Liturgical theologians touted the breakthrough that the Bugnini contrived Mass was. And that breakthrough was “resourcement”!
It’s one of those words that everyone, except liturgical elites, forget what that French word means.
Let me make it simple.
In 1969, you take a fully loaded Lincoln Continental sedan and you strip it down and return it to the Model T Ford from which it evolved and grew organically.
That’s what the 1970 Roman Missal or, truthfully, Bishop Bugnini did to the 1962 Roman Missal, organically developed over centuries. He tried to return it to the way the early Church celebrated the Mass in a Model T fashion.
So, from the Mass, you take away automatic transmission, power brakes, electric windows, cruise control, V-8 engine, computers and safety features and strip it down to what it was originally without all those accretions.
Yes, that’s what the 1970 Missal tried to do, or better yet, Bishop Bugnini did.
I had a Ford lightbulb moment when Pope Leo was giving His Holiness’ Wednesday catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. SC was not talking about some future stripped down, contrived Mass like the one Bugnini came up with, but rather it was talking about the Mass of the day during the Council and for centuries before.
Yes, in not the most unambiguous way, SC called for some conservative reforms. Most of these, in my most humble opinion, had to do with the complexity of Pontifical Masses celebrated by the Bishop of Rome and all other bishops. It was not aimed at the typical parish Low or High Mass. Maybe more to the Solemn Sung Mass with deacon and subdeacon.
Noble simplicity doesn’t mean stripping the Mass down to a Model T Ford. It means making it easier to celebrate the Mass with vernacular rubrics and taking away some of the odd additions to the more solemn celebrations of the Mass, like the server kissing the priest’s hand, the taking of the paten in a solemn way away from the altar, the oddity of the paten not used on the corporal until right before the priest’s “Domini non sum dignus”.
A useless repetition would be the double prayers at the PATFOTA, the double “non sum dignus” at Communion time, one for the priest the other for the laity and the Confiteor again recited prior to the people’s non-sum dignus.
But what in the Name of God and all that is Holy is wrong with the priest and ministers at a sung Mass saying the PATFOTA while the Entrance Chant (Introit) is chanted?
What in the Name of God and all that is Holy is wrong with all of the other silent and private prayers of the priest that Bugnini completely stripped away?
What is wrong with all the sign language used by the priest during the Roman Canon, like multiple signs of the Cross, genuflections and bows???
What is wrong with the Last Gospel and in fact with the Order of the Mass where the Dismissal comes first and the Final Blessing last, with those pesky private prayers of the priest in between?
Fidelity to SC’s call for certain changes in the Mass would be the 1964 Roman Missal that allowed for quite a bit of vernacular but also mandated Latin for the Roman Canon or any Eucharistic Prayer developed, although SC did not call for additional Canons!
Preserving Gregorian Chant and Latin could be accomplished by mandating that in a sung Mass the Propers be in Latin and perhaps the fixed parts of the Mass.
SC did not call for a reorientation of churches and the wreckovation of church sanctuaries. It did not mandate that the Mass always be said facing the assembly.
It did not call for standing for Holy Communion, the removal of altar railings and extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
I hope Pope Leo realizes as he teaches us about the true meaning of SC that His Holiness needs to reform the reform and make it what SC actually sought for the Mass of the ages.
Hint: It isn’t the 1970 Roman Missal or any other version of said missal since 1970.
19 comments:
Everything that Sacrosanctum Concilium called for was accomplished in the 1965 reform of the rubrics. The Novus Ordo is not the Mass called for by Vatican II!
As for preserving Latin, I think that the sung Ordinary should be returned to Latin. These are simple prayers that are repeated at every Mass and thus can be easily learned.
The 64-65 Missal did not revise or expand the lectionary which SC did recommend. I don’t think the lectionary needed to be dropped altogether but may a year “B” and “C” added to “A” which would be the original. Maybe year B would include more Old Testament Readings and Year C more Gospel readings or whatever. I don’t think adding one more reading was the way to go as it is too many readings and makes the Mass even more wordy and it’s too much to comprehend or remember.
I'm curious if you've attended a Pontifical High Mass since your youth...
While those sorts of masses as pictured on the internet are usually fairly ornate and complicated, I recall during my time at an SSPX chapel that such masses weren't quite as complicated as the "special event" sort usually depicted on the internet. I suspect that the SSPX experience of these things probably better approximates the typical situation from before Vatican II rather than fussier versions.
At any rate, the same sort of feel happens in the Orthodox Hierarchical Liturgy: it's obviously more complicated than the typical Divine Liturgy, but once one goes to this sort of thing multiple times, it's not quite as ornate as it first appears.
There was an accompanying daily Mass lectionary. The lectionary can be expanded by proper ferial readings and greater selections for the feasts. There was no need to disturb the Sunday lectionary. The is actually a good pedagogical reason for hearing the same Sunday readings year after year.
That "Ford lightbulb moment" you had was rather dim, kinda like the light you get from a flashlight when the batteries are 90% gone.
Consider a better analogy for the reform of the mass. Discovered in 1905 in South Africa, the Cullinan diamond weighed 3,106 carats or about 1.3 pounds. It had been growing "organically" for billions of years underground. When unearthed, the beauty was recognizable, but obscured, the essence of the gem was well known, but did not shine forth.
After lengthy study and planning this clunk of a rock was cut and polished, removing that which concealed the great beauty within. Nine principal gems were produced, each a masterpiece of God's creativity and man's ingenuity. They sparkle with inner fire, they twinkle with each movement, they flash and gleam when the light hits them just right.
The goal, which was achieved, was to simplify the liturgy and make the core elements more transparent, participatory, and grounded in biblical sources
No, I never have been to a pontifical Mass, only saw it on YouTube. But, I have celebrated the 1962 Solemn Sung Mass with deacon and subdeacon and all the bells and whistles many times.
Your analogy is not apropo—the sludge on this diamond did not add to its beauty by hid it. Whereas the organic development of the Model T Ford into a Lincoln Continental brightened the diamond of a car that the Model T became in the Lincoln Continental. The early Mass did not accumulate dust, dirt and a hard veneer of ugliness, it attained more and more beauty, regality and solemnity—thus the 1962 Roman Missal is the diamond and the 1970 Missal is the “unearthed diamond you speak of with its beauty unrecognizable!” Nice try, but extremely poor analogy, except your analogy makes my point even better! Thank you.
More like taking the Hope Diamond, which had been carefully cut, and smashing it with a sledge hammer because that looked more natural.
The early mass did accumulate the unnecessary and superfluous. Unless SC was wrong...
“The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s power of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” (SC, 34)
The mention of the Hope diamond is interesting. It sits in a museum, people come in and say, "Oooooh!" and "Aaaaaah!" People can look, but not touch. It doesn't become a part of peoples' lives. I doubt that it inspires anyone to go out and start hunting for diamonds. Maybe a picture is allowed, but then it just fades into the thousands of other pictures on someone's phone....
I see “Father Edsel” showed up and offered nothing of substance. I suspect he lacks the intellect to celebrate the TLM like Father McDonald. He probably would be a Priest Simplex if the TLM were still in force in the Roman Church
You must have missed the classes on beauty and attraction to the Catholic Faith that begins for the inquirers by oohs and awws and keeps Catholics the same way. Can you remind us of how many Catholics attended Mass with the full loaded Mass in 1964 compared to today with the reversion to the Model T 1970 Missal?
The Novus Bogus is full of useless repetitions like the Prayer of the Faithful when the Roman Canon is used. The TLM is noble simplicity compared to the hydra-headed Novus Bogus
TJM, ad hominem attacks on people and the Bugnini Mass is what helped bring about TC. You don’t help us in convincing the high ups to reconsider TC by that kind of attack and language!
“In 1969, you take a fully loaded Lincoln Continental sedan and you strip it down and return it to the Model T Ford from which it evolved and grew organically“
Sounds a bit ad hominem
Many of these 'what if' and 'if only' comments may be academically interesting - but I cannot find anybody in 1955 saying if only the 1570 Missal had the lections in the vernacular as mandated by the Council of Trent! We are, Fathers and gentlemen (and ladies), where we are now. The Missal of Paul VI will probably be the more used Missal and may have some developments in the future. The Missal of John XXIII enjoys a revival and the discussion should be - just how that revival should be allowed to thrive, and under what regulations.
Father Allan,
This comparison may fairly be extended to the Roman Breviary of 1960. The revision that asked that the focus be on Lauds, Vespers and Compline (L, V & C) was practical and brilliant. While the suppression of Prime was sad (Prime as an office consecrates one's workday to God, and has a different focus than Lauds, which is Praise of God). It is easier to pray the Prayers: Morning and Evening Prayers of the Divine Office: Lauds, Vespers and Compline for the Entire Years from the Roman Breviary, Benziger Bothers, 1965, than Christian Prayer, which is a sort of gobbledy gook of prayer. The unredacted full psalms bring the biblical focus right up front, and it is a relatively straightforward easy office. No wondering what week you are on, and you actually say more psalms in one week in these three offices (L, V, & C) than you do in the course of the 4 weeks in the modern office for L, V &C, as found in the 1976 Christian Prayer.
"Unless SC was wrong..." And there, Fr. Kavanaugh, you repeat the lie that the Novus Order was mandated by Vatican II. It was not! Putting aside the question of the Lectionary, all that Sacrosanctum Concilium called for was accomplished with the reform of 1965. There was not the expectation of further reforms. The Concilium worked in secret to produce the further reforms without the input of the council fathers. When the normative mass was first presented, it was rejected. SC called only for reforms that were required. I challenge you to show how any of the reforms introduced in the Novus Ordo that go beyond those of the 1965 reform were required.
And yes, they say "Oooooh!" and "Aaaaah!" because they appreciate that it is more precious than the costume jewelry that they wear daily. If given the ability, they would prefer the Hope Diamond and other fine jewelry over the play jewelry that they can afford. The Church had given the ordinary faithful a real jewel in the old Mass. It has been taken away are replaced by a cheep imitation.
I should also point out the other lie, treating Vatican II as if its statements were dogmatic. Vatican II made not a single dogmatic statement, and this includes the dogmatic constitutions. No one is obliged in conscience to agree with anything that Vatican II. This is not to say that I reject the entire council out of hand, but we need to stop elevating its authority as a way to stop all conversation.
Sacrosanctum Concilium is a tough case, because on paper it's conservative (keep Latin, keep Gregorian chant, no changes unless the good of the faithful truly requires them, modest expansion of the vernacular, new lectionary). During its development, however, it was always a dead letter. If you read Yves Chiron's book "Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy," he documents Bugnini telling the Consilium in 1961, two years before SC was promulgated, that they would not be able to make all the changes they want to make in the initial document, but they could plant the seeds of them. This is why so many parts of SC call for a conservative degree of change, and then say, "The full extent of the change will be determined by the bishops conferences."
What I have discovered recently is that the most successful cases of "Reform of the Reform" look very close to the 1965 Mass: traditional ars celebrandi, veiled tabernacles, Benedictine arrangement, altar boys in cassocks and surplices, altar rails for Communion, increased use of the Roman Canon, etc. At one point I thought strictly along the lines of, "1965 is a wasted effort. Let's just go back to the TLM." These days, I think more incrementally. Any move toward tradition and greater reverence is good in my opinion.
Post a Comment