Antiphon 0.

 (006): 77-95

Sacrosanctum concilium and the Reform of the Ordo Missae

Alcuin Reid
Those who speak of a reform of the liturgical reform do so on the assumption that the call of the Second Vatican Council for a moderate reform of the Churchs liturgy indeed an organic development of it was in some way thwarted or even hijacked, and that what was eventually promulgated was a product of certain persons preferences or ideologies, rather than a faithful application of the Councils Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium. Even a cursory reading of the history of that reform written by its principal protagonist, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, indicates that there is at least some truth behind this assumption. In a previous essay I underlined this assumption further. In this essay I wish to commence an examination of the implementation of the Councils call for a reform of the Ordo Missae. I say commence because I set out to do this over ten years ago, only to discover that the factors, literature, and persons involved are so numerous and vast that the result was a preliminary study of principles that is now my book The Organic Development of the Liturgy. It is my hope, with Gods grace, to complete this study in the coming years, and I am grateful to the Research Institute for Catholic Liturgy for the invitation to advance my work on it. I wish to state at the outset that in exploring the Councils intention in reforming the Ordo Missae, I seek simply to contribute as a liturgical historian to the understanding of the intentions of the Council and to the liturgical reform that followed. I am not in any
 Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975, trans. Matthew J. OConnell (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 990).  The Fathers of Vatican II and the Revised Mass: Results of a Survey, Antiphon 0. (006) 70-90. Like the previous essay, this paper was first delivered at the international conference Looking Again at the Liturgical Reform: The Implementation of Sacrosanctum concilium, hosted by the Research Institute for Catholic Liturgy at The Inn at St Johns in Plymouth, Michigan, Pentecost Sunday, 4 June 006.  Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the 20th Century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council, nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 005).

78

ALCuIN REId

way asserting that the Ordo Missae of 965 or 967 should be used today in preference to that of 969 or 96. Nor do I wish personally to endorse or to propose any specific program for a reform of the reform. Such questions and possibilities deserve studies of their own and involve more than purely historical factors. My goal is to facilitate a critical re-examination of this central aspect of the liturgical reform.

SacroSanctum

concilium

Chapter II of Sacrosanctum concilium (articles 50-58) contains the decisions of the Council in respect of the reform of the Ordo Missae. Article 50, on which we shall focus our attention, gives the general principles:
The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigour which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.4

The articles that follow deal with questions related to the Ordo Missae, although in the main they do not directly affect its structure. Article 5 calls for the expansion of the readings from Sacred Scripture at Mass so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of Gods word. Article 5 underlines the importance of the homily, stating that at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason. Article 5 calls for the restoration of what we now call the prayer of the faithful or bidding prayers. Article 54 states that a suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular according to the norm laid down in Art. 6
4 Vatican Council II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium (4 december 96), trans. Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, study edition (dublin IR: dominican Publications and Newtown AL: dwyer, 99) 50, p. 7; henceforth all citations of conciliar documents are drawn from this edition.

SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe

79

of this Constitution5 and includes the instruction: Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. Article 55 repeats the call of Popes Benedict XIV (740-758) and Pius XII (99-958) that the faithful be given holy Communion from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and grants bishops the faculty of allowing holy Communion under both kinds in certain circumstances. Article 56 urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation. Article 57 extends permission for concelebration in certain cases, insisting that the regulation of concelebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop and adding that each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lords Supper. Article 58 states that a new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal. As far as the reform of the Ordo Missae is concerned, that is it. But how are we to interpret these provisions according to the mind of the Council? I propose three hermeneutic keys. The first is that we must take into account that chapter II of the constitution follows what were laid down in chapter I as general principles for the restoration and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy. These principles, indeed the whole of chapter I of the constitution, were approved by the Council Fathers at the end of the first session on 7 december 96, and therefore they provide a crucial hermeneutic key to unlocking the meaning of the constitutions call for specific
5 Emphasis added. Article 6: . Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. . But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. . These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. , , to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighbouring regions which have the same language. 4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

80

ALCuIN REId

reforms, the Ordo Missae included, that were approved by the Fathers in the second session in 96. The fundamental principle for the reform of liturgical rites given in chapter I is found in article :
That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, 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.

A comprehensive exegesis of this crucial paragraph of Sacrosanctum concilium is beyond our scope here.6 We should observe, however, that before and during the Council this text attracted no controversy.7 Indeed, the only emendation proposed by one Council Father was to tighten up the text with the addition of the words et certa (and certainly).8 As such it formed part of the text of chapter I, voted on and approved in december 96. An authoritative commentary on the constitution published in 964, the English edition of which credits Bugnini as one its editors, confirms the essentially conservative intention of this article. In it Monsignor Salvator Famoso, chancellor of the diocese of Catania and a consultor to the Preparatory Conciliar Commission and to the post-conciliar Consilium, writes:
Reforms should correspond to the traditional laws of the structure and mind of the Liturgy. They should flow organically from the forms or rites which already exist, lest they be so different from present forms that they resemble new creations. Innovations should be such as [are] required by a true and certain usefulness for the Church lest, from mere love of novelty, sacred rites 6 I begin this task, in a paper titled Sacrosanctum concilium and the Organic development of the Liturgy, at the 006 CIEL Colloquium at Merton College, Oxford, September 006. 7 Francisco Gil helln, Concilii Vaticani II synopsis: Constitutio de sacra liturgia Sacrosanctum concilium (Vatican City: Vatican Press, 00) 76-77. 8 See helln, Vaticani II synopsis, 77.

SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe venerated and used for centuries by our forefathers be needlessly rejected or the Sacred Liturgy be treated as if it were merely a field for experimentation.9

8

The commentary of renowned Jesuit liturgist Joseph Jungmann, originally published in 966, is similarly conservative. Jungmann was a peritus on the conciliar liturgical commission, a consultor to the Consilium, and a member of the Consiliums study group number 0 charged with examining the reform of the Ordo Missae. Of article  he writes:
In article  the ideals which must serve as a norm for the reform of the Liturgy were described. They are the same which had been held by all prudent supporters of the cause of liturgical revival. The reform of the Liturgy cannot be a revolution. It must try to grasp the real meaning and the basic structure of the traditional rites and, making prudent use of existing deposits, build on them organically in the direction indicated by the pastoral needs of a living liturgy. The [conciliar liturgical] Commission further strengthened the demand of the Schema, that in each case there should be the prospect of real good for the Church, by adding and certainly.0

So we must, I submit, read chapter II of the constitution with these principles in mind. In the light of this, the observations of the same contemporary and informed commentaries on article 50 provide the second hermeneutic key to unlocking its meaning. Father Theodore Schnitzler, one of the consultors for the post-conciliar Consilium, writes in the commentary edited by Bugnini on article 50:
The entire structure of the Mass is to be revised. The following rules are laid down for this revision: . greater clarity is to be achieved: a) by the proper ordering of the parts; b) by the mutual connection of the parts; . the participation of the faithful is to be made easier. As to  a): the proper order of the parts can be more clearly brought out, for example, by separating the places where the two parts of the 9 Constitutio de sacra liturgia cum commentario, nd ed. (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 964) 54-55; English translation from Annibale Bugnini and Carlo Braga (eds), The Commentary on the Constitution and on the Instruction on the Sacred Liturgy (New York: Benzinger, 965) 87-88. 0 Joseph Jungmann, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. , ed. herbert Vorgrimler (New York: herder, 967) 0.

8

ALCuIN REId Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are celebrated, one having its proper place in the bench or in the pulpit (Ambo), the other at the altar, as is done in pontifical Mass. It can be brought out by proclaiming the lessons in a read Mass facing the people to whom they are addressed, as is done at solemn Mass, or by revising the prayers which accompany the offering so as to make more evident that this is an offering of gifts later to be consecrated, or by separating parts which are now intertwined, for example the embolism, the fraction, the kiss of peace, the commixtion. As to  b) the mutual connection of the parts can be brought out more clearly, for example, by shortening and simplifying the prayers at the foot of the altar, which overshadow the Introit. Or, for example, concluding the Mass with the priests blessing, omitting the beginning of St Johns Gospel, which diminishes the importance of the reading of the Gospel of the Mass. As for , the participation of the faithful can be facilitated, for example, by adding the prayer of the faithful, or by restoring the procession of the offertory, at least on more solemn days, perhaps using the ceremony in the Ambrosian liturgy; or by pronouncing the principal prayers of the Canon, at least the final doxology aloud, so that the people may be able to answer Amen. Or by restoring the ancient form for distributing Communion Corpus Christi to which the faithful answer Amen as is done in the Ambrosian liturgy. Or, by abolishing the restriction on Communion in certain Masses, for example, the Mass of the Chrism, the second and third Mass of Christmas, the Easter day Mass. In the second part of the paragraph, the Council lays down further rules. . Simplification. This seems to refer to ceremonies such as genuflections, signs of the cross, etc., and the entire pontifical Mass. . The omission of duplications and less useful additions. For example, the Amens in the Canon and the silent recitation of what is chanted by the choir. . The restoration of certain things which have fallen out of use, e.g., readings from the Old Testament, the Prayer of the Faithful and the old preface texts.

Schnitzler concludes his commentary on this article by stating two major fundamental principles that are to be applied:
. According to the ancient norm of the holy Fathers. The phrase is from the introductory Bull of St. Pius V in the Missal of 570, Bugnini and Braga, Commentary on the Constitution, 7-8.



SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe but certainly the state of studies at the time did not allow this desire to be fulfilled. . due care being used to preserve the substance, so that both Pius V and Gregory the Great, if they came to earth again, would recognise their Mass.

8

Two observations on Schnitzlers commentary are in order. The first is that practically all of the reforms that he envisages, save perhaps the replacement of the offertory prayers, were discussed by scholars and others involved in the Liturgical Movement throughout at least the previous decade. This is not to say that they should have been enacted but simply that their discussion was not novel. As we shall see below, they were specifically foreshadowed by the Fathers of the Council in their consideration of article 50. The second is that St Pius Vs phrase According to the ancient norm of the holy Fathers does not authorize an outbreak of the virus of liturgical antiquarianism or archaism about which the young Joseph Ratzinger complained at the 966 Katholikentag in Bamburg.4 St Pius V sought to recover the beauty of the Roman liturgy as it had developed in tradition, showing profound respect for what many modern liturgists would regard as late, corrupt forms, not because he lacked the insights of twentieth-century scholarship (I always find this argument somewhat arrogant), but because he recognized his duty to respect the sacred liturgy as developed in tradition down to his time.5 Joseph Jungmann in his commentary has no doubts that among the stipulations for reform article 50 is the most important of the Constitution. Jungmann relates the history leading up to its approval, noting that the Preparatory Commission had arrived at very definite notions of the reform to be striven for. Accordingly, detailed explanations (declarationes) in the plan of reform handed over by the Preparatory Commission to the Central Commission were attached to article 50.6 Jungmann relates, however, that in the final schema as it was presented to the Council, these declarationes were missing. This,
 Bugnini and Braga, Commentary on the Constitution, 9.  For further details, see chapter  of Reid, Organic Development. 4 Joseph Ratzinger, Catholicism after the Council, The Furrow 8 (967) 0. I am grateful to Fr Michael Lang of the London Oratory for drawing my attention to this article. 5 See Reid, Organic Development, 4. 6 Jungmann, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 5-6.

84

ALCuIN REId

Jungmann contends, was much too dangerous for the fate of [this] important article, especially given that at the first session of the Council some Fathers saw in the plans for reform the appearance of revolutionary innovations.7 Indeed, one Father, divine Word Missionary Bishop William duschak of Abidda, went so far on 5 November 96 as to propose in an intervention at the Council in the morning8 and at a press conference the same evening,9 that the Council establish an ecumenical Mass based entirely on Sacred Scripture. French Bishop henri Jenny, however, a member of the Preparatory and Conciliar Commissions on the Liturgy (and later of the Consilium), speaking in the aula that same morning and but five Fathers later, responded to the anxiety of some Fathers in relation to the reform of the Ordo Missae with an intervention setting out the content of the declarationes.0 A printed version of these declarationes slightly expanded from Bishop Jennys intervention was given to each of the Fathers on  October 96 during the second session of the Council before their votes on article 50 and on chapter II of the constitution as a whole. Jungmann observes:
It was seen that these declarationes had principally in mind simplifications (at the beginning and end of Mass, reductions of the signs of the Cross and genuflections), an improved order at the Offertory and Fraction, reading aloud of the Secret Prayer, concluding part of the Canon and the Embolism, enriching of the Prefaces.

Jungmanns summary, together with Schnitzlers commentary, accurately conveys the content of the declarationes. I would like to highlight their opening sentence, which also appears in Bishop Jennys intervention: Hodiernus Ordo Missae, qui decursu saeculorum succrevit, retinendus est (The current Ordo Missae, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, is to be retained). What follows, of course, is the list of specifically envisaged reforms. Nevertheless, we hear precisely in this
7 Jungmann, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 6. 8 helln, Vaticani II synopsis, 64-46. 9 Wilhelm Josef duschak, An Ecumenical Mass Liturgy, Worship 7.8 (96) 58-46. 0 helln, Vaticani II synopsis, 65-5.  See helln, Vaticani II synopsis, 50, 5. I am grateful to Fr Brian harrison o.s. for originally drawing my attention to these.  Jungmann, Constitution on the Liturgy, 6.

SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe

85

sentence the voice of article  of the constitution with its insistence on continuity and organic development in the liturgical reform. I submit, then, that the intentions of Sacrosanctum concilium for the reform of the Ordo Missae may clearly be seen in the reading of articles 50 and  of the constitution cited above, particularly in the light of the opening sentence of the declarationes, which cannot but have served to calm the anxieties of some of the Fathers. The content of the declarationes themselves must be read in its light. The sentence bears repeating: The current Ordo Missae, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, is to be retained. Jungmanns commentary on article 50 contains a telling remark on the articles use of St Pius Vs phrase According to the ancient norm of the holy Fathers. After repeating the familiar deprecation of the lack of preparatory historical studies available after the Council of Trent, he observes: Even today it could not quite be declared as a goal, skipping over the intervening centuries. At this point, even Joseph Jungmann, the great exponent of the theory of liturgical corruption deprecating all liturgical development after the peace of Constantine,4 recognized the illegitimacy of discarding the liturgy as received from tradition in pursuit of an antiquarian ideal. Seemingly even Bugnini agreed, writing in March 96:
In a future revision, the rite of Mass could perhaps undergo some marginal change, but in substance the ages have created a functionally perfect rite. It is consonant with every attitude of the human spirit and it worthily contains and proclaims the mystery.5

The third and final key that I submit as necessary for interpreting article 50 of the constitution is that articulated by Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to the Roman Curia on  december 005. In this address, he indicated that any reading of the Council and therefore, I would argue, any interpretation of Sacrosanctum concilium should be guided by a hermeneutic of continuity as opposed to a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture. In other words, the Council did not set out to depart from existing liturgical tradition; it sought to develop it organically, and we should read the constitutions provisions in this light. This is certainly consonant with what we have seen above in respect to articles 50 and  of the constitution.
 Jungmann, Constitution on the Liturgy, 6. 4 See Reid, Organic Development, 65. 5 Annibale Bugnini, Breviary Reform, Worship 7.4 (96/96) . It appears that this article was published only in English.

86

ALCuIN REId
of

The ImplemenTaTIon

SacroSanctum

concilium

In the light of these three hermeneutic keys, we now turn to the implementation of the Councils call for a reform of the Ordo Missae. The Italian Monsignor Maurizio Barba, an official of the Congregation for divine Worship, has rendered a profound service to liturgical history in publishing his 00 book La riforma conciliare dell Ordo Missae.6 Of particular value are the twenty-four working drafts and papers (schemata) of the Consiliums study group 0 charged with preparing the reform of the Ordo Missae, published as an appendix to his study.7 hitherto it was possible to consult these documents only in archives in Rome, Paris, or Washington. The schemata detail the activity and proposals of study group 0 between April 964 and May 968, and they make fascinating reading, for they detail what was proposed behind the scenes when and by whom in the work that produced the Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 969. It is impossible to study adequately their almost four hundred pages here. We must content ourselves with looking briefly at four major public stages of this reform leading up to 969: the publication of the 965 Ordo Missae, the further changes made to the Ordo Missae in 967, the 967 Synod of Bishops, and the introduction of the new eucharistic prayers in 968.

The ordo miSSae

of

1965

In the light of the Instruction Inter oecumenici of 6 September 964 on the implementation of Sacrosanctum concilium, on 7 January 965 a joint decree signed by the president of the Consilium and the prefect of the Congregation of Rites promulgated a new edition of the Ordo Missae, which it declared typical and ordered to be included in all new editions of the Missale Romanum.8 Let us note that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Missal of 965 in the sense of a Roman editio typica, though of course many publishers duly incorporated this Ordo in their editions of the Missale Romanum published that year. This Ordo omits Psalm 4 and the Adjutorium nostrum and its response. It instructs the celebrant not to recite privately the introit, Kyrie, or Gloria should they be sung. A sign of the cross is not made at the end of the Gloria. In public Masses, after kissing the altar or incensing it the celebrant may go to the sedilia. If he does this, he does
6 Maurizio Barba, La riforma conciliare dell Ordo Missae (Rome: Centro Liturgico Vincenziano, 00). 7 See Barba, La riforma conciliare, 6-64. 8 Ordo Missae: Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae et de defectibus in celebratione Missae, typical edition (Vatican City: Vatican Press, 965) p. 5.

SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe

87

not kiss the altar before the Collect, which is prayed at the sedilia. Otherwise the introductory rites are left as they were. The subdeacon or lector is instructed to face the people when singing or reading the lesson. At a non-sung Mass, a deacon or another priest is permitted to read the Gospel. From the sedilia the celebrant, seated, blesses the subdeacon who bows and who does not kiss the celebrants hand. The celebrant blesses incense whilst seated and then stands to bless the deacon. At the end of the Gospel, the celebrant kisses the book brought by the deacon, but is not incensed. Again, the celebrant does not read privately the texts of the chants if they are sung or read by another minister. At private Masses, the rites accord with those previously in use. After the homily, the Credo is begun at the altar or the sedilia and is not recited privately at public Masses. A bow is required during the words et incarnatus est, and there is no sign of the cross at the end. The prayer of the faithful follows the Oremus before the offertory. The offertory prayers are untouched save that the Orate fratres and the prayer Super oblata are to be audible. The paten is not given to the subdeacon. The Sanctus is not said privately, and a sign of the cross is not made at its conclusion. The Canon, which retains its signs of the cross and genuflections intact, is said silently, but the Per ipsum is sung or said audibly so that the people may respond Amen. The people may join the celebrant in the Pater noster, at the end of which there is no Amen. The communion rites remain intact save that the celebrant does not recite the Agnus dei privately and that a rite for the administration of holy Communion to the faithful is included, the formula for which is Corpus Christi. The celebrant remains at the altar for the postcommunion prayer and the blessing, which follows the Ite missa est and ends the Mass. The last Gospel is omitted. Certainly these reforms were foreshadowed in the declarationes and are of themselves neither particularly radical nor otherwise noteworthy. Indeed, some of the reforms listed in the declarationes do not appear: there are still many, though certainly fewer, genuflections and signs of the cross; there is no provision for an offertory procession, and the offertory prayers have not been revised to reflect the offering of the gifts made after the consecration; the order of the fraction and of the pax has not been changed; the Ite missa est does not end the rite. The Ordo Missae of 965, then, partially but faithfully implements the reform authorized by the Council. Logically one may have expected the next steps of the reform to complete the work as yet undone.

88

ALCuIN REId

What is curious, however, is that the Consiliums study group 0 produced a schema for the reform of the Ordo Missae dated  October 964 (no. 44 De Missali, n. 9),9 which is far more radical than the Ordo promulgated under the signature of its president three months later. This schema has the priest enter during the introit, kiss the altar without any prayers, and go to the sedilia for the Kyrie and Gloria followed by the collect. The priest says the Munda cor meum before the Gospel and the Per evangelica dicta afterwards, but nothing else. A deacon does bring the book for the celebrant to kiss. The Credo is followed by the prayers of the faithful, after which the celebrant may receive the gifts from the people. Two short phrases from the Didache which have no sense of offering or sacrifice replace the offertory prayers. There is no Orate fratres. The prayer Super oblata is audible as is the entire Canon. There is only one sign of the cross in the first part of the Canon, and the first genuflection at the consecration of each of the elements is abolished. Most but not all genuflections and signs of the cross are abolished in the latter part of the Canon. The Per ipsum is sung aloud, and the Pater noster is sung by all. The ceremonies accompanying the Libera nos are abolished, and it is followed by a new pax rite. The Agnus dei follows, after which the priest shows the host to the people before he himself communicates using briefer formulae. The faithful are communicated with the words Corpus Christi. The postcommunion prayer is followed by the blessing and then the Ite missa est. We may observe that this schema attends to the matters that the 965 Ordo did not: there are fewer genuflections and signs of the cross; there is an offertory procession, and the offertory prayers have certainly been revised, however curiously; the order of the fraction and of the pax has been changed; the Ite missa est does conclude the rite. Why, then, this dichotomy? Bugninis history does not clarify it beyond telling us that the bishop-members of the Consilium did not discuss the Ordo Missae until October 965.0 By this time, two further schemata had been drawn up, one including three forms of the Roman Canon. And in October 965, there were two private experimental celebrations for the bishops which, when leaked, sparked controversy and resulted in, Bugnini claims, the halting of work on the Ordo Missae until the 967 Synod held in October. This is not true: study group 0 in fact continued its work, producing another schema in 966 and working on the possibility of new eucharistic
9 See Barba, La riforma conciliare, 99-0. 0 Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 4.  See Barba, La riforma conciliare, 09-40.  Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 5.

SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe

89

prayers, which the bishops of the Consilium discussed in April 967.4 It seems that what Bugnini should have said was that work on the Ordo Missae was not brought back into the public eye until the Synod in October 967. But with this we have strayed from our inquiry about the lack of some reforms envisaged by the Council and proposed by the Consilium in the Ordo Missae of January 965. Barba reports that the 965 Ordo was prompted by a desire to satisfy a request to the Consilium from the French publisher descle to publish a correction of the 96 Ordo according to the provisions of Inter oecumenici.5 This request resulted in three schemata not the work of study group 0 but efforts coordinated by the secretariat of the Consilium headed by Bugnini (in November and december 964 and January 965; Barba does not publish these). With the december schema, Bugnini clarified that its intent was solely to insert the variations necessary for the implementation of Inter oecumenici, that only the necessary changes had been introduced, and that other matters could be taken up in successive phases of the reform.6 So what we in fact have in the 965 Ordo Missae is a somewhat hasty and an utterly conservative indeed organic implementation of most of the Councils provisions, made by the Consiliums secretariat in the full knowledge of the existence of more radical proposals and in the expectation of their realization in the future. Intentionally or not, the 965 Ordo Missae was disingenuous, especially in its decree of promulgation which states that Paul VI had declared it a typical edition. Typical editions of the Missal appear but rarely, usually decades apart. The phrase editio typica, therefore, bespoke permanence. hence people not otherwise in the know regarded it as the reform envisaged in Inter oecumenici paragraph 48, giving not only the shape but also the actual detail of the reformed Ordo Missae, even though it was not unthinkable that further slight modifications could be made in the future. This is certainly the sense given publicly by Father Frederick McManus, himself a consultor to the Consilium, in Worship in March 965.7
 See Barba, La riforma conciliare, 67. 4 Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 6. 5 Barba, La riforma conciliare, 6. 6 Barba, La riforma conciliare, 6-7. 7 Frederick R. McManus, Additional Revisions in the New Rite of Mass, Worship 9.4 (965) 6-7. See also McManus two-part article on implementing Inter oecumenici written in advance of January 965: The New Rite of Mass, Worship 9. (965) 67-88 and Worship 9. (965) 9-65.

90

ALCuIN REId

This dichotomy between moderate public reform and unrelated and more radical drafting in study group 0 is, then, a significant phenomenon. It also goes some way in explaining the acceptance of the 965 Ordo Missae by many who would later reject the unveiled work of the Consilium.

1967 VariationeS

in

ordinem miSSae

The next public reform of the Ordo Missae followed the Instruction Tres abhinc annos of 4 May 967. Variationes in Ordinem Missae was published by the Vatican Press with a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites dated 8 May 967.8 The first observation to be made about this reform is that the decree, unlike that of 965, does not declare this Ordo to be a typical edition. Rather, it simply states that, the Consilium and the congregation having approved the changes, the congregation is publishing them for their exact observance by all concerned.9 This reform radically reduces the number of genuflections and kisses of the altar, abolishes the signs of the cross with the paten and chalice at the offertory, and mandates that the paten be placed on the corporal. It permits the recitation of the whole Canon aloud, radically reduces to one the signs of the cross in the Canon, and permits the celebrant no longer to join his thumb and forefinger after touching the Sacred host. The private Communion of the priest before the people is abolished and replaced with one rite for all; a period of silence or of singing in thanksgiving after receiving holy Communion is recommended; the blessing is placed before the dismissal; the Requiescant in pace at the end of the Requiem Mass is abolished; and the maniple is made optional. Again we find reforms envisaged in the declarationes at the Council, although one might legitimately ask if the Council envisaged such radical reduction. Certainly removal of the sign of the cross with the chalice and paten was not envisaged, nor was the recitation aloud of the whole of the Canon, nor the abolition of the practical and devotional joining of the thumb and forefinger. The change in the communion rite is similarly unforeseen, as is the call for a period of thanksgiving, however laudable. The placing of the blessing before the dismissal had long been advocated, although the abolition of the
8 Variationes in Ordinem Missae inducendae ad normam Instructionis S.R.C. diei 4 maii 1967 (Vatican City: Vatican Press, 967). 9 Sacred Congregation of Rites (Consilium), decree Per instructionem alteram (8 May 967), in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts, trans. International Commission on English in the Liturgy (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 98) 56, no. 0, p. 456.

SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe

9

special form for Requiem Masses had not. Finally, the Council did not call for the banishment of the maniple. These are small steps beyond the Council and the declarationes; nevertheless they indicate a willingness to go beyond the Councils mandate. Of course, minor modifications to rites had been made for centuries by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and these changes are made with that same authority. Nonetheless, here one can begin to see the emergence of what I call the it-seemed-like-a-good-idea principle of liturgical reform, whereby the faithful implementation of the constitution on the sacred liturgy is put to one side as liturgists and pastors reform the liturgy according to their own good ideas. As I stated above, this principle emerges here only slightly; we shall meet it again.

The miSSa

normatiVa aT The

1967 Synod

of

BIShopS

The October 967 Synod of Bishops included, by command of Paul VI, a report on the liturgical reform and a demonstration of the Consiliums norm for the ordinary parish celebration of Mass, thus termed the Missa normativa. Bugnini reports that this Mass was celebrated for the first time according to the schema approved by the Consilium in October 965,40 using what became known as Eucharistic Prayer III,4 though presumably the rite included the 967 changes not found in the 965 schema. Bugnini reports:
It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success and even that it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in the negative vote that followed; this was even more true of those who had grasped the value and essential character of the normative Mass. The majority of the Fathers entered the Sistine Chapel with their minds made up and ill-disposed to the new Mass.4

The voting that followed the experiment responded to proposals to add three new eucharistic prayers, to add quod pro vobis tradetur to the consecration of the bread, to omit mysterium fidei from the consecration of the wine in the new eucharistic prayers, and to allow the use of the Apostles Creed at Mass. The response to these proposals was positive. Then the Fathers were asked Is the structure of the normative Mass acceptable on the whole? here, 7 Fathers voted in favor, 4 against, and 6 in favor with qualifications. The Fathers
40 See Barba, La riforma conciliare, -40. 4 Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 48. 4 Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 49.

9

ALCuIN REId

then voted overwhelmingly in favor of having a penitential rite in all Masses (there had not been one in the October 965 schema); less overwhelmingly in favor of three readings from Sacred Scripture at Mass; and very much in favor of permitting the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons to be replaced by other songs.4 The topics put before the Fathers by the Consilium demonstrate further movement away from Sacrosanctum concilium. Introducing new eucharistic prayers and the Apostles Creed, adding to or subtracting from the words of consecration, and rendering the introit, offertory, and communion verses replaceable can be and were indeed argued as good ideas, but none of them was called for by the Council or was envisaged in the declarationes. These reforms find their origin, rather, in the work of individuals in the Consilium. It is perhaps not so surprising, then, that the bishops reactions were so mixed, for, until the Synod, the only reforms of the Ordo Missae which most bishops would have known about were those of January 965 and May 967. Bugnini summarizes the results of the voting and the numerous qualifications that emerged:
All these details show how disagreeable many of the Fathers found the path of reform. It is not easy to cut ones ties with age-old practices, open oneself to new horizons, and force oneself to accept the demands expressed in the signs of the times. That which may seem obvious in theory must come to grips in practice with armourclad contingencies.44

Alternatively, one might argue that the Fathers reacted against radical innovation when moderate, organic reform had been expected and indeed had been already tasted in 965. After all, the Fathers of the Synod were, with but few exceptions, ignorant of the workings of the Consilium and its study group 0, of which Bugnini writes: On April 7, 964, a sturdy, powerful machinery was set in motion that in five years time would bring in the new Mass.45 And the vast majority of them, having been Fathers of the Council, had been told: The current Ordo Missae, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, is to be retained.

The new eucharISTIc prayerS

Following the Synod, the Consiliums sturdy, powerful machinery, aided by a certain amount of popular and public pressure, put the fin4 Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 5-56. 44 Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 56. 45 Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 4.

SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe

9

ishing touches on its production of the three new eucharistic prayers, which were promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on  May 968. The history of their genesis is fascinating.46 Much could be said about the theological orientation of the new prayers, but for the liturgical historian another issue presents itself: how can such substantial innovation be justifiable when only one Father of the Council even suggested the idea of a new eucharistic prayer and when neither Sacrosanctum concilium nor the declarationes envisaged it? how does this innovation respect the organic development required by article  of the constitution? Bugnini attempts to answer this question when he writes: In the new anaphoras, more than elsewhere, care has been taken to be true to article  of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which urges that sound tradition and legitimate progress be combined.47 I am afraid that I find this reading of article  rather partial: it fails to appreciate either the articles content as a whole or its role in the constitution at the time of the Council. It also evidences a defective understanding of liturgical tradition whereby that tradition is looked upon as an historical entity from which one may quarry useful material, rather than as a precious living deposit that one has received and to which one must show the utmost respect.48 The new eucharistic prayers were not envisaged by the Councils call for a reform of the Ordo Missae, nor was the Consilium authorized by the constitution to construct them. They simply seemed like a good idea to some key individuals who then worked assiduously to obtain papal authorization for them.

The ordo miSSae

of

1969

On  April 969, a little over a year later, Pope Paul VI signed the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum promulgating the definitive reform of the Ordo Missae, which the Sacred Congregation of Rites ordered to be used from the First Sunday of Advent of that year. The actual missal was not published until 970. This Ordo incorporated many of the features previously introduced, including the radical ritual simplifications and the new eucharistic prayers. At the personal insistence of Paul VI, it also retained some items the Consilium had
46 I recommend Benedictine scholar Cassian Folsoms concise study From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many: how it happened and Why, Adoremus Bulletin .4-6 (September November 996), available online at <www.adoremus.org>. 47 Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, 455. 48 In 954, Godfrey diekmann o.s.b. espoused the same error: see Reid, Organic Development, 04-5.

94

ALCuIN REId

sought to abolish: the sign of the cross at the beginning of Mass, the Confiteor, and the Orate fratres. Furthermore, it introduced yet more new reforms: more ceremonial simplification of what was now termed the Liturgy of the Word, the new offertory prayers with a response to be made by the people, and the further simplification of the communion rite, to name but a few. In terms of the implementation of Sacrosanctum concilium, the 969 Ordo is a mixed bag of some things called for and foreseen, and many things that were not. One key issue in evaluating this reform is the seemingly disproportionate quantity of changes, which it makes when it is compared with the Ordo Missae that Sacrosanctum concilium intended to reform. In so many ways, both large and small, it is a substantially different entity and not an organic development of its predecessor. A detailed analysis of this is most certainly in order in due course. having stated this, I shall add two postscripts to this brief discussion of the Ordo Missae of the missal of Paul VI. First, it should be said that good ideas can indeed be good, and that it ought not to be unthinkable that something truly beneficial not envisaged at the Council could emerge in the years after it. But if that is indeed the case, let us not pretend that such innovations come from the Council or carry its approbation. Second, although the decisions of positive liturgical law made by a reigning pope, in this case Paul VI, may astonish or upset us as liturgical historians or simply as worshipping Catholics, they are authoritative and, where necessary, are protected by the power of the keys. One may be a Catholic in good standing and think that the prudential decisions of Paul VI were a mistake, but one may not be so and believe that his authoritative decisions have invalidated the rites.

concluSIon
Where can we draw a line in responding to the question, What did Vatican II intend in the reform of the Ordo Missae? If the interpretation of articles 50 and  of Sacrosanctum concilium that I have advanced is accurate, then we must admit that the intention of the Council is manifested in the declarationes given to the Fathers of the Council in October 96. We must also maintain, then, that any departure from these however well intentioned or authorized, or no matter how many arguments were advanced in their favor by various collaborators with the Consilium is indeed a departure from the Councils wishes. Practically speaking, this would lead to drawing a

SACROSAnCTuM COnCILIuM ANd ThE ORDO MISSAe

95

line somewhere between the reforms promulgated in 965 and those promulgated in 967. That many reforms, including some quite substantial ones, were proposed and introduced which went beyond what was envisaged by the Council suggests that key personnel in the Consilium did not hold the constitution in as much respect as it deserved. This indication and its implications certainly deserve further study. There is also that haunting assurance given orally by Bishop Jenny in 96, given again in writing to the Fathers in 96: The current Ordo Missae, which has grown up in the course of the centuries, is to be retained. This study has but touched on many important issues associated with the reform; indeed, it is just a beginning. If it serves to assist us in looking again at the liturgical reform with informed, critical, and Catholic eyes, it will make a modest contribution to liturgical renewal today and in the future.
Alcuin Reid, Ph.D., has authored and edited numerous articles and books on the sacred liturgy including Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger (Saint Michaels Abbey Press, 2003), The Monastic diurnal (Saint Michaels Abbey Press, 2004), and The Organic development of the Liturgy (2nd ed., Ignatius, 2005).