"Apologia Pro Ritu Romano Unico" – A Basic Defense of the One Roman Rite Among Christian Liturgies

[Reader Antonius]

Páx Vóbíscum. Ειρήνη Σε Όλους!, שלום עליכם! Laudétur Iesus Christus!

Unfortunately, in our times, the one ("unicus") Roman Rite of the Latin Church within Catholic Christianity has been widely criticized. Certainly, there is room for such critique, as no liturgical form is perfect, for no liturgical form can fully express the Liturgy of Heaven. That said, every liturgical rite still existing, has its own genius, symbolism, and history behind it. For the Gospel is for all nations, first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. Despite widespread criticism, exploring the Roman Rite within the Latin Church unveils layers of deep spiritual complexity & historical-cultural significance often lost in discussion, or even ignored to great ills.

To navigate this discussion effectively, let us first establish clear definitions of essential terms such as "Rite," "Roman Rite," and "Liturgy." Unless otherwise noted: "Rite" refers, as above, to the six major extant Apostolic Christian liturgical traditions (Roman, Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, West Syriac, Armenian, & East Syriac). The "Roman Rite" refers exclusively to the "liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II," which are "the unique/sole/only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite" (Traditiones Custodes, Art. I). Previously, this was called the "Ordinary Form." The word "Eucharistic Prayer" (EP) refers to the Anaphora, and vice-versa. "Liturgy" (unless otherwise indicated) refers to the entirety of a rite's tradition & praxis – including but not limited to the Holy Eucharist.

All that being said, I propose to argue here – in a skeletal, non-exhaustive way – how the Roman Rite is in continuity with the editions that preceded it. Of particular interest being the "Tridentine" liturgy & its heirs until A.D. 1962. Understanding the Roman Rite requires recognition of its place among the six major apostolic Christian liturgical traditions, but also how it has *always* stood uniquely amidst the others.

Since the 1970s onwards, there have been mountains of ink spilled by critics of the reforms & restorations of Vatican II. These range from almost every direction possible in terms of liturgy, history, ritualism, culture, language, etc. That said, *most* critics view the Tridentine Liturgy (a 16th-century codification based on 15th-century liturgical euchologies) to be a sort of "exemplar" of the Roman Liturgy. And it is certainly true that the attempt & result of the Tridentine reforms did unify & codify the Roman Rite. In tracing the origins of the Tridentine liturgy, we can see its significant role in bringing together the medieval Roman liturgical from into a single set of liturgical books.

Yet, it's also clear that the liturgists of the 16th century simply lacked wide documentation of Roman liturgies going back to the desired age: that of Pope St. Gregory the Great (and to some degree earlier). Thus, even Popes like St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, and Ven. Pius XIII in recent centuries began to realize that the Tridentine reforms were more useful in liturgical unification, rather than actual restoration. St. Pius X, aware of these facts, went so far as to say that the Tridentine books needed to be "cleansed of the grime of decay." Thus, while the Tridentine reforms accomplished for unity, they also faced later criticism for their limitations in achieving comprehensive restoration.

In response to these shortcomings, the 19th-century Liturgical Movement emerged as a catalyst for reform within the Roman Rite. Many reforms were undertaken or tried locally, but the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) *mandated* from a ecumenical conciliar level the reform & also restoration of the Roman Rite along the lines of the aforementioned Popes. That is, to removed what had decayed over centuries, the majority of non-Roman elements, & ressourcement with the liturgical traditions of the Patristic Era.

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was the leader of the Consilium formed by Pope St. Paul VI to accomplish this task, but I find he is often spoken of as children might of a "boogey-man." He is often vilified conspiratorially for trying to destroy the Roman liturgical tradition. For all his flaws however, the Consilium was not dominated by him to the degree often asserted (indeed, often to his chagrin). Moreover, liturgical experts of vastly greater erudition (e.g., Jungmann, Pierre-Marie Gy, Louis Bouyer, Dom Botte, Martimort, Righetti, et alia) feature rightly as liturgists of considerable knowledge as consultors. So, espite controversies surrounding Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, it was the Consilium as a whole under the final authority of Pope St. Paul VI (and the Supreme Pontiff himself played important roles) which played a more crucial role in implementing liturgical reforms.

By this time in history too, there was a growing realization of factors that were noticed by liturgists which were unique to the Roman Liturgy that appear all throughout history. These elements were eventually understood as deriving from City of Rome during the classical period, and were heavily marked by the Latin language's abbreviating & poetic tendencies. Ultimately, it was realized that the great beauty of the Roman Rite (as restored by Vatican II, but applicable to all previous editions) depended upon key factors.

First & foremost, a deep yet stoic reverence of the heart, great precision in liturgical & bodily actions, clear sobriety of mind & attentiveness, primarily Latin-based language from Biblical sources (as opposed to composed odes or poetry; e.g., the Byzantine Octoechos), and a comparatively strict adherence to & detailed rubrics & norms. Major failures on those fronts, on any one of them, easily mad very bad Roman liturgy, and those failures severely hampered the ability of all editions to convey "Romanitas" and the worship the Latin Church owes God & her faithful.

Moreover, it was also realized by many great liturgists that the Roman Rite's *key* mark is a balance of great nobility with stoic simplicity. This can be seen in ancient basilicas & medieval architecture, well-made vestments, precious metallic vessels, and other works of great beauty or skill whenever possible. This beauty acts as a matrix around an archaic noble simplicity of liturgical style. That is to say that the ritual forms are relatively short, unencumbered by repetition, practical, austere, and generally lacking in overt ritual complexity (although even the newest books *are* extremely complex, as I can attest as a "Master of Ceremonies" in-training!). This was also noted long before Vatican II's call for reforms.

The end result of all this reflection & labor was the liturgical books promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI. These liturgical forms are almost *entirely* shorn of Gallican additions; most of which originally came from the East (primarily Antioch & Alexandria), and became attached to the pristine Roman Rite of the 9th century and onwards. The Roman Rite is reformed in the sense that it is styled in a way less foreign to a modern observer, yet the aspect of restoration far more predominates (and still remains as the decades pass). Indeed, if one compares the typical Lord's Day Mass in the new books with the documentation found in the ancient "Ordo Romanus Primus," the similarities are very close. This was, in fact, part of the goal.

Still, the restoration of the ancient Roman Rite – due to its characteristic simplicity – left lacunae & areas desired for enrichment. Given the vastly greater knowledge of euchologies of the East & West, such gaps were filled with re-worked non-Roman Western or even directly Eastern sources. Thus, certain very Gallican traditions were retained for their obvious value (i.e., swinging the thurible/censer rather than keeping it still as it is raised or lowered, offertory rituals around the bread & wine, raising Host & Chalice after each consecration, etc.). In cases of desired *additions,* a balanced course was plotted.

The Consilium, for example, wanted to end the long-time domination of the use of a single Anaphora/Eucharistic Prayer in the Roman Liturgy. Initially & understandably, this was objected to on two grounds, First, that the preciously venerable Roman Canon might be lost; and, secondly, that the adoption of multiple anaphora might be both "un-Roman" (in style, mainly) or mere appropriation from the East.

The following conclusions were reached after much discussion: The Roman Canon would be retained untouched, save being shorn of certain Gallican or medieval accretions in ritual (e.g., multiple signs of the Cross, which were decayed forms of liturgical pointing; the degraded homily; etc.). Of great importance was that the Roman Liturgy finally identified the "Quam Oblatiónem" as the Roman "epiklesis" (or functioned as one; for it is possible it never had one as the East or non-Roman West did). This would mean all newly composed Roman anaphorae would require a consecratory epiklesis *before* the Institution Narrative. This also was more in-keeping with the theological importance of the latter in consecrating the elements.

In exploring the forms of the newly-composed (but hardly "new" in euchological terms) EPs, we see unveiled a deliberate synthesis of diverse Western and Eastern liturgical traditions. Simultaneously, we also see a strong desire to maintain the Roman tradition of liturgical celebration of the Holy Sacraments rather than wholesale adoption of another Rite. The additional Anaphorae/Eucharistic Prayers (EP) are essentially Roman in structure, but have elements from (primarily) Gallican, Mozarabic, & Anglo-Celtic sources (thus maintaining a Western connection). These are supplemented by material from Eastern sources with a known history of connection with the Church of Rome (i.e., Byzantine, Alexandrian, West Syriac). These primary EPs are four in number, noted as "EP I-IV" – which have been identified as such by the fact that they alone have Latin originals. They are also the best compositions, primarily Roman in nature, & based in the ancient sources.

To wit (names for II-IV mine):

EP I – The Roman Canon:
Textually, it has suffered no real change. Late liturgical scholarship had discovered that its unique properties are likely a result of portions of Eastern anaphorae being Latinized & abbreviated massively, and then placed in their current position around the 5th-7th century. This explains why the Roman Canon does not flow smoothly, and why it has aspects which defy the majority euchological traditions, East & West. It's language is also hieratic, which speaks to its extremely archaic nature. Yet, despite these issues, it was judged that the venerable nature of this anaphora needed retention. A decision that has proven most wonderful! Incidentally, the realization that the almost independent prayers that make up the Roman Canon likely had Eastern (mainly Alexandrian, probably) origin allowed for the precedence of drawing from Eastern sources in composing new anaphorae.

EP II – The Hippolytan Canon
This is a prayer that took inspiration from the possibly Roman anaphora recorded in the "Apostolic Tradition" ascribed to St. Hippolytus of Rome. It is not, however, a direct adoption. The Praefatio (preface) is moveable, as is Roman custom, and the basic structure has additions from the Roman Canon; notably the epiclesis is moved to the Roman pre-Institution location. Thus, it's actually more Roman in nature than St. Hippolytus' text. It was designed to be used during daily Masses or Masses in places where long anaphora could be difficult (e.g. warzones, persecutions, etc.). Yet, it was widely abused since the main celebrant has the authority to choose which anaphora to pray. This may be remedied in future editions.

EP III – The Canon of Sacrifice
As with the Roman Canon, this anaphora emphasizes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is the second most common anaphora after the Roman Canon. It emerged due to a compromise aimed at maintaining the stylistic elements of the Roman Canon, but reorganizing it to flow better given its varying constituent parts. It is not, however, a complete rearrangement. Rather, it also includes primarily Western euchological influences (primarily Mozarabic & Gallican), with a touch of early Antiochene sources. Likewise, it has a Western epiclesis placed before the Institution Narrative to maintain Roman custom. But the Antiochene influence can be seen as clearly in that it begins the Narrative not with the (uniquely) Roman "Qui, prídie quam paterétur..." but rather the Antiochene: "...in qua nócte tradebátur..." The majority, however, is Roman reorganization.

EP IV – The Roman Anaphora of St. Basil the Great
There was a widespread desire by many to include the Basilian anaphoric tradition into an additional EP. Firstly, the Basilian anaphorae are among the most beautiful & widely accepted anaphorae in Christian history. Secondly, both Byzantine & Alexandrian traditions utilize this anaphora, although in two different forms. Given the ancient accord between Rome & Alexandria, the Coptic Anaphora of St. Basil was chosen over the Byzantine version. Yet, given the length & complexity of the Coptic, it was thought to be too foreign to the Roman genius to be adopted wholesale.

Therefore, following the precedence of the Roman Canon, it was composed in such a way as to have a Latin affinity linguistically, and be heavily abbreviated without losing the substantial aspects of the Basilian anaphoric beauty. Thus, the Praefatio is immoveable and must be so. Unfortunately, this fact means that Eucharistic Prayer IV is rarely prayed in most places; not only due to its length, but also since the Praefatio cannot be substituted for a proper one. Thus, it is more suited to Lord's Day Masses in Ordinary Time, or even weekday Masses with no saint commemorated. Many aspects of this anaphora, however, show a merging of harmony between St. Basil & Latinity.

For example: the profoundly Basilian "Confitémur Tibi, Pater Sancte," which extends at length to the epiclesis; the "Ipse Enim, Cum Hora Venísset" that opens into the Institution Narrative, & a Basilian anamnesis. The Roman aspects begin to dominate in the "Réspice, Dómine, in Hóstiam;" the "Nunc Ergo, Dómine;" and finally the "Meménto étiam Illórum." The latter of which fittingly leads into the Per Ipsum, which (as with the Institution Narrative) remains the same in all the new EPs.

The changes made to the Roman Mass were also carried over or aligned with reforms & restorations of the rest of the Roman Liturgy. The Sacraments were shorn of many Gallican or medieval accretions (notably Baptism, Anointing, & Ordination). Others were enriched; e.g., Confirmation, which had undergone significant doctrinal development since Trent, adopted (but Romanized; namely, by making it imperative) the clear late Antiochene-Byzantine "forma Sacramentalis." Moreover, a new formula of absolution was composed in a wholly Roman style, but with a focus on a Trinitarian & less juridical aspect (although the post-prayer "Passio Dómini Nostri Iesu Christi" was retained without alteration).

The Liturgy of the Hours was restored to its choral & cathedral choir format in which it predominated in the late Patristic, early medieval times. Thus, it lacks much of the monastic material that later become conjoined to this choral office. This required a reformatting of the Psalter into a four-week cycle, cleaning away some burdensome monastic accretions (an ongoing work long before Vatican II), and making it suitable for *both* public celebration or private recitation. This was perhaps the most salutary reform given that the attempt by St. Pius X to imitate the one-week Psalter of the East was rather disastrous in application. The only real change was that Prime was, universally speaking, suppressed. Given that it was a very late, practical addition from monastic sources revolving around breakfast, this wasn't seen by knowledgeable liturgists as a serious loss. Even the East has considered suppressing it over the centuries.

So the end result was indeed a restoration, but also a reformation as well. This, in point of fact, is the usual path taken in previous reforms. The evolution of the Roman Rite therefore reflects a delicate, but intentional balance between preserving tradition and adapting to contemporary contexts (including discoveries unknown to the Tridentine Fathers). Indeed, the wording of what Trent sought to do is almost verbatim in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and this same wording is found in other documents involving Roman liturgical reform or change. Notably: "Restituantur vero ad pristinam sanctorum Patrum" – "Restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers." This is a recurring theme of Roman liturgical change; almost an obsession in a way that is very in keeping with the classical Roman preference for religious archaism.

These parallels between Vatican II reforms and earlier efforts underscore the Roman preference for continuity and restoration as complementary to liturgical change. The new liturgical books of the one Roman Rite reflect this in an exemplary manner, although future editions have the opportunity of deepening and evoking this "spiritual richness and depths" (as Pope Benedict XVI put it) through rubrical reform, shoring up oversimplification, and further layering of texts (perhaps in the hieratic Latin style of the Roman Canon).

 

[The Liturgist]

Páx Vóbíscum. Ειρήνη Σε Όλους!, שלום עליכם! Laudétur Iesus Christus!



Therefore, following the precedence of the Roman Canon, it was composed in such a way as to have a Latin affinity linguistically, and be heavily abbreviated without losing the substantial aspects of the Basilian anaphoric beauty. Thus, the Praefatio is immoveable and must be so. Unfortunately, this fact means that Eucharistic Prayer IV is rarely prayed in most places; not only due to its length, but also since the Praefatio cannot be substituted for a proper one. Thus, it is more suited to Lord's Day Masses in Ordinary Time, or even weekday Masses with no saint commemorated. Many aspects of this anaphora, however, show a merging of harmony between St. Basil & Latinity.

For example: the profoundly Basilian "Confitémur Tibi, Pater Sancte," which extends at length to the epiclesis; the "Ipse Enim, Cum Hora Venísset" that opens into the Institution Narrative, & a Basilian anamnesis. The Roman aspects begin to dominate in the "Réspice, Dómine, in Hóstiam;" the "Nunc Ergo, Dómine;" and finally the "Meménto étiam Illórum." The latter of which fittingly leads into the Per Ipsum, which (as with the Institution Narrative) remains the same in all the new EPs.

The changes made to the Roman Mass were also carried over or aligned with reforms & restorations of the rest of the Roman Liturgy. The Sacraments were shorn of many Gallican or medieval accretions (notably Baptism, Anointing, & Ordination). Others were enriched; e.g., Confirmation, which had undergone significant doctrinal development since Trent, adopted (but Romanized; namely, by making it imperative) the clear late Antiochene-Byzantine "forma Sacramentalis." Moreover, a new formula of absolution was composed in a wholly Roman style, but with a focus on a Trinitarian & less juridical aspect (although the post-prayer "Passio Dómini Nostri Iesu Christi" was retained without alteration).

The Liturgy of the Hours was restored to its choral & cathedral choir format in which it predominated in the late Patristic, early medieval times. Thus, it lacks much of the monastic material that later become conjoined to this choral office. This required a reformatting of the Psalter into a four-week cycle, cleaning away some burdensome monastic accretions (an ongoing work long before Vatican II), and making it suitable for *both* public celebration or private recitation. This was perhaps the most salutary reform given that the attempt by St. Pius X to imitate the one-week Psalter of the East was rather disastrous in application. The only real change was that Prime was, universally speaking, suppressed. Given that it was a very late, practical addition from monastic sources revolving around breakfast, this wasn't seen by knowledgeable liturgists as a serious loss. Even the East has considered suppressing it over the centuries.

So the end result was indeed a restoration, but also a reformation as well. This, in point of fact, is the usual path taken in previous reforms. The evolution of the Roman Rite therefore reflects a delicate, but intentional balance between preserving tradition and adapting to contemporary contexts (including discoveries unknown to the Tridentine Fathers). Indeed, the wording of what Trent sought to do is almost verbatim in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and this same wording is found in other documents involving Roman liturgical reform or change. Notably: "Restituantur vero ad pristinam sanctorum Patrum" – "Restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers." This is a recurring theme of Roman liturgical change; almost an obsession in a way that is very in keeping with the classical Roman preference for religious archaism.

These parallels between Vatican II reforms and earlier efforts underscore the Roman preference for continuity and restoration as complementary to liturgical change. The new liturgical books of the one Roman Rite reflect this in an exemplary manner, although future editions have the opportunity of deepening and evoking this "spiritual richness and depths" (as Pope Benedict XVI put it) through rubrical reform, shoring up oversimplification, and further layering of texts (perhaps in the hieratic Latin style of the Roman Canon).

What an interesting topic for a thread. Forgive me for not having noticed this sooner; normally threads pertaining to the liturgy that are of an ecumenical nature get posted in Traditional Theology.

Before writing my reply, I should first like to alert my friends that might have an interest in this, both those who would agree with you, potentially, and those who I suspect will agree with my position, which is, with all due respect, contrary to yours.

Thus I wish to alert my Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends @Valletta @chevyontheriver @concretecamper @Michie @Xeno.of.athens @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @Shane R @Paidiske @seeking.IAM @jas3 @bbbbbbb @prodromos @HTacianas @FenderTL5 and @dzheremi as to this thread, as I have no doubt that several of them might have diverse and interesting reactions to your post, and my reaction to it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What an interesting topic for a thread. Forgive me for not having noticed this sooner; normally threads pertaining to the liturgy that are of an ecumenical nature get posted in Traditional Theology.

Before writing my reply, I should first like to alert my friends that might have an interest in this, both those who would agree with you, potentially, and those who I suspect will agree with my position, which is, with all due respect, contrary to yours.

Thus I wish to alert my Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends @Valletta @chevyontheriver @concretecamper @Michie @Xeno.of.athens @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @Shane R @Paidiske @seeking.IAM @jas3 @bbbbbbb @prodromos @HTacianas @FenderTL5 and @dzheremi as to this thread, as I have no doubt that several of them might have diverse and interesting reactions to your post, and my reaction to it.

I will need some time to look at the OP in detail.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is a great deal to unpack here, and so I shall reply in multiple parts:

Páx Vóbíscum. Ειρήνη Σε Όλους!, שלום עליכם! Laudétur Iesus Christus!

Unfortunately, in our times, the one ("unicus") Roman Rite of the Latin Church within Catholic Christianity has been widely criticized. Certainly, there is room for such critique, as no liturgical form is perfect, for no liturgical form can fully express the Liturgy of Heaven.

I disagree. The word Orthodox literally means “correct glorification”, and I believe that the standard of perfection cannot be rationally applied to liturgy as a category, but rather, it is possible to incorrectly glorify God. By adhering to the service books of the different liturgical rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church, including our Western Rites, which contains Anglican, Roman and other Western (Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, etc) usages, and the Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopian liturgical rites, and also the liturgies of other churches which embody the same principles, and I would argue that the Traditional Latin Mass by and large embodies the same liturgical principles as the Orthodox liturgy, one can worship in a largely correct manner (of course, correct worship also requires one be in communion with correct worshippers, and likewise requires a correct understanding of the faith, which we tend to call having an Orthodox phronema).

Indeed, I think, if one wants to see what the reforms of Vatican II should have looked like, according to what Sacrosanctum Conciliium actually decreed, the best example of a Western Rite liturgy can be found in the Antiochian Western Rite Liturgy as found in St. Andrew’s Prayer Book, which features an English translation of both the traditional Latin mass (which can also use English) and of the Anglican liturgy, revised according to changes deemed theologically necessary by a commission established by St. Tikhon of Moscow for planning purposes of the inclusion of Anglicans in the Orthodox church, during that brief period of time when the Anglo-Catholic faction of the Episcopal Church USA was seriously discussing joining the Orthodox Communion, which had previously been closely considered, one might say attempted, by the Non-Jurors in England, who ordained the first Episcopalian bishop, and who also required him to put the Epiclesis from the ancient Divine Liturgy of St. James in the Holy Communion Service, where it remains in the traditional Anglican liturgy. While such a union with the Episcopalians as a whole did not happen, unfortunately, Western Rite Orthodoxy can be traced to that moment.

Unfortunately, one unforeseen disaster of Vatican II was the profoundly negative effect it had on Protestant liturgics, as the Episcopalians and other Anglican Protestants the Lutherans (even the LCMS), the Methodists, Presbyterians, and other churches. This included, in particular, copying the extremely defective initial English translation of the Novus Ordo, which was later replaced by Pope Benedict XVI with a much more accurate translation.

The original mistranslation resulted in the widespread adoption across all the Western liturgical churches of a revised vernacular which omitted the second personal pronouns, resulting in a loss of context (unfortunately, Pope Benedict XVI did not go as far as to correct this problem), gross mistranslations (Et cum spiritu tuo does not mean “And also with you” but rather means “And with Thy spirit”, a very significant difference, but even in the otherwise excellent Lutheran Service Book of 2006, we still find this defective language; fortunately my understanding is that LCMS pastors can use the more correct translation “And with your spirit” which we also see in the 2019 ACNA Book of Common Prayer, and also the LCMS still allows, and many parishes still use, the beautiful 1941 Lutheran Hymnal, as well as the very unpopular “Blue Hymnal”, Lutheran Worship, which was a 1980s revision of the “Green Hymnal”, the Lutheran Book of Worship, which was a joint project between those churches which would eventually merge to become the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which fell out with the ELCA in a big way while the service book was in development, so that the Green Hymnal did not see widespread use in the LCMS.

That said, every liturgical rite still existing, has its own genius, symbolism, and history behind it. For the Gospel is for all nations, first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. Despite widespread criticism, exploring the Roman Rite within the Latin Church unveils layers of deep spiritual complexity & historical-cultural significance often lost in discussion, or even ignored to great ills.

This is certainly true, and my main objection to the Novus ordo is the extent to which it eliminates much of the spiritual complexity and historical-cultural significance of the Roman Rite.

To navigate this discussion effectively, let us first establish clear definitions of essential terms such as "Rite," "Roman Rite," and "Liturgy." Unless otherwise noted: "Rite" refers, as above, to the six major extant Apostolic Christian liturgical traditions (Roman, Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, West Syriac, Armenian, & East Syriac). The "Roman Rite" refers exclusively to the "liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II," which are "the unique/sole/only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite" (Traditiones Custodes, Art. I). Previously, this was called the "Ordinary Form." The word "Eucharistic Prayer" (EP) refers to the Anaphora, and vice-versa. "Liturgy" (unless otherwise indicated) refers to the entirety of a rite's tradition & praxis – including but not limited to the Holy Eucharist.

One important thing you are omitting here is the concept of Usages. A liturgical Use is a variant on a Rite. Before the Novus Ordo, there were several surviving regional uses of the Roman Rite, including the surviving regional variants (unfortunately most of these were lost after the mixed bag that was the Council of Trent, and also as a result of the Protestant reform the four traditional uses of England, that is to say, the Sarum, York, Hereford and Durham uses, fell out of use, with only the Sarum use being celebrated semi-regularly), along with some associated with specific religious orders such as the Dominicans, the Carmelites, the Norbertines, and the Carthusian hermits, as well as the Benedictine or Monastic version of the Divine Office, which is generally regarded by most scholars of the liturgy as being better organized than the Tridentine Divine Office. These were used in some cases for spiritual reasons, for example, the Carthusians still maintain an updated version of their traditional use, and this use has always reflected the highly penitential nature of their order, and in other cases, to provide for standardization in the mendicant orders so that friars could be reallocated between geographical areas without having to adopt to regional differences in the liturgy, differences which were unique and beautiful. But by the time of Vatican II sadly we only had the uses of Lyons and Braga and occasionally Cologne surviving in some level, as well as the “Galgolithic Mass” in a dialect of Church Slavonic, used in the region of Dalamatia in the Balkans, and also the two surviving uses of the Gallican Rite, the Mozarabic and the Ambrosian.

 

[The Liturgist]

Since the 1970s onwards, there have been mountains of ink spilled by critics of the reforms & restorations of Vatican II. These range from almost every direction possible in terms of liturgy, history, ritualism, culture, language, etc. That said, *most* critics view the Tridentine Liturgy (a 16th-century codification based on 15th-century liturgical euchologies) to be a sort of "exemplar" of the Roman Liturgy. And it is certainly true that the attempt & result of the Tridentine reforms did unify & codify the Roman Rite. In tracing the origins of the Tridentine liturgy, we can see its significant role in bringing together the medieval Roman liturgical from into a single set of liturgical books.

The Tridentine Rite is an exemplar, in that if one wanted to create a standardized version of the Roman Rite for use across Western Europe and the Americas, there are essentially four competitors: the Dominican, Carmelite, Norbertine and Tridentine. Of these, the Dominican and the Tridentine have survived on a more widespread basis, and while I love the Dominican Use, I think the Tridentine Use, after the reforms to the Divine Office instituted by Pope St. Pius X in 1910, or using the Benedictine version of the Divine Office which predates it, represents the best version of the Gallican-influenced Roman Rite which we commonly think of when we think of a Western liturgical rite, in that the Tridentine rite is somewhat richer than the Dominican much of the time (although there are areas where the Dominican Rite offers greater liturgical beauty). Of course, the main objective of the Tridentine Rite, of providing a standardized use, I disagree with; I also disagree with the suppression of liturgical uses by the Council of Trent that lacked at least a 200 year attestation, because this inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) encouraged dioceses which were using liturgies older than 200 years to switch to the Tridentine anyway, by establishing the Tridentine as a gold standard. As a result of this, a lot of liturgical heritage was lost, and unfortunately, contrary to your positive opinion of it, the Novus Ordo did not bring this back.

Yet, it's also clear that the liturgists of the 16th century simply lacked wide documentation of Roman liturgies going back to the desired age: that of Pope St. Gregory the Great (and to some degree earlier). Thus, even Popes like St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, and Ven. Pius XIII in recent centuries began to realize that the Tridentine reforms were more useful in liturgical unification, rather than actual restoration.

That is simply incorrect. Any analysis of the Tridentine mass will indicate that it contains the best features of the traditional liturgies. Now, it does differ from the ancient Rite, as you have noted elsewhere, in terms of including Gallican material, but the Dominican Rite also included Gallican Rite material, as did most of the regional rites.

The reason for this, I would argue, is that in many respects, the Gallican Rite was more detailed and more attractive to a wide range of the population compared to the Roman Rite which replaced it everywhere except Milan (and one chapel in the Cathedral of Toledo, and a nearby monastery). The beauty of the ancient Roman Rite was its extreme simplicity and conservativism, which is why, uniquely among ancient liturgies, it had only one Anaphora, or Eucharistic prayer, the Roman Canon, whereas in the Gallican Rite, while the Ambrosian Rite adopted the Roman Canon, the Mozarabic Rite retains the features of the older Gallican Rite, which includes a highly variable Liturgy of the Faithful, which varies so much that it effectively has multiple Eucharistic prayers, since the content of the anaphora of the Mozarabic rite changes dramatically depending on the occasion.

Indeed it is worth noting that the Gallicanization of the Roman Rite began in the fourth century, when the antiphonal singing introduced by St. Ambrose during the vigil he held in 386 AD to prevent one of his basilicas to be handed over to the Arians, in order to keep up the spirits of the people, a style of hymnody he introduced from the Eastern liturgical tradition (with further Byzantine influence occurring during the reign of Pope St. Gregory I the Great, St. Gregory Diologos as we know him in Orthodoxy, who composed the Presanctified Liturgy and had a huge impact on the Paschal Triduum on Great and Holy Friday and Holy Saturday, where there remained commonalities between the Byzantine Rite and the Roman Rite until the spectacularly ill-advised revisions of Pope Pius XII in 1955, which were every bit as much of a disaster as the changes later made by the Concilium.

St. Pius X, aware of these facts, went so far as to say that the Tridentine books needed to be "cleansed of the grime of decay." Thus, while the Tridentine reforms accomplished for unity, they also faced later criticism for their limitations in achieving comprehensive restoration.

My understanding is that he was referring to the Roman Breviary, )not the superior Benedictine breviary) and also to the observance of minor masses which overrode the Ferial Sundays throughout the year almost in their entirety. His revisions to the Tridentine Rite largely corrected these problems.

In response to these shortcomings, the 19th-century Liturgical Movement emerged as a catalyst for reform within the Roman Rite. Many reforms were undertaken or tried locally, but the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) *mandated* from a ecumenical conciliar level the reform & also restoration of the Roman Rite along the lines of the aforementioned Popes. That is, to removed what had decayed over centuries, the majority of non-Roman elements, & ressourcement with the liturgical traditions of the Patristic Era.

Unfortunately, the Concilium did not do what Vatican II ordered. The revised Roman Rite (along with other liturgical rites revised along similiar lines, such as the Maronite Rite and the Ambrosian Rite) actually has less Patristic content than the liturgy it replaced, and also features more non-Roman elements, such as the Anaphora of St. Basil and the ancient Anaphora of the Apostles, which are still the main liturgies in the Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox churches respectively (and one can tell how poorly these were carried over into the revised Roman Rite by comparing Eucharistic Prayer 2, based on the Anaphora of Hippolytus, which is basically the bishop’s parts of the Anaphora of the Apostles used in the Ethiopian Rite, but with strange and inexplicable rearrangement, for example, moving the epiclesis), and Eucharistic Prayer 4, based on the Greek and Coptic Egyptian version of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil (my friend @Andrewn was recently asking about another Coptic liturgy, that of St. Gregory Nazanzus, and I just realized I forgot to mention him in my initial invite, which was stupid of me, given how interested he is in liturgics, and I am sure he is aware of the fact that there are two historic Greek versions of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, one of which was translated into Coptic and Arabic (and other languages, such as English) and is the primary liturgy of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the other of which is used in the Byzantine Rite during Lent and on a few other occasions (for it is the anaphora normally used with a Vesperal Divine Liturgy, so whenever the typikon calls for that, except in some modern cases where the Antiochians have introduced a vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, one usually gets the Byzantine Anaphora of St. Basil. These two distinct versions are known as ByzBAS for the Byzantine Rite version, and EgBAS for the version that survives in the Coptic Rite; there is also SyrBAS and an Armenian translation as well, the shorthand for which I forget, but sadly, under Roman influence, the Armenian church stopped using all of its 13 anaphoras except for that of St. Athanasius, which is psuedipigraphical, and an abbreviation of the Anaphora of St. James, which is coupled to a Byzantine synaxis (Liturgy of the Catechumens, or Liturgy of the Word in the revised Roman Catholic terminology.

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was the leader of the Consilium formed by Pope St. Paul VI to accomplish this task, but I find he is often spoken of as children might of a "boogey-man." He is often vilified conspiratorially for trying to destroy the Roman liturgical tradition. For all his flaws however, the Consilium was not dominated by him to the degree often asserted (indeed, often to his chagrin). Moreover, liturgical experts of vastly greater erudition (e.g., Jungmann, Pierre-Marie Gy, Louis Bouyer, Dom Botte, Martimort, Righetti, et alia) feature rightly as liturgists of considerable knowledge as consultors. So, espite controversies surrounding Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, it was the Consilium as a whole under the final authority of Pope St. Paul VI (and the Supreme Pontiff himself played important roles) which played a more crucial role in implementing liturgical reforms.

There are legitimate complaints about the changes made chiefly by Bugnini, but realistically, the entire Concilium, and Pope Paul VI, are at fault, for the liturgical disaster that they unleashed, which did cause a schism, not just with the SSPX, but with other groups which have broken communion altogether, including Sedevacantists. If the changes had simply been made optional, the damage would not have been as bad, and a schism could have been avoided, not to mention the current crisis caused by Pope Francis, in a somewhat vindictive manner, revoking the freedoms granted to the TLM communities by Summorum Pontificum and Ecclesia Dei, the great liturgical accomplishments of Pope St. John Paul II and his successor Benedict XVI respectively.

Now I would not accuse Bugnini of moral faults, but rather, I think among liturgiologists who oppose the Novus Ordo mass, it is rather an objection to his working style and his lack of technical competence, but this also extends to other members of the Concilium. It would be wrong to blame the entire disaster on Bugnini, although Bugnini was responsible for some of the more cringe-worthy errors in the Novus Ordo Mass, for example, Eucharistic Prayer 2, which was reportedly written in the course of one evening, and which has multiple problems which I will be addressing in due course.

By this time in history too, there was a growing realization of factors that were noticed by liturgists which were unique to the Roman Liturgy that appear all throughout history. These elements were eventually understood as deriving from City of Rome during the classical period, and were heavily marked by the Latin language's abbreviating & poetic tendencies. Ultimately, it was realized that the great beauty of the Roman Rite (as restored by Vatican II, but applicable to all previous editions) depended upon key factors.

Forgive me, but herein you are greatly mistaken. The great beauty of the Roman Rite was not restored by Vatican II, but rather further obscured. If someone actually wanted to restore the Roman Rite to its pre-Gallicanized state, the result would look more like the Tridentine mass, but with some differences, namely, an increased parsimony, the use of monotone chant during the Low Mass, or indeed, prior to the fifth century, the exclusive use of monotone singing, for it was not until St. Ambrose and the hymns he promulgated that antiphonal singing, as it existed in the Eastern church since the inspired dream of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the great martyr, who had a dream in which he saw two choirs of angels singing in alternate patterns). And it certainly would not entail the presence of multiple Anaphoras.

First & foremost, a deep yet stoic reverence of the heart, great precision in liturgical & bodily actions, clear sobriety of mind & attentiveness, primarily Latin-based language from Biblical sources (as opposed to composed odes or poetry; e.g., the Byzantine Octoechos),

This is a mischaracterization of the Octoechos and of the Byzantine hymns known as Canons, which consist of nine Biblical canticles or odes. Firstly, these Odes are found in Scripture, and consist of two of the three Evangelical canticles and also seven of the Old Testament canticles. Secondly, the poetic element with the Octoechos is present only in the various iterations of the Sabaite-Studite synthesis, or monastic liturgy, which became standard after the Fourth Crusade conquered Constantinople, causing great hardship and putting an end to the celebration of the Cathedral Use, which primarily relied on the Psalms and Canticles. This synthesis, which in its two superior forms, the current Athonite and Nikonian, is what one finds on Mount Athos and in the churches of Georgia, Serbia, Jerusalem, Russia, Sinai, Belarus, the canonical Ukrainian and Estonian churches, and the churches of other parts of the former USSR, and also in much of the Orthodox Church in America and in all of ROCOR except for the Western Rite parishes, and also among the Old Calendarists. In the Greek church, except in its Hagiopolitan patriarchate and on Mount Athos, there is widespread use of the somewhat inferior Violakis typikon, which unfortunately is also the norm in the Antiochian Orthodox Church; where one notices this most immediately in the Divine Liturgy is the absence of the full form of the three antiphons.

Now, returning to the Canon hymn, this is not the absence of scripture, but rather the composition of poems based on the nine odes, which are nine of the many Biblical canticles (the Coptic Rite likewise has four odes, two of which if I recall are from the Psalms, whereas none of the Byzantine Odes are from the Psalms). The Canon thus adapts the standard Odes for specific liturgical occasions, so that the essence of the Biblical text is combined with other material, itself predominantly of scriptural origin, for the specific occasion. The canon is the primary hymn of Matins, and follows the singing of the appointed Psalms, which include six invariant psalms and a variable set of Kathisma (sittings), each of which is divided into three Stasis, or standings, for one sits (or rather in antiquity sat) during the Psalms except at the “Glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit) at the end of each stasis. These stases are almost exactly the same size as the allocation of the Psalms for morning and evening prayer in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, but are slightly different in composition because the Byzantine liturgy uses the Septuagint. However, unlike the modern Roman Rite, but like the old Roman Rite and the Benedictine Rite, the Byzantine Rite reads, during most of the year, the entire Psalter in the course of a week. During Lent, it is read twice weekly. But Coptic monks and some priests and laymen go beyond this with the Agpeya, the invariant Liturgy of the Hours of the Coptic Orthodox Church (there is also a variable portion, the Psalmody, as well as the Morning and Evening Raising of Incense, which correspond to Matins and Vespers, and which precede the Divine Liturgy and the Vesperal Psalmody respectively, and which are believed by Robert Taft, SJ, memory eternal, and many other scholars, to be fragments of the lost Coptic Cathedral liturgy.

Now, it is not the case that the Roman Rite lacks an equivalent of this poetry, for it actually has it, in abundance, in both the Mass and the Divine Office, albeit in more concise forms. Noteworthy examples include the various hymns composed by St. Ambrose of Milan and other ancient hymns, and also the beautiful Collects, a style of prayer which is unique to the Western Church and especially the Roman Rite.

 

[The Liturgist]

and a comparatively strict adherence to & detailed rubrics & norms. Major failures on those fronts, on any one of them, easily mad very bad Roman liturgy, and those failures severely hampered the ability of all editions to convey "Romanitas" and the worship the Latin Church owes God & her faithful.

It is true the ancient Roman Rite, according to the temperment of the Roman Empire, did rigidly follow its set rubrics, much moreso than the regional uses derived from it. However, it is not the case that the Novus Ordo continues in this tradition, or reverses a drift away from this. Rather the massive array of options provided for in the new Roman Rite for anything from which Anaphora to use, to various optional prayers and prefaces, gives an extreme amount of freedom to the celebrant(s) when it comes to how the liturgy is celebrated.

Moreover, it was also realized by many great liturgists that the Roman Rite's *key* mark is a balance of great nobility with stoic simplicity. This can be seen in ancient basilicas & medieval architecture, well-made vestments, precious metallic vessels, and other works of great beauty or skill whenever possible. This beauty acts as a matrix around an archaic noble simplicity of liturgical style.

This is true, and this beauty is lacking mainly in the contemporary Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, where even incense is not normally used by many parishes, and where modern church architecture is spectacularly ugly in many cases (with some exceptions). I would call your attention to the Cathedrals of the dioceses of Los Angeles and Las Vegas as being particularly horrible works of architecture, particularly far removed from the ancient basilicas and medieval architecture you regard so highly.



Likewise as far as vestments are concerned, whereas before the Novus Ordo, there was a general consistency in the use of beautiful vestments, both of the Gothic and of especially of the distinctive Roman (“fiddleback”) form in terms of chasubles, a spectacular decline in liturgical vesture has been noted as one of the many comorbid issues with the new liturgy. And traditions such as the use of folded black chasubles, or wearing the maniple over the neck at funerals, or indeed wearing maniples and chasubles at all, have generally fallen out of use. Tragically, if one wants to see beautiful vestments on a reliable basis, one now has to seek out other liturgical rites within Roman Catholicism, and one is more likely to see traditional Roman vestments on an Anglican priest or a Lutheran pastor than on a Roman Catholic priest as far as the Novus Ordo is concerned. Indeed the Bad Vestments blog chronicles a number of incidents of bad vestments, unfortunately many of which come from the Novus Ordo masses, but none from the Traditional Latin Mass community (the other major sources of bad vestments were certain Anglican dioceses, as well as the Church of Sweden and some other more liberal Lutheran churches, and one Eastern Orthodox church where the priest wore a particularly cringe-worthy Phelonion, or chasuble).

That is to say that the ritual forms are relatively short, unencumbered by repetition, practical, austere, and generally lacking in overt ritual complexity (although even the newest books *are* extremely complex, as I can attest as a "Master of Ceremonies" in-training!).

This is for the most part true of the ancient Roman Rite, but it was not the case of the beautiful Gallican Rite, which was the norm in most provinces until Charlemagne pressured the church into standardizing on the Roman Rite, which happened everywhere except for Milan and in Spain, which was under Islamic tyranny at the time. The complexity of the new service books is in direct contradiction to the austerity of the ancient Roman Rite. What happened after Charlemagne’s attempted standardization was the emergence of regional uses, such as the uses of Sarum, York, Hereford, Lyons, Braga, and Cologne, among others, and the aforementioned uses of the religious orders, such as the Dominican, Carmelite, Norbertine and Carthusian uses, and all of these uses were Gallico-Roman synthesis. And such synthesis is not a bad thing at all, for the exquisite Byzantine Rite, which remains the least damaged liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church (except in a few places, for example, the notorious Melkite cathedral in Venezuela, where there is no tradiitonal iconostasis and in which a maribma and drums are used, which are extreme liturgical abuses according to Byzantine Rite liturgical standards), in its mainstream uses, is derived from a synthesis of elements developed at the Studion monastery in Constantinople, and the Monastery of St. Sabbas in the Holy Land, thus we call it the Studite-Sabaite Synthesis. There was also the Cathedral Use, which has been largely reconstructed thanks to the work of scholars such as Alexander Lingas, and which the former Byzantine Catholic monks of the OCA at New Skete used as the basis for their unusual liturgy (which is allowed in the Orthodox church, for an isolated monastery to use a distinct typikon, with permission from the bishops, but one hopes that the liturgy at New Skete does not “escape the lab” so to speak).



Interestingly, in terms of the revisionist approach taken, the two closest precedents to the Novus Ordo mass were the Liturgy of the Church of South India, which resulted from the merger of most of the main Protestant denominations at the end of the British Raj into three churches, the Church of South India, the Church of North India, and the Church of Pakistan, which was the first church to standardize on celebration versus populum (which previously only existed in certain churches in Rome itself, and there is a specific architectural justifcation for it, that being these Roman churches are built atop the graves of martyrs, and because ancient canons require the liturgy to be celebrated atop the graves of martyrs, or alternately, and more customarily, the presence of relics of the saints in the Holy Table, in the specific case of these churches, there exists in front of the altar a confessio, a sort of dip, in which the faithful can descend a short flight of stairs and directly touch the frontal of the altar table, on the other side of which are the relics of the saint the church is dedicated to, as a form of veneration of the relics which is very beautiful. This unique approach was not widely used outside of Rome and there is no justification for celebrating the liturgy versus populum at any church where celebration ad orientem is possible.

This was also noted long before Vatican II's call for reforms.

Part of the tragedy of Vatican II is that the reforms it called for were not actually implemented; rather a far different and more aggressive liturgical revision was implemented by the Concilium. To put this into perspective, of the reforms called for by Vatican II, I disagree with only one, that being the suppression of the ancient office of Prime. In contrast, I disagree with nearly everything about the Novus Ordo Missae, and regard it as the greatest liturgical disaster since the initial very unpleasant liturgies of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed thanks to the 19th century Anglo Catholics, who endured actual persecution, being thrown in jail (or gaol as the British spell it) for that most terrible offense of daring to wear a chasuble while celebrating Holy Communion, despite this actually being required by a literal reading of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, as pointed out by Rev. Percy Dearmer, while at the same time engaging in humanitarian works on a scale that rivaled that of the Salvation Army, but which sadly has largely been forgotten by history, as well as parallel movements in the Reformed tradition (the Scoto-Catholics in the Church of Scotland, and in American Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Reformed churches, Mercersburg Theology, and I would note that the Congregationalist church, the King’s Weigh House in London, was a center of liturgical excellence at the time).

The end result of all this reflection & labor was the liturgical books promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI. These liturgical forms are almost *entirely* shorn of Gallican additions;

Insofar as this is the case, they have brought in numerous additions from elsewhere, and this is also a great loss to the Roman Rite, due to the exceptional beauty of the Gallican liturgy. Indeed a better course of action for the Roman Catholic Church would have been to restore the ancient Roman Rite in the city of Rome, and restore the Gallican Rite in those lands where it was historically used, and then allow churches in the New World to continue using the various Romano-Gallican syntheses such as the Tridentine Mass or the Dominican Mass, or to select the pure Roman or pure Gallican rite.



However, it is not the case that the new rite was shorn of Gallican influence. On the contrary, the idea of having three scripture lessons, one from the Old Testament, one from the New, and one from the four Gospels, specifically originated in the Gallican Rite (the East Syriac Rite is similiar in this respect in that it has two Old Testament lessons, which correspond in most cases to the Torah and Haftarah lessons according to the Jewish lectionary as defined in the Babylonian Talmud, which was interestingly compiled in the same city in which the Church of the East was at the time headquartered, Seleucia-Cstesiphon. Indeed, before the adoption of the three year lectionary by the Novus Ordo Missae, the only places where one would find an Old Testament lesson in the main Eucharistic liturgy were those places where the Ambrosian Rite or the Mozarabic Rite were celebrated, or, certain Protestant churches which had adopted this style, for example, the Methodist Episcopal Church (the Methodists in North America minus the historically German Methodists of the Evangelical United Brethren, who would merge with the Methodist Episcopal Church to form the United Methodist Church) in the 1964/65 Book of Worship.

most of which originally came from the East (primarily Antioch & Alexandria), and became attached to the pristine Roman Rite of the 9th century and onwards. The Roman Rite is reformed in the sense that it is styled in a way less foreign to a modern observer, yet the aspect of restoration far more predominates (and still remains as the decades pass). Indeed, if one compares the typical Lord's Day Mass in the new books with the documentation found in the ancient "Ordo Romanus Primus," the similarities are very close. This was, in fact, part of the goal.

So, let me get this straight: you are praising the Novus Ordo for incorporating anaphorae that are literally of specifically Antiochene and Alexandrian origin, in the form of Eucharistic Prayers no. 2 and no. 4, while condemning the Tridentine mass because it contained some content of Antiochene and Alexandrian origin? Forgive me, but this is incoherent.



Also, you neglect to mention the considerable amount of Byzantine influence in the Tridentine mass, particularly in Holy Week (for although Pope Pius XII removed much of this, much of it still remained, albeit with damage and degradation).

Still, the restoration of the ancient Roman Rite – due to its characteristic simplicity – left lacunae & areas desired for enrichment. Given the vastly greater knowledge of euchologies of the East & West, such gaps were filled with re-worked non-Roman Western or even directly Eastern sources. Thus, certain very Gallican traditions were retained for their obvious value (i.e., swinging the thurible/censer rather than keeping it still as it is raised or lowered, offertory rituals around the bread & wine, raising Host & Chalice after each consecration, etc.). In cases of desired *additions,* a balanced course was plotted.

Once again, your position is not logically consistent. Firstly, you seem to treat the ancient Gallican liturgy, which was exquisitely beautiful, in part due to its Eastern influence, as being somehow toxic, and yet you then praise some elements of it, and furthermore, you advocate filling the lacunae left from removing the traditional Gallican parts of the liturgy, by and large, with material from other ancient liturgies not traditionally a part of the Roman Rite, which contradicts your earlier assertions about the noble simplicity of the ancient Roman Rite.



This seems to me a case of liturgically wanting to have your cake, and eat it too. And it constitutes needless disruption. You are literally praising the 1969 rite for removing the traditional elements of the Tridentine (and Dominican, and Carmelite, etc) uses of the Roman Rite which were of Gallican and Eastern origin, and then praising it for reintroducing Gallican and Eastern material which was not traditionally present. This simply makes no sense. Likewise you praise the Roman Rite for its simplicity, while admitting that the new service books of the Novus Ordo rite are extremely complex. This does not make sense. The mere fact that the Tridentine missal is considerably simpler, and also has a simple one year lectionary, rather than a complex, and highly defective, three year lectionary, is proof that the new mass is not only more complex, but one might argue that it is complex in not merely a Baroque manner, but rather a neo-Rococco manner, in terms of its myriad choices and diverging liturgical paths. And yet it lacks the beauty of the art of the Roccocco era due to the minimalist Modernist aesthetic of the Concilium, which was driven by humanist values and an actual theological agenda which was largely contrary both to the Patristic liturgical theology of the Orthodox Church and the Eastern liturgical rites, which had been to some extent liberated by Vatican II (which is why in the wake of that council, many, but not all, Latinizations were removed from the Byzantine Rite Catholic churches), and the Scholastic liturgical theology one associates with the likes of Saints Thomas Aquinas, Carlos Borromeo and Philip Neri.

The Consilium, for example, wanted to end the long-time domination of the use of a single Anaphora/Eucharistic Prayer in the Roman Liturgy. Initially & understandably, this was objected to on two grounds, First, that the preciously venerable Roman Canon might be lost; and, secondly, that the adoption of multiple anaphora might be both "un-Roman" (in style, mainly) or mere appropriation from the East.

Ironically, the use of only one anaphora was a distinctive of the Roman Rite, which stretches into the depths of antiquity. In fact, we do not know if any other anaphoras were ever regularly used in the Roman church, because of a lack of documentation of the early Greek liturgy. The liturgy found in the Apostolic Tradition of the anti-pope St. Hippolytus, who reconciled with the legitimate bishop of Rome before they were martyred together, and is thus venerated, is actually a standard use of Antioch, closely related to the Syriac Orthodox Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, the Byzantine Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom, and actually the exact anaphora used most frequently by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which we will discuss later. But we do not know if this anaphora was ever regularly used in the Roman church. Some speculate that the Roman Canon is related to the ancient Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, also known as the DIvine Liturgy of St. Cyril, and variant forms thereof, the traditional liturgy of Alexandria, which has the oldest manuscript attestation of any liturgy still in use, the second century Strasbourg Papyrus, and which is also found in the oldest intact complete service book, the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis. One important point about the Apostolic Tradition and the Euchologion of St. Serapion that I should make now, for this will be important later: like most early liturgical service books, they were composed with a specific user in mind, in their case, the bishops, so they lack numerous parts of the liturgy that were intoned by deacons or sung by the choir. They are inherently and intrinsically incomplete.



For this reason, the idea of liturgical accretion, and the idea that this is bad and represents a decay or impurity, which you discuss later, is inherently fallacious, as it derives from comparing ancient service books which only contain the principle parts of the service that would be relevant to the celebrant, with service books such as the Roman Missal, which is specifically written so as to include all of the propers of each mass, since in the Roman Rite, a custom developed wherein the celebrant of the mass would (usually silently) repeat all the prayers and proper hymns of the mass, and consequently, there ceased to be a distinction between service books for the priest and service books for everyone else, a distinction which still exists to varying extents in the Orthodox church (for example, the Horologion includes the common of the Hours, and also the Divine Liturgy and the Typika, the latter being like Anglican ante-communion or the Roman missa sicca, in that it is the synaxis, or liturgy of the word, without the Eucharist, and is used on specific occasions), while the proper hymns for all services are contained in the Octoechos and the Menaion for most of the year, and for Lent and Holy Week, the Triodion, and from the period streching from Pascha (Easter Sunday) until the second or third Sunday after Pentecost, the Pentecostarion (also known as the Flowery Triodion).



I shall continue a rebuttal of your argument in the next post.

 

[The Liturgist]

The following conclusions were reached after much discussion: The Roman Canon would be retained untouched, save being shorn of certain Gallican or medieval accretions in ritual (e.g., multiple signs of the Cross, which were decayed forms of liturgical pointing; the degraded homily; etc.).

As I explained in the preceding post, to a large extent, the idea of liturgical accretions are a myth, the result of reading old service books intended for the use of the celebrant, for example, ancient Euchologions, and indeed the Roman Rite followed this plan of liturgical books exactly. Indeed, there are still traces of this, for example, in the Rituale, or Pontifical, containing services only performed by bishops. These books historically lacked those portions of the liturgy proper to the Deacons or Choir, except where vitally necessary to the celebrant in order to prompt him. They also lacked the propers for different liturgical occasions. This was by design, in order to make the books more compact, and it created a certain organization, which does vary between the ancient liturgies, but in general, can be followed.

The appearance of massive accretion is thus to a large extent an illusion that results from reading the Missals and Breviaries, which were genuinely useful innovations on the part of the Roman church, in that they combined all of the propers as well as the Ordinary of the Mass into one book, and likewise with regards to the Divine Office, which in every liturgical tradition is more complex than the Eucharistic liturgy, in multiple volumes. This was partially due to the aforementioned case of Roman Catholic priests silently repeating all prayers said throughout the mass, and thus needing to know all of the propers.

Additionally, the idea is doubly fallacious, for it presumes that any additions and enrichments of the liturgy that date from the Medieval era or are of Gallican origin are somehow undesirable, when in reality many of the most beautiful customs of the Western liturgical patrimony date from the Middle Ages, and also originate in the ancient Gallican Rite. The Tridentine Mass was a splendid Roman-Gallican synthesis, that developed over centuries, and which is highly consistent with most of the other uses of the Roman mass which preceded it.

The only really problematic area of the Tridentine use was its breviary, but as I noted previously, this issue was largely addressed by Pope St. Pius X, who unlike the Concilium, was an immensely talented liturgist, in fact, I think one could make the case that Pius X was the among the most talented liturgists in the history of the Western Church. I would rank him with St. Ambrose of Milan, Pope St. Gregory Diologos, Cardinal Javier Ximenez, who saved the Mozarabic Rite from complete destruction, and Cardinal Quinones, who developed a simplified version of the Divine Office for parish use, which directly inspired the Anglican Divine Office of Mattins and Evensong, which was successful in revitalizing attendance at the Divine Office, an area where the Roman Church has been lagging behind every other ancient church for about a thousand years, unfortunately, despite numerous attempts at changing this.

I believe it is because priests are allowed to pray the Breviary, or the Liturgy of the Hours as it is now confusingly called, privately, whereas they are required to say a daily mass; the Liturgy of the Hours and its predecessors, the various editions of the Divine Office, can be said in private, although I would argue they are awkward for this purpose compared to an ordinary prayer book of the sort used by laity, but the daily celebration or concelebration of the mass requires the use of a consecrated altar and holy table and other facilities most priests do not have present in their places of residence (unless they are monastic, or perhaps are bishops, living in a rectory that has a chapel, for instance). Thus, as noted by the late Jesuit liturgiologist Dr. Robert Taft, SJ, memory eternal, who I greatly admire (which is unusual, as I usually am not a great fan of the Jesuit order, but he is definitely an exception to that, although I disagree with his views on some issues), the Roman Rite experienced a phenomenon in which the Divine Office became devotionalized, and meanwhile private devotions such as the Rosary and the Novena became public, and thus took the place of the Divine Office as liturgy. This is deeply problematic.

Of great importance was that the Roman Liturgy finally identified the "Quam Oblatiónem" as the Roman "epiklesis" (or functioned as one; for it is possible it never had one as the East or non-Roman West did). This would mean all newly composed Roman anaphorae would require a consecratory epiklesis *before* the Institution Narrative. This also was more in-keeping with the theological importance of the latter in consecrating the elements.

This decision was another catastrophic misstep by the Council, as it resulted in the needless mutilation by rearrangement of Eucharistic Prayers no. 2 and no. 4, which, in addition to being shorn of most of their richness as a result of previously mentioned misinterpretation of the ancient Euchologions and the assumption that everything else was an accretion (although in the case of Eucharistic Prayer 2, I am not even sure that the Concilium was aware of the fact that the Ethiopians used the ancient Antiochene Anaphora of the Apostles, that is to say, the one included in the book “Apostolic Tradition” compiled by St. Hippolytus, which they could have simply adapted, but instead chose to alter, based on the preconceived notion that the epiklesis had to precede the Institution Narrative, which also makes the internal structure of these two Eucharistic prayers internally consistent. Considering that in all Eastern Catholic liturgies, the anaphora follows the Institution Narrative, it would not be theologically inconsistent with the sacramental theology of the Roman Catholic Church to simply retain that structure when importing the Anaphorae of the Apostles and of St. Basil (EgBAS).

Thus, what could have been the basis for ecumenical reconciliation and the possibility of concelebration with various Eastern Catholic Rites, such as the Syriac, Coptic, Byzantine and Maronite Catholics, was ruined, by a pointless and unnecessary rearrangement of the very structure of the two Eastern anaphorae that the council decided to incorporate.

In exploring the forms of the newly-composed (but hardly "new" in euchological terms) EPs, we see unveiled a deliberate synthesis of diverse Western and Eastern liturgical traditions.

Again, your position that the removal of Gallican and other Eastern materials from the Rite being a good thing directly contradicts your assertion here that the intentional synthesis of Western and Eastern liturgical elements was a good thing. In a sense, you are arguing that where traditionally, Gallican and Eastern (specifically, Antiochene and Alexandrian, for you ignore the Constantinopolitan) liturgical components were used, it was bad, but when new materials not traditionally present in the Roman Rite are sourced from these very same liturgies, the Gallican, Alexandrian and Antiochene, it becomes a good thing.

This is not a convincing apology for the new rite. On the contrary, it presents a compelling reason for abandoning the Novus Ordo and either reverting to the Tridentine mass, which like Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky I think would be a good option (a better one would be to revert to and restore the various traditional local uses, and also to allow the use of the vernacular in portions of the liturgy, and to ensure vespers is attended, so that in those rites where the lectionary does not include the Old Testament during the Mass, people will hear it the night before in Vespers, which is how it is done in the Eastern Orthodox and several Oriental Orthodox churches), or alternately to attempt a Reform of the Reform.

At the risk of sounding conceited, I believe I myself could do a decent job of architecting a liturgy for the Western Rite of the Roman Catholic Church that complied with the exact instructions of Vatican II, that would be superior to that of the Concilium, because indeed, much of what the Concilium did was uneccessary, and if Sacrosanctum Concilium had been followed to the letter, the Missal and Breviary would not have changed much. Indeed, even the “Interim Rite” used in a few places in the mid 1960s, which if I remember correctly, was also used at the Vatican City pavillion at the 1964-65 World’s Fair in New York CIty, represented something of an uneccessary stretch compared to the actual instructions of the council.

Now as it happens, I am not prepared to do this, because I fundamentally disagree with one aspect of Sacrosanctum Concilium, that being the suppression of Prime. Prime is a feature of every Eastern liturgical rite except for the West Syriac and East Syriac, and is a beautiful office, and is particularly important in the history of the Western church, because most people learned to read and write, in Latin no less, using the office of Prime, which was contained in books called Primers, which is where we get that specific word from, synonymous to introductory materials. Indeed, the Anglican Communion had recently revived the office of Prime, in the 1928 Deposited Book, and the 1938 Melanesian BCP, and certain other editions of the BCP and supplemental liturgical books. However, deleting Prime is frankly a minor mistake compared to the scale of the problem with the Novus Ordo Missae.

Simultaneously, we also see a strong desire to maintain the Roman tradition of liturgical celebration of the Holy Sacraments rather than wholesale adoption of another Rite.

Firstly, all Christian liturgical rites, by definition, feature the liturgical celebration of the Holy Sacraments, by definition. One has to venture into the interesting realm of Jewish liturgy to find liturgical rites which lack the celebration of the Holy Sacraments, since Judaism did not have sacraments, but sacrifices, and for the most part stopped doing this after the loss of the Temple (although the Beta Israel, the Ethiopian Jews, continued, and indeed their liturgy is basically the same synaxis, or liturgy of the word, as the Ethiopian Orthodox, but with an animal sacrifice instead of the Eucharist, and without the New Testament).

Speaking of Jewish liturgy, while the use of a three year lectionary was unprecedented in Christianity, it is the case that the Jerusalem Talmud, which is incomplete and generally regarded as much less important than the Babylonian Talmud, does feature a three year lectionary. That said, I doubt the Concilium was aware of this, as it is something only someone who, like myself, has really gone into great depth into Jewish liturgics would happen to know (I even have at my disposal an English translation of the Debter, the Samaritan equivalent of the Siddur, the Jewish liturgical prayer book, which is extremely rare, and if anyone is interested I am prepared to share this; I also have copies of the rare Karaite Siddur translated into English, but I think they are under copyright, so I am not sure if I could share them, but I could post a comparision of Karaite and Rabinnical and Samaritan liturgy if the interest existed, and if I get feeling better, as lately i have been, as some of you are aware, quite ill).

The additional Anaphorae/Eucharistic Prayers (EP) are essentially Roman in structure,

Only with regards to the moving of the Epiklesis, which was unwarranted, and also which by the way is not exclusively Roman; there are some other liturgical rites where there is a preceding Epiklesis, for example, in some instances of the Mozarabic liturgy, and in some Anglican liturgies, and in the main Alexandrian Rite Divine Liturgy of St. Mark/St. Cyril, there is a shorter Epiklesis before the institution narrative, followed by a longer trailing Epiklesis. And of course, in the Assyrian Church of the East, Divine Liturgy of Saints Addai and Mari, which might be as old as the Alexandrian divine liturgy, famously does not have a discrete Institution Narrative, and also, equally famously, the Syriac Orthodox liturgy has anaphorae which paraphrase the Words of Institution rather than quoting one of the four versions of them found in the Gospel or one of the hybrids of these found in the liturgical texts (perhaps because of this uncertainty over which account of the Last Supper contains precisely the exact wording), although most of them do feature the Words of Institution.

Interestingly, regarding the liturgy of Addai and Mari, I would note that Pope Benedict XVI specifically declared that the Assyrian liturgy of Addai and Mari was acceptable, and that Eastern Catholics could attend it, even without the Institution Narrative which was added by the Chaldean Catholics and the Syro Malabar Catholics, when they took over those jurisdictions, in the case of the Chaldeans, voluntarily, due to a schism between the Chaldean ethnic group or tribe, which speaks Arabic as its vernacular tongue, and the other Assyrian tribes, which continue to speak an Aramaic dialect which is not quite a derivative of East Syriac, but close (much like Turoyo, a West Syriac like dialect spoken by the majority of Syriac Orthodox who still speak Aramaic in the vernacular). Additionally, the Syriac Orthodox Church is to my knowledge the only Orthodox church which has, in its parish in Constantinople specifically, given the Eucharist to Roman Catholics, even though Catholics will give the Eucharist to Orthodox under the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic churches.

but have elements from (primarily) Gallican, Mozarabic, & Anglo-Celtic sources (thus maintaining a Western connection). These are supplemented by material from Eastern sources with a known history of connection with the Church of Rome (i.e., Byzantine, Alexandrian, West Syriac). These primary EPs are four in number, noted as "EP I-IV" – which have been identified as such by the fact that they alone have Latin originals. They are also the best compositions, primarily Roman in nature, & based in the ancient sources.

So again, what was the point of deleting those parts of the Tridentine mass that were of Gallican and Antiochene and Alexandrian origin, only to replace them with other parts of Gallican (including Mozarabic, the Mozarabic Rite is a use of the Gallican Rite, being extremely similiar to it; likewise the Ambrosian Rite is basically a use of the Gallican Rite with the Anaphora standardized on the Roman Canon, rather than the highly variable anaphorae one finds in the Mozarabic missal and the surviving ancient Gallican sacramentaries)? What is it that made the aspects of those liturgies in the Tridentine mass “accretions” and “decay” while being a good and positive thing in the Novus Ordo Missae?

I maintain you are contradicting yourself here to very substantial extent. Gallican and Eastern liturgical elements are either good, or they aren’t, and if they are good, it would have been better to leave those historically present in the Roman Rite, in the Roman Rite, and to not change it, but to preserve the liturgical patrimony that had been received over the centuries. But replacing one set of elements from those rites, deemed to be “accretions”, with another, is simply tearing up tradition without any purpose.

To wit (names for II-IV mine):

Well I do appreciate your sense of literary style, since as far as I am aware, you are the only member of Christian Forums in addition to myself who uses the phrase “to wit”, which I find to be witty, so for this, I thank you. I likewise vouchsafe to continue to use the phrase “to wit” as often as I can get away with it. There is one member of the forum, who shall go unnamed, who finds my posts difficult to read, but no one else has objected, and I happen to like the idiosyncratic style that I have cultivated, and I also like your literary style, and I want to make it clear, I have no animus towards you personally on any level, and I greatly appreciate this post you made, for very few people on ChristianForums are interested in discussing this, and this is the sort of thing I love to talk about it. So even though I disagree with you about the Roman Rite and its 1969 revision, I really appreciate you and what you bring to the forum. And I cannot apologize enough for not having responded to this post of yours sooner. I hope to make this up by having invited all of my close friends on the forum to take a look at your post, and I know many of them will agree with you.

Also, while it is the case that I disagree with you to a large extent on the Roman Rite, many things you have observed about liturgy in general I agree with, and I suspect that if we were to discuss other liturgical rites, you and I might find we are of one accord. For example, I admire your appreciation for the beautiful architecture, vestments, and liturgical material such as the gilded patens and chalices and related items, and I agree with you on the importance of the public celebration of the Divine Office, or the Liturgy of the Hours, and even though I regard the present form of the Liturgy of the Hours as sub-optimal, I wish that all Roman Catholic churches would endeavor to celebrate more of it, at a minimum doing Vespers and Compline on Saturday and the Office of Readings and Lauds on Sunday.

 

[The Liturgist]

EP I – The Roman Canon:
Textually, it has suffered no real change. Late liturgical scholarship had discovered that its unique properties are likely a result of portions of Eastern anaphorae being Latinized & abbreviated massively, and then placed in their current position around the 5th-7th century. This explains why the Roman Canon does not flow smoothly, and why it has aspects which defy the majority euchological traditions, East & West. It's language is also hieratic, which speaks to its extremely archaic nature. Yet, despite these issues, it was judged that the venerable nature of this anaphora needed retention. A decision that has proven most wonderful! Incidentally, the realization that the almost independent prayers that make up the Roman Canon likely had Eastern (mainly Alexandrian, probably) origin allowed for the precedence of drawing from Eastern sources in composing new anaphorae.[/quote]

Many people, myself included, love the Roman Canon, and its hieratic language, and its ornate nature. Indeed there exists an obscure Eastern Orthodox liturgy, the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter, which differs from the other liturgies only in that it uses the Roman Canon as its anaphora (and also, it has a slightly different set of prayers for the Liturgy of Preparation). A Liturgikon or Sluzhbenik (priest’s service book) written in Church Slavonic containing this liturgy, and the Divine Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark was in regular use by some Russian Old Rite Orthodox who lived in Turkey until the mid 20th century, when the Turks, in their continuing process of ethnic cleansing of Christian minorities, forced them to emigrate, but confiscated their liturgical manuscripts as antiquities when they tried to take them out of the country. Fortunately, a Greek edition of this same book was later found at Mount Athos.

If the traditional Byzantine Rite approach of praying most of the anaphora quietly or silently by the priest or in a low voice so that the choir is heard over him is used, this liturgy, like that of St. Mark, could be used interchangeably with the Divine Liturgies of St. James and St. Basil, and anyone not in the altar might not notice it. On the other hand, the Byzantine version of the Divine Liturgy of St. James (and the Presanctified Liturgy of St. James) uses a different Synaxis, or Liturgy of the Word, so unless it were used as a vesperal liturgy, specifically on Holy Saturday (where its distinctive hymn, Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silent, replaces the Cherubic Hymn, which indicates it may once have been used there), people would notice. Note that I am not, in the context of this discussion, advocating for doing that, although if a new Orthodox monastery were to do that, I would not object; my desire is to fiercely protect all existing liturgical heritage while at the same time, as the church expands, and new monasteries and parishes are built, using them as places where disused portions of the liturgy can be brought back into prominence, as a means of attracting additional faithful, without disrupting the patterns of worship or risking a schism, such as the one which followed the Novus Ordo Missae, or other similiar schisms (to name just a few, the Nikonian Schism, when Patriarch Nikon, or rather, Czar Peter “the Great” forced a liturgical change on the Russian Orthodox Church, brutally punishing the “Old Believers” who were attached to the traditional liturgy, which is a beautiful liturgy; fortunately a reconciliation has been reached although not all Old Believers have returned to the fold of the canonical church; then over in Anglicanism we have the 1979 schism in The Episcopal Church USA, which was largely the result of forcing the heavily Novus Ordo Missae-influenced 1979 BCP on parishes which would have rather retained the more traditional, better organized, and generally superior 1928 Book of Common Prayer (although I will say the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, especially with its original lectionary, which was still a problematic three year lectionary, but not as flawed as the Revised Common Lectionary, insofar as it gave the priest the option of reading 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 on Maundy Thursday; the traditional one year lectionaries of literally every other liturgical rite, including the Tridentine Mass, the old Anglican BCP editions, the Byzantine Rite, and various Oriental Orthodox liturgies, includes the entire Eucharistic section of 1 Corinthians as the epistle on Holy Thursday, and there is no justification for removing the warning; I suspect it was done to try to encourage people to partake of the Eucharist, but it has led to the problem of “casual communion” and insofar as this lectionary change originated in the Novus Ordo Missae, is yet another disaster caused by the Concilium.

By the way, the Presanctified Liturgy of St. James is not a vesperal liturgy, unlike the more recent Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory the Diologos, that is to say, the one composed by Pope St. Gregory the Great, which was also used in the Roman Rite on Good Friday until 1955, when Pope Pius XII decided to arbitrarily modify a 1400 year tradition and erase from the Roman Rite a liturgical text written by one of the most venerated Popes, indeed, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the most venerated Bishop of Rome who was formally styled as Pope, a tradition that only began shortly before his reign, and one of the few liturgical texts that was shared between the Roman and Byzantine liturgical rites (which also have other similarities, for example, the reading of an Epistle followed by a Gospel, which became the norm in traditional Anglican and Lutheran liturgics as well, and I think the Armenians also follow this practice).

I would also note that the Presanctified Liturgy as a concept appears to have originated with St. Severus of Antioch, the most important Oriental Orthodox saint to not be venerated in the Chalcedonian churches despite making massive and positive contributions to their Christology, since his Theopaschitism and his hymn “Ho Monogenes” had a great influence on Emperor Justinian, and it was Justinian who incorporated the hymn Ho Monogenes into the Byzantine Rite liturgy, following the Second Antiphon. Some think he wrote it, but there’s not a chance, since the hymn is what opens the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, and Justinian was the worst persecutor of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the first millenium (later, they were, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, victims of Tamerlane, and then the Turkish genocide of 1915, known among Syriac Orthodox as the Sayfo, meaning “sword”, which hit them especially hard as a total percentage of their population, although in terms of absolute body count more Armenians were killed - one interesting testament to this is that before the genocide, the Armenian Catholic Church was the largest Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Church, and now, after the genocide, and also the Soviet occupation of Armenia, it is one of the smallest).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says:

Preamble​

1. When he was about to celebrate with his disciples the Passover meal in which he instituted the sacrifice of his Body and Blood, Christ the Lord gave instructions that a large, furnished upper room should be prepared (Lk 22:12). The Church has always regarded this command as applying also to herself when she gives directions about the preparation of people’s hearts and minds and of the places, rites, and texts for the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist. The current norms, prescribed in keeping with the will of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and the new Missal that the Church of the Roman Rite is to use from now on in the celebration of Mass are also evidence of the great concern of the Church, of her faith, and of her unchanged love for the great mystery of the Eucharist. They likewise bear witness to the Church’s continuous and unbroken tradition, irrespective of the introduction of certain new features.

A Witness to Unchanged Faith
2. The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly asserted by the Council of Trent in accordance with the Church’s universal tradition,[1] was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which offered these significant words about the Mass: “At the Last Supper our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which he would perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, thus entrusting to the Church, his beloved Bride, the memorial of his death and resurrection.”[2]
What the Council thus teaches is expressed constantly in the formulas of the Mass. This teaching, which is concisely expressed in the statement already contained in the ancient Sacramentary commonly known as the Leonine“As often as the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is carried out”[3]is aptly and accurately developed in the Eucharistic Prayers. For in these prayers the priest, while he performs the commemoration, turns towards God, even in the name of the whole people, renders him thanks and offers the living and holy Sacrifice, namely, the Church’s offering and the Victim by whose immolation God willed to be appeased;[4] and he prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice acceptable to the Father and salvific for the whole world.[5]
In this new Missal, then, the Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her perennial rule of belief (lex credendi), by which namely we are taught that the Sacrifice of the Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded the Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of offering, and that consequently the Mass is at once a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, of propitiation and satisfaction.
3. Moreover, the wondrous mystery of the Lord’s real presence under the Eucharistic species, reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council[6] and other documents of the Church’s Magisterium[7] in the same sense and with the same words that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith,[8] is proclaimed in the celebration of Mass not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that interior disposition and outward expression of supreme reverence and adoration in which the Eucharistic Liturgy is carried out. For the same reason the Christian people is drawn on Holy Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, and on the solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, to venerate this wonderful Sacrament by a special form of adoration.
4. Further, the nature of the ministerial priesthood proper to a Bishop and a priest, who offer the Sacrifice in the person of Christ and who preside over the gathering of the holy people, is evident in the form of the rite itself, by reason of the more prominent place and office of the priest. The meaning of this office is enunciated and explained clearly and at greater length in the Preface for the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, the day commemorating the institution of the priesthood. The Preface brings to light the conferral of the priestly power accomplished through the laying on of hands; and, by listing the various duties, it describes that power, which is the continuation of the power of Christ the High Priest of the New Testament.
5. In addition, the nature of the ministerial priesthood also puts into its proper light another reality, which must indeed be highly regarded, namely, the royal priesthood of the faithful, whose spiritual sacrifice is brought to completeness through the ministry of the Bishop and the priests in union with the sacrifice of Christ, the one and only Mediator.[9] For the celebration of the Eucharist is an action of the whole Church, and in it each one should carry out solely but completely that which pertains to him or her, in virtue of the rank of each within the People of God. In this way greater consideration will also be given to some aspects of the celebration that have sometimes been accorded less attention in the course of time. For this people is the People of God, purchased by Christ’s Blood, gathered together by the Lord, nourished by his word. It is a people called to bring to God the prayers of the entire human family, a people giving thanks in Christ for the mystery of salvation by offering his Sacrifice. Finally, it is a people made one by sharing in the Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood. Though holy in its origin, this people nevertheless grows continually in holiness by its conscious, active, and fruitful participation in the mystery of the Eucharist.[10]

Continued in the next post

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Continuation from the last post:

A Witness to Unbroken Tradition
6. In setting forth its instructions for the revision of the Order of Mass, the Second Vatican Council, using the same words as did St. Pius V in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, by which the Missal of Trent was promulgated in 1570, also ordered, among other things, that some rites be restored “to the original norm of the holy Fathers.”[11] From the fact that the same words are used it can be seen how both Roman Missals, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. Furthermore, if the inner elements of this tradition are reflected upon, it also becomes clear how outstandingly and felicitously the older Roman Missal is brought to fulfillment in the new.
7. In a difficult period when the Catholic faith on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the ministerial priesthood, and the real and permanent presence of Christ under the Eucharistic species were placed at risk, St. Pius V was especially concerned with preserving the more recent tradition, then unjustly being assailed, introducing only very slight changes into the sacred rite. In fact, the Missal of 1570 differs very little from the very first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully follows the Missal used at the time of Pope Innocent III. Moreover, even though manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided material for the emendation of some expressions, they by no means made it possible to inquire into “ancient and approved authors” farther back than the liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages.
8. Today, on the other hand, countless learned studies have shed light on the “norm of the holy Fathers” which the revisers of the Missal of St. Pius V followed. For following the publication first of the Sacramentary known as the Gregorian in 1571, critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian Sacramentaries were published, often in book form, as were ancient Hispanic and Gallican liturgical books which brought to light numerous prayers of no slight spiritual excellence that had previously been unknown.
In a similar fashion, traditions dating back to the first centuries, before the formation of the rites of East and West, are better known today because of the discovery of so many liturgical documents.
Moreover, continuing progress in the study of the holy Fathers has also shed light upon the theology of the mystery of the Eucharist through the teachings of such illustrious Fathers of Christian antiquity as St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. John Chrysostom.
9. For this reason, the “norm of the holy Fathers” requires not only the preservation of what our immediate forebears have passed on to us, but also an understanding and a more profound study of the Church’s entire past and of all the ways in which her one and only faith has been set forth in the quite diverse human and social forms prevailing in the Semitic, Greek, and Latin areas. Moreover, this broader view allows us to see how the Holy Spirit endows the People of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the unalterable deposit of faith, even amid a very great variety of prayers and rites.
Accommodation to New Conditions
10. The new Missal, therefore, while bearing witness to the Roman Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi), also safeguards the deposit of faith handed down by the more recent Councils and marks in its own right a step of great importance in liturgical tradition.
Indeed, when the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the dogmatic pronouncements of the Council of Trent, they spoke at a far different time in world history, so that they were able to bring forward proposals and measures of a pastoral nature that could not have even been foreseen four centuries earlier.
11. The Council of Trent already recognized the great catechetical value contained in the celebration of Mass but was unable to bring out all its consequences in regard to actual practice. In fact, many were pressing for permission to use the vernacular in celebrating the Eucharistic Sacrifice; but the Council, weighing the conditions of that age, considered it a duty to answer this request with a reaffirmation of the Church’s traditional teaching, according to which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is, first and foremost, the action of Christ himself, and therefore its proper efficacy is unaffected by the manner in which the faithful take part in it. The Council for this reason stated in firm but measured words, “Although the Mass contains much instruction for people of faith, nevertheless it did not seem expedient to the Fathers that it be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular.”[12] The Council accordingly anathematized anyone maintaining that “the rite of the Roman Church, in which part of the Canon and the words of consecration are spoken in a low voice, is to be condemned, or that the Mass must be celebrated only in the vernacular.”[13] Although on the one hand it prohibited the use of the vernacular in the Mass, nevertheless, on the other hand, the Council did direct pastors of souls to put appropriate catechesis in its place: “Lest Christ’s flock go hungry . . . the Holy Synod commands pastors and all others having the care of souls to give frequent instructions during the celebration of Mass, either personally or through others, concerning what is read at Mass; among other things, they should include some explanation of the mystery of this most holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and holy days.”[14]
12. Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council convened in order to accommodate the Church to the requirements of her proper apostolic office precisely in these times, it examined thoroughly, as had Trent, the instructive and pastoral character of the sacred Liturgy.[15] Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was also able to grant that “the use of the vernacular language may frequently be of great advantage to the people” and gave the faculty for its use.1[16] The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.
13. Indeed, since the use of the vernacular in the sacred Liturgy may certainly be considered an important means for presenting more clearly the catechesis regarding the mystery that is inherent in the celebration itself, the Second Vatican Council also ordered that certain prescriptions of the Council of Trent that had not been followed everywhere be brought to fruition, such as the homily to be given on Sundays and holy days[17] and the faculty to interject certain explanations during the sacred rites themselves.[18]
Above all, the Second Vatican Council, which urged “that more perfect form of participation in the Mass by which the faithful, after the priest’s Communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same Sacrifice,”[19] called for another desire of the Fathers of Trent to be realized, namely that for the sake of a fuller participation in the holy Eucharist “the faithful present at each Mass should communicate not only by spiritual desire but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist.”[20]
14. Moved by the same desire and pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since no one today calls into doubt in any way the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of Eucharistic Communion under the species of bread alone, the Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful take part.[21]
15. In this manner the Church, while remaining faithful to her office as teacher of truth safeguarding “things old,” that is, the deposit of tradition, fulfills at the same time another duty, that of examining and prudently bringing forth “things new” (cf. Mt 13:52).
Accordingly, a part of the new Missal directs the prayers of the Church in a more open way to the needs of our times, which is above all true of the Ritual Masses and the Masses for Various Needs, in which tradition and new elements are appropriately harmonized. Thus, while many expressions, drawn from the Church’s most ancient tradition and familiar through the many editions of The Roman Missal, have remained unchanged, many other expressions have been accommodated to today’s needs and circumstances. Still others, such as the prayers for the Church, the laity, the sanctification of human work, the community of all peoples, and certain needs proper to our era, have been newly composed, drawing on the thoughts and often the very phrasing of the recent documents of the Council.
Moreover, on account of the same attitude toward the new state of the present world, it seemed that in the use of texts from the most ancient tradition, so revered a treasure would in no way be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would truly reflect the current discipline of the Church. Thus, not a few expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the goods of the earth have been changed, as have also not a few allusions to a certain form of outward penance belonging to past ages of the Church.
Finally, in this manner the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have certainly been completed and perfected in many respects by those of the Second Vatican Council, which has brought to realization the efforts of the last four hundred years to bring the faithful closer to the sacred Liturgy especially in recent times, and above all the zeal for the Liturgy promoted by St. Pius X and his successors.​

 

[The Liturgist]

EP II – The Hippolytan Canon
This is a prayer that took inspiration from the possibly Roman anaphora recorded in the "Apostolic Tradition" ascribed to St. Hippolytus of Rome. It is not, however, a direct adoption. The Praefatio (preface) is moveable, as is Roman custom, and the basic structure has additions from the Roman Canon; notably the epiclesis is moved to the Roman pre-Institution location. Thus, it's actually more Roman in nature than St. Hippolytus' text. It was designed to be used during daily Masses or Masses in places where long anaphora could be difficult (e.g. warzones, persecutions, etc.). Yet, it was widely abused since the main celebrant has the authority to choose which anaphora to pray. This may be remedied in future editions.

As I noted earlier, Eucharistic Prayer II is not a Roman anaphora, but an Antiochene one, and indeed we don’t know if it was ever even used at Rome, or if St. Hippolytus included it rather as an exemplar of what a basic Anaphora should contain, since the majority of Eucharistic prayers from antiquity were arranged according to the form used in Antioch, and also it was in Antioch that antiphonal hymnody, which would prove so influential throughout the church, began under St. Ignatius the Martyr.

I doubt the Concilium was even aware of the fact that this anaphora, quite apart from being a relic of ancient Roman liturgy, has been in continual use in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church for as long as anyone is aware. And this is because of the important fact that the liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not Alexandrian, despite the church having historically been a part of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, until it was granted autocephaly (complete ecclesiastical autonomy) during the 20th century; rather, the liturgy of that church is adapted from that of Antioch, with certain local customs derived from Jewish worship being added to it, and also unique music using the oldest system of musical notation in continuous use anywhere in the world, and the unique and beautiful use of the liturgical umbrella. Indeed the history of the Ethiopian church contains the “Seven Syrian Sages”, who are venerated for their work in compiling the Ethiopian Orthodox service books shortly after the conversion of that country, in the decade following the conversion of Rome, and before Rome, the nation of Armenia, and before Armenia, the city state of Edessa. Ethiopia embraced Christianity around the same time as Georgia.

What we see however, if we look at the Ethiopian service book, is the entire Anaphora, with the diaconal and choral portions, and not just the parts celebrated by priests or bishops, which is all that is present in the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus. Thus, this anaphora has been included in only a skeletal form, and what is more, it has been, in my view pointlessly, structurally mangled by the uneccessary rearrangement of its constituent parts based on the unwarranted assumption that the Roman Rite somehow requires an epiclesis to precede rather than follow the Words of Institution (and by the way, if it is the case that this anaphora was in antiquity in use in Rome, having moved the epiclesis from the text as recorded by St. Hippolytus and by the Ethiopians becomes an even more unwarranted change, since the use of this anaphora would attest to the Antiochene style of the epiclesis following the Institution Narrative being acceptable in the Roman Rite. Thus the changes made to the text recorded by St. Hippolytus were entirely pointless.

Making matters worse is the fact that this anaphora, by virtue of the fact that it is the shortest, has become by far the most widely used. There are many priests and parishes who use it exclusively (even though they are not supposed to, strictly speaking; there was a religious order, with a name along the lines of the “Society of the Perpetual Catechumens”, which engaged in some strange liturgical practices, like celebrating Mass around a table in a manner evocative of the Plymouth Brethren, and also only using Eucharistic Prayer no. 2, and they were told to stop.

My view is that this is the most problematic anaphora in the Novus Ordo Missae and the one most urgently requiring deletion or remedial action. I am not opposed to the main Western Rite of the Roman Catholic Church having multiple Eucharistic Prayers, but I would rather they be sourced exclusively from Western Rite sources. To me, an ideal reform of the Roman Rite would make it possible for each church to access all of the Western Rite liturgies, including the Mozarabic, Gallican and Ambrosian liturgies, and disused uses such as the Beneventan (another usage of the Gallican, from Southern Italy), the Sarum, the York, and so on, as well as the ancient Roman Rite, provided one of the ancient lectionary and calendar systems was adhered to, one compatible with the specific rite being used (basically, either the Gallican lectionary and calendar, which features a six week Advent and an Old Testament lesson before the Epistle and the New Testament, or the Roman lectionary and calendar, with two scripture lessons and a four week Advent) and also certain other common sense measures to ensure consistency and comprehensibility, and of course, the music must be required to follow the standards set by Pope St. Pius X in Tra La Sollecitudini, which has the effect of prohibiting the electric guitar, the drumkit, the piano, and other instruments which ought not be used in divine worship..

EP III – The Canon of Sacrifice
As with the Roman Canon, this anaphora emphasizes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is the second most common anaphora after the Roman Canon.

On this point, you are mistaken, I fear. The most commonly used Anaphora, by far, is Eucharistic Prayer no. 2; if I had to guess, I would say the Roman Canon is the second most widely used. The least widely used is almost certainly Eucharistic Prayer no. 4 due to its invariable preface (which also makes it widely disliked by Episcopal priests, in their version of it, Eucharistic Prayer D).

It emerged due to a compromise aimed at maintaining the stylistic elements of the Roman Canon, but reorganizing it to flow better given its varying constituent parts. It is not, however, a complete rearrangement. Rather, it also includes primarily Western euchological influences (primarily Mozarabic & Gallican), with a touch of early Antiochene sources. Likewise, it has a Western epiclesis placed before the Institution Narrative to maintain Roman custom. But the Antiochene influence can be seen as clearly in that it begins the Narrative not with the (uniquely) Roman "Qui, prídie quam paterétur..." but rather the Antiochene: "...in qua nócte tradebátur..." The majority, however, is Roman reorganization.

So once again we find you in support of the novel introduction of Gallican and Antiochene material, despite having earlier expressed a strong support of the removal of traditional Gallican and Antiochene and other Eastern material from the Roman Rite as accretions. So what makes something an accretion? Why are the ancient traditions introduced from other liturgical rites wrong, whereas the innovative and unprecedented use of material from other liturgical rites as we see here acceptable? It seems to me that the only possible answer to this question would be that you are arguing that on a certain level the tradition of the Roman Rite itself was wrong, and renewal therefore was justified for the sake of renewal. This position strikes me as not being unlike the Calvinist ideal of “semper reformanda” although I would defer to my friend @bbbbbbb on this point. Oh, I forgot to include my friend @hedrick , who I think, if he cares about Roman liturgics at all, might agree with you on the subject of the Roman liturgy, and reject my criticism of it, which is fine.

My primary objection is to this liturgy being forced on the Western Rite of the church, which is what caused the SSPX schism to begin with. Every time a litugical change is forced, it causes a schism. We have this schism, we have the aformentioned 1979 Episcopal schism, we have the 1666 Nikonian schism in the Russian church, and also more recently in Orthodoxy we have the Old Calendarist schism resulting from the ill-advised adoption of the defective Revised Julian Calendar in 1920 (this calendar is fundamentally defective because, in allowing an excess of Sundays before Lent, it can result in the Apostles Fast having lasting for a negative number of days, however, that said, I have had very unpleasant experiences with Old Calendarists, who seem to care more about ecumenism than the calendar issue itself, and there are many canonical Orthodox churches, indeed, the majority of canonical Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, which still use the Julian Calendar (or the compatible Coptic and Ethiopian calendars; the Coptic and Ethiopian and Eritrean churches account for the majority of the Oriental Orthodox, and also all Oriental Orthodox in Jerusalem and the Holy Land use the Julian Calendar, even those such as the Armenians and the Syriac Orthodox who use other calendars, namely the Gregorian and the Revised Julian, elsewhere.

Also a similiar schism occurred over the forced adoption of the Gregorian calendar in the Assyrian Church of the East during the controversial reign of the last of their hereditary Patriarchs, Mar Shimun XXIII. He was tragically assassinated in 1974 shortly after becoming engaged to be married, which was an extremely controversial act, but one which does not justify his assassination, which was an evil act of cold blooded murder. However, before that, in the 1960s, after one of the Indian bishops in the Assyrian church discovered an ancient book of canon law, which, in harmony with the canon law of every other ancient church, prohibits a bishop from appointing his own successor, and thus prohibits the hereditary Patriarchate, wherein each Patriarch would be succeeded by his youngest Nephew, with the elder nephew being responsible for getting married and continuing the hierarchical bloodline), and this combined with anger over the liturgical change led to a schism, with the formation of the Ancient Church of the East with Mar Addai II as its Patriarch. Mar Addai achieved additional credibility by running the church out of Iraq, despite the danger that entailed, whereas the Assyrian church and its hereditary Patriarchates had been based in Chicago since 1920 (however, after the repose of Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, the first non-hereditary Patriarch, who also introduced important reforms and clarified certain positions contra Nestorius, the Patriarchate has returned to Iraq, with the current Catholicos-Patriarch being the former Bishop of California, Mar Awa Royel, who I have met personally and greatly admire.

EP IV – The Roman Anaphora of St. Basil the Great
There was a widespread desire by many to include the Basilian anaphoric tradition into an additional EP. Firstly, the Basilian anaphorae are among the most beautiful & widely accepted anaphorae in Christian history. Secondly, both Byzantine & Alexandrian traditions utilize this anaphora, although in two different forms. Given the ancient accord between Rome & Alexandria, the Coptic Anaphora of St. Basil was chosen over the Byzantine version. Yet, given the length & complexity of the Coptic, it was thought to be too foreign to the Roman genius to be adopted wholesale.

And therein lies the problem: the reason why the Coptic Orthodox Anaphora of St. Basil (which by the way is the least remarkable of the three Coptic Orthodox liturgies; they would have done better to go for the Anaphora of St. Cyril, or its Greek Orthodox equivalent, the DIvine Liturgy of St. Mark, which is not only the oldest attested liturgy in continuous use, owing to the discovery of the fragment of it in the Strasbourg Papyrus, the only older liturgical text, if you can call it that, being the extremely brief instructions in the Didache, is also believed by some to be the only liturgy related to the traditional Roman Canon.

And that would actually make sense, because Alexandria, along with Antioch and Rome, is one of the three Petrine Sees, for St. Mark the Evangelist (who was also among the Seventy, and who owned the house containing the Upper Room; of the two possible locations for it in Jerusalem I am inclined to believe the site identified by the Crusaders was in fact the Tomb of David, as the Jews claim, and that the Syriac Orthodox monastery of St. Mark is more likely to be the actual location of the Cenacle, particularly given its more humble placement) was a disciple of St. Peter, and the Gospel according to Mark is, according to Church Tradition, based largely on the recollections of St. Peter, just as Luke-Acts is based largely on the recollections of St. Paul.

Unfortunately, we have this anaphora, which is not even the best available version of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil (I myself regard the Byzantine recensions as being more elegant, except the hymnody of the Coptic version is very powerful, although this is also present with their other two anaphorae, which are more interesting, that of St. Gregory the Theologian, which is addressed to Jesus Christ rather than the Father, and which I recently discussed at length with @Andrewn , and that of St. Cyril) stripped down so that all of the beauty and poetry of it is lost. And since the preface of it is fixed, it is made further inflexible, and this ensures that this anaphora, and its Episcopalian counterpart Eucharistic Prayer D, which is superior in that the Episcopalians at least did not mangle the structure of the anaphora, are very seldom used.

Indeed if one were to simply delete Eucharistic Prayers 3 and 4 from the Novus Ordo Missae, very few people would notice or care, since most of the time Eucharistic Prayer 2, or in more formal parishes, no. 1, are used. This is unfortunate in the case of Eucharistic Prayer 4, since with some restoration, this could be as beautiful as Eucharistic Prayer 1.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The "Roman Rite" refers exclusively to the "liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II," which are "the unique/sole/only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite" (Traditiones Custodes, Art. I). Previously, this was called the "Ordinary Form." The word "Eucharistic Prayer" (EP) refers to the Anaphora, and vice-versa.

This leaves the Ordinariates out in the cold just as it leaves the FSSP out in the cold. The Ordinariates have yet to be shut down (not the unique/sole/only expression) and the FSSP (not the unique/sole/only expression) has yet to be shut down. Is that coming soon?

 

[jas3]

Thanks for starting the discussion on this, @The Liturgist . This does look like an interesting thread, I'll have to read through it as I get time today to be able to make a response.

 

[The Liturgist]

changes made to the Roman Mass were also carried over or aligned with reforms & restorations of the rest of the Roman Liturgy. The Sacraments were shorn of many Gallican or medieval accretions (notably Baptism, Anointing, & Ordination). Others were enriched; e.g., Confirmation, which had undergone significant doctrinal development since Trent, adopted (but Romanized; namely, by making it imperative) the clear late Antiochene-Byzantine "forma Sacramentalis."

So once again, we find you criticizing the traditional Gallican and Eastern “accretions” immediately after praising the incorporation of Gallican and Eastern elements in Eucharistic Prayers 3 and 4. What is it in your mind that makes the medieval inclusion of Gallican and Eastern elements wrong, but the inclusion of other Gallican and Eastern elements right, provided it was done by the Concilium in 1969? Why is Bugnini right, where centuries and centuries of Roman liturgical tradition were wrong?

Insofar as the Tridentine mass largely agrees with the Dominican Rite, the Sarum Rite, and indeed most other ancient uses of the Roman Mass, and is not greatly different from more ancient manuscripts?

This is especially so after the regional uses of the Roman mass took on elements of the Gallican Rite after this was suppressed at the insistence of Charlemagne, who unfortunately wielded enough power so as to influence church decisions (it was probably in reaction to this that the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, which was to prove fatal for continued communion with the Eastern Orthodox in 1054, when a Papal legate excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople).

Thus, insofar as these elements are not merely the illusion of accretion resulting from the changeover from service books specifically used by priests and bishops to the Missale, which can be used by anyone, as it contains the entire ordinary and all the Propers, owing to the change in practice, wherein the priests now repeated silently every part of the Mass, and thus needed the entire text of the service to be accessible, one of several actual changes that happened around the year 900 which the Novus Ordo did not reverse (another being the abanodnment of monotone for the Low Mass; in Eastern Orthdoxy, specifically Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy, a form of monotone or semi-monotone which I believe is related to, but not the same as, Znamenny Chant, is frequently used for reciting the Divine Office, specifically, the Hours of Terce and Sext, before the Divine Liturgy begins.

Moreover, a new formula of absolution was composed in a wholly Roman style, but with a focus on a Trinitarian & less juridical aspect (although the post-prayer "Passio Dómini Nostri Iesu Christi" was retained without alteration).

The changes to the liturgy of Confession and Absolution are particularly problematic, according to the indefatigable champion of the traditional Roman Rite, and all other forms of liturgical beauty, including those celebrated by the Orthodox, and the host of New Liturgical Movement, which is the best Roman Catholic liturgical resource on the Internet and also very useful for liturgiologists in general, frequently covering the Byzantine Rite and other Eastern liturgical traditions. Gregory DiPippo just finished the second part of a two part series on confession: <i>Concilium</i>’s Attack on Confession (Part 2): Guilt as a Social Construct

Now i would note as an Orthodox Christian I disagree with the way confession is done in the Western Church, namely in that I believe that priests should not always apply a penance; indeed I think normally they should not. Fear of penances discourages people from confessing, and often they do not have the desired effect, furthermore, they might be particularly detrimental in a church like the Episcopal Church where auricular confession is purely optional and a general confession is done before the liturgy.

I quite like how St. John of Kronstadt handled confession at his parish, which was an extremely special case due to the large number of pilgrims who came to his parish to partake of the Eucharist and receive a blessing. Because he lacked the time to hear all of their confessions individually and sequentially before the liturgy, he instead heard them all simultaneously, by having everyone shout what their sins were. Note that I am not advocating for any change in the normal Eastern Orthodox practice. I particularly like the ROCOR approach where one confesses at least once a month, as I believe this maintains a high standard of spiritual health and also improves safety when partaking of the Eucharist.

The Liturgy of the Hours was restored to its choral & cathedral choir format in which it predominated in the late Patristic, early medieval times. Thus, it lacks much of the monastic material that later become conjoined to this choral office.

The Divine Office of the Tridentine Rite is not a monastic office. The Tridentine Divine Office, which had serious faults which were rectified by Pope St. Pius X, differs dramatically from the monastic Divine Office, as used by the Benedictines and, as far as I am aware, the Cistercians, whose aesthetics of simplicity are admired by our Anglican friend @Paidiske , and the Trappists, or Cistercians of the Strict Observance. It is technically a Cathedral or Choral office and not a Monastic Office.

It must be stressed that Cathedral Offices are not inherently simpler than their monastic counterparts; this is a common misconception. The Byzantine Cathedral Typikon is actually much more demanding in terms of resources than its monastic counterpart, which is more suited for use in small parishes or in monasteries, which is a major reason why it fell into disuse after the Fourth Crusade. Hagia Sophia, in its celebration of the Cathedral Typikon, featured long processions that stretched right across Constantinople, and had hundreds of deacons, subdeacons and Psaltis. No other church in history, not even the mighty basillica of St. Peters in the Vatican, has ever attained the liturgical splendor of Hagia Sophia, not even the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, or the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, with its gigantic thurible, although that glorious church is particularly majestic, but its rigid division into different areas for different churches results in extremely confined conditions for celebrating the liturgy, particularly for smaller churches like the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox communities. The Hagia Sophia even had an organ installed in the Narthex which was used while people were waiting for services to begin (a fact downplayed by those Greek Orthodox who are adamantly opposed to the continued use of the beautiful organ music introduced into the Greek church in Corinth, and later developed by composers such as Tikey Zes, despite this music being used in only a minority of parishes and despite the Divine Office, of which at a minimum Orthros is always celebrated, always being done using Byzantine Chant.

The problematic material that at one time plagued the Tridentine Divine Office was primarily inaccurate Hagiographical material, but again, this issue was corrected by Pope St. Pius X.

This required a reformatting of the Psalter into a four-week cycle, cleaning away some burdensome monastic accretions (an ongoing work long before Vatican II), and making it suitable for *both* public celebration or private recitation.

Once again, we come across the apocryphal Accretions. It must be stressed that before the Anglicans implemented a monthly cycle for the Psalms, every church read through them at least once a week, and the Copts will do most of the Psalms in one day, using the Agpeya, which is the invariant part of their Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours). Indeed, even the laity participate in this: the celebrant of the hour, which is often a layman (I myself was called to do this while a pilgrim at St. Anthony’s Monastery) will assign the Psalms of the hour to each person present, so each person reads on average two of the psalms, silently. Certain psalms are also sung, in particular, during Psalmody, the variable part of the Divine Office (its very name suggests that it contains Psalms), and also Psalm 150 is used as the first of several communion hymns during the process of distributing the Eucharist, which can take a while in the Coptic Orthodox Church due to the manner in which they serve the Eucharist; if there are deacons present or more than one priest is celebrating the liturgy that greatly expedites things.

This was perhaps the most salutary reform given that the attempt by St. Pius X to imitate the one-week Psalter of the East was rather disastrous in application.

On the contrary, there is no evidence to support this, and furthermore, the old Divine Office in theory supported the weekly recitation of the Psalter; insofar as this was not happening, it was due to errors in the structure of the office and the use of various hymns instead of the Psalms. And also in Lent, the Eastern Orthodox recite the Psalter twice weekly, and as stated, the Copts very nearly do it on a daily basis.

Also I cannot help but feel that we are again coming across your inconsistent approach to the Eastern liturgy. It seems like you support inclusion of Eastern material whenever it was done by the Concilium, and oppose them whenever they were done by anyone else, or were a part of the historic tradition.

The only real change was that Prime was, universally speaking, suppressed. Given that it was a very late, practical addition from monastic sources revolving around breakfast, this wasn't seen by knowledgeable liturgists as a serious loss. Even the East has considered suppressing it over the centuries.

This is simply untrue. The Orthodox Church has never considered suppressing Prime. Prime is distinct from the three Minor Hours of Terce, Sext and Noone, in that in every liturgical rite that has it, except for the Coptic Orthodox Rite, it is longer and features more content. It is also, in the West, associated with the recitation of Quincunque Vult, also known as the Athanasian Creed. There is no reason to believe that Prime originated around breakfast; this idea is unsupported. It must be stressed that liturgical time does not actually equate to the time of day, which is why for over a thousand years the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and the corresponding Paschal Vigil Mass were celebrated on the morning of Holy Saturday in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. Likewise, for over a thousand years, Athonite Monks and the Russian, Ukrainian and other Slavonic Orthodox churches, and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, have celebrated All Night VIgils (in Jerusalem, the Hagiopolitan monks are actually locked into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, for the two families that guard the keys are required by the status quo to unlock the church every morning, and lock it every night; by the way, there are some interesting details about these guards of the great church which I am willing to discuss privately. At any rate, when All Night Vigils is celebrated, it concludes with Prime (and in monasteries, it begins with Noone, the Ninth Hour).

Also, I did make a mistake earlier; I now recall there is a First Hour, or the equivalent, in the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, and in the ancient East Syriac Monastic Divine Office.

Prime is particularly important in the Western church, and was revived in Anglicanism beginning with the 1928 Deposited Book, and the 1938 Melanesian book, although I do not know if it is still in use. But I would argue that for Anglicans looking to do a sunrise service on Easter, it would be the ideal office. Also ideal for reciting Quincunque Vult, the Athanasian Creed.

But the very fact that the word “Primer” stems from the historic use of this office and the books containing it to teach Latin reading and grammar, and the many beautiful illuminated Primers that have survived through the centuries, are reason enough to keep this office, particularly since the Liturgy of the Hours makes observing different offices optional in a public liturgical context.

It is also worth noting that in the Eastern church Lauds is not a distinct office, so Prime has a particularly important role in light of that fact.

Rather, the hours whose celebration has become slightly less common in the Eastern church are Terxe, Sext and Noone, due to their being effectively optional in the Violakis Typikon used by most of the Greek and Antiochian Orthodox churches. Terce and Sext continue to be chanted before most OCA and ROCOR liturgies, and Noone is chanted before almost every Presanctified liturgy, for the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great immediately follows the Ninth Hour on certain days in Lent, and on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of Holy Week.

So the end result was indeed a restoration, but also a reformation as well.

It would be more accurate to call the Liturgy of the Hours a reconstruction. And it was a reconstruction that was unnecessary, and spectacularly unsuccessful, insofar as the Divine Office remains neglected completely as an occasion for public worship by nearly every Catholic church, despite their being opportunities for its celebration literally screaming out of the timetables of different parishes. For example, the masses now allowed on Saturday night would be a perfect opportunity for combination with Vespers. And for goodness sakes, given how short the Novus Ordo Mass can be, why not include Matins, or “The Office of Readings” as the Liturgy of the Hours calls it, or Lauds at least.

[quote[
This, in point of fact, is the usual path taken in previous reforms. The evolution of the Roman Rite therefore reflects a delicate, but intentional balance between preserving tradition and adapting to contemporary contexts (including discoveries unknown to the Tridentine Fathers). Indeed, the wording of what Trent sought to do is almost verbatim in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and this same wording is found in other documents involving Roman liturgical reform or change. Notably: "Restituantur vero ad pristinam sanctorum Patrum" – "Restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers." This is a recurring theme of Roman liturgical change; almost an obsession in a way that is very in keeping with the classical Roman preference for religious archaism.
[/quote]

Aside from deleting Prime, Sacrosanctum Concilium really did not make any gross mistakes. Every other flaw, and the flaws are numerous, with the revised Roman Rite was the result of the Concilium established after the Council ostensibly to implement its planned reforms, but which in fact deviated considerably from what Sacrosanctum Concilium had directed, much to the dismay of a minority of bishops, and even the surprise of Pope Paul VI (who alas, unfortunately lacked the courage to intervene in the work of the Concilium, to reign them in and make them more closely adhere to the guidance of the Council).

I believe that if the actual instructions of Vatican II had been followed, the results would have been highly beneficial for the Roman Catholic Church, aside from the loss of Prime, which is a very serious problem, but one which could have been fixed by a subsequent council.

These parallels between Vatican II reforms and earlier efforts underscore the Roman preference for continuity and restoration as complementary to liturgical change. The new liturgical books of the one Roman Rite reflect this in an exemplary manner, although future editions have the opportunity of deepening and evoking this "spiritual richness and depths" (as Pope Benedict XVI put it) through rubrical reform, shoring up oversimplification, and further layering of texts (perhaps in the hieratic Latin style of the Roman Canon).

The work done at the behest of the Council of Trent was much less than what was done by the Concilium - far fewer changes were made, and far fewer problems were introduced. Furthermore, the changes were not forced on the church - anyone with a liturgy that had more than 200 years of use was allowed to keep it. While unfortunately not everyone did, some did, particularly the Dominicans, the Carmelites, the Norbertines, the Carthusians, and the cities of Lyons, and Braga, and Cologne, among others. And of course also the two surviving uses of the Gallican Rite, those being the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, and the Mozarabic Rite in Toledo.

 

[The Liturgist]

However, if one actually bothers to compare the Tridentine mass with a typical pre-Tridentine mass, for example, the use in Rome prior to the council, or the Sarum Rite, or the Dominican Rite, the differences are minor, which is why these rites are called “Uses”, because the difference between them and the Tridentine mass are not significant. The Dominican Rite is somewhat slightly different, and in the case of the pre-Tridentine masses used in Rome and many other cities, the differences are less than what one might notice it in the same way one would notice the difference between flying on America or United or Delta. While the distinction between the Dominican Rite and the Tridentine is enough to excite an enthusiast such as myself, the distinction between the Tridentine and its direct predecessors are so minor as to be uninteresting.

In contrast, the changes made by the Concilium were sweeping, and mandatory, with very few exceptions, which caused a schism. In a successful bid to stop the schismatic sects that were worse than the SSPX from growing, and to achieve some kind of rapprochement with the SSPX, Pope St. John Paul II enacted “Ecclesia Dei” and set up a pontifical commission to enforce it, along with the FSSP as a canonically regular alternative to the SSPX. Aside from the FSSP, all of this has now been dismantled by Pope Francis, for no good reason, particularly since the diocesan Latin Mass communities were healthier, younger and more enthusiastic than the Ordinary Form communities. Liberal bishops felt threatened by this, for some reason, and this includes Pope Francis, who is known to have politically Peronist views. And thus Pope Francis, in my opinion wrongly and detrimentally, reversed Summorum Pontifcum, which was arguably the crowning achievement of the interrupted pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI (and why Pope Benedict resigned remains unknown, but hopefully Pope Francis will regard that as a precedent and himself resign due to the confusion caused by Fiducia Supplicans, for which he is largely responsible, which had the effect of increasing his struggle with the German bishops over the “Synodal Way” rather than making it easier, which he might have intended, since it seems to me the only reason for adopting that measure was to try to appease them with some nominal hypothetical concession, but such approaches never work.

At any rate, the future of the Roman Catholic Church depends on the restoration of the traditional liturgies in those Rites where they have been abrogated. Arguably, the Maronite Rite was damaged more severely than the Roman Rite, with its long, exquisite prayers, similar to those used by the Syriac Orthodox Churches of Antioch and of India, the Syriac Catholics and the Malankara Catholics, were gutted and replaced with brief, boring and uninteresting prayers, non-traditional instrumental music has become dominant in many parishes, and also the most interesting anaphora in the Maronite Rite, that of St. Peter known as Sharar, remains suppressed for no valid reason. Additionally, the Maronite church trails all other historically Syriac speaking churches in terms of Syriac literacy among the laity and the use of Syriac in the liturgy itself, which is extremely sad.

This stands in marked contrast to the Syriac Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Assyrian churches, which are making substantial investtments in ensuring Aramaic and Coptic literacy in their youth, which creates the real potential of Coptic being revived as the primary language of worship in the Coptic church, and of Arabic being completely displaced from Oriental Orthodoxy as a liturgical language, and of its infiltration into the still predominantly Aramaic-speaking Assyrian Church of the East being halted entirely, lest that church wind up like the Chaldean Catholic Church as predominantly Arabic speaking. Indeed, there exists the possibility of the revival of the Coptic language as a vernacular, and the preservation of the Turoyo speaking community in the Syriac Orthodox church, and the possible revival of other Aramaic dialects historically used by the Syriac Orthodox, for example, Mhlaso.

If only the Roman church would take a similar approach with regards to Latin and Greek… The Jews successfully revived Hebrew as a vernacular language, which was barely clinging to life as a liturgical language, having been displaced by Aramaic even in the Siddur to a large extent. My view is that if the Jews can accomplish that, then surely the Roman catholics can revive Latin as a vernacular language, which would be excellent, as it would disrupt the Anglo-Mandarin duopoly among lingua francas, and provide people with access to the extremely large number of works written in or translated to the beautiful Latin language. Likewise, since Greek features heavily in the traditional Roman Rite liturgy, for example, in the litany “Kyrie eleison”, and in the liturgy on Good Friday, with even the Trisagion being used in Greek, the Roman church is in a position to increase Greek literacy as well. And doing so would be beneficial for the prospects of restored communion with the Orthodox.

At any rate @Reader Antonius I want to thank you for posting this thread, which has been profoundly interesting for me to reply to. I should like to stress that I agree with many of your points, I agree with you about the need for the Liturgy of the Hours to be publicly celebrated, and would support it even in its present form, and my primary disagreement with you is confined to the revised Roman Rite, as opposed to your more general opinions about the importance of beautiful architecture, vestments, and even your views on liturgical purity and the importance of Patristic elements.

As I see it, your views are similar to mine, but you have made a technical error that is easy to make, regarding accretion, which in fact, is not as much of a problem as many thought it was; much apparent accretion is actually illusory, as a result of a change in the way liturgical books were structured, and still other instances are the result of actual natural additions to the liturgy, for example, to accommodate additional holy days in response to the glorification (or in Roman Catholic parlance, canonization) of popular new saints.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thanks for starting the discussion on this, @The Liturgist . This does look like an interesting thread, I'll have to read through it as I get time today to be able to make a response.

It was @Reader Antonius who started the discussion. If anything, I hindered it, because due to poor health I was only able to write a reply this morning, rather than a month ago when I should have. I hope he is still around to reply to my response to his post.

 

[The Liturgist]

This leaves the Ordinariates out in the cold just as it leaves the FSSP out in the cold. The Ordinariates have yet to be shut down (not the unique/sole/only expression) and the FSSP (not the unique/sole/only expression) has yet to be shut down. Is that coming soon?

His claim on that point is technically inaccurate, for the Extraordinary Form is still recognized and its use is still permitted even on a Diocesan Level with Sacrosanctum Concilium, with some restrictions. And the FSSP and ICKSP are still intact and functioning.

I would argue that what he said does not impact the Anglican Ordinariates as these are regarded as a separate rite, like the Ambrosian Rite. And it would be a disaster if the Roman Church tried to suppress the unique Anglican characteristic of those parishes, since many of their members joined only in response to extreme disruption of the theological unity of the Anglican Community; I would guess that only a minority are genuine Anglo-Papalists.

My reasoning for this is that the Anglo-Papalist faction that wanted union between the Anglicans and the Pope of Rome was always small in number, since most people who felt that way tended to just leave the Anglican church and become Catholic, particularly after the Penal Laws in Ireland and the Civil Disabilities imposed on English Catholics and other discriminatory measures were lifted in the 19th century. Consequently, Anglo-Papalists like John Henry Newman simply converted to Roman Catholicism. Indeed, Anglo-Catholics supporting union with the Orthodox appear to have historically been far more numerous, constituting almost the entirety of the Non-Jurors of Scotland and Northern England (who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to King William and Mary of the Netherlands and their successors, because they had previously sworn their loyalty to King James II and his heirs and successors) as far as I can tell (and are still a thing even today).

 

[The Liturgist]

Continuation from the last post:

A Witness to Unbroken Tradition
6. In setting forth its instructions for the revision of the Order of Mass, the Second Vatican Council, using the same words as did St. Pius V in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, by which the Missal of Trent was promulgated in 1570, also ordered, among other things, that some rites be restored “to the original norm of the holy Fathers.”[11] From the fact that the same words are used it can be seen how both Roman Missals, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. Furthermore, if the inner elements of this tradition are reflected upon, it also becomes clear how outstandingly and felicitously the older Roman Missal is brought to fulfillment in the new.
7. In a difficult period when the Catholic faith on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the ministerial priesthood, and the real and permanent presence of Christ under the Eucharistic species were placed at risk, St. Pius V was especially concerned with preserving the more recent tradition, then unjustly being assailed, introducing only very slight changes into the sacred rite. In fact, the Missal of 1570 differs very little from the very first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully follows the Missal used at the time of Pope Innocent III. Moreover, even though manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided material for the emendation of some expressions, they by no means made it possible to inquire into “ancient and approved authors” farther back than the liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages.
8. Today, on the other hand, countless learned studies have shed light on the “norm of the holy Fathers” which the revisers of the Missal of St. Pius V followed. For following the publication first of the Sacramentary known as the Gregorian in 1571, critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian Sacramentaries were published, often in book form, as were ancient Hispanic and Gallican liturgical books which brought to light numerous prayers of no slight spiritual excellence that had previously been unknown.
In a similar fashion, traditions dating back to the first centuries, before the formation of the rites of East and West, are better known today because of the discovery of so many liturgical documents.
Moreover, continuing progress in the study of the holy Fathers has also shed light upon the theology of the mystery of the Eucharist through the teachings of such illustrious Fathers of Christian antiquity as St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. John Chrysostom.
9. For this reason, the “norm of the holy Fathers” requires not only the preservation of what our immediate forebears have passed on to us, but also an understanding and a more profound study of the Church’s entire past and of all the ways in which her one and only faith has been set forth in the quite diverse human and social forms prevailing in the Semitic, Greek, and Latin areas. Moreover, this broader view allows us to see how the Holy Spirit endows the People of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the unalterable deposit of faith, even amid a very great variety of prayers and rites.
Accommodation to New Conditions
10. The new Missal, therefore, while bearing witness to the Roman Church’s rule of prayer (lex orandi), also safeguards the deposit of faith handed down by the more recent Councils and marks in its own right a step of great importance in liturgical tradition.
Indeed, when the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the dogmatic pronouncements of the Council of Trent, they spoke at a far different time in world history, so that they were able to bring forward proposals and measures of a pastoral nature that could not have even been foreseen four centuries earlier.
11. The Council of Trent already recognized the great catechetical value contained in the celebration of Mass but was unable to bring out all its consequences in regard to actual practice. In fact, many were pressing for permission to use the vernacular in celebrating the Eucharistic Sacrifice; but the Council, weighing the conditions of that age, considered it a duty to answer this request with a reaffirmation of the Church’s traditional teaching, according to which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is, first and foremost, the action of Christ himself, and therefore its proper efficacy is unaffected by the manner in which the faithful take part in it. The Council for this reason stated in firm but measured words, “Although the Mass contains much instruction for people of faith, nevertheless it did not seem expedient to the Fathers that it be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular.”[12] The Council accordingly anathematized anyone maintaining that “the rite of the Roman Church, in which part of the Canon and the words of consecration are spoken in a low voice, is to be condemned, or that the Mass must be celebrated only in the vernacular.”[13] Although on the one hand it prohibited the use of the vernacular in the Mass, nevertheless, on the other hand, the Council did direct pastors of souls to put appropriate catechesis in its place: “Lest Christ’s flock go hungry . . . the Holy Synod commands pastors and all others having the care of souls to give frequent instructions during the celebration of Mass, either personally or through others, concerning what is read at Mass; among other things, they should include some explanation of the mystery of this most holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and holy days.”[14]
12. Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council convened in order to accommodate the Church to the requirements of her proper apostolic office precisely in these times, it examined thoroughly, as had Trent, the instructive and pastoral character of the sacred Liturgy.[15] Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was also able to grant that “the use of the vernacular language may frequently be of great advantage to the people” and gave the faculty for its use.1[16] The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.
13. Indeed, since the use of the vernacular in the sacred Liturgy may certainly be considered an important means for presenting more clearly the catechesis regarding the mystery that is inherent in the celebration itself, the Second Vatican Council also ordered that certain prescriptions of the Council of Trent that had not been followed everywhere be brought to fruition, such as the homily to be given on Sundays and holy days[17] and the faculty to interject certain explanations during the sacred rites themselves.[18]
Above all, the Second Vatican Council, which urged “that more perfect form of participation in the Mass by which the faithful, after the priest’s Communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same Sacrifice,”[19] called for another desire of the Fathers of Trent to be realized, namely that for the sake of a fuller participation in the holy Eucharist “the faithful present at each Mass should communicate not only by spiritual desire but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist.”[20]
14. Moved by the same desire and pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since no one today calls into doubt in any way the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of Eucharistic Communion under the species of bread alone, the Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful take part.[21]
15. In this manner the Church, while remaining faithful to her office as teacher of truth safeguarding “things old,” that is, the deposit of tradition, fulfills at the same time another duty, that of examining and prudently bringing forth “things new” (cf. Mt 13:52).
Accordingly, a part of the new Missal directs the prayers of the Church in a more open way to the needs of our times, which is above all true of the Ritual Masses and the Masses for Various Needs, in which tradition and new elements are appropriately harmonized. Thus, while many expressions, drawn from the Church’s most ancient tradition and familiar through the many editions of The Roman Missal, have remained unchanged, many other expressions have been accommodated to today’s needs and circumstances. Still others, such as the prayers for the Church, the laity, the sanctification of human work, the community of all peoples, and certain needs proper to our era, have been newly composed, drawing on the thoughts and often the very phrasing of the recent documents of the Council.
Moreover, on account of the same attitude toward the new state of the present world, it seemed that in the use of texts from the most ancient tradition, so revered a treasure would in no way be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would truly reflect the current discipline of the Church. Thus, not a few expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the goods of the earth have been changed, as have also not a few allusions to a certain form of outward penance belonging to past ages of the Church.
Finally, in this manner the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have certainly been completed and perfected in many respects by those of the Second Vatican Council, which has brought to realization the efforts of the last four hundred years to bring the faithful closer to the sacred Liturgy especially in recent times, and above all the zeal for the Liturgy promoted by St. Pius X and his successors.​

If the Second Vatican Council’s specific agenda for liturgical reform had been implemented, the results would have been mostly positive (aside from the unwarranted and baffling decision to suppress Prime).

 

[chevyontheriver]

His claim on that point is technically inaccurate, for the Extraordinary Form is still recognized and its use is still permitted even on a Diocesan Level with Sacrosanctum Concilium, with some restrictions. And the FSSP and ICKSP are still intact and functioning.

Pope Francis recently met with the FSSP and allowed them to keep going offering the TLM. This while many dioceses are restricting the FSSP trying to comply with Traditiones custodes from pope Francis.

I would argue that what he said does not impact the Anglican Ordinariates as these are regarded as a separate rite, like the Ambrosian Rite.

They are considered to be within the Latin Rite. Not a separate right. A different 'use'. But if the 1970 liturgy is the unique/sole/only expression of the Latin Rite then the Sarum and Ambrosian and Ordinariate et all are in limbo.

And it would be a disaster if the Roman Church tried to suppress the unique Anglican characteristic of those parishes, since many of their members joined only in response to extreme disruption of the theological unity of the Anglican Community; I would guess that only a minority are genuine Anglo-Papalists.

I was at the Ft. Worth Ordinariate on Sunday and they have had phenomenal growth. When they separated from the Episcopalian diocese without their church building they had 65 members. And for several years they hovered around that level while having their site at the Catholic Diocesan Center in Ft. Worth. But they slowly grew and planned out the purchase of a new building. About a year ago they had 330 members in their new building. At present they have 530 a weekend in attendance. They can grow some more before their building is full and I suspect that they will do so. As to how many are Episcopalian refugee Anglo-Papalists I don't know. I suspect you may be right. Some of them sure are. But then Ft. Worth also has a growing FSSP parish and who knows what else.

My reasoning for this is that the Anglo-Papalist faction that wanted union between the Anglicans and the Pope of Rome was always small in number, since most people who felt that way tended to just leave the Anglican church and become Catholic, particularly after the Penal Laws in Ireland and the Civil Disabilities imposed on English Catholics and other discriminatory measures were lifted in the 19th century. Consequently, Anglo-Papalists like John Henry Newman simply converted to Roman Catholicism.

As did my Methodist grandfather. There wasn't any other live option back then. The Orthodox being rare in this neck of the woods then and even now.

Point is the insistence on the novus ordo being the only way puts at risk any Catholic who has another sensibility, from Ordinariate to TLM to any other Rite or usage or tradition. The Catholic Church has within it a rich liturgical diversity but a tendency to want to force uniformity in liturgy. Yet saying the "Roman Rite" refers exclusively to the "liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II," which are "the unique/sole/only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite" (Traditiones Custodes, Art. I) means that the liturgical diversity which allows the Ordinariate usage doesn't really exist. It's a temporary allowance that may go away at any time. I don't believe that was ever the thinking of pope Benedict, but here we are. We have had an unfortunate history of bishops like the great archbishop Ireland a hundred years ago simply forbidding legitimate Eastern Rites in his territory.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In contrast, the changes made by the Concilium were sweeping, and mandatory, with very few exceptions, which caused a schism. In a successful bid to stop the schismatic sects that were worse than the SSPX from growing, and to achieve some kind of rapprochement with the SSPX, Pope St. John Paul II enacted “Ecclesia Dei” and set up a pontifical commission to enforce it, along with the FSSP as a canonically regular alternative to the SSPX. Aside from the FSSP, all of this has now been dismantled by Pope Francis, for no good reason, particularly since the diocesan Latin Mass communities were healthier, younger and more enthusiastic than the Ordinary Form communities. Liberal bishops felt threatened by this, for some reason, and this includes Pope Francis, who is known to have politically Peronist views. And thus Pope Francis, in my opinion wrongly and detrimentally, reversed Summorum Pontifcum, which was arguably the crowning achievement of the interrupted pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI (and why Pope Benedict resigned remains unknown, but hopefully Pope Francis will regard that as a precedent and himself resign due to the confusion caused by Fiducia Supplicans, for which he is largely responsible, which had the effect of increasing his struggle with the German bishops over the “Synodal Way” rather than making it easier, which he might have intended, since it seems to me the only reason for adopting that measure was to try to appease them with some nominal hypothetical concession, but such approaches never work.

People argue whether pope Francis is a pure Peronist or not. I am not up on the state of that argument. I just know a case can be made that he can better be understood as something else than Peronist.

The FSSP was started from inside the SPPX as a more moderate version that wanted to regularize with Rome. The SPPX is currently semi-regular with Rome, not fully schismatic but not all that regular either. Even pope Francis has given them permission broadly to hear confessions so they are NOT full-blown schismatics. Not like SPPV and the like.

Oh, and from the Ordinariate web site:

Are members of the Ordinariates still Anglicans?
No, if you are a member of the Ordinariate you are no longer a member of the Anglican Communion or one of the continuing Anglican jurisdictions. Instead, you are a Latin Rite Roman Catholic of the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, and in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. However, because we maintain our own distinct heritage and traditions, we are Catholics who maintain our distinct Anglican Tradition within the Roman Catholic Church.

Are Ordinariate communities a part of local dioceses?
No, they are part of the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, which is its own jurisdiction within the Church. However, Ordinariate communities and clergy are encouraged to have close relationships with the dioceses in which they are located and most Ordinariate priests receive faculties to assist in diocesan parishes.

Is the Ordinariate a separate Rite within the Catholic Church?
No. The Ordinariate exists entirely within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Its worship, while distinctive, is a form of the Roman Rite. Ordinariate parishes celebrate Mass using Divine Worship: The Missal, a definitive book of liturgical texts promulgated by the Vatican in Advent 2015. This missal uses Prayer Book English — language derived from the classic books of the Anglican liturgical tradition — that is fully Catholic in content and expression.