If I had a choice between which should be mandated, ad orientem or kneeling for Holy Communion to recover in the Bugnini Mass the same reverence and ethos of the TLM, I would choose kneeling for Holy Communion.
With that said, though, apart from kneeling or ad orientem, how could the Bugnini Mass be more reverent and approximate the reverence of the TLM?
1. Chant the Propers, preferebly in Latin Gregorian Chant. Doing this follows Vatican II explicitly, giving pride of place to Gregorian Chant and maintaining, at least for the Propers, Latin!
2. The priest and congregation reads the black print and follows the red—no improvisation whatsoever, especially at the Introductory Rite, even if any or all the options are used.
3. The Introductory Rite, the Credo and Intercessions and Concluding Rite takes place at the chair, not the altar.
4. Sunday best is required for lectors or an alb! The same for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion!
5. After the Intercessions, the chalice and paten covered with veil and burse, placed on the altar’s center prior to Mass, is unveiled, the corporal is placed at the center of the altar and the Roman Missal and other items needed for the Holy Eucharist are placed on the altar and the offerings for the Mass, bread and wine, are brought in procession to the priest and then brought to the altar.
6. All options are permissible from various prefaces to Eucharistic Prayers and all prayers are prayed without making the prayers look like they are being read to the congregation!
7. If the common chalice, pandemic causing as they may be, are used, the choreography of the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion must be rehearsed and perfected so that Communion time and getting the right sacred things to the right people doesn’t look like a scene from a movie with the Keystone Cops!!!
If the Bugnini Mass is one expression of the two expressions of the one Roman Rite, then make sure the Bugnini Mass is celebrated as it should be just as the TLM should be celebrated as it should be! But the one Roman Rite’s reverence and ethos should be the same in both!!!!
31 comments:
Father McDonald,
I disagree with you in one respect. All of the Eucharist Prayers should be suppressed save for the Roman Canon. Otherwise, you have 4 different expressions of the Roman Rite. We had one Canon for over 1600 years and Catholicism flourished with one Canon. Moreover, the Roman Canon honors women and dispatches the big lie that the Church does not respect women.
My premise is that no changes to the Bugnini Missal is made, thus all the options are there for any priest as this is what the Bugnini rite of the One Roman Rite is. It is what it is.
So we have a multiplicity of “expressions” and the priest is still master of the liturgy and we are his subjects. Where is the “unity?”
Four? There are thirteen "canons" in the NO; four, plus four for various needs, plus two for reconciliation, plus three especially dumbed-down, you know, for the kiddies.
In France in the 1960s, there were as many as one hundred Eucharistic Prayers in (ab)use! That makes thirteen almost seem restrained.
Reading the archives from the 1960s and 1970s shows how vehemently the "reformers" despised the Roman Canon. No wonder that their "reforms" made the Roman Canon functionally disappear overnight.
Nick
Nick, I am fortunate. My pastor uses the Roman Canon exclusively on Sundays and major feasts.
The initial proposal for adding new anaphoras would have prescribed which one could be used on a given day.
That, obviously, did not happen--noticeably adding to the persona of the celebrant as master of the liturgy in the NO, subject to each of his whims, arising from anything between his theological prejudices and what he had for dinner the night before.
Nick
Father, the problem with the Novus Ordo is that it is entirely fabricated and-equally bad- left to the Celebrant to decide what he will include in his "style" on a given day.(Example-The Roman Canon is never used-too long.Eucharistic Prayer 2-short and sweet-especialy on weekends!) Better to give us the 1965 Missal-ad orientem as the Council Fathers intended.
Father, I like your approach in calling it the "Bugnini mass" or "Bugnini missal."
A few notes: Eucharistic prayers 2, 3, and 4 were introduced on May 23,1968, before the Advent of the Bugnini missal on November 30, 1969.
Number 2 is a revision of Hippolytus alleged anaphora. The story of it being drafted up in a restaurant by Louis Bouyer and Dom Bernard Botte is oh so edifying.
We can find earlier drafts of number three by its author Cipriano Vagaggini in his book The Canon of the Mass and the Liturgical Reform from 1966. Vagaggini's thesis was that the laity were demanding these changes, especially to the Roman Canon.
Twenty-five years ago I asked over 100 priests, nuns, silent generation and greatest generation adults if there was really a demand for a change to the Roman Canon and mass in general back in 1965-66. A judge (not a traditionalist) put it best: "Nobody asked or consulted with us laity. It was all a change from the top. Priest facing the people, no Latin, no prayers at the foot of the altar, guitars, folk songs, the mass began to lose the spirit of reverence and if you protested they patronizingly patted you on the head." This judge was an altar boy from 1952 to 1961 before he went to Georgetown. In Washington DC.
Spot on! I lived in those days and it was a big lie. A liberal friend of mine in Theology back in the 1970s said at a dinner with my wife and his girlfriend that everyone is talking about having women priests. So, I stopped him and asked my wife and his girlfriend about it. They said no one they knew was talking about women priests and they wouldn't want them. He was shattered. Hanging around your closed circle gets you into situations like this. I suspect that was the case with the liturgical deforms.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the additional Eucharistic Prayers, although I do think there are two many. The Ordinariate’s Missal just has two, the Roman Canon, which the rubrics say should be used on Sundays and Eucharistic Prayers II, but somewhat improved over ours, “may” be used for weekday Masses. We now have the original three, plus two Reconciliation ones plus three more special themed ones and then there are the children’s Eucharistic Prayers not in the revised missal anymore but still allowed. That’s way too many and unnecessary. The only people that wanted the Mass changed and in a radical way were liturgical theologians of the last century’s “New Liturgical Movement” that may have had some interested bishops, but for the most part it was liturgical academic world. The Vatican II fathers would not have been for the most part liturgical theologians and more than likely had no clue what they would do with the Mass once the Vatican II fathers allowed them. 99% of bishops, priests, religious and clergy had no desire for a changed Mass and did not advocate for it as they thought everything in the Church was unchangeable. Vatican II turned that upside down once the Mass was changed, anything and everything could be changed and there were lobbies to bring it about—Pandora’s Box was opened and it hasn’t been shut yet.
James,
I was taught throughout my early years that EP II was ever so wonderful because it was a restoration of the ancient Canon of Hippolytus, or words to that effect. The scales fell from my eyes when I learned (1) the EP only contains maaaybe three lines from that ancient record, the rest being an extreme paring down of the Roman Canon; and (2) its attribution to Hippolytus is debatable. What really makes EP II so popular is that it’s short. More time for brilliant speechifying and extemporizing by the presider!
Nick
Nick, I groan when I hear the “presider”start E II
Father McDonald said..."I don’t necessarily have a problem with the additional Eucharistic Prayers..."
Father, that places you in line with Cardinal Ratzinger. He insisted that the new, "fabricated" Eucharistic Prayers had enriched the Roman Liturgy.
Cardinal Ratzinger said:
"“Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular.”
=======
"...I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I had thought that Cardinal Ratzinger had denounced the following "fabricated" missal?
Cardinal Ratzinger declared:
"Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new...Eucharistic prayers..."
"...the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."The only people that wanted the Mass changed and in a radical way were liturgical theologians of the last century’s “New Liturgical Movement” that may have had some interested bishops, but for the most part it was liturgical academic world...99% of bishops, priests, religious and clergy had no desire for a changed Mass and did not advocate for it..."
=======
Father Joseph Ratzinger, beginning in the late 1950s, argued publicly that radical liturgical reform was required to overcome the horrific state (his opinion) of Latin Church liturgy. His opinion was popular throughout the Church.
That was the certainly true in Rome as Pope Venerable Pius XII had authorized Monsignor Bugnini to develop radical liturgical reforms. In turn, said Pope enacted radical liturgical reforms that Monsignor Bugnini, as well as additional folks, had developed.
From: Father Fessio's Adoremus Bulletin:
-- Ratzinger on the Second Vatican Council’s Reform of the Liturgy
"Given his support for the main goals and principles of the 20th-century liturgical movement, it should come as no surprise that Ratzinger viewed the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, as the culminating fruit and crowning of that movement’s efforts.
"His response to the Liturgy Constitution itself is overwhelmingly positive and optimistic about the future liturgical life of the Church.
"He viewed the Constitution’s recommended reforms as a fulfillment of his desire to remove the “whitewash” of the liturgical fresco by removing certain aspects that had obscured its true meaning and restoring them to their original intent.
'"Among the Council’s recommendations Ratzinger praises in his writings at the time of the Council include...a greater emphasis on communal celebration, restoration of the liturgy of the word, the call for more active participation of the laity, overcoming the exclusive dominance of Latin through allowance of the vernacular, and a “defrosting of ritual rigidity,” opening the liturgy up to future developments.
"Despite certain revisionist traditionalist narratives to the contrary, Ratzinger’s praise of these reforms testifies to the fact that they were not merely the concerns of a fringe group of “progressive” liturgists foisted upon the Church — the Liturgy Constitution was approved by the overwhelming majority of the Council Fathers (only 4 votes against vs. 2147 in favor)."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, surely as a child, Joseph Ratzinger believed in Father Christmas (Kris Kringle) and maybe even the Easter Bunny. Yes, prior to the Council Joseph Ratzinger was the darling of the so-called “liberal” wing of the Church, but he was not and never was a progressive heterodox. Around 1968, Jospeh Ratzinger grew up. More than likely he no longer believed in Kris Kringle or the Easter Bunny and his attitude toward what liberal, heterodox Catholicism was bringing to the Church alarmed him and he grew up, mature, changed and embraced the fullness of orthodoxy and great desire to interpret Vatican II within the hermeneutic of continuity and reform in continuity which includes the Mass. He already appreciated those dioceses in Europe that had a liturgical renewal with the ancient liturgy, encouraging lay participation and some vernacular. But the missal wasn’t changed or revamped. He appreciated more votive Masses, prefaces etc. But yes, is greatest criticism of the Modern Mass was that the final book was fabricated and lent it self to “horrific” manipulation, experimentation and horrible abuse, some of which caused the Mass to be invalid. That’s as horrific as it gets. And that abuse is everyone, not contained to one or two mentally ill priests.
Archbishop Hannibal’s “reforms” commissioned by Pope Pius XII were so brilliant that not even Pope John XXIII used them!
Nick
“I had thought that Cardinal Ratzinger had denounced the following "fabricated" missal?”
You did? I thought you just stuck your fingers in your ears and sang “la la la I can’t hear you!” any time someone mentioned that, kinda like when I called out for libeling me without provocation.
Nick
Via interviews with Peter Seewald, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI rejected the false narrative that "Ratzinger the liberal" had "grown up" in 1968 A.D...that Joseph Ratzinger had renounced his (Ratzinger's) liberalism.
Peter Seewald, his biographer, friend, as well as admirer, also denounced the false narrative that in 1968 A.D., Joseph Ratzinger had repudiated his (Ratzinger's) liberal past.
Peter Seewald declared that "such a reversal has never taken place...Ratzinger was always a progressivist theologian...It is definitively so that his impulses contributed at the time to the advance of Modernism in the Catholic Church."
=======
Emeritus' progressivism had been so pronounced that the Holy Office suspected him of modernism.
=======
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger had acknowledged that, at the University of Munich, part of his second doctoral thesis (habilitation) on St. Bonaventure had been viewed by Professor Michael Schmaus as "dangerous modernism."
In turn, Joseph Ratzinger had been forced to rewrite his thesis in question.
=======
Such Churchmen as Archbishop Lefebvre had labeled Joseph Ratzinger an "apostate." However, Joseph Ratzinger had demonstrated that one could favor radical liberal reforms while having remained holy/orthodox.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."But yes, is greatest criticism of the Modern Mass was that the final book was fabricated and lent it self to “horrific” manipulation, experimentation and horrible abuse, some of which caused the Mass to be invalid. That’s as horrific as it gets."
=======
Father, you had acknowledged a few weeks ago that as Pope, Joseph Ratzinger had taught the opposite of the above.
Again, even as then-Cardinal Ratzinger, he had declared:
"“Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular.”
"...the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history."
=======
It is undeniable that as Cardinal and Pope, Joseph Ratzinger had made it known that the Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI was orthodox...enriched the Roman Liturgy...is "the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Allen’s appraisal is the correct one:
https://catholiccritique.com/2025/10/22/how-the-60s-changed-ratzinger/
Wow, MT repeating scurrilous accusations of modernism against a future pope. To what new lows will he stoop to do what he thinks is proving a point? Also, where are the RIPs? Or does only the holy holy holy Francis get the Catholic Muhammad treatment?
Nick
MT, I am thrilled you agree with what Seawald said about how wounded Pope Benedict XVI felt by what Pope Francis did to His Holiness! We’re making progress!
According to biographer Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict XVI was "bitterly disappointed" by Pope Francis’s Traditionis custodes, which restricted the Traditional Latin Mass, viewing it as an attempt to erase his legacy. Seewald argues that while Benedict maintained outward obedience, he felt this move reversed his 2007 initiative, Summorum Pontificum.
Impact on Legacy: Seewald noted that Benedict believed the restriction of the Latin Mass, a key element of his pontificate, was a direct rejection of his work.
Silence and Obedience: Despite his personal disappointment, Seewald described that Benedict remained committed to the vow of obedience to his successor.
Context of Relationship: Although Francis spoke warmly of Benedict, Seewald argued that the practical, day-to-day actions, such as the Motu Proprio, represented a sharp break in continuity.
Seewald contrasted the public cordiality between the two popes with the significant, contrary changes implemented by Francis regarding the liturgy.
John Allen (requiescat in pace), in 2000 A.D., repeated the false narrative, that Joseph Ratzinger had vacated liberalism in 1968 A.D.
Pope Emeritus, in 2016 A.D., declared to journalist Peter Seewald that he (Joseph Ratzinger) did not change his progressive views.
Pope Emeritus confirmed the false nature of the 1968 A.D. narrative in question. But John Allen had known better than Joseph Ratzinger.
Oh, okay. Sure.
=======
Hans Urs von Balthasar, nominated a Cardinal:
"Ratzinger has always been for an advanced position and openness.
"I have known him for a long time, since he was a professor, and I can assure you that he did not change.
"Everyone says the opposite, that there are two Ratzingers: one before he came to Rome, and a different one later. To the contrary, he has always remained the same!"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I repeated supposedly "scurrilous accusations of modernism against a future pope."
Reality check:
It was the "future Pope" who revealed that during his time at the University of Munich, he "faced accusations of "dangerous modernism" from Professor Michael Schmaus regarding his (Ratzinger's) post-doctoral thesis."
Joseph Ratzinger had been forced to "rewrite and resubmit the manuscript, passing after separating the criticized section."
=======
From: AI Overview:
"In his conversations with journalist Peter Seewald, published in the book Last Testament: In His Own Words, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) acknowledged that as a young theologian and professor, he was considered "modern," "progressive," and "critical," with some critics even labeling his work as "dangerous modernism".
"The 1956 Thesis Critique: Ratzinger recalled that during his habilitation (post-doctoral accreditation) in 1956, Professor Michael Schmaus, head of the University of Munich, rejected his thesis, The Theology of History in Saint Bonaventura. Schmaus viewed Ratzinger's approach as a "dangerous Modernism that was about to make the concept of revelation a subjective notion".
Pax.
Mark Thomas
And in this thread, MT finds it easy to believe that a man would not change a single one of his views over the course of his life. And yet he can’t comprehend that same man’s own words because they don’t comport with his preconceived notions of the man’s views. Impressive.
Nick
Doubling down on detraction against a pope, at least it’s for a good cause!
I’m glad my comments are coming through on your end, MT, it shows how willingly you persist in avoiding retracting your libel of me.
Nick
A timely thought exercise: if a man publicly espoused modernism, never changed his mind, and was subsequently putatively elected pope, would we have a heretic pope or no pope at all?
Never thought I’d see MT, of all people, stumble his way toward 2005 sedevacantism, of all things.
Nick
In regard to folks who have advanced the false narrative that there were two Joseph Ratzingers — pre-1968 A.D. liberal, post 1968 A.D. conservative:
Joseph Ratzinger, to the end of his earthly life, had remained attached to progressivism that, beginning in the 1950s, he had promoted publicly in unrelenting fashion.
-- Vatican II...unrelenting attachment. As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI: Vatican II was "not only meaningful, but necessary."
-- The success of Vatican II's/Pope Saint Paul VI's liturgical reform...unrelenting attachment and praise.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger: "“Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular.”
"...the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history."
As Pope Benedict XVI: 2007 A.D., he praised "the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal" (Missal of Pope Saint Paul VI).
"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
"Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.
"The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."
-- Ecumenical Movement...maintained his unrelenting attachment.
-- Interreligious dialogue...maintained his unrelenting attachment. In his attachment to interreligious dialogue, Pope Benedict XVI had even overthrown the traditional Good Friday Prayer for Jews.
As Pope, he permitted also Communion in the hand, EMs, women readers at Mass, altar girls...
Joseph Ratzinger's attachment to progressivism never waned.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
I know you struggle with relying on others’ out of context opinion to excess, but take a minute to consider, using your own independent thought, even just briefly, that advancing the position that a public heretic can be pope not only includes His Tremendousness but also risks the Church’s claim to indefectibility.
But fortunately that is just the position you… you… you have presented here based mostly on your naked assertions that none… none… of Ratzinger/Benedict’s opinions changed over the course of his lifetime, nothing…nothing about his thought developed or had contradictions for sixty years, not the truth of the matter. You yourself have implicitly assumed Ratzinger the man directly contradicted Benedict the Pope some twenty years apart. But now you assert he always and everywhere held the exact same positions for his entire clerical life.
This one is a doozy, MT, and an especially-poorly reasoned take for the sake of which to dig ever deeper in. I’m almost impressed at the depths of this nadir.
Nick
Father McDonald, thank you for having permitted me to have expressed myself via this thread/your blog.
Father, you stated yesterday..."Yes, prior to the Council Joseph Ratzinger was the darling of the so-called “liberal” wing of the Church, but he was not and never was a progressive heterodox. Around 1968, Joseph Ratzinger grew up."
=======
Father, you and I agree in regard to Father Joseph Ratzinger's situation prior to 1968 A.D. Now, let us say that you are correct in regard to his post-1968 A.D. situation.
As trads have long noted, Vatican II liberal peritus Joseph Ratzinger, via approval by the Pope, as well as Conciliar Fathers, had injected his liberalism into Conciliar documents.
Father Ratzinger, a key liberal peritus, was not alone in that regard. His fellow liberal theological experts also influenced the Council.
Liberal Father Joseph Ratzinger, post-Council, had continued to influence the overhaul of the Church.
Even if he had turned conservative post-1968 A.D., his prior liberal bent had helped place the Church on the irreversible course upon which She travels today.
Pope Leo XIV had made clear last year when he had declared to the Cardinals:
"In this regard, I would like us to renew together today our complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council."
Trad Inc. has long insisted that 1960s Joseph Ratzinger, as well as his fellow liberal Churchmen, had inflicted horrific, monumental damage upon the Church.
There is not any question that trads are correct in regard to the following: At least prior to 1968 A.D., Joseph Ratzinger had played a key role in regard to the development of radical reforms that Rome adopted.
However, I disagree with Trad Inc. that said reforms proved unorthodox, as well as destructive.
Joseph Ratzinger, a progressive...liberal...whatever term one prefers, was a holy, orthodox, loyal son of Holy Mother Church. He proved that liberalism is an orthodox approach.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment