THE REFORM OF THE REFORM—FOLLOWING CHAPTER II OF SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

Below this post, is an article by His Eminence, Walter Cardinal Brandmuller. In it he recommended that the Bugnini Mass needs a “reform” and this time in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concilium. To this end, he recommended rereading Chapter II of Sacrosanctum Concilium. 

Here is Chapter II with my most brilliant, but as ever, most humble comments embedded in red in the text:

CHAPTER II 

THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST

47. At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity [36], a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us [37]. (Here Vatican II makes explicitly clear that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, not a reenactment of the Last Supper! The Last Supper anticipates Good Friday and Easter Sunday! But in many places, the Bugnini Mass is celebrated as though a commemoration of the Last Supper!)

48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator [38], they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all. (This paragraph of important. The Liturgical Movement of the 20th Century was already addressing this in many places in Europe. But, yes, and I vividly remember this, that in the pre-Vatican II Church, many, not all, were doing other things, like the Rosary, to occupy their time during the Mass. But that was changing in the late 1950’s when hand missals were highly recommended for people to follow the actual Mass. Also, I doubt that most pre-Vatican II Catholics understood that the laity also offer the Immaculate Victim, with the priest. They should also receive Holy Communion, of course in a state of grace, frequently.)

49. For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree.

50. 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. (I think the Bugnini “Liturgy of the Word” got the reform correct, although the later revised Lectionary went beyond what i think was required.)

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 vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. (The Order of the Mass should not have been revised, that was not mentioned. The PATFOTA should have been simplified but not radically and certainly not eliminated. The double Confiteors, with the double absolutions and in the vernacular and prior to the chanting of the Introit, would have been faithful to this chapter. This would leave the Kyrie as independent from the Penitential Act that precedes it and the greeting by the priest remaining prior to the Collect. The other unecessary duplication would be the Communion Rite, with two seperate rites, first for the priest and secondly for the laity. The Bugnini Rite is very close to that Chapter II requested but not entirely. And certainly, as the 1962 Missal did, the Confiteor prior to the people’s Communion needed to be eliminated!)

51. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years. (The revised lectionary should have focused on maintaining the original Tridentine lectionary and simply building upon it with an additional B and C years. The revision of the daily lectionary is fine as it is but needs to recover some things eliminated from the Tridentine’s daily Mass lectionary, which doesn’t exist. AND CERTAINLY PSALM 42 AT THE PATFOTA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED OR THE PSALM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WASHING OF THE HANDS AND CERTAINLY THE INTROIT, OFFERTORY AND COMMUNION ANTIPHONS, WHICH ARE SCRIPTURES, SHOULD NOT HAVE EVER, EVER, EVER BEEN MADE OPTIONAL!!!!!)

52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, 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. (I think this was well received for the most part!)

53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, "the common prayer" or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world [39]. (The “prayer of the Faithful, as it has developed in the Bugnini Mass is a disaster! It should follow what is said here. It should be a litany with the laity’s response, brief and short petitions and the ones mentioned and prescribed, perhaps with three choices that are rotated each Sunday and one set for daily Mass, very brief! The Prayers of the Faithful are too wordy, demanding of God, almost homilies and quite poltical!)

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.(I think preserving Gregorian Chant would preserve Latin for the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons in sung Masses. Pope Paul tried to get all the bishops to use his “Jubilatio Dei” supplment for the laity to chant in Latin the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei and of course, the Greek Kyrie. Everything else in the vernacular as an option.)

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. 

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended. (I agree with this, but it is difficult to accomplish!)

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism. (Communion under both kinds was not forseen for each and every Mass with hoards of Extraordinary Communion Ministers assisting!)

56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly 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. (This was to battle the minimalist approach to fulfilling one’s obligation. i think we were taught that if you came in before the offertory or maybe in time for the Gospel, you fulfilled your obligation, but if you missed the Gospel or the offertory, can’t remember which, you did not. but of course, you could leave during Communion, especially if you were not receiving!)

57. 1. Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:

1. 

a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.

b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;

c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:

a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;

b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.

2.

1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of con-celebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.

2. Nevertheless, 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 Lord's Supper.

58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.