Doctoral Dissertation on the Consilium and reform of the Mass: from Tridentine Mass to Normative...

8/10/2019 Doctoral Dissertation on the Consilium and reform of the Mass: from Tridentine Mass to Normative Mass and Nov

1/29

PONTIFICIUM ATHENAEUM S. ANSELMI DE URBE

PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM LITURGICAM

___________________________________________________

Thesis ad Lauream

THEMISSANORMATIVAOF1967;ITSHISTORYANDPRINCIPLESASAPPLIEDTO

THELITURGYOFTHEMASS

Christiaan W. Kappes

Tesi per il conseguimento del Dottorato in Sacra Liturgia

Romae 2012

THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS

1


2/29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................6-12

1.0 CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................................................13

1.1Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Consilium......................................................13-14

1.2 The Council:Sacrosanctum Concilium...............................................................14-21

1.3 The Consilium.......................................................................................................22-23

1.4Sacram Liturgiam and the Consilium..................................................................23-24

1.5Inter Oecumenici: The Reform Begins in Earnest.............................................24-25

1.5.1 Organization of the Consilium...................................................................26

1.5.2 Functional Structure of the Consilium1964-1967....................................27

1.5.3 Reforms........................................................................................................28

1.5.4 Ceremonial Elements............................................................................28-29

1.5.5 Additions to the Ordo Missae.....................................................................29

1.6 Summary................................................................................................................29-30

1.7 Tres abhinc annos: The Consilium Begins Reconstruction................................31-33

1.8 Summary.....................................................................................................................33

1.9 Transitional Missal According to 4 May 1967....................................................33-34

1.10. Summary.............................................................................................................34-35

2.0 CHAPTER TWO...................................................................................................................36

2.1 From Tres abhinc annosto the Normative Mass...............................................36-37

2.2 Approved Principles of Reform for Coetus Xin April 1964..............................37-41 2.3 Chronological Description of the Reform for Coetus X....................................42-43

2.4 Coetus Xs Mass Schema as adopted by the Consilium...........................................44

2.4.1 The Liturgy of the Word and Offertory..............................................44-48

2.4.2 Canon Missae........................................................................................48-53

2.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................54-55

3.0 CHAPTER THREE...............................................................................................................56

3.1 Principles of the Reform..........................................................................................56

3.2Altiora principia: Fundamental Principles.........................................................56-59

3.3 Operational Principles.........................................................................................59-60 3.4 Commentary..........................................................................................................61-69

3.5 Ecumenism............................................................................................................70-73

3.6 Coetus X and Its Organization and Function within the Consilium................73-76

3.7 Specific Treatment of the Structure and Operation of Coetus X...........................77

3.7.1 Process of Approval of Any Reformed Liturgical Books...................77-78

3.7.2 Theoretical Organization of the Work of Each Group......................78-80


3


3/29

3.7.3 Procedure for Enacting Any Reform Approved by the Consilium....80-81

4.0 CHAPTER FOUR..................................................................................................................82

4.1 The Ordo Missae According to theMissa Normativa.........................................82-85

4.2Ritus Initiales.........................................................................................................85-92

4.3 Salutation...................................................................................................92-97

4.4Actio Poenitentialis.........................................................................................98

4.4.1Kyrie Eleison.............................................................................98-100

4.4.2 TheKyriein Relation to Penitential Compositions.............100-107

4.5 The Gloria..............................................................................................108-111

4.6 The Collect.............................................................................................111-113

4.7 Readings: The Liturgy of the Word Proper........................................113-121

4.8 The Credo...............................................................................................121-124

4.9 Prayer of the Faithful: Petitions..........................................................124-128

5.0 CHAPTER FIVE.................................................................................................................129

5.1 The Offertory: the Bread.................................................................................129-132

5.2 The Offertory: the Wine...................................................................................132-136

5.3 Canon Missae: The Preface..............................................................................133-139

5.4 Canon Missae: The Roman Canon..................................................................139-141

5.4.1 Canon Missae: Form A. Te igitur......................................................141-145

5.4.2 Canon Missae: Form A.Memento....................................................146-148

5.4.3 Canon Missae: Form A. Communicantes.........................................148-149

5.4.4 Canon Missae: Form A.Hanc igitur........................................................150

5.4.5 Canon Missae: Form A. Quam oblationem......................................150-151

5.4.6 Canon Missae: Form A. Institution Narrative................................151-153

5.4.7 Canon Missae: Form A. Unde et memores...............................................154 5.4.8 Canon Missae: Form A.Supra quae & Supplices te rogamus.........154-155

5.4.9 Canon Missae: Form A.Momento....................................................155-156

5.4.10 Canon Missae: Form A.Nobis quoque peccatoribus.....................156-158

5.4.11 Canon Missae: Form A.Per quem..................................................158-159

5.4.12 Canon Missae: Form A.Per Ipsum.................................................159-160

5.5 Canon Missae: Form B.....................................................................................160-161

5.5.1 Canon Missae: Form B.Memento & Communicantes....................162-162

5.5.2 Canon Missae: Form B.Hanc igitur-Supplices te rogamus............162-164

5.5.3 Canon Missae: Form B.Momento & Nobis quoque peccatoribus..164-165

5.5.4 Canon Missae: Form B.Per quem & Per ipsum.....................................165 5.6 Canon Missae: Form C.....................................................................................166-167

5.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................168-171

6.0 CHAPTER SIX....................................................................................................................172

6.1 The Our Father.................................................................................................172-174

6.2 The Our Father: the Embolism.......................................................................174-177


4


4/29

6.3 ThePax Domini.................................................................................................177-180

6.4Pax......................................................................................................................180-182

6.5 The Commingling andAgnus Dei...................................................................183-186

6.6 The Communion Preparation..........................................................................186-188

6.7 TheEcce Agnus Dei..........................................................................................188-190

6.8 The Communion Rite.......................................................................................190-192

6.9 The Post-Communion Rite..............................................................................192-196

6.10 The Post-Communion Oration......................................................................196-197

6.11 The Closing rites.............................................................................................198-199

6.12 Conclusions.....................................................................................................199-200

7.0 CHAPTER SEVEN..............................................................................................................201

7.1 The Synod of Bishops.......................................................................................201-203

7.2 Query I at the Synod of Bishops......................................................................203-208

7.2.1 Query I, Section 2..............................................................................208-209

7.2.2 Query I, Section 3..............................................................................210-212

7.3 Query II.............................................................................................................213-214

7.4 Query III............................................................................................................214-216

7.5 Query IV............................................................................................................216-217

7.6 Papal Queries on the Normative Mass...........................................................217-218

7.6.1 Papal Query I: Eucharistic Prayers.................................................218-220

7.6.2 Eucharistic Prayer III.......................................................................221-224

7.7 Query II & III: The Words of Institution.......................................................224-228

7.8 The Nicene and Apostles Creed......................................................................228-229

7.9 Conclusions about the Synod...........................................................................229-232

8.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................233

8.1 Theoretical Considerations..............................................................................233-235

8.2Altiora Principia: Principles One and Two.....................................................236-237

8.3 Third Principle: Active Participation.............................................................237-242

8.4 Other Theoretical and Operative Principles..................................................242-243

8.5 The Normative Mass and Its Overall Structure............................................243-244

8.6 The Synod of Bishops and the Normative Mass............................................244-245

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................246-257


5


5/29

THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Introduction

INTRODUCTION

An earnest reform within the Roman Catholic Church had already begun in the ambit of

her public worship before the formal closing of the Second Vatican Council on December 8th

1965. This reform was inaugurated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Holy Father established a

papal organ of liturgical reform for the Latin rite known as the Consilium ad exsequendam

Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. This impetus came from the Constitution Sacrosanctum

Conciliumof the 4thof December 1963. the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra

Liturgia, dubbed as the Consilium, thereafter was to be the authoritative voice of the Holy

Father for interpreting and applying the principles and decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical

Council in regard to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.1

This papal organ began its task to apply the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy by means

of a full revision of the liturgical books of the Latin rite upon the Consiliums establishment as

an official body following the decree of Sacram Liturgiam on the 25thof January 1964. In the2

course of that historic work of reform, specifically regarding the revision of the ritus et preces of

the Roman Missal in force, the Consilium adopted a policy of gradual simplification of the Pian

Missal (editio typica 1962). This was in order to arrive at a final and thorough revision of the

Roman Missal.3

It is the task of the present work to describe the process by which the Consilium reformed

a specific part of the Pian Missal, i.e. editio typica 1962. The reform of the Roman missal was4

1

P. MARINI, Il primo Periodo de attivit del Consilium: prospettive e difficolt1

(Marzo-Giugno 1964), Ephemerides Liturgicae107 (1993) 401-439. In Appendix I, P. Marini

reproduces the originalPromemoriasubmitted by A. Bugnini for Paul VI, which ideas resulted in

the Consilium as a reforming agency instead of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (SRC).

PAULVI, Sacram Liturgiam,Acta Apostolica Sedis 56 (1964) 139.2

P. MARINI, LIstruzione Inter Oecumenici, una svolta decisiva (Luglio-Ottobre3

1964),Ephemerides Liturgicae108 (1994) 225.

However, it should be kept in mind that the simplification of rubrics in 1964 and 19674

were not considered New Missals, rather rubrical adjustments and textual deletions of the

editio typica 1962 (itself a transitional Missal according toRubricarum intructionem) in order to

transition to a new Missal.


6/29


meant to establish a definitive schema for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Mass. Just such a

schema was eventually proposed by the Consilium on the 24th of May 1966, before its debut

before the Fathers of the extraordinary synod of bishops in 1967. This work intends to limit itself

to an investigation of Ordinary of Mass celebrated before the synod of bishops. This limited areaof study had been entrusted to Coetus Xof the newly formed Consilium. The new form of Mass

was officially named theMissa normativa, or Normative Mass. The Normative Mass represents

the first attempt to introduce the Church to a complete liturgical reform of the Ordo Missaeof

the Latin rite in accord with the fundamental and operational principles of liturgical reform as

emanating from the Fathers of the Consilium. These principles of reform are themselves the fruit

of the Consilium Fathers and peritis reflections and officially sanctioned interpretation of

Sacrosanctum Concilium.It is the intent of this work to present the text of the Ordo Missaeof

the Missa normativa in order to evaluate the resultant rite produced by the Fathers of the

Consilium in conjunction with their periti. This work also intends to shed light on the motives

and reasoning of these Fathers andperitifor individual revisions and compositions of texts with

the purpose of demonstrating that the Missa normativa was not merely another transitional

form of the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy in order toarrive at the Novus Ordo Missaeof

1969. Instead, this work attempts to highlight a conscious application of the fundamental and

operational liturgical principles, applied by the Consiliumperitiand voted upon by the Fathers of

the Consilum, that led to the establishment the basic structure of the Normative Mass. This

Normative Mass was to be the bedrock upon which any new liturgy was to be based. It will be

shown that the Consiliums approach to the structure of the Mass also admitted local variation

and innovation. Nonetheless, the skeleton of the Normative Mass was the desired final product of

the Consilium Fathers. It represented their sincere desires for a reformed liturgy. An appointed

group of voting Fathers (i.e. Cardinals, prelates and priests) were responsible for the final

approval of the various schemata as proposed by the periti of the Consilium ad exsequendam

Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. After presenting the full schema of the Normative Mass, the

present work intends to concentrate on investigating the Ordoof the Normative Mass. It hopes to

put into relief the manner in which Consilium principles were applied to some individual parts of

that liturgy. Additionally, the work plans to justify its claim that the Normative Mass was meant

2


7/29


to be the definitive rite of the Mass. This will be accomplished by an analysis of the individual

sections of the Normative Mass from various perspectives. The result of investigating the

historical background, application of principles, and resultant changes in a rite should

demonstrate that this form of celebration was in fact the near-final result of applying theprinciples of liturgical reform as adopted by the Consilium. The reason why this claim might be

contested is due to the fact that the Normative Mass failed to gain unanimous acceptance before

the representative bishops of the extraordinary synod of bishops in Rome in 1967. At this synod5

the bishops expressed their views on the Normative Mass in a rather negative fashion. These

responses were interpreted by the Pope and Consilium members as a failure to gain approval of

their reform efforts. This singular event led to the ultimate failure of the Normative Mass to

become the skeleton over which the new post-Conciliar liturgy would ultimately be enfleshed.6

The method of this work will introduce briefly the historical formation of the rite itself and then

report on the work of the Consilium. The main focus of this work will be to evaluate the

individual rites of the Mass in a systematic way. This work will explain the provenance of the

various rites in the Normative Mass. It also hopes to justify each reforms value in light of the

Consiliums opinions on liturgical history and its concerns for the modern needs of man and

legitimate cultural adaptation.

In regard to authors who have studied the Normative Mass itself, none have treated

specifically the Normative Mass as a separate entity and specific area of study, except per

accidens. Maurizio Barba has published copious notes, various minutes, votes of the Fathers, and

3

The implication here is that the failure of a large project often is an occasion to re-5

invent the project so that all the labor and work has not been in vain. Something like this can beargued to have happened with the Normative Mass. Its failure was the occasion to start a new

project. This new project did not begin ex novo, but adopted some of its principles and structure

from the Normative Mass. These rites were then combined with various other rites suggested by

the Pope, curial agencies and through surveys provided by clerics and laypeople. This process

will be treated more amply in the main body of the work.

CONSILIUM, De liturgia in primo synodo episcoporum,Notitiae3 (1967) 357.6


8/29


discussions of the Consiliumperiti. His most valuable work in this area is his commentary and7

anthology of texts found under the title:La riforma conciliare dell Ordo Missae. In this work

M. Barba has published several previously unedited manuscripts and schemata detailing the

work and discussions of theperitiof Coetus Xof the Consilium. In particular, he has reproducedthe proposed schemata of the rite of Mass leading up to the Normative Mass as celebrated before

the Synod Fathers of 1967 in Rome. Besides the Vatican Council documents themselves and

papal decrees in Acta Apostolic Sedis, which are the principle sources for understanding the

Churchs official process of reform, there are significant studies on the reform in general. For

instance, such documentation exists in Notitiae and within the works of several liturgical8

writers, themselves part of the historical reform process. The bulk of documentation is published

by Ephemerides Liturgicae, which reproduced documents and materials on the same subject.

Among the principle authors of interest are Piero Marini and Aim-George Martimort. An9 10

additional indispensable source is the Ordo Romanus Primus from among the Ordines Romani11

andMissale Romanum(editio typica 1962) for comparing and contrasting the various parts of the

Ordo Missae of the Normative Mass to its historical predecessors. In the realm of liturgical

history, J. Jungmanns Mass of the Roman Riteis indispensable. Jungmanns magnum opusis12

4

M. BARBA,La riforma conciliare dellOrdo Missae. Il percorso storico-redazionale dei riti7

dingresso, di offertorio e di comunione (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 120),

CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 2002.

CONSILIUM, Septima sessione plenaria Consilii, Notitiae 2 (1966) 313. CONSILIUM, De8

Missa normativa,Notitiae3 (1967) 371-380.

P. MARINI, LIstruzione Inter Oecumenici, una svolta decisiva (Luglio-Ottobre 1964),9

Ephemerides Liturgicae 108 (1994) 205-231. P. MARINI, Il primo Periodo de attivit del

Consilium: prospettive e difficolt (Marzo-Giugno 1964), Ephemerides Liturgicae 107

(1993) 401-403.

A.-G. MARTIMORT, Adaptation liturgique,Ephemerides Liturgicae 79(1965) 3-16.10

Ordo Romanus Primus, in Les Ordines romani du haut moyen ge 2. Les Textes (Ordines I-11

XIII), ed. Michel Andrieu (Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense, tudes et documents fascicule 23),

Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense administration, Louvain 1971, 67-108.

J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite. Its Origins and Development1-2, tr. Francis A.12

Brunner, Benzinger Brothers, New York 11951.


9/29


important for this work not only because of its authoritative acceptance as a historical study on

the origins and history of the Roman rite, but most especially because the Consilium explicitly

favored Jungmanns historical presentation and interpretation of the Roman rite. The Consilium

praised J. JungmannsMissarum Sollemniaas a valuable compilation and harmonization of theentire range of knowledge from previous liturgical studies of the Latin rite. J. Jungmann had

incorporated into his work a great variety of studies and authors. Liturgical interests and studies

multiplied exponentially following the advent of liturgical movement, especially as inaugurated

during the Pontificate of Pius X.13

There are other published studies important for this work. Vincenzo Raffa, in Liturgia

eucaristica. Mistogogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla pastorale practica,has

already outlined the rationale for many of the reforms of theNovus Ordo Missae. some of these

are germane to the Normative Mass as well. Various articles of Carlo Braga are indispensable14

for understanding the workings and process of reform of the Consilium, as well as the thinking

of the individualperiti. Their work, however, is principally concerning the Missal of Paul VI,15

and again most often mentions the Normative Mass only in passing, i.e., a matter of proper

5

Nel frattempo per si portavano a termine anche gli studi che Pio X aveva auspicato e nel13

1948 Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., poteva riassumerli e publicarli nella sua celebre operaMissarum Sollemnia che stata tradotta in molte lingue e diffusa in tutto il mondo. See the

Consilium publication Memorandum sullattivit del Coetus X De Ordine Missae e sulle

esigenze, possibilit e mete della riforma dell De Ordo Missae in conformit ai decreti

conciliari. This is reproduced by J. WAGNER, Zur Reform des Ordo Missae, in Liturgia

opera divina e umana.Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in

occasione del suo 70 compleanno, ed. P. Jounel - R. Kaczynski G. Paqualletti (Bibliotheca

Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 26), Edizioni liturgiche, Roma 1982, 263-290. This last line is

meant to distinguish the liturgical movement of Dom Gueranger from the more modern

movement following the legislation and writings of Pope St. Pius X.

V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla14

postorale practica (Biblioteca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 100), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche,

Roma "2003.

C. BRAGA, Instructio ad exsecutionem Constitutionis de Liturgia recte ordinandam-15

Commentarium,Ephemerides Liturgicae78(1964) 421-518; C. BRAGADe liturgia in quarta

periodo Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Ephemerides Liturgicae 79 (1965) 377-387; C.

BRAGA, Istauratio liturgica: anno primo,Ephemerides Liturgicae80(1966) 141-155.


10/29


chronology when explaining the process of reform resulting in theNovus Ordo Missae. Nearly

everything written which touches on the Normative Mass does not intend to treat it as the focus

of a an article. As such, no specific study of the Normative Mass as a separate entity seems to

have been written. With the exception the initial work of M. Barba, there exists no evaluation ofthe parts and whole of the Normative Mass in order to discern whether or not it was in fact a

faithful application of the Consiliums fundamental principles. In fact, there is nothing currently

known that attempts to treat the individual rites of this Mass in light of the tradition and

adaptation to the modern man. Only the celebrated work of Annibale Bugnini (La riforma

liturgica 1948-1975) and M. Barbas La riforma conciliare dellOrdo Missae dedicate

substantial time and effort to describing the nature and intent of the Normative Mass itself. A.

Bugnini treats both the major historical stages of the project as well as its successes and failures

before the synod of bishops (1967). M. Barba has edited many of the important schemata and

described many projects of the Consilium on the Normative Mass. He has also commented on

large sections of the Normative Mass in order to delineate the process of reform and hightlight

certain motives of some of the individual reforms. With the exception of these two works, it

seems that the subject of this thesis is unique. There seem to be no limits constraining the present

work because of studies that have already been published. The one exception is in regard to

delineation of the technical reform process in order to arrival at the Normative Mass as already

accomplished by M. Barba. A. Bugnini in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy 1948-197516

provides a description of theMissa Normativaand its short-lived history, but no further pastoral

or historical evaluation of the Mass has ever been done.

There are, then, several tasks left to be done with regard to this rite of Mass. There has

never been a work outlining the rationale for the reform of the individual rites, which is

6

M. Barba, in his introduction, specifically hopes that his recently published work will finally16

spur on some students and scholars of liturgical science to take advantage of this rich field of

investigation. Non nostra intenzione offrire qui unanalisi completa dei riti, convinti che la

celebrazione liturgica esorbiti dai limiti imposti da unanalisi descrittiva. Tale volume, pertanto,

non avendo lo scopo di recondurre tutta la ricchezza poliedrica dellargomento ad una

organizzaione definitiva dei dati studiati, si auspica di lasciare aperti orizzonti pi vasti di

indagine e prospettive in altrettanti estesi filoni di ricerca. M. BARBA, La riforma conciliare

dell Ordo Missae, xxi.


11/29


important for theNovus Ordo Missaeas well. This is the case since many of the rites that were

altered in the Churchs actual liturgy, following Vatican II, can be traced back to the debates

involving the Normative Mass. Also, a step-by-step analysis of the methodology of the

Consilium and its application to the individual rites of Mass is missing. This analysis isnecessary to understand the way in which each reform was discussed and evaluated by the

Consilium. Lastly, there is still no full explanation as to the motives behind the Consliums

abandonment of the Normative Mass project in order to arrive at the Novus Ordo Missaein its

stead.With this in mind, apart from the mere historical value of this rite of Mass, it is important

to put into relief the role of the Normative Mass as a real reform which contributed to the

liturgical renewal in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The value of this work may be not

only its description of the history of the reform of this peculiar rite of Mass but also its insights

that explain why A. Bugnini was so profoundly effected by the lack of appreciation for the

schema of this Mass at its actual Eucharistic celebration that occurred during the extraordinary

synod of 1967. Many hopes of the Consilium Fathers and periti rested upon the success of this

Mass at the time when it was presented to representatives of the episcopal conference of the

Catholic Church. As such, it is remarkable that no one has attempted to understand why A.

Bugnini in particular, and the Consilium periti in general, valued this proposed reform of the

Roman liturgy so much. In fact, before the synod of 1967, many members of the Consilium

anticipated its complete success. In conclusion, a treatment of this theme may provide:

a. An explanation of some historical, pastoral and theological reasons as to why the

Normative Mass is the authentic expression of the Consiliums work.

b.) A demonstration that the Ordo Missaeof the Normative Mass is a paramount reference

point for liturgical reform.

c.) A comprehension of the origin of several innovations within the Novus Ordo Missae, for

some of the structure and prayers of the Novus Ordowere the result of either criticisms or

suggestions for improving theMissa normativa as reformed by the Consilium.

7


12/29

THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

The previous chapters sought to discover not only the theoretical principles of the

Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia, but especially attempted to

uncover how its principles were used to justify any given reform of the Mass liturgy. The Missa

normativawas the result of the explicit invocation and application of these described principles

by a select chosen group of experts with official approval of the Catholic Church. The first

chapters described the precise number of principles and their definitions. The following chapters

were an attempt to highlight which principles were applied to each section of the new Mass

liturgy. The last chapter described the Synod Fathers reactions to the periti and Fathers final

product of the Normative Mass. This study relied upon the testimonies from the Pontiff,

Roman curia, Consilium Fathers and periti. The goal in evaluating the reform was to avoid

personal interpretations or personal hypothetical justifications for the reform of any given rite.

Instead, there was a search for explicit reasons leading to the changes in the Mass liturgy

according to records and accounts of the very persons officially entrusted with the task of

liturgical reform.

8.1 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The first end, or the aim of the investigation, is none other than to find the pattern, the

logic, and hierarchy of principles applied in the overall reform. The study sought to discover

whether there was a universal or transcending principle consistently invoked and obviously

applied in all the reformed rites. If this sort of principle were discovered in each and every rite,

it would certainly qualify as an overarching principle orprincipium altius.

Secondly, this study sought to discover the principles by which individual rites were

reformed. An important principle could be only quasi-universal. It would be such that it affects

all instances of a large category of rites, but not all rites. Such a quasi-universal principle should

be observed in every rite that falls within such a category. A principle like this, theoretically,

should be necessarily applied any time certain recognizable conditions are present. Of course,

this principles application also presumes that there is a universal group of categories that can be


13/29


defined. If all rites of type A need reform by principle x, then in every instance of A one should

find traces or inspiration in any reformed rite by the application of principlex.

Like the scientist who uses repeated observation of repeated processes and predictable

patterns to formulate probable and even quasi-certain laws of the universe, this study hoped to

uncover the real logic or the system of actual application of the principles of the Consilium.

These principles and their application were investigated in concrete, i.e., their application by the

Consilium was studied to understand how they really affected the reform of the rite of the Mass.1

If patterns emerge or cause-effect relationships are discovered through such an analysis, then one

can make a strong case for laws or regulatory ideas that determine the treatment of all or any

particular rite of a certain category (like a species or genus).

Now, outside of the field of mere theory, there is the practical side of things. This is in the

realm of action. If a theoretical principle is applied to a concrete circumstance, then there should

be an observable effect of its application. This theoretical principle or regulatory idea is nothing

else than an imposed mental category which is a necessary condition for being able to

manipulate the rite or visible ritual that is to be reformed. In the case of the Mass, the Consilium

was responsible for taking the phenomenon of the Missal of Pius V and determining what parts

of it this Missal were Roman or Latin in structure. Naturally, theological and liturgical

presuppositions needed to be adopted in this task. They would serve as an interpretive key for

judging and interpreting the phenomenon of the Mass of Pius V. Undoubtedly, this was the

privilege of theperiti and Fathers in harmony with Pope Paul VI. More specifically, the periti, in

harmony with the Fathers of the Consilium and Pope Paul VI, invoked their own regulatory ideas

from at least three sources: theology, history, anthropology. Their theological and liturgical

principles were described in detail in Chapter three.

Furthermore, there is the question of laws of liturgical reform. The theoretical laws

were easily identified and enumerated (chapter three) with one surprising and major exception.

Of course, this is a posteriori. First, there are the observations of what is happening, then there1

is are a series of propositions describing the state of affairs, and finally a reasoning process

attempting to arrive at laws.


14/29


ecumenism was identified and applied as if it were an explicit and approved principle of

liturgical reform. However, strangely, nowhere in Papal pronouncements, or in official lists of

principles enumerated by the Consilium, will one find this as an official principle of reform.

Perhaps one should look to Unitatis redintegratio? Yet, if one looked to this document as thecharter or impetus for such principles, ecumenisms principles do not seem to demand liturgical

reform. Certainly liturgical reform does not absolutely demand ecumenism. Instead, what was2

discovered is rather strange. There is no explicit regulatory idea of ecumenical sensitivity (or

considerations) in the official liturgical reform of the Catholic Church. The result is something

unable to be explained; namely, the explicit concern for and even explicit use of ecumenism for

the reform. It was used in the adoption or change of many rites of the Missa normativathrough

explicitly invoking ecumenical considerations. Several rites underwent significant change by

invoking this quasi-principle. The question becomes, if the principle was so common and if it

were so important, how did it escape the members of the Consilium to publish it? Like the other

principles, one would expect that ecumenism would be either a fundamental or operational

principle of liturgical reform. However one would look in vain to find it mentioned. It is clear,

from the investigation, in chapters four through six, that both the pope and the Consilium Fathers

were comfortable and encouraged with regard to ecumenical considerations in liturgical reform.

However, it must be said that one can not find it invoked as a formal principle. One can only

conclude that it was something that creeped into the liturgical process of reform as a

commonly accepted a priori.

In conclusion, other than the quasi-principle of ecumenism, a clear delineation was

provided by the Consilium for how it was to consider reforms, i.e., the application of the

principles in chapter three.

CONCILIUMVATICANUMII, Unitatis redintegratio,Acta Apostolicae Sedis57 (1965) 243-274.2

For an exptrapolation of the principles of ecumenism see the summary: VATICANCOUNCILII,

Catholic Principles of Ecumenism, inDocuments on the Liturgy 1963-1979. Conciliar. Papal

and Curial Texts, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1982, 47.


15/29


8.2ALTIORA PRINCIPIA: PRINCIPLES ONE AND TWO

Next, the study needs to ask whether or not there arose out of the reforms an overarching

or universal principle? Was there one principle or were there many applied in concrete reforms?

First of all, there is theprincipium altiusthat considers the Liturgy as an exercise of the

priestly office of Jesus Christ. This was meant to underline the paschal mystery as the central

liturgical theme. It emphasized that all liturgical actions are by their nature public. This is due to

the fact that the paschal mystery is the common inheritance of all men. For example, when the

Mass is offered the sacrifice is potentially efficacious for all who willfully participate in it. No

one person can be the unique or private recipient of the graces of the paschal mystery to the

exclusion of another who wishes to participate in the same sacramental graces. Sanctifying graceis available to all depending on their subjective dispositions. Each Mass, then, is directed toward

the entire Christian community for its sanctification. The Mass is never directed uniquely to one

individual to the exclusion of another to receive sacramental graces. The Mass cannot be

exhausted by one person. Also this principle was considered a foil against sacramental

minimalism. Any attempt to reduce the sacrament to its bare essentials so that one could

celebrate it validly was foreign to the mysterys nature. Each mystery has rituals and presumes

a generous participation of the faithful. Any attempt to discourage an ample use of rich liturgical

symbolism or the assistance of the faithful tends to psychologically convey that the act is a

private possession for an exclusive number of individuals. With this in mind, there is no question

that all the reformed rites within the Normative Mass conformed to this principle. It is a

transcendent principle of Consilium liturgical reform. No rites that were reformed attempted to

make a distinction between public and private liturgy. They attempted always to show

conscious inclusion of the hierarchical structure of the Church. There was special consideration

to include lay participation in the sacred rites of Mass. In this regard, one has little difficulty

seeing that the Consilium was always concerned with the public nature of the celebration of the

Mass.

The second of the altiora principia, i.e., the liturgy is the summit and source of Church

life, is presumed by the Consilium members in the reform process. It simply states the centrality


16/29


of the Mass and that it is a hierarchical celebration expressing unity. This was a consistent point

of departure in the liturgical reforms of the Consilium with the Mass.

8.3 THIRD PRINCIPLE: ACTIVE PARTICIPATION

Thirdly, there is theprincipium altiusof full, conscious, and active participation. Looking

at chapters four through six, what can be concluded -methodologically- from the application of

the principle? First of all, it was indeed often invoked. Many rites (e.g., the offertory, the

acclamation at the Eucharistic prayer, the communion meditation) were all reforms that

attempted to inculcate different forms of active participation. Formerly there had been no

participation by the faithful in these rites. These examples above are not random.

First, there is the offertory reform. However, it does not represent vocal participation.

The faithful perform tasks like offering and presenting gifts of bread, wine, and things for the

poor. It is active and conscious participation accomplished by the faithful really performing

liturgical functions according to their rank as laymen before the liturgical assembly. This first

kind of participation is an example of ritual participationthrough ritual actions of a non-verbal

nature.

Secondly, the acclamation at the Roman Canon represents the reforming of a riteformerly reserved only to bishops and priests. This rite has now been transformed to include

verbal participationin the liturgical rites, where formerly there was none at all. This represents

the application of active participation at the verbal level.

Lastly, the reformed Mass presupposes the use of a meditative communion song

according to local custom. This is an example of something that is neither ritual participation

(like an offertory procession) nor verbal participation (like singing aloud a hymn). Here the idea

is to inspire active meditation on the words or theme or to produce religious sentiments out of the

experience of culturally meaningful musical compositions. This may or may not be accompanied

by words. This is an example of the interior aspect of active participation.


17/29


However, it is one thing to say that a principle is often invoked, yet another to say that

it is transcendental (trans-ritual) and is applied in the reform of each and every rite. For example,

the offertory prayers in the Normative Mass represent prayers that were not meant to invite

verbal or ritual participation actively by the people. They may invite the faithful to interiorreflection and meditation. However, this can be said of each and every rite that is said aloud and

in the vernacular. Because language is, by its nature, something that fosters active participation

(at least internal participation), one can argue that this principle is indeed transcendent in the3

Normative Mass. This means that every single category of rite of the Mass was penetrated or

informed by the principle of active participation. Insofar as the vernacular represents the

application of this principle (See chapter three, letter c.), it is applied in every rite of the

Normative Mass. The vernacular was also consistently applied to all the ritesof the Normative

Mass. The question of active verbal participation and ritual participation is different. Each

reformed rite cannot be said to do this. The celebrants silent prayers before communion, his

private prayers at communion, and certain quasi-private gestures (signing of the Gospel book)

obviously exclude ritual or verbal participation by the congregation or even the other clergy.

Thus, a question arises. By what criterion does one judge that some rites merit ritual participation

of the faithful (like the offertory) or verbal participation of the faithful (like the Canon)?

Obviously, the liturgical history of the Roman rite is not helpful to discover such a

criterion, if it even exists. If history where the source of this regulatory idea that demanded that a

rite include ritual or active verbal participation, then certain reforms could not be justified. For

example, if the history of the Roman Canon in the Latin rite (according to liturgical books and

ancient witnesses) is the norm, then a serious difficulty arises. The history of eucharistic prayer

(i.e., Roman Canon) in the Latin liturgy, at least since the fourth century, has no evidence of an4

acclamation made by the people during the Canon. The peoples active verbal participation is

limited to the great Amen.

This is explicitly the case as mentioned by the Consilium as outlined in chapter three.3

It is difficult to say anything about the liturgy of the 3rdcentury, since the chapter dealing with4

the eucharistic prayers referred to G. Metzger and P. Bradshaw. They have seriously called into

question the so-called Hippolytus of Rome and his church order.


18/29


One might expect some sort of scientific or systematized evaluation of each rite to reflect

its nature and adaptability to ritual and/or verbal participation. For example, one can ask a

series of questions for each rite as divided into sections by the Consilium. There are 94 sections

into which the Mass liturgy is divided. For each on the rites (1-94) a logical series of questionsmight be:

1.) Is this rite one that historically contained one of these three forms of active

participation in the manuscript tradition of the Latin rite? If so, which forms?

2.) Is this rite of Mass intrinsically determined to verbal or ritual participation by the

faithful? Is it composed for only the priest or deacon to perform or say? Is it meant to be s a i d

aloud or silently?

3.) Does this rite represent something that impedes active participation? And if so, by

that fact alone, should it be eliminated or reformed?

Perhaps this might be illustrated by a simple example. An important illustration might be

the Canon of the Mass. If one were to evaluate the historical and intrinsic nature of this

composition one would look in vain to find a justification for a post-consecratory acclamation

within the Latin history of liturgical composition of its eucharistic prayer. This is a question thatbothers the Members of the Consilium too. Writing an apology for this very instance, A. Bugnini

contrasts the the Latin tradition of one eucharistic prayer with the authentic tradition that

contains many (although not necessarily a determinate number) of eucharistic prayers. The5

implicit admission here is that the Roman rite has but one eucharistic prayer. At the same time it

is implied that what is a unique trait of the historically verifiable Roman rite is contrary to the

authentic tradition. In many instances this kind of evaluation seems to create irresolvable

problems. This conflict leads to the exposure of deeper underlying methodological questions

about a hierarchy of principles and their relation to one another. It may be of use to look at other

facets of the Roman Canon to illustrate this more fundamental problem. In the absence of a clear

A.BUGNINI,La riforma liturgica, 443-445.5


19/29


hierarchical order of principles, or an order of precedence in their application, contradictions

arise. For example:

1.) A. Bugnini implies above that the Roman Canon is only eucharistic prayer in the

entire history of the Roman rite. If this is the case, then it presumably represents the norm of

the ancient Fathers for worship in the Roman rite. Is this historical fact the source of an objective

principle for judging something that defines or specifies the Roman rite with a positive

feature? On the contrary, does the exclusive use of the Roman Canon represent a weakness of the

Roman rite as opposed to the authentic tradition? It would seem that the higher principle of the

authentic tradition is drawn from what a majority, or at least a plurality, of non-Roman rites

observe in a parallel part of their own liturgies.6

2.) Another example within the Roman Canon is the Mysterium fidei. The Consilium

peritiwere already cited because they asserted that this insertion into the institution narrative

represents something that is unique to the Roman rite. It is not found in other non-Roman

liturgies. Again, which principle decides that this trait unique to the Roman rite is something

that is either specifying (a positive distinguishing trait) or something corrupting? The arguments

for removing it were already seen. There were basically three: a.) it is only in the Latin rite, b.) it

is theologically uncertain as to its meaning, and c.) it is pastorally and linguistically difficult to

explain. Although, certainly letter b is a serious consideration, it is not at all clear why letter

a is an argument. Differences either specify something or they are accidental. Differences are

judged meritorious if they contribute to some end, function, or pertain to the proper definition of

a thing.

3.) One last example within the Roman Canon may again illustrate this point. With regard

to the the words of institution, the complaint was made (in chapter seven) that the words of

institution were non-biblical. Furthermore, certain Latin phrases were argued as undesirable

(e.g., the consecration of the chalice: haec quotiescumque) since they are not citing scripture.

A.BUGNINI,La riforma liturgica, 443-445. This case is just one example from among many6

that can be cited. This one is outstanding since A. Bugnini chooses to emphasize the contrast

between authentic tradition and certain practices unique to the Roman rite.


20/29


Again, a rite that is uniquely Roman is rejected because it is not found in other non-Roman rites.

However, one would expect an appeal to the authentic tradition here (as in other instances) as

the litmus test to judge the haec quotiecumqueas unacceptable. Instead, J. Jungmann underlines

just the opposite (in chapter seven). All known liturgies of the past and present do not cite orfollow any biblical narrative verbatim.

These three examples are merely meant to illustrate the fact that the application of the

principle of active participation or other principles could find itself in conflict with seemingly

distinguishing marks of the Roman rite. Sometimes, one principle could be invoked but was in

conflict with another Consilium principle. Either one or the other principle was invoked for any

given reform, but both could not be applied without contradiction.

Finally, whenever a principle does not permeate each and every rite, there must be a

necessary condition when it is applied. When and what is that condition? Also, if one principle is

imposed on an individual rite, how does one solve a conflict that arises when the application of

this principle changes the historical model of the rite (like the Roman Canon)? Serious questions

remain. It is an open question as to whether or not active participation (or other invoked

principles) is sufficiently powerful to override the historical forms of any and all authentic texts

and rituals of the Roman rite. If this principle, or another (e.g., ecumenism), is a7

transcendental or trans-ritual principle, it might be powerful enough to modify any text or

ritual that is commonly agreed upon to be historically Roman. Is a super-principle (like active

participation) the dominant principle over and above all others? Is the force of this principle ever

suspended or equal to other super-principles? The answers to these questions are not certain. The

Consilium does not appear to have thought along these lines in the reform process. Rather, it

appears to have invoked certain principles at one time or other according to a certain consensus

ofperiti that arose out of the debates in the various Coetus.

This is a reference to texts and compositions that theperitiadmit are authentically Roman, like the Roman Canon.7

Another example might be the style and content of the Collects at Mass.


21/29


8.4 OTHER THEORETICAL AND OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES

Generally speaking, each principle was invoked at some time or another in the reform of

the Mass. The difficulty, however, has already been illustrated above. The central debates were

discussed in the reform of each individual rite. Sometimes the debates centered on a concern for

historical authenticity of a text, sometimes a concern for the modern mentality and needs,

sometimes for active participation.

Nonetheless, until one has ascertained securely that a particular rite is properly Roman,

then it would seem logically impossible to know how to restore the rite of Mass as a whole.

Some nuclear or essential qualities of the Roman rite must give it a flavor or character of being

Roman. This character is that which distinguishes it from its sister rites. If this character iseliminated, then the Roman rite ceases to have such a flavor or character. No list of such positive

characteristics was compiled by the Consilium before beginning the reform process. This means,

before beginning the process of reform, there was not a universally accepted series individual

rites considered authentic and irreplaceable or irreformable. There was also no a priori

presumption that forbade the retouching, interpolation, or recomposition of certain authentic

Roman prayers or rites. This ambiguity risks conflict with other principles. If the mentality of

modern man or cultural considerations are in conflict with a particular rubric or composition

judged as historically Roman, there is no methodological or hierarchical principle that has sway

or is automatically operative.

In conclusion, many of the principles of the Consilium cannot be considered absolute a

priori principles that are to be applied to each individual rite (nos. 1-94) in the reform of the

Mass. Instead one must consider ana posteriori approach. Although there are certain theological

truths (i.e., dogma) that were a prioris, most other principles seem to have been applied

according to an evaluation a posteriori. First a rite was investigated by a select number of

experts. They presented their findings to the Coetus. The periti then proposed reforms by

suggesting the application of this or that principle to the rite. Each suggested what seemed to him

to be reasonable. Sometimes this was a prudential judgment of active participation, sometimes of

updating the liturgy, sometimes no revision at all. Sometimes compromises had to be accepted


22/29


because it was not clear that a dominant principle had carried the Coetus or persuaded the

Fathers of the Consilium. This means that the theoretical and operative principles were, for the

most part, reference points or guide posts for proposing reforms. There was no apparent

unchangeable ritual because of its historical authenticity (e.g., Roman Canon). Principles werepoints of reference or important considerations. However, they do not seem to have been

hierarchically determined or absolutes in reforming any given rite (other than the universal use of

the vernacular). This makes sense in light of the fact that the entire reform was above all a

pastoral attempt to engage the modern man according to his mentality and needs. This called for8

a series of prudential judgments of a psychological and anthropological nature. Cultural and

temporal considerations like this are always contingent and fluid. As such, the rites were

subjected to reforms based upon what seemed to be a balance of considerations from active

participation to any of the other operational principles (mentioned in chapter three).

8.5 THE NORMATIVE MASS AND ITS OVERALL STRUCTURE

With this in mind, it is not surprising that the initially strict parameters (i.e., principles)

for the reform had to be adjusted. New circumstances and new cultural concerns could always

surface and dislodge a rite. A ritual formerly believed to be on solid footing, from an historical or

theological point of view, might become of little concern because of new developments in

catechesis, psychology or culture. Cultural or psychological needs of the modern man could in

fact relegate the ancient form of a text to only secondary importance in the reform process.

However, even with this in mind, the Consilium had remained rather internally consistent

in its application of a couple points.

First, the Ordo I of the Ordines Romaniwas consistently used as the structural point of

reference among the Consilium periti. It was only outside curial interference (e.g., F. Antonelli)

or papal inspiration (e.g., the new eucharistic prayers) that caused the experts to deviate from

GIOVANNICAPRILE,Il Sinodo dei vescovi. Prima assemblea generale (29 Settembre-29 Ottobre8

1967), La Civilt Cattolica, Roma 1968, 443-444. The synod was told that the entire rationale for

the the Consliums work was pastoral.


23/29


their basic text meant as the underlying skeleton for the new liturgy. Ultimately, the periti had to

depart from this model when they composed new eucharistic prayers and were forced to insert

private prayers for the celebrant along with a penitential rite (in addition to theKyrie, eleison).

Secondly, the Consilium had been fairly consistent about eliminating almost all

genuflections, signs of the cross and other ritual actions that were Gallican in nature. The few

that remained were simple. They served as introductory or conclusory parts of individual rites

and were generally brief or apt to draw active participation in the minds of theperiti.

8.6 THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS AND THE NORMATIVE MASS

The work of the Consilium was not unanimously received by the bishops. At least the

votes on individual rites were more promising, because these were supported by the majority

votes of the synod Fathers. This was not true of the voting on the overall structure of the

Normative Mass. Following the iuxta modum responses and the various speeches and

commentaries made by synod Fathers, it became obvious that a pastoral liturgy was difficult for

the bishops to accept. If pastoral liturgy is by its nature an application of prudence in contingent9

matters, then each bishop voted according to this criterion (unless he merely reflected the vote of

his national conference on the written text of the Normative Mass). Each bishop had presumably

the same theological principles that animated his life of faith in the realm of dogma. However,

the application of general principles like this into the realm of art, language, mentality, culture

and other factors hardly admits of unity. The failure of the Normative Mass to gain definitive

approval may easily reflect the diversity of opinion and understanding of application of

theological principles to the situation of the modern man. How does man interpret this or

that sign? How does man interpret a verbal sign or art? What is the best number of crosses or

greetings in this or that culture to optimize an experience of participation or dialogue? These

questions simply cannot be answered apodictically. They can only be answered by proposing

reasonable arguments. However, given the diversity of conditions and knowledge that each man

has, his acts of prudence will vary.

G. CAPRILE,Il Sinodo dei vescovi, 479-524. The author presents abstracts of all the major9

speeches for and against the liturgical reform on the part of the members of the synod.


24/29


The criticism of the peritithat many bishops voted because of (liturgical) ignorance, the

environment in the chapel, or the negative propaganda in Rome, must be taken into account.

However, this Mass ultimately failed to gain decisive acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church

because the results of the application of prudence in contingent matters cannot be controlled oranticipated. Each bishop had his own reasons for rejecting the overall structure of the Mass.

Some rejected it because it was too radical, some because it did not go far enough. The

Normative Masss failure was a democratic failure. the Fathers cast their votes after taking into

account both their personal experience of a rite and after a detailed study of its texts. The Fathers

did not reject the methodology to arrive at the reform, many did not seem to know what the

methodology even was.

In conclusion, the methodology of the Consilium included utilization of current structures

within the Roman curia as its organizational model. Yet, It adjusted, developed, and eliminated

some of these structures by a process of trial and error. It used a variety of men and studies for its

work. It experienced interference from both the Roman curia and Pontiff in its work. Perhaps,

one can both find reasons to praise or criticize the rather fluid structure of the Consilium.

However, it is more difficult to justify the lack of a clearly hierarchical and organized application

of liturgical principles to reform the Mass. At this time there is no way that such principles may

be delineated in their hierarchical order of precedence in the overall structure of the Mass reform,

or in many of the individual rites of the Mass.


25/29

1 Christiaan Kappes 2012

APPENDIXI

ORIGINAL PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE CONSILIUM

March-April 1964

Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro, President 20-30 bishopsConsiglieri Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri, Vice President(June 1964) (voting members)

Annibale Bugnini, Secretary

Consilium Presidentiae1

___________________

Relator

Secretary

!!!!!!!!

5-7 Members Group1 Group2 Group3, etc.

(a.k.a Consultors)

___________________

Section 1 of group 1 Section 2 of group 1, etc.(Coetus peculiaris)

1 September 1966. Seven bishops are members: Msgr. Ren Boudon (France), Msgr. Msgr. Pellegrino (Italy), Msgr.

Ott Splbeck (Germany), Msgr. Vicente Enrique y Taracn (Spain), Msgr. William Conway (Ireland), Msgr. Jos

Clemente Carlos Isnard (Brasil), Msgr. Jean Bluyssen (Netherlands). It meets eight times, generally coinciding with

Adunanze plenarie.

!

"#"$%& () (%*

!

+*$,*(",- ). (%*/)0123245

/)0143("

! 6%* 5)1( (,41(*75*0 ",*(%*,*3"(),1

/)0143(),1

",( "07%21(),-

5412$ "07$43(4,*

84,219,47*0$*

(%*)3):2$"3

3";02(-


26/29


27/29


APPENDIX III

HISTORICAL PROCESS FOR A COETUSAND APPROVING A REFORMED

LITURGICAL RITE

PT. 1 GENERIC METHOD

A.

METHOD: OVERVIEW OF HOW A COETUSWAS ESTABLISHED

March 1964 Divisions of liturgical book sections I-XII determine which group will

receive a certain rite to reform. Liturgical book section III includes Groups (Coetus) 10-16(elaborato, 21). After Cardinal Lercaro and A. Bugnini convene their first adunanzaplenaria

(March 1964), they assign Relators, Secretaries, and Consultors to various Groups (eventually 1-29). In this study case, Group (Coetus) X receives the Ordinary of the Mass to update. After

the Coetus is erected and officially commissioned, it is expected to organize its own internalrules of order, methodology, locations of reunions, and modus operandi.

In the case of any Coetusthe individual Consultors are each approved by Pope Paul VI inprivate audiences with Cardinal Lercaro (and also A. Bugnini). Each member, i.e., Relator,

Secretary, Member of a Coetus is technically a Consultor by Papal appointment (elaborato,17). Relators and Secretaries of Coetusare merely appointed by Cardinal Lercaro and A. Bugnini

(A. Bugnini effectively proposed the vast majority of names and Cardinal Lercaro is not knownto have rejected any suggestions).

Coetus X, erected officially in the plenary audience in October of 1964 (elaborato, 26),had J. Wagner as its life long Relator, A. Hnggi as its initial secretary, and seven additional

Consultors.2 After the first plenary audience in March, The group of Consultors of Coetus X

received the job of reforming the individual parts of the Order of Mass. However, the same

CoetusX was only officially commissioned to produce schemata of a reformed Mass followingthe 5-6 October Plenary Audience of the Consilium. At this audience, in addition to the general

reforming principles of reforming the liturgy as proposed by the Consilium (BUGNINI,La riformaliturgica, 53-62), and the internal principles worked out by the Coetus X itself, the Consilium

established nine other guiding principles of the reform of the Order of the Mass (elaborato, 26).After all theoretical and operative principles were recognized and established, the job of

producing a schema was bequeathed to Coetus X. They were prepared to produce there firstchronological, rite by rite, schema by October of 1965 (elaborato, 26, ft. note 101).

2Coetus Xinitially (1964) consisted of the following members: J. Wagner (relator), A. Hnggi

(Secretarius), M. Righetti (Consultor), T. Shnitzler (Consultor), P. Jounel (Consultor), C. Vagaggini O.S.B.

(Consultor), A. Franquesa O.S.B. (Consultor), P.M. Gy O.P. (Consultor), J.A. Jungmann S.J. (Consultor). Later in

1967 the Consilium contained the following: J. Wagner (Relator), A. Franquesa O.S.B. (Pro-Secretarius), M.

Righetti (Consultor), T. Schnitzler (Consultor), A. Hnggi (Consultor), P. Jounel (Consultor), P.M. Gy O.P.

(Consultor), J. A. Jungmann S.J. (Consultor ), L. Agustoni (Consultor), J. Gelineau S. J. (Consultor), C. Vagaggini

O.S.B. (Consultor), L. Bouyer C.O. (Consultor), S. Famoso, K. Amon, J. Cellier, F. McManus, V. No (Consultor),

H. Wegman (Consultor), J. Patino (Consultor). See: BARBA, La riforma conciliare dell=AOrdo Missae@,73-77.


28/29


B. METHOD: CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD OF

REFORM

During this period of time between March-October 1964 Coetus X operated as follows

(For references to times a places of Coetus X plenaria and schemata, cf. BARBA,La riforma

conciliare dellOrdo Missae., 65, 78):

1.) J. Wagner is alerted to the fact that he and several others will be the members of Coetus

X (elaborato, 22). He proposed several plans of reform in the first audience (11 March1964).

2.) J. Wagner in consultation with other newly appointed relators (Consulta) isolates theessential sources and models to be used by CoetusX for liturgical reform (elaborato, 23-

24).3.) He personally presents this plan to the second Plenary Audience 17 April 1964. It is

approved4.) In consultation with his Members, they agree to have their internal Plenary Meeting 8-10

June in Treveri to present the results of their assigned tasked as apportioned by J.Wagner.

5.) This happens again in Einsiedeln 5-7 June 1964. This work results in Quaestionestractandaeat the 3 Plenary Audience 18-20 June.

6.) Following August and September Coetus X plenary in Freiburg and Rome, they are ableto present aRelatioto the Secretary of the Consilium. He presents it at the Consilium 4

Plenary on 5-6 October. The corrections and suggestions result in Schematann. 3-5.7.) From the October 1964 Plenary Audience until the 26-30 April 1965 5 Plenary audience

Coetus X produces schemata 9-11. N.B. There is no Plenary Audience of Coetus Xduring this time. All revisions are done by individual consulting between the Secretary

of the Consilium and the Relator-Secretary.

8.)

From the 5 Plenary Audience until the October 1965 6 Plenary Audience The CoetusXschematann. 12-14. The CoetusX Plenary Audiences was 18-23 June in Paris and 15-20September 1965 in Rome.

9.) The first full schema of a reformed Mass is presented as a homogenous unit. Questionsare voted on regarding the rite by the Fathers of the Consilium in the 9 October 1965

Plenary Audience.10.) There vote results in further revisions of the new Normative Mass. From the

October 1965 Plenary Audience until the Consiliums 7 Plenary Meeting (6-14 October1966) Coetus X produces Schemata 15-23. There are no Plenary Audiences of the

Coetus during this period in question. Much of the work has been accustomed to beaccomplished in intensive sessions of Relators and specialists with A. Bugnini (BUGNINI,

La riforma liturgica, 163-165).11.)

From the October 1966 7 Plenary Audience until the 10-19 April 1967 8 Plenary

Audience Coetus X produces schemata 24-34. There are two last Plenary Audiences ofCoetusX in Switzerland and Rome on 24-30 January and 8-12 March 1967 respectively.

12.) The culmination of CoetusXs work is presented in the10-19 April 1967 PlenaryAudience of the Consilium. This is the point at which the Normative Mass overall

structure is solidified.


29/29


PT. 2 SPECIFIC METHOD OF REFORM ANY GIVEN RITE

Continuing to use CoetusX as an example, one can propose a hypothetical mode for the

reform of any given rite.

Having received ones section and CoetusX, one might propose a schemain one of two

ways. For instance, if one wished to change the words of institution from pro multis to proomnibusin theMissa Normativa, then one could a.) propose a series of quaesitato the Fathers of

the Consilium to be discussed and voted on in on of the Plenary Audiences b.) or retouch thecurrent schema of the Missa Normativa. Either of these proposals goes through the same

process. Finally, at the desire of the Relator, studies and notes can be attached to theschemaorquaesitain order aid the Fathers discussion and clarify the theme.

1.) Hypothetically, if Coetus X proposed the pro omnibus change, then one of theMembers of the Group will bring up the subject when presenting his work at the

Plenary Session of the Group X. However, all suggestions and operations of theGroup have their ultimate arbiter in the Relator (i.e., J. Wagner).

2.)

Normally, The relator, having approved theschemaprepared by his secretary will usehis secretary to relay the information and notes to the Secretary of the Consilium.

3.) Having received this proposal, the Secretary may make corrections and then hepresents the schema to the President of the Consilium. The President may choose

personally (or use his Secretary) to either work with Consultors (Consulta) orCounselors (Consiliarii), or his Consilium Presidentiae to review and correct the

schema to prepare it for a vote before the Plenary Session.4.) If the proposal to change the words, in this case, is acceptable then the President gives

a positive judgment to put the schema on the docket for the Plenary Session. If not,the debited corrections are made by the Secretary of the Consilium and the 1 general

relation (relazione generale) is given back to Coetus X.

5.)

The 1strelation is corrected along the lines of those written down by the Secretary ofthe Consilium in the name of the President. After the Group has made the duecorrections it is re-submitted to the Secretary of the Consilium in a 2 relation.

6.) If the Secretary is satisfied with the corrections and 2nd

draft, he may seek thepermission of the President to present the Fathers of the Consilium the corrected

relation. This is done at a Plenary session.7.) The vote of the Fathers is either positive or negative. If a majority of the Fathers vote

aplacetthen the change will be added. If the Fathers vote the question as non placetor placet iuxta modum, then the suggested change ordinarily will not pass. If the

President judges that the iuxta modumvotes are substantial, then he may return theschema to the Group to rework the schema according to the Fathers suggestions.

8.)

If the schema presented is approved with any corrections, then the schema is sentback to the Group from where it came (e.g., Group X). Then, the Group incorporates

the suggestions or corrections. After this is done, the Group returns the schemagenerale to the Secretary of the Consilium.

9.) The Fathers of the Consilium are then able to review the corrections and give theconsent to the schema.

10.) This final schema is presented to the Pope (By Lercaro/Bugnini) during a privateaudience for his approval. Following this approval the SRC publishes it with a decree.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	marcus-tullius-cece
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times