The Novus Ordo: A reflection...

A valued and very erudite correspondent sent me this article from the Church Life Journal by Yves Chiron. It's an account, year by year, decree by decree, on the creation of the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI. I don't honestly give much thought nowadays to the liturgical revolution that took place in the latter half of the 20th century. It's none of my business really. I came to that view when I realised, long ago and after many years agonising over it, that I actually despise the Roman Rite, as a whole and in detail. The last time I had any dealings with it, after a long absence, was when I put together the Order of Service for my mother's funeral in July 2020. For pastoral (and other) reasons, this took the form of a non-Eucharistic service; a truncated "liturgy of the word," with bidding prayers, which I took from various sources, such as the English Missal and the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. I enjoyed doing it, and it confirmed to me the wisdom of the Novus Ordo in the relative leeway it allows for such things.

The article itself is an excerpt from a book (which I haven't read) entitled "Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy," so the fact that no mention is made of the liturgical conferences that took place at Maria-Laach (1951), Mont Sainte Odile (1952), Lugano (1953) Mont César (1954) and Assisi (1956) in the excerpt is interesting, considering that most of the reforms that took place in the 1960's had their roots in the deliberations at those conferences, and that the members of the Consilium put together by Paul VI to draft and finalise the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council attended those conferences, with the full knowledge and blessing of Pius XII. Although perhaps the author deals with those conferences in the detail and scrunity they deserve in another part of his book.

It begins with the work of the Consilium. I suppose one has to begin somewhere but why 1964? Traditionalists have a strong tendency to look at liturgical reform always through the prism of the Mass, whereas my own view is much wider, encompassing the Divine Office and the celebration of the Sacraments. In which case the question of where to begin becomes more complex. The reforms of the Consilium were comprehensive, but so too was the redistribution and splintering of Psalms in the reform of the Roman Breviary in 1911 (Divino Afflatu), or the sabotage (there is no other word) of the rites of Holy Week in 1956 (Maxima Redemptionis). I suppose these reforms went largely unnoticed; in the first place because the Divine Office was marked chiefly in the Latin Rite by its almost universal absence from even most cathedrals and collegiate churches; and as for Holy Week, anecdotal evidence I have suggests that in many churches the old rites continued, despite the decrees from Rome, and many clergy thought that Pius XII had gone mad.

But to begin with the Mass, legend has it, facts having been obscured by the praxis and propaganda of traditionalist organisations, that the Novus Ordo Missae was suddenly sprung on us by a mysterious cabal, whose members were "Modernists" and clandestine Freemasons, working without knowledge or sanction from the Pope, whose chief acolyte and scapegoat was Annibale Bugnini. The popular view, therefore, is that the so-called "Tridentine Rite" passed virtually unchanged and unscathed from the late 16th century to 1962 and then underwent a Protestant-style reformation. This view is entirely skewed, and trivialises the reforms that took place between 1955 and 1960, which was part of the same process. An entirely new ritus servandus was written for the Mass, a new calendar was in place with an entirely novel ranking of feasts, &c. The 1962 Missal was never intended to be permanent but was the middle stage in the process of a comprehensive reform of the Roman Rite which had its origins in the liturgical conferences I've just mentioned.

The process of reform began at Maria-Laach in 1951, with Josef Jungmann's paper "On the problems of the Mass." Much praise was heaped on Pius XII for his recent revision of the liturgy for Holy Saturday (itself trivial compared with the 1955 reform) and discussions were held about applying similar reforms to the liturgies of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. Jungmann drafted a "penitential rite" for pastoral expediency; and the abolition of such things as the silent Eucharistic Prayer, prayers at the foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel were proposed. At Mont Saint Odile, similarly, ''Liturgy and contemporary man'' was on the agenda, and reforms imposed later such as simplifying the rubrics of the Anaphora, a sung Doxology at High Mass and an audible Doxology at Low Mass, abolition of the Confiteor and absolution before Communion, and the simple formula ("Corpus Christi") for the distribution of Communion were proposed. At Lugano "active participation" was on the agenda, with such things as vernacular readings and a new lectionary proposed. Cardinal Ottaviani, he of the "intervention," was himself present at Lugano and celebrated Mass facing the people! The then Archbishop Montini (later Paul VI) was also in attendance. The point being that the later reforms of the Consilium were planned well in advance; Pius XII was not senile, and this was all part of an agenda. So why 1962 is considered some kind of cut off point for an imaginary "Tridentine" orthopraxis, I have never been able to work out.

My own views were shaped at university. I studied Divinity at Heythrop College, which afforded me access to many old liturgical books in the Theology Library. I used to spend hours perusing old missals and breviaries, going over the calendars, the rubrics, and comparing editions. I was also regularly in attendance at Corpus Christi Maiden Lane, which had a Sung Mass every Monday evening. I don't remember what feast it was but the first time I noticed something was wrong with Maiden Lane, I turned up expecting red vestments. Green vestments were laid out in the sacristy. When I asked why, the MC looked a bit sheepish and said "oh no, you're not one of those!" Who knows what he meant by that, but it occurred to me for the first time that these people were claiming to uphold Tradition and yet were doing something totally different. I put up with this situation for a brief period, mostly for an easy life, but eventually, having discovered that I could not bend these people to my way of thinking and that, whatever the problems in the Church, hypocrisy was certainly no solution, I just stopped going.

Nowadays I couldn't care less, and even if there was a church on my doorstep (there did used to be) offering "traditional" Latin liturgy I wouldn't support it. Mostly because little things would get on my nerves. Lace ornamentation, the cotta, fiddleback chasubles, an Italianiate way of pronouncing Latin, a timetable of services consisting entirely of Mass, Signum Magnum for the Assumption, St Joseph the Worker on 1st May, Pacelli Psalms in the Palm Sunday procession, &c.Why is that worth supporting?!

My correspondent said that the article made for rather sad reading. I'm not sure that I agree. To me, it reads more like the clinical account of a patient riddled with cancer who underwent a series of experimental operations designed to cure him and died on the operating table. I could weep for the Roman Rite, but what's the point? Whatever shortcomings the Missal of Paul VI undoubtedly presents, I hardly think that the 1962 rite is better by comparison, or a standard acceptable to measure liturgical orthopraxis. By 1962 the Roman Rite had become so bastardised, for many diverse but interpenetrating reasons, that I would say it was in drastic need of reform. Certain practices had crept into the Rite, over many hundreds of years or quite recently, that were clearly decadent and put the Roman Church in its liturgy at variance with all other churches. The most odious features of the Roman Rite in 1962 to me were (in no particular order):

• The denial of the Chalice to the laity.
• The effective abolition of the Eucharistic fast, which paved the way for the celebration of Mass in the evening (for those sensitive to liturgical time, and the daily cycle of liturgical prayer, a clear and unadulterated abuse).
• The calendar, as reformed by Pius XII. The abolition of most Octaves and Vigils, and the novel ranking of feasts into classes, rather than doubles and simples.
• The rites of Holy Week, as reformed by Pius XII. The significant variations between Tridentine Holy Week and ancient forms of the Roman Rite, like Sarum, are a separate issue; in this case I'm taking the Tridentine Rite as something mostly ancient as a comparison to what Pacelli mandated in 1956.
• The reformed Divine Office. Rubricarius of The Saint Lawrence Press has produced detailed studies of this aspect of 20th century reform. Suffice it here to say that the Divine Office of 1962 could be contained in just two slender volumes, tomus prior and tomus alter; as opposed to the four seasonal volumes before 1911.
• Proceeding from the previous point, the fact that the Divine Office was, even in most cathedrals and collegiate churches, almost nowhere observed in full. If it had been, I'd like to think there might have been some resistance to the changes thereto, which were far wider and more significant than changes to the Mass.
• Low Mass, and a liturgical culture that viewed Low Mass as an acceptable form of Divine service rather than an exception to accomodate realistic "staff" shortages.
• With the notable exception of Good Friday, the complete absence of aliturgical days in the Roman Rite.
• The Roman Canon, its rubrics and ceremonies, particularly the two prominent elevations.

I could go on! I've often read, in the works of apologists for the Roman Church, of the "conservatism" of the Roman Rite; that its changes came at a glacial pace. I think this conservatism was a myth, and that such liturgical culture as there was prior to the Council was held intact by legal positivism and the view that liturgy was an extension of Canon Law. The existence of a "Sacred Congregation of Rites," a centralised bureaucracy, speaks volumes. Hitherto, regulation of the liturgy was subject to the Bishop of the diocese, a much healthier and more traditional arrangement. Now points of contention are submitted to Rome for ratification. Or wholesale reform of the Rite! This kind of situation is unthinkable in the Orthodox Church.

I welcome many of the reforms of the Consilium. I think most of them were very wise. Reforms that I welcome include:

• The provision for High Mass with only a Deacon assisting.
• The provision for Low Mass with congregational singing.
• Restoration of Bidding Prayers and the "responsorial" Psalm.
• Suppression of the Leonine Prayers after Low Mass.
• The provision for liturgical books in the services for their right person, as opposed to just having a Missal. Why does a priest have to say everything? Not everything depends upon him!
• The administration of Communion under both kinds.
• Provision for services either partially (or preferably wholly) in the vernacular.
• New Eucharistic Prayers. I personally dislike the Roman Canon; I think the only thing going for it is its age. My favourite is Eucharistic Prayer III. Simplified rubrics for the Anaphora.
• New Prefaces.
• The reformed Holy Week is much better, and certainly more conservative, than the Pacelli rubbish.
• The restoration of Concelebration and the permanent Diaconate are especially welcome.

Of course, that's not to say that the Missal of Paul VI is without problems. Many of the reforms of this period proceeded from rather shoddy scholarship and dubious theology. There is a sense that they threw the baby out with the bath water.

What would I change about the Novus Ordo? What would I bring back? What would I suppress? Let's see:

• Celebration of Mass, the Divine Office and the Sacraments facing the people (or more accurately, facing the wrong way) is arguably the worst thing you can do liturgically. Celebration ad orientem would be brought back and versus populum forbidden.
• Evening Mass, and so-called vigil Masses, would be abolished.
• The Eucharistic Fast would be brought back to the traditional fast from Midnight.
• The custom of transferring feasts to the nearest Sunday would be abolished (it's even worse when feasts are transferred to the preceeding Sunday!)
• The old Calendar of Saints would be restored, to their ancient ranks of doubles and simples, and all Octaves and Vigils would be restored.
• The new lectionary would be abolished, and the old Epistles and Gospels restored.
• The old, pre-1956 Holy Week would be restored.
• Folded Chasubles would be restored.
• The Minor Orders would be restored, with the Subdiaconate reclassified as a Minor Order.
• The Liturgy of the Word would be celebrated from the Epistle corner again.
• Prayers at the foot of the altar would be restored, along with Psalm 42.
• Extraordinary Ministers of Communion would be forbidden, but I see no reason why a Deacon may not administer the Sacrament.
• I would restore aliturgical days for Lent.

The Divine Office presents an interesting challenge because I'm not that familiar with the Liturgy of the Hours. The Office of Readings is clearly much better than what passes for "Mattins" in 1962! I would have approached reform of the Divine Office in an entirely different way. I would restore the pre-1911 arrangement, but with "adaptations" for particular uses. I would certainly remove the obligation on secular clergy to recite the Office in full. This burdensome obligation represents an undue "monasticisation" of the clergy and reduces the public prayer of the Church to a private devotion for priests. What I would do is adapt the hours of Mattins & Lauds, Vespers and Compline for parish use; combine them, sort of like the Book of Common Prayer, and have a parochial Mattins and Evensong, and for cathedrals and collegiate churches have the full compliment of the seven canonical hours. What I deplore most of all is a timetable of services in cathedrals that consists entirely of Mass!

I could go on but it's none of my business. What I've described is a complete fantasy and my views are certainly not that common. I wonder what my detractors would say if they found out that I am in favour of new Eucharistic Prayers!