Were there Defects in the Canon of the Old Roman Rite?

Were there Defects in the Canon of the Old Roman Rite?

by Matt1618

What were some of the problems in the canon of the traditional Tridentine Rite Mass, that was changed into 4 new canons, with the institution of the Pauline Rite Mass in 1969? The first canon we now have is based on the old Roman canon with some changes, but there are now three more Eucharistic canons. Now, this is a question on the ‘canon’ itself, not the whole Liturgy. There are other issues involved with the rest of the Liturgy, but here is a focus on the ‘canon’ itself. There is often an attack by so-called traditionalists, on the current canons as though they are seriously defective, and they give no acknowledgement of any problems with the old Roman canon whatsoever.

The Roman canon which is used in the Tridentine Mass is an ancient, historical canon. Now, is this canon traditional, historical, and due honor? Yes indeed. In the Pauline Rite Mass, it is retained, with some alterations, as the first canon. But there are indeed some structural difficulties with the canon, that were not repeated in the other three canons that we do have in the Pauline Rite Mass. Here I lay out some of the difficulties with the canon that explain the need for some changes, and the need for additional canons as well. Now, I originally did this in an email exchange with some people who oppose the new canons, and deny any defects in the Tridentine Roman canon. This is not my critique, but I cite noted Liturgical scholar Father Cipriano Vagaggini, who wrote of these issues a couple of years prior to the Pauline Rite's Mass institution. He was very orthodox and was not a modernist at all. He points these items out. The first part of this paper will show this. Then, I will respond to some opposition to the comments that critique the canon, by a David Palm, who although he acknowledges the Pauline Rite Mass' validity, does critique the position that Father Vagaggini mentions. David also does bring up other issues that critique the Pauline Rite Mass, on the canons and liturgy as a whole. I respond to David's response. First, I will present Father Vagaggini's critique with a little of my commentary, and then following that will be David's, and then my response.

My comments:

Note: When Father Vagaggini says ‘modern canon’, he is speaking about the Tridentine canon, as this book predates the Pauline Rite canons by two years. These criticisms do not say that there are dogmatic errors in the canon. The Council of Trent canon that deals with the canons at the time (canon 6, in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon but other canons before Pope St. Pius V suppressed them), that say that the canon was inerrant, only spoke to the Eucharistic truths behind the canons at the time. There were other canons at the time in the West as well. Canon 6 in Trent, was issued in 1563, while the canon that overrode many other canons, was not issued until 1571. That canon in Trent did not speak to the structure of the canon not being able to be adjusted (since it was speaking of all the existing canons at the time as recognized by the Church, before the Tridentine rite was imposed on the whole West years later). This will be noted down below.

Defects in the Old Roman canon - an examination. I take this from a book “The canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform, by Father Cipriano Vagaggini. I will number things differently than he does in the book because I only bring up some of the points that Father Vagaggini brings up. Now, I want to put some of the items that Father Vagaggini noted in his book in 1967 just prior to the change to the Pauline Rite Mass in 1969:

1) The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity.

This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of ‘Per Christum Dominum nostrum.’ ‘Amen’, not to mention that at the end of the ‘Nobis quoque,’ which indicate the apparently independent prayers they conclude. [1]

In other words, in the Roman canon, the prayers jump all over the place, with no continuity. This is noted by some of the most prominent liturgical scholars of this century. This is even noted in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, and by Rev. Rev. Joseph Jungmann, who in the mid 20th century in a thorough study of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite notes the same thing. Neither Vaggagini, Adrian Fortescue the author of articles on the Liturgy in the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor Rev. Jungmann were modernists.

A second problem that Father Vagaggini notes is:

2) The lack of a logical connection of ideas.

This follows from the first fault. The connection of the te igatur with either what comes before or what follows is anything but clear. The Sanctus is finished by Pleni sunt...Benedictus... Hosanna in excelsis, and then follows Te Igitur rogamus acceptimus ut accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona... For the ideas to follow logically it would be necessary for the Sanctus, for at least the preface, to make some mention of the offering of the gifts or of the fact that God blesses and sanctifies.... In the anaphoras of other traditions the passage from the Sanctus to what follows is a great deal clearer. After the Sanctus they refer back to what has just been said and continued the idea:” Truly you are holy, who...” (Thus the Antiochene tradition, as well as the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic) The transition from the Memento of the living to the Communicantes presents another well-known difficulty in the Roman canon. In the present text the participle Communicates is suspended in mid-air, since it is not at all clear to what it refers. [2]

In the new canons, this problem is addressed in the manner he mentioned. In the second canon, for example, the tradition that Father Vagaggini mentions about following up on that which precedes it the Sanctus, does start off this way:

Second canon - Lord you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness.

Third canon - Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit.

These canons start off acknowledging God's holiness, which links the Sanctus (which stresses God's holiness), to that which will follow, which will ultimately be the consecration, unlike the traditional Roman canon.

Father Vagaggini then goes on to note another issue:

3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.

The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition....

It is difficult to avoid the impression that this same idea of offering gifts underlies the first part of the Supplices te rogamus (iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui). Here again there is the idea of commercium: we offer the gifts to God;...

Finally, the idea is once more implied, at least in the present practice of the Roman rite (Remember, this is speaking of the Tridentine canon, prior to the Pauline Rite Mass canons, not the three new canons in use), by the saying of the Per quem haec omnia at every Mass, even though there is no longer any food present to be blessed. The haec omnia that God creates vivifies, sanctifies and gives us are obviously the oblata as well.

As the canon stands, therefore, a theme that in itself is excellent has been rendered clumsy and unwieldy; the result is anything but a model of liturgical composition....

The disordered insistence upon the idea of the offering of the oblata obscures the idea that what we offer above all in the Mass is Christ our Lord himself, and ourselves with him. We lose sight of the fact that the real and primary offering of the Mass takes place after the institution with the Unde et memores. I do not say that there is no such idea in the canon; on the contrary, it is an underlying one throughout, but it is given no prominence and is therefore not easily seen, notwithstanding its primary importance. Convincing proof of this lies in the well-known fact that our people have sadly lost the essential idea of the offertory. [3]

The offering of sacrifices to God, of what is not a sacrifice, because it is before the consecration, is confusing to say the least. Now, before the consecration, the Priest would say in the Tridentine Rite:
Most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted Sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to preserve, unite, and govern her throughout the world.
So this offering before the consecration, of what is not yet a sacrifice is confusing. As of this point what we are offering is not a sacrifice!!! In fact we are not even offering it. As of this point, it is only preparatory to the sacrificial offering, but what is before the priest is as of now, only bread and wine, not a sacrifice.

Notice that a long, long time ago, before the Pauline Rite Mass was instituted, that Catholics, who were all brought up on the Tridentine canon (in fact since it was a silent canon, they could not hear it anyway) had lost the idea of what was being offered. This problem thus preexisted the Pauline Rite Mass, so the idea that because the Pauline Rite Mass was instituted this became so, is kind of silly.

4) The lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.

In spite of the numerous fragments in the Roman canon that follow the pattern of an epiclesis, there is absolutely no theology of the part proper to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. And this theology is of prime importance. One need only reflect on the biblical and traditional character of this doctrine to realize immediately that this is a serious deficiency. [4]

This deficiency is corrected in the three new canons. In each of the three new canons, the Epiclesis is spelled out here:
Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Not long, but to the point. The Priest asks for the Holy Spirit to make what is bread and wine, to become the actual Body and Blood of our Lord. This is a very traditional thing that was lacking in the Roman canon. This is corrected in the three new canons.

Next, Father Vagaggini notes that there are:

5) Deficiencies in the Institution narrative

a) The greatest defect is that Hoc est enim corpus meum stands alone; no attempt is made to follow it up with any of the phrases: quod Pro vobis tradetur, given in 1 Cor. 11:24 by the Vulgate;... After Hoc est enim corpus meum, all of the Eastern liturgies continue with the Pauline or Lucan sequel in one of the variant readings. This is done in the Palaeo-Hispanic rite too. [5]

In the new canons, the quotation of 1 Cor. 11:24 is given. (here he quotes the rite that says, “Every time you eat this bread or drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory” In the PRM, this is one of the responses. (Some in the Trad camp, even criticize this quotation, which directly alludes to Paul!!!!)
b) The insertion of the phrase mysterium fidei in the midst of the words said over the chalice. This has no parallel in any other liturgy, and within the Roman rite iteself has its origin in uncertain and its meaning debatable. However, it is obvious that in its present form at least the insertion mysterium fidei serves to break up and interrupt the words of institution. This phrase is not biblical, nor is it clear. [6]
S.J. Joseph J. Jungmann, the great Historian and Liturgical Scholar, more than 50 years ago, notes in his book, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development , vol. 2, of its unclearness:
Regarding the meaning of the words ‘mysterium fidei', there is absolutely no agreement. A distant parallel is to be found in the ‘Apostolic Constitution,' where our Lord is made to say at the consecration of the bread: “This is the mystery of the New Testament, take of it, eat, it is My Body. Just as here the mysterium is referred to the bread in the form of a predicate, so in the canon of our Mass it is referred to the chalice in the form of an apposition. .... Mysterium Fidei is an independent expansion, superadded to the whole self-sufficient complex that precedes.

What is meant by the words mysterium fidei? Christian antiquity would not have referred them so much to the obscurity of what is here hidden from the senses, but accessible (in part) only to (subjective) faith. Rather it would have taken them as a reference to the grace-laden sacramentum in which the entire objective faith, the whole divine order of salvation is comprised.. The chalice of the New Testament is the life-giving symbol of truth, the sanctuary of our belief. How or when or why this insertion was made, or what external event occasioned it, cannot readily be ascertained. [7]

The Tridentine Mass puts the ‘Mystery of Faith’ into the very words of Our Lord!!! However, a look at all 4 renditions of the biblical accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11) does not have Jesus saying it. The early Liturgies of the Church give no account of this being a part of the Consecration. How in the world some people can be so upset about a translation (‘for all’ supposedly being horrid, 'you are adding words that Jesus did not say' instead of ‘for many’), but decry the Church for removing something that Jesus never said, I think makes no sense at all. In fact it is not even removed from the canons, and all four canons have the mysterium fidei in them, but appropriately, after the consecration. And the mystery of faith is the whole faith, which is ‘Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again’, or a specific biblical quotation ‘When we eat this bread and drink this ...’ from Paul in 1 Cor. 11:26, just as Paul notes after the consecration.

6. The lack of an overall presentation of the history of salvation

This is a failing of the Roman canon and of the whole anaphora tradition in the West. Quite apart from the defects already mentioned, when looked at from this point of view the Roman canon inevitably appears at a disadvantage if compared with the anaphoras of the East. Certainly there are the movable prefaces, with all their merits, but when put side by side with the Eastern anaphoras (those of Antioch, for instance) the present canon is found wanting. [8]

Now obviously the 3 new canons (and the revised 1st canon) did not solve all these problems but there were indeed some improvements. For example, the Epiclesis, or the calling down of the Holy Spirit on the gifts given (bread and wine) to make them become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, totally absent from the Tridentine canon, is in all three new canons. The acknowledgement of the Holy Spirit’s work at this vital time is not absent in these canons as they are in the Roman canon.

Another very important note is the fact that there are four possible canons. These canons are drawn from different traditions. By having optional canons, this brings the Roman liturgy, into line with other liturgical traditions. As also noted by Vagaggini, all other Liturgies besides the Roman Liturgy had multiple canons, or anaphoras:

In the anaphora tradition of large liturgical groups, the Roman liturgy is almost alone in never having known the possibility of using simultaneously more than one anaphora...
Of the Antiochian group of anaphoras: the West-Syrians have or have had about Seventy anaphora formulae; the East-Syrian three; the Byzantine two; the Armenians four. In the Egyptian group: the Copts have three; the Abyssinians seventeen. And note that in the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic traditions every part of the anaphora was variable except for the Quo pridie. The present Ambrosian tradition has a special canon for Holy Thursday and the vigil of Easter, besides the Roman canon. [9]
For a comparison of the whole Tridentine Rite with the Pauline Rite Mass, where I and Shawn with Art Sippo responded to a critique of Shawn’s essay on ‘Traditionalism' go down below. This is part two of the study which responded to these Ultra-Traditionalists attack on the Pauline Rite Mass. It goes over the Latin issue, goes over the prayers of the Mass, item by item, and my response to their attack on the Mass. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/part2.html

In Christ, Matt

After I posted the above, some opposition to the statements came. Now I responded, and then David Palm responded. Now, my first comments may be preceded with a >, and then my comment, and David’s response will be italicized. My response then follows. David’s responds first where he says that there are several things wrong with the canons of the Mass in the Pauline Rite Mass. He quotes Father Jungmann, and Cardinal Ratzinger, against the Pauline Rite Mass as a whole, including comments on the canons. Down below is where I respond to his comments unitalicized.
One thing I note, is Cardinal Ratzinger has quite comfortably celebrated the Pauline Rite Mass & as far as I know, in the past 30 years, I only know of him celebrating the Tridentine Mass one time. I have some skepticism to some of your conclusions, for example, because I saw you quoting the Cardinal quoting the Rev. Joseph Jungmann as though he was against the Pauline Rite Mass, which is far from the case. His analysis of history quite tellingly differs from the view you present me, not only in the book I referred you to in an earlier writing, but in the landmark two volume “The Mass of the Roman Rite”, 1951. He certainly was no modernist, which differs extensively with Gamber’s & your analysis. For example he also had critiques of the canon 20 years before the Mass of 1969 was instituted. I will refer to him later on in this reply.

> 2) The scope of the changes was uncalled for by any
> preceding Pontiff or Council (including Vatican II)
> and changes of this kind have no historical precident.
> IMO they fall into the category of "innovations,"
> which by and large are harmful to the Church on
> account of their discontinuity with preceding tradition.

I differ with you again. The changes from the time of the Eucharist’s inception to the times of the third and 4th centuries were changes of significant magnitude that were uncalled for by any Pope or Council. The diversity that was allowed was significant and were innovations, if you want to use that term. The Roman canon change for example in the 4 to 5th century was an innovation that was not called for by any preceding Council or pontiff. The tremendous change from the St. Hippolytus canon of Rome which was only one of many canons, to the Apostolic Constitution canon, to the Roman canon can not so easily be overlooked. The vast changes in the many Liturgies that were found in the early centuries meant that there were obvious innovations early in the history of the church.

If you hold the discontinuity with tradition is due to Latin, the Church only did the change in the vernacular to as it originally did when it originally changed from the Greek to the Latin. The Church did take away lots of repeating of the same things, just as the Church did when it changed from Greek of Latin: :

No doubt the use of Latin was a factor in the Roman tendency to shorten the prayers, leave out whatever seemed redundant in formulas, and abridge the whole service. Latin is naturally terse, compared with the rhetorical abundance of Greek.[10]
That is from Fr. Adrian Fortescue, author of the article in 1913 in the Catholic Encyclopedia. This fulfills what Vatican II in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM called for when specifically speaking of what the changes are for:
The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.[11]
Obviously the reason that when there was a call for the Mass to make reforms it says that there must not be useless repetitions, obviously it implied that the Tridentine Rite had some useless repetitions. Otherwise there would be no mention of wanting to be unencumbered with them. Just changing the periphery, would not be enough.

No doctrines were changed at all in the rite, as evidenced when one compares the rites, although there may be a less emphasis on one thing or another.

> 3) The character of the "reformers" to whom this task
> was delegated is highly questionable, indeed unsettling.
> Check out this link on Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, chief
> force behind the Pauline Rite:

You are taking a selective look at the reformers. The authors of the Missal had integrity. As Likoudis & Whitehead note,

On the post-conciliar Commission, headed by Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna. More than 30 diocesan bishops from all over the world were represented on the commission.
French Priest Jounel was orthodox, gave us a list of the experts who actually helped to write the texts, and none of them can be questioned on the grounds of orthodoxy.
J. Wagner, Director of the Liturgical Institute of Trier;
A Haenaggi, University of Friboourg, Switzerland
SJ. Jospeph A. Jungmann, orthodoxy unquestioned.
C. Vagaggini, Professor at Sant’ Anselmo, Rome; Despite Xxxxx’s assertion, he is no modernist at all, and very Orthodox.
T. Schnitzler, parish priest from Cologne, Germany.
P. M. Gy and Pierre Jounel of the Institute of the Liturgy, Paris France
L. Agustoni, a parish priest from Switzerland;
L. Bouyer and L. Gelineau, French religious order priests. [12]
The ones who prepared the revised Roman Missal itself were actually quite Orthodox.

> ABBOT BONIFACE LUYKX: "Bugnini once told [Abp.]
> Malula that the norm for the liturgy and for Church
> renewal is modern Western man, because he is the
> perfect man, and the final man, and the everlasting
> man, because he is the perfect and normative man. And
> he made clear that, for him, "acculturation" or
> adapting to Western culture is the great work in
> Church liturgical reform and renewal, and in theology,
> and in all other aspects of Church life. . . .
> Secularization was, for him, a necessary process,
> something the Church needed to accept and embrace. . .
> . He accepted and embraced secularism because he said
> it was reality, and it was necessary to accept
> reality. He held to the modern philosophical view that
> man is made without God, and does not need God."
> > (Abbot Luykx was a colleague of Bugnini's and
> collaborator with the Consilium, but later became so
> disgusted with the liturgical situation in the West
> that he went over to the Ukranian Rite.)

I believe that this is selective, unfortunately. Yes, Bugnini wanted lots of bad things. And the Abbot agrees with you on the altar issue. However, I listened to a tape series on the matter by Abbot Luykx himself where he says that the ‘Everybody knew that the Tridentine Mass was no longer sufficient’ and there were problems inherent in the Mass itself. He recognized for example also that Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular & though Latin should not be eliminated (and I agree with that, if people want access to Latin, I would like more churches to make it available, not only Latin, but the Tridentine Mass) I do occasionally go to a Latin Mass, though not the Tridentine one. Nonetheless, Mass for the most part should be celebrated in the vernacular. That is what the Abbot himself says. He also disagrees with you forcefully on whether the PRM (from hereon short for Pauline Rite Mass) truly speaks of sacrifice. He also says that Trent should never have been imposed on the rest of West and he supports a multiplicity of rites. [13]

> 4) The liturgy was revised as it was to make it more
> palatable for Protestants. This is itself a highly
> untraditional thing to do. That is putting is mildly.
> Personally I think it is a scandalous and sinful
> thing to do. I have no doubt that this was done by
> the Pope with the very best of intentions, but I
> consider it a grave error in judgment:

Well, going to the vernacular made it more palatable for Protestants, and it helped to do away with the thought of how Catholicism was so foreign to them. It also became more palatable for Catholics who could make sense of what was going on without having to read a missal. As a Lutheran who converted to Catholicism thought, much of the reticence that Protestants had towards Catholicism would disappear: Look at what some Lutheran Pastors mentioned how Protestants viewed the Latin Mass (in the 50s) and how it colored their view of Catholicism:

I believe, most sincerely, that one might make the rather categorical statement that Protestantism fears the vernacular movement in the Roman Church. With the rites in the vernacular, there will be for all of Protestantism to see, a body of faith and action which for so long they have condemned as mere Hexerei (witch-craft).[14]
As in the 1950s, when Latin was the only liturgical language in the Mass, the Roman Liturgy was often passed off as witchcraft. Now, it can not be so hastily done so. Of course Protestants are still reticent in dealing with Catholicism. However, the excuse they had about it possibly pertaining to witchcraft is no longer there, thanks to the PRM.

> ABBOT BONIFACE LUYKX: "Paul VI was a very great Pope,
> but he was a weak man. He had great difficulty in
> making a decision. For example, he had the New Order
> of the Mass on his desk for three years - three years!
> - before promulgating it. And he took many unusual
> decisions to avoid that final decision. And one of his
> decisions was inviting in the six Protestant
> theologians to review the document before publication
> to ensure that Protestant sensibilities would not be
> offended. And it was this decision that caused the
> greatest problems. . . . Paul approved the new Mass
> because his advisors told him that the Protestants
> would come closer to the Catholic Church as a result.
> That was his main reason, because it really did take
> on some of the aspects of a Protestant service; that
> is why the Anglican and Lutherans and others are so
> favorable to the New Mass. And that was the way Paul
> wanted it. He had a vision of the Church re-uniting
> after centuries of bloodshed and division."

It was not necessarily an untraditional thing to invite Protestants to review the liturgy. For one thing, none of the six Protestant theologians participated in writing any of the documents. Sure, they reviewed them, but had no part in formulating them.

On July 4, 1976 the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared:

The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal. [15]

Thus, even if they reviewed the missal as a whole, it was still a Catholic document which affirms Catholic doctrine not only in the canon, but the rest of the Mass as well.

In fact Protestant participation was also encouraged even in Trent.

We see this in the not only protection, but the ask for active participation by Protestants in procedings of the Council of Trent:, session 13, whch caused the delay of the definition of four articles concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

But since those of the glorious province of Germany, who call themselves Protestants, desire to be heard by the holy council in regard to these articles before they are defined, and for this reason have asked of it a pledge that they may be permitted to come here in safety, sojourn in this city, speak and express freely their views before the council and then depart when they please, this holy council, though it has for many months looked forward with great eagerness to their arrival...

The holy and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legate and nuncios of the holy Apostolic See presiding, grants, so far as it pertains to the council itself, to each and all persons throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or seculars, of whatever rank, station, condition and circumstances they may be, who may wish to come to this ecumenical and general council, security and full protection, which they call a safe-conduct, with each and all of the necessary and suitable clauses and decisions, even though they ought to be expressed specifically and not in general terms, and it is its wish that they be understood as so expressed, so that they may and shall enjoy full liberty to confer, make proposals and discuss those things that are to be discussed in the council; to come freely and safely to the ecumenical council, to remain and sojourn there and to propose therein, in writing as well as orally, as many articles as may seem good to them, to deliberate with the Fathers or with those who may have been chosen by the council and without any abuse and contumely dispute with them; they may also depart whenever they please. [16]

Now, the Protestants never did convene at the Council but they were asked for and the Council Fathers wanted input from them on what would be defined doctrine. The request for input from Protestants on the Pauline Rite Mass, does not put into suspicion the appropriateness of the changes to the Mass, any more than asking for input from Protestants puts into question the definitions of the Council of Trent‘s decree on the Eucharist. But, if those who are suspicious of the Pauline Rite Mass because of this, should likewise be suspicious of the definitions that were given at the Council of Trent, 13th session.

However, the sacrificial language of the canons Church, as the Abbot himself says, in 3 out of the 4 canons is explicit. He argues that the ‘traditionalists’ are missing it when they say that the term ‘sacrifice’ is not in the Mass. Lutherans and Anglicans do not believe in the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Of course the first Pauline canon shortens but contains most of the Roman canon, so unless you say that the canon you are promoting appeals to Protestants, that charge obviously would not apply to the first one. I don’t need to argue that the prayers of 75% of the canons are explicit in mentioning the sacrifice, because the text of each of the prayers say so. The Third canons says this:

We offer you in thanksgiving THIS HOLY AND LIVING SACRIFICE. Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim, whose death has reconciled us to your self..... Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.
The Fourth canons says this:
Father, we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption. We recall Christ’s death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension to your right hand; and looking forward to his coming in glory, We offer you his body and blood, THE ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE which brings salvation to the whole world. Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church; and by your Holy Spirit, gather all who share this one bread and one cup into the one body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise. Lord, remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice...[17]
Since when do Anglicans and Lutherans feel comfortable with the explicit mention of sacrifice, as Abbot Luykx, who you cite as in support of you, recognizes as well?

Now the second canon is less explicit on the matter, but of course, when we see the introductory preface that is designed to go with that canon, we see the 2nd canon borrow much of its wording from the St. Hippolytus canon, which went to Africa and has a deep tradition as well. This canon, as well as all of the canons, includes prayers for the dead, which don't make Protestants particularly comfortable. Now if they do, is that Protestants becoming more Catholic or Catholics becoming more Protestant? Since when do Anglicans and Lutherans pray for the dead? Now for consistency there is the consecratory formula and the Epiclesis that is the same in all the canons.

Those six Ministers, however, had no say in writing the language itself, as the Vatican itself affirmed. Even in the second canon, which by the way, which is less sacrificial, when you do include the preface is indeed related to the St. Hippolytus canon, has prayers for the dead.

> Gentlemen, if the Novus Ordo passed muster with six
> Protestant theologians that is a very bad thing.
> Neither the Tridentine Rite nor any other pre-Vatican
> II rite of the Church would ever pass theologically
> with any Protestant. I consider this historical
> detail very serious.

The Tridentine Rite canon passes muster with the High Anglicans, since that is the prayer that it uses, except that it is in English. So this charge comes back around to shoot one. Now in reference to the Pauline Rite Mass and that it passes muster with Protestants, I don’t believe you have established that Lutherans and Anglicans pray for the dead. Not only do the canons speak explicitly of sacrifice, but they also pray for the dead. That is peculiarly Catholic. If they do accept these prayers, it is not Catholics compromising beliefs, but them sacrificing theirs.

Of course they borrowed from the Tridentine Rite to get their own services. If it is the vernacular, it just shows how close the Tridentine Rite was to the Protestant services.

As the Lutheran Pastor, 14 years before the reform said:

If Lutherans today could behold the Mass in the Roman Church (this during the Tridentine Rite), even partly English, as a form consisting of: introductory prayers, confession and absolution, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, Epistle, Gospel (preceded by Gradual), Creed, Sermon, Preface (preceded by offertory prayers), Sanctus, Canon, Agnus Dei, post-communion, all of which make up the Lutheran Communion Service, then I believe most sincerely that the Lutherans of today would stop and re-evaluate the Reformation. [18]
If the main difference is the canon that you are pointing to, all of the prayers point to the sacrifice and prayers for the dead.

> << In my original post, and strengthened by Shawn's affirmation of the various
> points, that there were some real difficulties in the
> canon of the Tridentine rite. I only touched on some
> of them. >>

> > Msgr. Annibale Bugnini on the Roman Canon:

> > "Get rid of it!"

> > Shawn and Matt on the Roman Canon:

> > "It has some problems and real difficulties."

I gave the problems and there is in fact no response to the weaknesses that are in the canon itself. The fact that there is no Epiclesis for example in the Canon, as Father Vagaggini pointed out, and in fact there is some kind of Epiclesis in most traditional rites, is something that you want to ignore, does not mean that in the reform that the Church had to ignore it.

The other things that were pointed out don’t just go away because you don’t like us to point them out to you. I again refer you to Shawn’s email dated Nov. 4, 'On the Liturgy', Part II.

> Council of Trent on the Roman Canon (CHAPTER IV):
> > "And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be
> administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things
> this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it
> might be worthily and reverently offered and received,
> the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the
> sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing
> is contained therein which does not in the highest
> degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and
> raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For
> it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the
> traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions
> also of holy pontiffs."
> > I'd like to hear "problems and real difficulties"
> squared with this resounding endorsement of the Canon
> by the Fathers of Trent. I'm afraid I agree with
> Xxxxx; I think the criticisms of the Canon smack more
> of an arrogant modernistic tendency than a great
> respect for holy tradition.

The first problem is that you are deciding to limit this to the Roman rite. This canon nowhere mentions the Roman Rite as the only canon that it is referring to. There were Eastern canons as well as Western canons going at the same time. I take this from what I have written online on this very issue, where the schismatics (I of course am not saying anything like this about you, but the same point holds) were trying to make the same point about this canon:

“Next, we must deal with our opponent’s idea that the Council of Trent decreed that the Roman canon alone was the one that had no errors, and therefore the idea that it was the Roman canon which could never be touched. Let us look at the whole context from which the Council of Trent made the reference. What is implied from our opponents’ citation is that here the Council of Trent is referencing only the Roman canon, and this is only speaking in reference to this specific canon. Thus, the error free canon only applies to the Tridentine Mass established and the Roman canon. Thus, it does not apply to any future canons, or even other canons except the Roman rite established by Quo Primum, The “Tridentine” rite.

The first thing that shows that our opponents attempts is an erroneous and even foolish way of looking at it is just noticing the date of Quo Primum as opposed to the date of this decree. For them to say that this canon is error free only applies to the Roman canon is belied just by that very fact. How is that? Well, by just looking at the dates involved. Quo Primum, issued by Pope Pius V, was issued in 1570. Here it suppressed most Western rites, except those that were more than 200 years old. However, the fact that it attempted to suppress these Western rites shows indeed that there were many different liturgies and canons going on at the same time. Pope St. Pius V recognized at the time there were many rites, and he suppressed them in 1570. However, what is the date of the Tridentine decree which said that there was no error in the canon? 1571, after the attempt was made to suppress all the other Western rites and the Tridentine Rite was imposed on all others? No. The 22nd Session, which made this decree was made on September 17, 1562. Thus, there were many different rites and canons going on at the same time, even in the Western rites at the same time, as the decree of 1562 is referencing. So the fact is that the Tridentine Rite was not even formally established at the time, let alone that being the only canon that this decree is referencing. It is absolutely impossible for our opponents to say that this canon applies only to the Roman canon, as Quo Primum had not even been promulgated. Look at the Chapters in the following Trent decree and see if you see anything at all about it speaking about only the Roman canon that was established and imposed only 8 years down the road.

CHAPTER IV On the Canon of the Mass. And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.


On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

The fact is that if our opponents are trying to say that Trent is only referencing the canon of Quo Primum, it is false, because at the same time there were many other Liturgies and canons. Those other canons that were allowed at the same time also had to be without error. We see in Chapter V immediately after Chapter IV so referenced, that it speaks of many different ceremonies and rites, not singling out one. If one says that this does apply to future canons and that is how it applies to the Tridentine canon, then it must also apply to the Pauline Rite. There is thus no way around this point, and our opponents attempts to say error abounds in the Pauline Rite canon becomes an exercise of self-refuting futility and their whole exercise in showing supposed ‘errors’ in the Pauline Mass is bogus. It matters not, that one is 8 years down the road and the other is about 400 years down the road. The four prayers draw heavily from varying traditions that have always been accepted by the Catholic Church.” [19]

End of my quotation.

The first canon is from the Roman rite. The second canon is drawn from the canon of St. Hippolytus which was passed on to Africa. The Third canon is a combination of the Roman rite and the Gallican and Mozarabic Rites and affirms the intent of the Roman canon itself. The Fourth canon was modeled on the canons of the West Syrian Byzantine type. All four canons draw from traditions that were in existence at the time that this canon was put in. Also, all four canons affirm the Catholic teaching on the transubstantiation of Christ that was affirmed elsewhere in Trent. As Art in his section on the matter says:

“In fact we really need to understand the issues to which Canon 6 is actually referring. Trent was convened to oppose the errors of the Protestants and to reaffirm traditional Catholic teaching and practice generally. The Protestants alleged that the Mass erroneously proclaimed the Eucharist to be a propitiatory sacrifice offered for the living and the dead by a true mediating priest in which the sacramental offerings were transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ. When Trent taught that there were no errors in the Canon of the Mass, it was declaring that any Eucharistic liturgy used within the Church that affirmed these teachings either explicitly (or implicitly) was not in error for doing so. I will agree that -- strictly speaking -- Canon 6 referred specifically to all valid Eucharistic Canons in contemporary use during the 16th Century (not only to the Roman Canon). However, Canon 6 also applies to all extant forms of the Mass that quite explicitly affirm Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. Consequently, the Eucharistic Prayers in the PM would also be covered in the spirit of Canon 6 in our continued controversy with the Protestants.” [20]
Also, what is more of the context of the canon of the Mass? What specifically is the Council of Trent dealing with? On which canon is better than others, and excluding the other canons in other Liturgies, as Xxxxx apparently believes? No, the Council of Trent was established to contradict the errors of Protestantism which says that the Mass is not a true sacrifice and Jesus is not truly present body, blood, soul, and divinity. The Catholic Church in the PRM continues to affirm the teachings of the Council of Trent, as its language is explicit on the issue of sacrifice. Since three of the four canons are explicit on Sacrifice, and the fourth is definitely implicit and has a tradition, and they all affirm in an epiclesis that what will happen is that the bread and wine will become the body and blood, and affirms after the consecration that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, the teaching is affirmed and the no error decree of Trent will apply to the four canons.

The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is also affirmed in the PRM. Now, does it water it down? As Luykx notes, sacrifice is explicit in the Liturgies and so is the real presence. Now, whether some people recognize that is not our concern. Remember, Calvinists don’t recognize the real presence when Jesus says ‘This is My Body’ so the fact that some don’t recognize the true presence or the Sacrifice of Christ in the words we use is not our problem. Nor is the Tridentine Liturgy explicit and unambiguous on some of the things present. For example, how do we know explicitly that in the Tridentine Liturgy, that it is not consubstantiation and is transubstantiation? Why don’t we, if the purpose of the Liturgy is to be explicit. How come the Priest does not say anything about transubstantiation itself. Why not say, “Well, this is body and the blood only and not bread and wine”, and instead the priest says that this is the ‘bread of life’, which one can easily read consubstantiation into. In fact Protestants will often say ‘the bread of life’ has nothing to do with the Eucharist itself. Why no mention of accidents and substance in the Tridentine canon? Why is the word mystery of faith inserted in the passage as though Jesus is saying that and then after that there is no explanation on what is the mystery of faith? It has been debated for a long time on what the phrase means. Why is that so, if the Liturgy can have no ambiguities is there no elaboration on what exactly the Mystery of Faith is? Why not if there is to be absolutely no ambiguities?

The Tridentine canon in the Trent decree discussed earlier said nothing about preventing any adjustments made to the canon. The reformers of the canon were not saying that there were dogmatic or doctrinal errors in the canon. It is a question of defects and limitations of structure and liturgical expressions that apparently you want to ignore as was pointed out by in fact people (such as Father Vagaggini) who are not modernists.

Now, to the idea that the three new canons are untraditional, David quotes Father Gamber's book which criticizes the Pauline Rite Mass:

However, the three new versions of the Eucharistic Prayer, also known as the three Canons; constitute a complete break with the traditional rite: they have been newly created using Oriental and Gallican texts as models. They are truly alien to the Roman rite, at the very least from a stylistic standpoint. More importantly, theologians have expressed concerns about some of the formulations used in the prayers.
First of all the second prayer, which has parts of it drawn from the St. Hippolytus canon is in fact a bringing back of what was at least a Roman rite of the 3rd century, which predates the Roman canon. This canon passed on to Africa, and had an ongoing tradition there, but was first based in Rome. How Gamber can say that it is a break with tradition is beyond me, especially with the second canon's origin. One can say that the Roman canon when instituted in the time that it was, 'broke' with all tradition, when this canon was instituted with no precedent at all, or tradition. Since when does the fabrication of Jesus saying 'This is the Mystery of Faith' become the standard to go by? I fail to see what the problem is in drawing from other Rites. All three new prayers affirm the truths of the Eucharistic sacrifice and does not have the Priest calling what is only bread a 'spotless sacrifice', since it is only bread and wine. Each of the new prayers, focus on the fact that we need the Holy Spirit to transform what is bread and wine, to become the Body and Blood of Christ. That is absent from the Tridentine Rite. How that is 'protestantizing' or deficient, I have no idea.

Now, to another critique of the Pauline Rite Mass by Father Gamber, Dave quotes his book saying:

Pope Paul VI saw fit to alter the words of Consecration and Institution, unchanged in the Roman liturgy for 1,500 years-a change that was neither intended by the Council nor of any discernible pastoral benefit. Truly problematic, in fact truly scandalous, is the translation of the phrase pro multis as 'for all,' a translation inspired by modern theological thinking but not to be found in any historical liturgical text.
This is not modernistic thought. Now, we know that Pope Paul VI, gave legitimacy to this translation when he answered this very question. I go over that in my paper, also found in James Akin's Mass Confusion, p. 120-121.

Now, it is not modernistic thought, unless Gamber says that St. Augustine is a modernist. Now, Likoudis and Whitehead go over the Biblical scholarship on this issue, which includes the great St. Augustine:

The great biblical schoalr Pierre Benoit, O.P., writes as follows of the meaning of the word "Many" in the scriptures:
The word which we tranlate as 'many' stresses the sense of a great number and does not exclude anyone..Jesus certainly makes this fullness of salvation his own and it is the whole of mankind to the end of space and time that he includes in this 'many' for whom he was toing to give his life as a ransom'"(Mt. 20;28; Mark 10:45).
Still another biblical study, by Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., independently finds that "the semitic phrase 'for man' stands for a totality and not for a multitude in contrast to the wole. Hence it indicates the universality of Chrsit's redemptive work."

It may be of further interest that St. Thomas Aquinas, who was well versed int he scriptures and frequently quoted them, remarks: "St. Augustine explains 'multi' to mean 'all men'; and this meanner of speakin g is frequestnely found in sacred scripture" ST q. 75, Reply to Objection 2.

Finally, a standard pre-Vatican II work, The Canon of the Mass, by Jerome Gassner, O.S.B., simply finds either meaning acceptable in commenting on the consecration:

‘Many' can be taken for (a) all with a special connotation of the immense multitude of the children of Adam; or (b) with reference to those who actually are saved: many, but not all men, cooperate with the grace of Chrsit. Jerome Gassner, O.S.B., The Canon of the Mass, B. Herder Company St. Louis and London, 1949, page 273.[21]
Now, in reference to only modernists seeing any defects in the Tridentine Mass. I quoted Father Cipriano Vagaggini who noted some defects in the canon, who was slammed as a modernist by Xxxxx and Xxxxx. He was not slammed by anybody as modernist as far as I know back then, until Xxxxx did that. Can you name anybody else (besides a schismatic who termed him as a modernist?)

For example on the idea that the canon is loosely arranged I quoted him in an earlier email & requote him (Cipriano Vagaggini) who throughout the book solidly affirms Catholic Doctrines, in 1967:

The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity:
“This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of Per Christum Dominum nosttrum. Amen, not to mention that at the end of the Nobis quoque, which indicate the apparently independent character of the prayers they conclude.[22]
This is when Xxxxx called Father Vagaggini a lughead modernist, just because he said something that is true.

In Shawn’s unrefuted response, he noted that this is something noted by one of the most respected and Orthodox scholars: To quote Shawn’s earlier response:

The following observation is from one of the most respected early 20th century liturgical scholars:

"The Mass as it is to-day, presents itself under a somewhat complicated form to the non-Catholic, and even to a large number of the faithful. THE CEREMONIES, READINGS, CHANTS, AND FORMULAS FOLLOW EACH OTHER WITHOUT MUCH APPARENT METHOD OR LOGIC. IT IS A RATHER COMPOSITE MOSAIC, AND IT MUST BE CONFESSED THAT IT DOES SEEM RATHER INCOHERENT. Rites, indeed, have been added to rites; others have been rather unfortunately suppressed, and where this is the case, gaps, or what have been styled "gaping holes," appear. [Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol _ The Mass of the Western Rites circa 1934] [23]

Did anybody call Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol a modernist lughead for saying that the canon seems rather incoherent, as Xxxxx and Xxxxx think, about 70 years ago? Did this get put on the Forbidden Books index? No. This was a very well regarded piece by Orthodox Catholic Scholars. He just makes an honest observation. Shawn also noted that Father Fr. Adrian Fortescue (a contemporary of Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol) has made the same observations as Vagaggini on the canon.

David, quoted to me the following from a Rev Gamber, who did a critical study of the New Mass: I quote directly from Xxxxx’s earlier email:

“Here are Cardinal Ratzinger's comments as they pertain to the "reform" of the Mass after Vatican II:

"A Young priest recently told me: 'Today we need a new liturgical movement'. He was expressing a desire, these days, only deliberately superficial souls would ignore.

What matters to that priest is not the conquest of new, bolder liberties. For, where is the liberty that we have yet to arrogate ourselves? That priest understood that we need a new beginning born from deep within the liturgy, as liturgical movement intended . . . . In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation. . . .

J.A. JUNGMANN, ONE OF THE TRULY GREAT LITURGISTS OF OUR CENTURY, offered his definition of the liturgy of his time, as it was intended in the West, and he represented it in terms of historical research. He described it as "liturgy which is the fruit of development".

Now, so note that Cardinal Ratzinger notes that Father, Josef A Jungmann, S.J. is one of the truly great liturgists of our century. Father Jungmann is not called a modernist lughead. He was one of those who was on the committee for writing up the liturgy and canons. He has written a set of books, of which two I note: “The Mass: An Historical, Theological and Pastoral Survey” 1976, (where he notes that the PRM is entirely consistent with tradition, as he goes through the historical background of all the PRM prayers) and has written the classic two volume “The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development”, 2 volumes, 1951, which was a historical look at how the Roman Mass developed over the Centuries. So the quotation of him only shows that the Pauline Rite Mass is a development.

Now, recently David did acknowledge that Cardinal Ratzinger did admit that the PRM was a legitimate rite, and was indeed necessary, even if frustrated at some of the developments. Nonetheless, I will leave the responses here, because many, as David attempted to so here, attempt to use Cardinal Ratzinger to bash the PRM)
Now, on this issue in which we are speaking about one of the great Liturgists of our time, as acknowledged by Cardinal Ratzinger speaks, Father Jungmann writes:
In our study of the history of the Mass we have come to recognize that the core of the Mass and the inner area within which Christ’s institution is fulfilled is plainly and simply the Eucharistia. A thanksgiving prayer rises from the congregation and is borne up to God by the priest; it shifts into the words of consecration, and then into the oblation of the sacred gifts, and this oblation, in turn, concludes with a solemn word of praise. Although the fabric thus formed continues to survive unbroken in our present Mass, it is difficult for anyone not initiated into the history of the Mass to recognize the outlines of such a plan in the text of today. In the preface, the prayer of thanksgiving is presented as an isolated unity, a preparatory item to be followed by the canon. THE CANON ITSELF, HOWEVER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION, APPEARS TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN A LOOSELY ARRANGED SUCCESSION OF OBLATIONS, prayers of intercession and a reverential citation of apostles and martyrs of early Christianity. Still greater is the divergence from this plan when we turn our attention to the external presentation. [24]
Father Jungmann was not a lughead modernist but an outstanding scholar of his time. He notes the exact same thing, that the Roman canon is not arranged in a manner that is logical and is a set of prayers strung together. Thus, what Father Vagaggini, noted on the lack of organization of the prayer of the canon, is noted by such traditional Catholics as Father Jungmann, Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol, and Fr. Adrian Fortescue also noted this exact same thing.

> << The assumption that the Tridentine Rite could
> develop and then become perfect, and stay stagnant for
> 400 years while we have to say that we can not learn
> from other rites and apply them to a revised rite does
> not fit history. >>

> This is not the position taken by Xxxxx, Xxxxx or me.
> The revision of the Mass in 1965 was precisely the
> sort of liturgical development called for by the
> Council. This textual revision, combined with
> vernacular Scripture readings and perhaps vernacular
> propers and a strong emphasis on the cultivation of
> the sung High Mass with people chanting the ordinary
> and other responses, would have represented a
> legitimate liturgical development and a great
> improvement in the liturgical life of the Church. It
> would have passed muster even with "traditionalists" at that time.
> The scrapping of that legitimate reform, the creation
> of the Consilium populated by theological liberals,
> the creation of a manufactured rite with sufficient
> theological ambiguity to pass muster with Protestants,
> the virtual suppression of Latin, etc. was not what
> the Council called for, is not a legimate liturgical
> development, and does not constitute a "restoration"
> of the liturgy. IMO ;oD

I do not think you have established that what followed was not a legitimate reform. Pope Paul VI gave his approval to that reform. More needed to be done, including dealing with problems in the canon itself that traditionalist scholars had noted well before others noticed it. In fact there is theological ambiguity within the Tridentine canon itself on the issues I brought up earlier. And the prayers of explicit sacrifice in 75% of the canons, and prayers for the dead in all of the canons, show that the Catholicity of the canons are retained.

> > << In fact, the Latin Rite from the very beginning
> borrowed throughout the early centuries many aspects
> from different rites. The Holy Spirit can work through
> different rites. >>

> Who is denying this?

It seems as though you are. The changes such as having the epiclesis in the canon, having the vernacular, many of the responses, are things borrowed from other very traditional rites, but you apparently think that these are horrible.

> But there is no doubt that the traditional Roman Rite
> is a powerhouse, theologically and liturgically. It
> certainly rivals in beauty and majesty anything the
> Eastern Rites have to offer. The same cannot be said,
> IMO, of the Pauline Rite which looks quite anemic by
> comparison.

If you are comparing the Tridentine Rite as celebrated now, by those who are faithful to the Church, (at least the non-schismatic ones) and done in a reverent fashion, and celebrated in Latin, it may be fine. And you compare it to the run of the mill Catholic Church PRM, it will look better. However, if this was then reimposed on the whole Church where all celebrated, you will have all the problems that you had before and then some and it wouldn’t be so majestic. To imagine that the Tridentine Rite if reimposed would be just as good on all the masses of Catholic rites, as it is, is a fantasy. Or if there was not the change done in 1969 we would not have similar problems is again, not probable. If you had faithful people celebrating the PRM in a reverent manner by a few people, and then compare it to the Tridentine Mass as celebrated if all celebrated it, one would say that the PRM would make the Tridentine Mass pale in comparison. In any sense, the PRM theologically is just as good as the Tridentine Mass. In my comparison of the Mass, item by item, we see that all the theology is retained.

> Go back and read the ancient liturgy of St. James or
> of St. Mark and compare them to the Pauline Rite. It
> is downright feeble. If they were going to borrow
> from other rites, why did they not borrow the most
> powerful, beautiful, venerable and inspiring portions?

Well, some of the portions such as the Pauline 1 Cor. 11:26, memorial proclamations, present in both of those liturgies are present in the PRM which is absent in the Tridentine Rite. Neither of those Rites invent Jesus falsely saying “the Mystery of Faith”. Both of those liturgies were celebrated in the vernacular. Both of those liturgies had a dialogue anaphora or canon where the people responded not only in the rest of the liturgy, but in the canon itself, so obviously the canon was not said in secret. But you have complained about many of these things in the PRM as apparently anti-traditional. What gives?

> << If it is a living rite, why did it stay stagnant
> for 400 years, when up to that point, it borrowed
> heavily from other rites in attempts to improve it. >>

> > Historical reasons kept the liturgy from developing as
> it should. We are not against legitimate development.
> But the Pauline Rite is not a development.

Pope Paul VI disagreed with you and so does Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II sees it as a legitimate development. One of the great Liturgists of our time, Father Jungmann, as verified by Cardinal Ratzinger verifies that the PRM was a legitimate development.

> << The canon, which was basically the same for almost
> 1500 years or so, did not develop, and was
> 'manufactured' (as you folks tend to term the Pauline
> canon as being manufactured) within a space of only
> 100 years. >>

> > Matt, there is a difference between something
> **developing** organically over the course of 100
> years and something being manufactured and imposed
> over the course of 3. And the Canon was not composed
> by theological liberals; it was, as Trent says, from
> our Lord, the Apostles and the holy Pontiffs.

Well, the canons of the PRM was not composed by theological liberals either. I gave you the list of those who composed the canon. They were orthodox. There was a borrowing from traditions that were not theologically liberal either.

> << The Holy Spirit can work through us learning from
> and borrowing from other rites, exactly as the Roman
> rite did. The idea that from the 3rd century to the
> 16th century, the Holy Spirit works (although the
> canon itself developed within only a century or two,
> as Shawn pointed out), and then he must stop working
> for 400 centuries, and any changes after that are
> against the Holy Spirit working, I don't buy. >>

> We're really at crossed purposes here. The point that
> we're trying to make, the point that Cardinal
> Ratzinger makes, is that 1) the Pauline Rite was not a
> development but a break in development, a manufactured
> product and 2) that its imposition on the whole Church
> to the exclusion of the traditional Rite was very damaging.

I know that the Cardinal celebrates the PRM on a constant basis, and as far as I know, he only celebrated in the last 30 years one Tridentine Rite Mass in 1998, which is strange if he thought the PRM was so horrible. Now as to the statement that I think you are quoting from, I want to give the specific context where he makes such a statement. He says much more than that. He writes:

Hence those who cling to the “Tridentine Missal” have a faulty view of the historical facts. Yet at the same time, the way in which the renewed Missal was presented is open to much criticism. We must say to the “Tridentines” that the Church’s liturgy is alive, like the Church herself, and is thus always involved in a process of maturing which exhibits greater and lesser changes. Four hundred years is far too young an age for the Catholic liturgy - because in fact it reaches right back to Christ and the apostles and has come down to us from that time in a single, constant process. The Missal can no more be mummified than the Church herself. Yet, with all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual grown process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had "produced" a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times. This loss of perspective is really disturbing. Although very few of those who express their uneasiness have a clear picture of these interrelated factors, there is an instinctive grasp of the fact that liturgy cannot be the result of Church regulations, let alone professional erudition, but, to be true to itself, must be the fruit of the Church’s life and vitality.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history. In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.[25]

We see that the problem that Cardinal Ratzinger has, is the problem in which the Pauline Rite was presented. It was presented, as if it were a new Mass. As if it were against the laws of liturgical growth. However, if you notice, it was not against the liturgical growth. It actually is the fruit of the Church’s life and vitality. he does not say that it was a manufactured development, but that it is a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. He just wants it to be made clear that it is part of an unbroken continuity. He is grateful for the new eucharistic prayers. This is what the topic is. He thinks that they are better. Thus, the idea that he is saying that the canon is 'Protestantized' is false. It is just an educational process must be undertaken to let us know that the prayers are legitimate developments.

If it was so horrible, why does he celebrate it at all, let alone constantly for the last 30 years?

> << The idea that using that response which is very
> appropriate, especially since Paul sees it as
> appropriate and the Church throughout the ages, sees
> it as appropriate, means that we are 'regressing in
> doctrine' doesn't seem suitable to me. >>

> My comments about regressing doctrine do not pertain
> to 1 Cor 11. They have more to do with the purposeful
> stripping out of the explicit sacrificial and
> especially propitiatory language, along with the most
> explicit affirmations of the Real Presence. I am not
> denying that the Novus Ordo contains orthodox Catholic
> doctrine; it does. I am denying that it expresses it
> as precisely as the Tridentine Rite.

Well, as shown earlier, the sacrificial language is so explicit in three out of the four canons that one must have to be saying the rosary during the canon like they used to, to miss it. I would not mind that if canon 2 was just used during the week, and not during the Sunday Mass, so the explicit language would be apparent when all are present. In any case, Father Jungmann does note that canon 2 was in fact supposed to be used only in the weekday Masses, and the other three canons to be used on Sunday. In fact Father Jungmann does note that “It is intended not for the community Mass on Sunday, but for week days and special situation in which a simplified form might be desired, and he does quote something called the Order of Mass &322b), which says that:[26]

<< By the way, by utilizing earlier traditions is
> clearly not the same thing as regressing in Doctrine
> as you seem to imply, but fulfills what Pope Pius XII
> says down below when I quote him. >>

> > It does not have to be, certainly. But IMO it is just
> that, in the Pauline Rite. This was done on purpose
> by its authors. The historical evidence is too
> compelling on this to be ignored, IMO. The only way
> the traditional Rite was going to pass muster with
> Protestants is if its Catholic characteristics were
> toned down considerably.

Baloney. As the Lutheran 15 years before the PRM said:

As a Protestant clergyman I have run into the rather peculiar bit of truth that the average Lutheran will look upon the liturgy of the Mass in the Roman Catholic Church (The Tridentine Rite at the time) with complete disdain and abhorrence; he fails, at the same time, to realize that his own Order of Service is basically the same. Lutheran liturgies have drawn from the liturgical thesaurus of Catholicism; but because of the language barrier, many of the clergy, and practically all of the laity, fail to realize this. Instead they condemn liturgical practices in the Roman Church which they themselves are observing, but in a vernacular language.

I believe, most sincerely, that one might make the rather categorical statement that Protestantism fears the vernacular movement in the Roman Church. With the rites in the vernacular, there will be for all of Protestantism to see, a body of faith and action which for so long they have condemned as mere Hexerei (witch-craft).

If Lutherans today could behold the Mass in the Roman Church (this during the Tridentine Rite), even partly English, as a form consisting of: introductory prayers, confession and absolution, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, Epistle, Gospel (preceded by Gradual), Creed, Sermon, Preface (preceded by offertory prayers), Sanctus, Canon, Agnus Dei, post-communion, all of which make up the Lutheran Communion Service, then I believe most sincerely that the Lutherans of today would stop and re-evaluate the Reformation. [27]

Now, it is more acceptable yes, because we speak in the language that the people did, exactly like the Church used to do, when the Latin was the vernacular and was incorporated into the Mass in place of Greek. Now, the Catholic Mass could no longer be seen as witchcraft, as some saw it when it was celebrated in a Mass in which neither the Catholic laity could speak if asked. This Lutheran Minister saw the removal of the Latin as being the main barrier. Now if you want them to only use Latin so Protestants could continue to relegate Catholicism to witchcraft that is your choice. Of course, Latin should be retained and I wish that the Latin Mass should be offered per Pope John Paul II‘s request. But the vernacular does improve participation.

> << It is easy to quote part of what Pope Pius XII says
> and put in the pejorative manner, "anquiquarian":
> However, we see that he certainly saw the use of old
> traditions as good if used in the right way. He
> certainly saw the need for changes in the liturgy. >>
> > There is no evidence whatsoever that he envisioned the
> creation of an entirely new Rite. Xxxxx has asked you
> guys to come up with such evidence and you have not
> done it.

> > << He wanted real change in the Mass. >>

> > There is no evidence that he advocated a complete
> rewriting of the Mass, nor the supression of so many
> traditional elements in it. What the preconciliar
> Popes were calling for, what Vatican II was calling
> for, was greater spiritual participation in the form
> of deeper meditation and uniting with the sacrifice,
> and greater "active" participation in the form of
> chanting the ordinary and the other responses.

The great Liturgist Father Jungmann, as noted by Cardinal Ratzinger, does not see that there was a suppression of traditional elements. In fact, he noted that there was a restoration of many elements that the Tridentine Rite left out.

It wasn’t merely about meditating or merely responding. The essence was that what they could participate exteriorly and interiorly as well. The Rite, as it stood, did not foster the interior participation either. The interior participation was against the exterior. That is part of what Sacrosanctum Concilium wants to correct:

The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.[28]
Yes, the Rites did get rid of some what was termed useless repetitions and used the vernacular language so that it would be easier for people’s comprehension. In fact, as Abbot Luykx says, as far as one participating externally and internally one can not separate them. If one can externally participate easier (as done in the vernacular) it makes it easier to participate interiorly.

> << Pope John XXII, "We came to the decision to place
> before the Fathers of the future Council the
> fundamental principles concerning the liturgical
> ROMAN MISSAL." In other words, the Missal itself was
> to be reformed. He wasn't merely speaking about
> people merely getting more active in singing. >>

> The traditional Roman missal was reformed in 1965, per
> the Council's direction. The traditional Roman missal
> was scrapped in 1970. Remember what Cardinal
> Ratzinger said about this: "It was reasonable and
> right of the Council to order a revision of the missal
> such as had often taken place before and which this
> time had to be more thorough than before, above all
> because of the introduction of the vernacular. But
> more than this now happened: the old building was
> demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely
> using materials from the previous one and even using
> the old building plans. There is no doubt that this
> new missal in many respects brought with it a real
> improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new
> construction over against what had grown historically,
> forbidding the results of this historical growth,
> thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a
> living development but the product of erudite work and
> juridical authority; this has caused us enormous
> harm."

You do not give any context of the statement, nor where the statement was made. However, on the very same topic, in his book ‘Feast of Faith’, he does see the Pauline Rite as a true historical development. His main problem was that the way it was presented, it seemed to be a break from tradition, but it actually was a legitimate. Yes, we don’t have anything given explicitly by Pope Pius XII that says a new Rite should be created. However, he gave wide approval to many Congresses that advocated doing reforms, including possible future changes from the Latin to the vernacular, and that getting blessed by Cardinal Ottaviani, of all people[29]. When he emphasized the authority to make changes in Mediator Dei, and he didn’t say that just to whistle Dixie. He obviously approved of reform of the Tridentine Mass itself, although I do admit I don’t know to what extent.

> << I wouldn't say "all the anecdotal evidence goes in
> the opposite direction". A ways back, xxx earlier
> wrote how was the Tridentine Liturgy in his
> experience. I think xxx mentioned a pastoral good in
> his experience. >>

> My point is that everything that xxx mentioned as bad
> about the celebration of the Mass in his childhood
> (none of which I would disagree with) could have been
> rectified by 1) a little bit of catechesis and 2)
> simple obedience to the Popes' directions for the last
> 70 years that the people begin to chant their part of
> the Mass. So I won't concede as a positive of this
> "reform" the fact that we have some "active
> participation", since that feature is not unique to
> this "reform." If we take what *is* unique to this
> "reform"--a manufactured rite, the turning of the
> altars, taking out altar rails, the all-vernacular
> liturgy, communion in the hand, banal music, altar
> girls, etc.--we don't see any evidence of positive
> outcome. And I purposely mixed factors that are
> official with those that aren't, because the official
> line has been that we are not going to enforce the
> official line and that if an abuse becomes widespread
> enough then we'll go ahead and approve it. All that
> does is send the message loud and clear that the
> official line really doesn't matter.

I noticed your mixing in some things that were never approved with those that are approved. What in the world do you want the Vatican to do? Unfortunately they can not get everything enforced. It is not as easy as giving a fiat and everybody goes along with it. Remember, Pope Paul VI did a wonderful encyclical on Humane Vitae, and he enjoined people from practicing contraception. However, even with that encyclical, a horrible amount of Catholics practice contraception. When the Church has issued some things that were strong on matters, (like there should be Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers only on rare occasions) unfortunately does not get practiced. Unfortunately the Vatican doesn’t have the hold on people practicing things like they used to.

Here is what xxx remembers of the Latin canon:

> << "I remember being at the traditional mass when I
> was six or seven years old in pre-Vatican II days. I
> remember seeing the priest at the altar, facing away
> from me as if I didn't exist, mumbling some unknown
> language, pacing from side to side, and sometimes
> disappearing behind the vestments he had to wear as if
> he was some kind of wizard. I looked over at the old
> women and they were all praying their rosary but
> didn't have a clue what was being said at the Mass. I
> remember seeing blank stares on many people's faces.
> After a stretch of mumbles, every once in a while the
> priest would raise his voice and I thought something
> significant was going to happen, but then he'd go back
> into his monotone drone for another five minutes while
> we all stood around looking stupid wondering when it
> was our turn to sit, kneel or stand. >>

> Nothing that a little catechesis would not remedy.
> The silent Canon is one of those stretches of silence
> which Vatican II said were so important to the
> liturgy. It is the time to **actively** unite oneself
> with the sacrifice which is being offered by the
> priest on our behalf.

In fact the blank stares were because no one knew what was going on, or at least the details. Not only was the priest speaking in Latin, which no one can understand without looking through a missal, but no one could hear him anyway!!! So the idea about it being a much better prayer, even if it were true, would be lost on people anyway, because they couldn’t hear!!! If there were prayers, as Abbot Luykx mentioned, they were not using that time to participate in the Mass. People would use the time to do rosaries, read other prayers, or as XXX mentions, just have blank stares. Now, another thing about abuse. Now, if a priest happens to say “This is not my Body“ instead of “This is my Body“, or totally skips prayers of the Roman canon, who would catch it? Does not the silent canon, by its nature, especially in this modern age, lead to many possibilities of abuse?

BTW, it is a nice theory but I would like to know where Vatican II said that the silent canon was one of the places that was most important to the Liturgy. In fact, someone who you referred to Abbot Boniface Luykx, who was at the council did not think that the canon, was a stretch of silence where it was needed. In fact, he said that the Tridentine Mass, where he says the canon was ‘mumbled, far away at the altar’ did away with any participation at the Mass, during this critical time.

> > Council of Trent: CANON IX

> > "If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church,
> according to which a part of the canon and the words
> of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be
> condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in
> the vulgar tongue only . . . let him be anathema."

Ok I don’t say that it absolutely has to be pronounced in a loud tone, or that it is invalid to say the canon in a low tone. The canon is against those who say it can not be done that way. Nor do I say that the Mass cannot be done in Latin. However, the canon does not say that the Mass must be done in a low tone, or that the Mass can not ever be said in the vernacular. Thus, the canon does not condemn either change.

> << Now, that is anecdotal evidence that my Father and
> Step-Mother echo exactly and my wife's Mother
> similarly speaks. They hadn't a clue on what was
> going on, and clearly could not participate in the
> Mass. >>

> > Matt, the people in my parish don't have a clue what
> is going on the Mass, and it's celebrated in English.
> They don't know it's a sacrifice, they don't know that
> Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, they
> don't know that it is a propitiation for their sins,
> they don't know that this sacrifice is being offered
> to God by a priest who stands for them alter Christus,
> they don't know that they are supposed to unity
> themselves with this One Sacrifice, they don't know
> not to approach this Sacrament with grave sin on their
> conscience..... They don't know nuttin'. My parish
> is not atypical.

> > As both you and Shawn have emphasized again and again,
> catechesis is a key to this. We did not need the
> Novus Ordo for this and your theory breaks down, since
> you seem to be arguing that merely placing the liturgy
> in the vernacular was supposed to dispel all this
> ignorance. It doesn't.

No. I did not imply or mean that. It just applies to the idea that it makes the people easier to take part in the Mass when it speaks in the language that he/she understands, without having to constantly say something exteriorly which is against interior participation. It helps, but does not supplant Catechesis.

> << Why, in the most sacred time of the liturgy for
> example, (the time of consecration), is it required
> that people be left out of it, not only in the
> language, but can't even hear the prayers themselves,
> especially at this most important time? That was not
> an ancient tradition (inaudibly saying the canon), but
> picked up in the 8th century or so ( I may be off a
> century or so) from the East. What was so essential
> about mumbling in a foreign language, that the change
> could not be made? >>

> You're off by at least 3 centuries. Pope Innocent I
> (c. A.D. 416) said that the Canon of the Mass was part
> of the arcana agenda, the secret part of the liturgy,
> and thus should be said silently. It's unknown how
> far prior to him this tradition was in place.

I would like to see the source of the quote where Pope Innocent I said that the Mass must be said in secret in the 5th century. In fact, earlier we saw your attempt to use Father Jungmann on your behalf was incorrect. I would like to bring your authority Abbot, Father Luykx on the issue. He says in his tape series that there was an agreement among the Liturgical movement in Vatican II that the quiet canon should give way to the spoken canon. He also notes that there is a double tradition in the Western rites, with one tradition with a quiet canon, and another tradition from the beginning ‘all over the West’ which had a spoken canon. He said that there was a general affirmation, from the beginning that it should be a spoken canon. [30] That is one way in which active participation in the Mass would take place. BTW, nowhere in any of the New Testament narratives, nor is there any oral tradition at all, that when Jesus did his Eucharistic prayer is there any mention of “Then he whispered ‘This is My Body, which will be given up for you’. If it was so essential of a tradition, why did Jesus not whisper instead of saying it? If the spoken canon was against tradition, why did this tradition from the beginning, the first Mass, extended all the way to Trent?

> << The changes in the Mass helped to fulfill what
> Sacrosanctum Concilium said: 30. To promote active
> participation, the people should be encouraged to take
> part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody,
> antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures,
> and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all
> should observe a reverent silence. >>

Nowhere does Vatican II say that reverential silence pertains to the Eucharistic prayer. You apparently want people to pray, and to guess what is going on in the inside. However, Sacrosanctum Concilium says in section 21:

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community. [31]
How can they benefit the community if they are ignorant of what is going on? BTW, why all the fuss about the Liturgical prayers if you don’t want the people to hear the prayers anyway? Before the refor, they did not hear anything about the sacrifice of the Mass, but now they explicitly hear about the sacrifice in the canons they can hear and understand. Thus, the change actually makes people more aware about the sacrifice of the Mass.

> Why shouldn't this reverent silence be during the
> Canon, as age-old tradition has it? For goodness
> sake, the Easterns go up behind the iconostasis and
> shut the doors so that you can't even SEE the
> consecration taking place! Are you critical of them
> as well?

Well, if that is their tradition and they want to hold to their tradition that would be fine. I am just giving reason why an alternate view that can be given to explain why it is Ok for the priest to speak the canon out loud. This goes way back, and not just way back, but was even after the silent canon was imposed in the 8th century, was a tradition in the west up until Trent, as Abbot Luykx affirms. And that is a tradition that goes way back, and not just in a merely ‘antiquarian’ manner.

> The Church in her wisdom, from East to West, has seen
> fit to have the Eucharistic prayers done silently for
> the past 1600 years, at least. There is no evidence
> that this harmed anybody's "participation" in the
> Mass; somehow or other the Church kept churning out
> saints, martyrs and confessors and evangelizing new
> lands. I contend that attacking this sort of
> long-standing tradition and pining for some sort of
> ancient ideal is exactly what Pope Pius XII condemned
> as antiquarianism when he wrote in Mediator Dei:

You are making false assumptions. It did not go 16 centuries. In the West it did not start until the 8th century, and the spoken canon went until Trent, according to one of your sources. So the Western Church churned out saints, martyrs and confessors for 8 centuries exclusively on a spoken canon, and in the West, that double tradition lasted until Trent. This double tradition went all the way up to the Council of Trent until it suppressed the other Western rites. Remember, as your reference was to Abbot Luykx, he said that “from the beginning until the Council of Trent, there was a tradition of a spoken canon all over the West.” [32]

And this is confirmed by one of the truly great Liturgists of this century as acknowledged by Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Jungmann. He differs from what you cited earlier. First, the background is that he notes the Roman Stational Services up until the eighth century, where all the components of the Mass are put in. When he gets to the point on the canon, he writes when the Pope celebrates the Mass:

Then begins the canon, taking the word in the comprehensive meaning it then had. Each one has taken his appointed place. Normally that would mean that the pope, coming from his cathedral, would stand behind the altar facing the people-for the church usually was not oriented in our sense, but ‘occidented’, the entrance towards the East. Behind the pope, and forming a row in the axis of the church back toward the throne, stand the bishops and perhaps the priests also. To the right and left of the pope and in front of the bishops, the deacons are ranged, and behind them the acolytes. The subdeacons are on the other side of the altar opposite the pontiff. During the canon there is no further change externally.

pope begins the prayer in a loud voice. The subdeacons respond to the introductory versicles and take up the singing of the Sanctus. The pope alone stands once more erect and continues the prayer, while the others remain bowed. The words of consecration, like all the other parts of the canon, are said audibly.[33]

According to Father Jungmann, in the West, the silent canon only arose in the 8th century. In his description of it, notice the date:
The sanctity of the inner chamber, which must be kept closed to the people, is matched by the silence reigning in it. The canon becomes a prayer spoken by the priest in so low a tone that even the bystanders cannot hear it. The transition to this is to be noticed very evidently from the middle of the eighth century in the Frankish revision of the Roman ordo of John the Arch-changer; her after the Sanctus, we read:Et incipit canere dissimili voce et melodia, ita ut a circumstantibus altare tantum audiatur - he starts to sing in a different tone and melody, so as to be heard only those standing around the altar. At first the canon was said merely in a subdued tone, whereas the secret had become a completely silent prayer. But about the turn of the eighth century various authentic reports begin to make mention of an absolute silence also for the canon. [34]
Notice the word, ‘began’ to be made. Only then in the 8th century, did it begin to be made, the silent canon. Why is this ‘innovation’ of the 8th century all of a sudden become a practically ‘de fide’ proposition that must be mandated on all the Church??? Especially, as Abbot Luykx mentions, there was a double tradition, which included the spoken canon, in the West, until the time of Trent!!

<< Responses were few and far between in the
> Tridentine Mass. >>

> > They would not have been if the Church had heeded the
> wise counsel of the Popes. It did not require a
> completely new liturgy to accomplish this.

There were certain improvements done in the Mass that included the changes in words to the canon of the Mass itself that should have been and were done. I go over that in my piece on the side by side comparison to the Mass. Some of those changes were indeed good, and the changes in the canon were good, although some of the translations, do indeed, leave a lot to be desired. Now, of course there was a lot of different things that have not been so good, as you rightly point out and I agree with you on many areas. But we don’t have to ignore that there were some changes to the Liturgy that should have been made to improve the Liturgy itself. However, the time of the changes in the 60s and 70s unfortunately led to many changes that neither you or I wanted. However, to imagine that if they just did a few cosmetic changes to the Tridentine Mass that would have been sufficient to withstand the onslaught of the modernism and secularism and the Tridentine Liturgy would have been as great as ever and there would be no abuses, is a pipedream, IMO.

> << Now, the pastors of souls have not done their work,
> but the Tridentine Mass as it was structured the way
> that it was, was to leave out people from actively
> participating in the Mass. You may think that touching
> up a thing here or there was sufficient, but the
> Church did not think so. >>

> Nonsense. At a sung High Tridentine Mass I do a lot
> more singing, responding, BOWING, and kneeling than I
> do at any Pauline Rite Mass.

How much responding do you do besides singing? There are some responses that are good in and of itself with not only ancient traditions but done in Masses of other Liturgies (Like the quoting of 2 Cor. 13:14), that were not done in the Tridentine Mass. Also, I think the Vernacular was a thing for the betterment of the Church that if not put in, we would be in even worse shape than we are now. That made the participation much easier for the people and you have less people doing the rosary during the Mass (except Old Ladies pretty much bred on the Tridentine Mass). If you are into participation, that is great, and I am sure in the Masses that you go to, the participation is better than the Tridentine Mass used to be because you have people who are faithful and excited about the Mass. However, if this was imposed on the whole Church, I can tell you, the structure of the Mass, in and of itself, even putting in some of the reforms that you like, (such as the silent canon) would lend itself to less participation than that which is within the PRM.

I rail with you at the abuses that have taken place. However, it is shortsighted to lay all the problems at the PRM.

> And was this radical reform really the mind of the
> Church?

Has it been implemented greatly? No. Should there be a reform of the reform? By all means. I would probably agree with doing some of the changes that you would advocate (like more bowing in some instances). If done properly can the PRM be done in a proper way? Absolutely. For example, if one sees the PRM celebrated in the way it is supposed to be done, (for example in Poland and other conservative countries), it is done very well. In fact, at my Church even when it is done in English, it is properly celebrated. Of course, the language can be translated in some instances better. However, when done reverently, I think the reform when properly done may not have been too far from that mind of the Church, although I of course would like people to do the Mass in conformity with the rules as laid out in James Akin’s book “Mass Confusion”. However, with the modernistic age that we have been through from the late 60s to now, to imagine that if we had just kept the Tridentine Mass, and only touched up on a couple of things, that none of these abuses would have taken place, is shortsighted. We probably would have had even more problems if nothing was done.



[1] Father Cipriano Vagaggini, “The canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform, Alba House, Staten Island, NY, 1967, p. 93.

[2] ibid., p. 94.

[3] ibid., pp. 96-97 (Father Vagaggini refers this to See B. Capell, Il sacrificio della messa, Rome, 1958, 37-63.

[4] ibid., p. 100

[5] ibid., pp. 101-102.

[6] ibid., p. 104.

[7] Father Joseph Jungmann , The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its origin and development, first published, Benzinger Brothers, Inc., 1950., Reprint, Christian Classics, Allen Texas, ” 1986, vol. 2, pp. 200-201.

[8] Vagaggini, p. 106.

[9] Vagaggini, p. 122.

[10] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Liturgy" authored by Adrian Fortescue

[11] Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Second Vatican Council, 34. available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2LITUR.HTM

[12] Kenneth Whitehead, James Likoudis, The Pope, the Council and the Mass The Christopher Publishing House, W. Hanover, Massachusetts, 1979, p. 87.

[13] Abbot Boniface Luykx, The Failure of the Liturgical Reform, St. Joseph Communications, Inc., West Covina, tape 1 of 3 tape series.

[14] John Murphy, Mass and Liturgical Reform, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1956, p. 280. This is taken from two Lutheran Pastors who just converted to the Catholic Faith, who wrote in “A Challenge!“ Amen (February, 1954) p. 3

[15] Whitehead, Likoudis, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, , p. 79. Quotation from Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649.

[16] Council of Trent, 13th Session, Chapter 8, ctober 11, 1551. 'Postponing the Definition of four Articles concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist and granting Letters of Safe-conduct to the Protestants', and Safe Conduct granted to Protestants, Available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM This I borrow from Shawn McElhinney, in the following piece he wrote: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism', Part 5

[17] The Four prayers of the Pauline Rite Mass can be found here: http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/TextContents/Index/4/SubIndex/67/TextIndex/9

[18] Murphy, p. 280.

[19] This is taken from my paper dealing with the comparison of the Tridentine and Pauline Rite Masses here:, part 2 of the project that I did with Shawn McElhinney and Art Sippo here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/part2.html

[20] This is taken from Art Sippo‘s part of the project, part 3, found here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/detection3-1.html

[21] Whitehead, pp. 101-102.

[22] Father Vagaggini, p. 93.

[23] From email exchange, by Shawn McElhinney, dated Nov. 4, 2001.

[24] Father Jungmann, vol. 2, p. 101.

[25] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Feast of Fatih: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy, trans. by Graham Harrison, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, Ca, 1986, p. 86-87.

[26] Father Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass: An Historical, Theological and Pastoral Survey, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Mn, 1976, p. 200.

[27] Murphy, p. 280.

[28] Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Second Vatican Council, 34, available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2LITUR.HTM

[29] Murphy, p. 202.

[30] Abbot Luykx, tape 1.

[31] Sacrosanctum Concilium, 21.

[32] Abbot Luykx, tape 1.

[33] ] Father Joseph Jungmann , The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its origin and development, first published, Benzinger Brothers, Inc., 1951, Reprint, Christian Classics, Allen Texas, 1986, vol. 1, p. 72.br>

[34] Father Jungmann, vol. 2, p. 104.

To all Visitors, Grace of Christ to You

© 2003 Were there Defects in the Canon of the Old Roman Rite?.by Matt1618 ... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.

Page created by: Matt1618.
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt matt16182@yahoo.com


Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page


Return to Matt's Ultratraditionalist Page

Changes last made on December 22, 2003.