingua latina servanda est ut romani ritus propria, ob multiplices gravesque causas, saepius ab Ecclesia confirmatas.

Sed hoc enuntiatum alterum non infirmat enuntiatum quad saepius, etiam coram Consilio primario seu hac Commissione Oecumenici Concilii audivimus, nempe « linguam non esse inter prima religionis elementa adscribendam (non esse “de essentia religionis”, ut philosophi aiunt), etiamsi una eademque lingua clarum sit signum unitatis atque efficax instrumentum ad veritates accurate tradendas ».

An grave extremumque damnum quad imminet non videmus? Si lingua vulgaris a sacra Liturgia excluditur, optima certe omittitur occasio populum recte instituendi, divinum cultum restaurandi… et hoc quidem fit ob causas quae « ad substantiam religionis » non pertinent!

Lingua uniuscuiusque gentis propria seu vulgaris est adhibenda: In priore Missae parte (Liturgia, ut dicitur, verbi): sive in Oratione (Collecta), quia ex sententia Sancti Pauli, verbum « Amen » exigit ut populus intellegat; sive in Introitu, quippe qui mysterium celebrandum nuntiat; sive in Epistola et in Evangelio, ut patet; sive in Fidei Professione (Credo), quae doctrinam vel Prophetae vel Apostoli vel Christi vel Ecclesiae optime concludit; sive in Oratione ad Offertorium, utpote quae excellentissima totius communitatis sit deprecatio, iam inde a saeculo secundo aevi christiani adhibita, atque occasionem praebeat « intentionem sacrificii » declarandi.

In reliqua Missae parte sermo latinus servetur, excepta fortasse Oratione Dominica (Pater Noster), quae veluti culmen publicae deprecationis est animasque ad Communionem optime parat.

Etiam in canticis (cf. Sanctus Paulus) usurpetur sermo vulgaris ut populus, eorum poësin ac venustatem intellegendo, ad Deum facile elevetur.] (ADP II.3, pp. 86-87)

Pope Paul VI, after he had changed his mind and
decided to "sacrifice" the Latin language 

Readers may also find Cardinal Montini's intervention at the Council itself of interest (AS I.1, pp. 313-316), as it strikes very similar notes to what he had said at the CPC (and, incidentally, in his pre-conciliar votum: ADA II.3, pp. 374-381):

[E]specially when it comes to the language to be used in worship, the use of the ancient language handed down by our forefathers, namely, the Latin language, should for the Latin Church be firm and stable in those parts of the rite which are sacramental and properly and truly priestly. This must be done so that the unity of the Mystical Body at prayer, as well as the accuracy of the sacred formulas, is religiously observed. However, as far as the people are concerned, any difficulty in understanding can be removed in the didactic parts of the sacred Liturgy, and the faithful also given the opportunity to express in comprehensible words their prayers, in which they call upon God. (General Congregation IV, 22 October 1962; my emphasis)

[Latin: [M]axime cum agitur de lingua in cultu adhibenda, usus linguae antiquae et a maioribus traditae, videlicet linguae latinae pro Ecclesia latina, firmus sit ac stabilis in iis partibus ritus quae sunt sacramentales ac proprie vereque sacerdotales. Hoc ideo fieri debet, ut unitas Corporis Mystici orantis accuratio sacrarum formularum religiose serventur. Tamen ad populum quod attinet, quaevis difficultas intelligendi auferatur in partibus didacticis sacrae Liturgiae, ac detur fidelibus quoque facultas exprimendi verbis comprehensibilibus preces suas, quas Deo adhibent.]

That the man who would become Paul VI later allowed the entire Mass, even the Canon, to be celebrated in the vernacular, jettisoning Latin as antithetical to the "understanding" and "participation" of the faithful (see his General Audience of 26 November 1969) – contrary to the intentions of the Council Fathers and contrary to his own thoughts just a few years prior – is a tragedy from which the Church is, sadly, still reaping the so-called 'rewards'.

For those who wish to read the Acta of Vatican II for themselves to see what the intentions of the Council Fathers actually were, as opposed to what the partisan defenders of the post-conciliar liturgical reforms frequently tell us they were, 54 of the 62 volumes (along with 2 of the 4 supplementary volumes) at the time of writing are freely available online here.