The 1962 Mass with Post-1970 Innovations: Is It Likely?

by Duane L.C.M. Galles, J.D., J.C.L., Philip C. L. Gray, J.C.L., Charles M. Wilson

Pope Benedict XVI has expressed the hope that the ordinary and the extraordinary forms of the Mass will enrich one another in various ways. In his letter that accompanied Summorum Pontificum (SP), the Holy Father suggested, for example, that Propers for new saints and new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the 1962 Missal. He also proposed that the celebrations of the new Mass might incorporate some elements of the old. "The celebration of Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage."²

As of this writing, it has been less than four months since SP was released to the public and five weeks since it came into force. So far, there have arisen two concerns that are of interest to the Saint Joseph Foundation. The first is the issue of using various techniques to delay or, if possible, to entirely prevent celebrations of the Traditional Mass. The second is the possibility of vastly diminishing both its benefit to souls and its value as a standard of liturgical expression by introducing practices that have been introduced since Vatican II. Some of these practices began as abuses but became accepted, such as altar girls, and some are still abusive but threaten to become accepted, such as standing for the Eucharistic prayer. This article will deal only with the second concern.

We are seeing some commentary as to where the influence of the Missal of John XXIII upon the Missal of Paul VI might lead. One noteworthy example comes from Dr. William Mahrt, President of the Church Music Society of America.

The old use is customarily said facing the altar, while the new usually faces the people. Negative commentaries on this practice uniformly describe the priest as turning his back upon the people; this is a caricature, however, for the point is not to neglect the people, but together with the people to face God, and the traditional direction for facing God is the East; even when the church itself does not face East, the direction is described as liturgical East; this is the meaning of the word orientation, facing the orient. Interestingly, this stance of the priest is not prescribed by either use: the Tridentine Mass was always celebrated in St. Peter's in Rome facing the people, since immediately in front of that altar is the Confession of St. Peter, the entrance to the crypt where the first pope is buried; moreover, as a Roman basilica, St. Peter's faces West; the celebrant of the Mass faces East by facing the people. On the other hand, the Missal of Paul VI, including the recent edition of 2002, at several points in the Mass, for example just before Communion, prescribes that the priest turn toward the people to address them directly, which presumes he is otherwise facing East. A renewed experience of celebrating Mass ad orientem may suggest to us that sometimes the stance facing the people may have created more of a dialogue between priest and people, and less of a direct address by both parties toward God; this more direct address to God is a stance that emphasizes the sacrality of the action. Perhaps it may even suggest a more frequent use of the ad orientem stance in the new use.³

Most of us would probably agree that it would indeed be a positive development if more ordinary use Masses were celebrated ad orientem. But is it probable? Based on our knowledge of how priests who celebrated — or even indicated that they would like to celebrate — the Mass of Paul VI ad orientem were treated, it is difficult to muster much optimism. Although when matters pertaining to the good of Christ's Church are at stake, there are always grounds for hope.

Ad orientem celebrations of the Pauline Mass in the U.S. and Canada are rare, as are celebrations of that same form of the Mass in Latin. The fact that both have been lawful since the Pauline Mass was introduced in 1970 has thus far made little or no difference. It seemed that for almost forty years a campaign of annihilation was carried on against not only the Traditional Mass but any liturgical practices that even remotely reminded the faithful of it. At times, one wondered if beauty and reverence themselves would be driven to the furthest reaches of the liturgical landscape.

Ad Orientem and EWTN

Nothing in Sacrosanctum concilium or subsequent liturgical law requires that the Pauline Mass be celebrated with the priest facing the people, yet the practice has in North America become unwritten law, which diocesan authorities have not hesitated to enforce harshly whenever necessary. I am not able to discuss actual cases, except for one on the public record that is instructive. In 1999, the Bishop of Birmingham, Alabama, Most Rev. David Foley issued a General Decree that no priest in the diocese could celebrate Mass facing the same direction as the people (ad orientem). Violators would be subject to penalties, up to and including suspension. Thus, the legislation would have made a crime of what was, and still is, a perfectly lawful act. The obvious target was the conventual Mass celebrated at the monastery chapel of the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration in Birmingham. Because the celebrant faced the sisters, who were behind a screen in back of the altar, strictly speaking he was actually celebrating versus populum. However, the Mass was broadcast live by EWTN and it appeared to the television audience that the priest was celebrating ad orientem. Even this was too much for those forces in the Church who were leading the charge against any celebration that bore a resemblance to the Traditional Mass. The bishop's Decree was also too much for the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, which overturned the diocesan legislation. The bishop then replaced the nullified Decree with new norms stating that a Mass celebrated ad orientem could not be televised without his permission. For all practical purposes, this had the same effect.

The situation became more complex after the consecration of the new Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament on December 9, 1999, and the relocation of the Poor Clare Community to Our Lady of the Angels Monastery in Hanceville, approximately 40 miles north of Birmingham. The physical arrangements of the Shrine are such that the Community is seated to the side rather than behind the altar, so Masses celebrated there really are ad orientem. While the bishop could not forbid the celebrations themselves, the aforementioned diocesan norms prevented them being televised. Meanwhile, the daily Pauline Masses at the former convent chapel in Birmingham and broadcast live over the EWTN Network are now celebrated versus populum.

Recent events are more encouraging. Soon after the release of SP, EWTN announced that a Solemn High Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite would be celebrated at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, September 14th. There was no question that the Mass would be celebrated ad orientem. Bishop Foley supported the decision to televise the Mass, as well as the presence of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. Just a few months ago I would not have thought any of this would be possible in the foreseeable future.⁴

Two-way Enrichment?

The Pope has made very clear his thoughts on the value of Latin and a need for more reverence and solemnity in Catholic worship. The Traditional Mass certainly does not lack in either; nor does the Pauline Mass whenever it is celebrated with due regard for these same attributes, as it is in a handful of parishes in North America. One such instance is described by Duane Galles.

The experience of the last three decades does not give much hope for a two-way enrichment. In the case of one church at least, which adopted a "semi-ad orientem" style for the Pauline Mass, beauty and reverence did not vanish from the liturgical landscape. This rare exception was at the Church of Saint Agnes in Saint Paul, Minnesota. There the Pauline Mass was celebrated with what Msgr. Peter J. Elliot, author of Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, might describe as "classic ceremonies." Essentially, at Saint Agnes the Pauline Mass is celebrated with canon 6, §2 ever in mind and, where the newer rite does not provide otherwise, the ceremonies are performed in accordance with the liturgical tradition. The upshot is that the Liturgy of the Word is celebrated with the priest and ministers at the sedillia facing the people. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrated at the high altar ad orientem. One should mention that there are five weekend Masses at Saint Agnes, all using the Pauline Missal and celebrated in this fashion. One of the five is in Latin and, for the past three decades, it has been a solemn high Mass celebrated by a priest (or bishop) with the assistance of two deacons. While this usage has proved very acceptable, it has not found any imitators. This experience may not bode well for the Pope's hope that the celebrations of the new Mass might incorporate some elements of the old. This is especially the case inasmuch as since 1981 Saint Agnes has produced between twenty and thirty vocations to the priesthood. One would think that of that substantial number of priests — many of whom are now pastors of parishes — there would be one who celebrates the Pauline Mass either in Latin or ad orientem. Yet I know of none, although I should happily enjoy correction. One priest who is an alumnus of Saint Agnes does celebrate the 1962 Mass and another priest, who did not celebrate his first Mass at Saint Agnes but has long-standing connections with the parish also celebrates the 1962 Mass. But none of this is evidence of progress toward the Pope's hope that the celebrations of the new Mass might incorporate some elements of the old. I should stress that I am not saying that the Pauline Mass celebrated by any of these priests lacks reverence or that their sermons or demeanor is anything but exemplary. But I am saying that I do not know of any of them who has adopted the ad orientem or "semi-ad orientem" style for the Pauline Mass like that of Saint Agnes, which harks back to the 1962 Missal. If, as someone wrote, imitation is the highest form of flattery, Saint Agnes has yet to reach the heights of it.

Perhaps more widespread celebrations of the Traditional Mass — and of the Pauline Mass as it is celebrated at the Church of St. Agnes — may eventually bring about the realization of the Holy Father's expectations. The remaining question is whether the influence of the Mass of Paul VI as it is typically celebrated in North America might result in a "hybrid" Mass, which might follow the outward form of the 1962 Missal but would include practices that are associated in our minds almost exclusively with the former. These would involve — but would not necessarily be limited to — (1) Communion received standing, (2) Communion received in the hand, (3) Communion under both species, (4) Mass celebrated versus populum, or facing the people, and (5) female altar servers. If these practices should become part of the celebration of the Traditional Mass, will it still be the Traditional Mass?

It should be remembered that the results of mutual enrichment may not turn out as originally intended. On a purely human level, this brings to mind a story — or more likely an urban myth — about a conversation between the American dancer Isadora Duncan and Irish author George Bernard Shaw. Duncan, whose lifestyle could be described euphemistically as unconventional, was trying to interest Shaw in having a child with her. "Just think of it," she is supposed to have said, "With your brains and my body we would have a truly wondrous child. And Shaw replied with a perfect squelch, "Yes, but what if the child should have my body and your brains?"⁵ Even though the analogy may border on the impious, I must admit to having recalled this story on occasion while attending some notoriously bizarre liturgies.

One beneficial and I presume unintended effect of the almost exclusive use of the Pauline Missal was that it served to protect the Traditional Mass from unauthorized or ill-considered innovations. Had the 1962 Missal remained in general use during the turbulent post-conciliar period, it is reasonable to expect that abusive and disedifying liturgical practices, including those mentioned above, would have appeared anyway. As it turned out, however, the effective suppression of the Traditional Mass until 1984 and its marginalization thereafter had the effect of limiting its celebration only by those most devoted to it. This might have insured the survival of venerable liturgical practices that had benefited souls for centuries, not to mention many musical treasures. As the old saying goes, it's an ill wind that blows no good.

Liturgical Law

At this point, it might be a good idea to remind our readers that there are universal ecclesiastical laws that are found outside of the Code of Canon Law.⁶ This is especially true of liturgical law, as canon 2 of the 1983 Code states:

For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.

Canon 2 of the 1917 Code contained similar language:

The Code, for the most part, determines nothing concerning the rites and ceremonies that the liturgical books approved by the Latin Church determine are to be observed in the celebration of the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, in the administration of the Sacraments, and in conducting other holy Sacramentals. Therefore, all of these liturgical laws retain their force, unless something about them is expressly corrected in this Code.⁷

If liturgical laws other than a few exceptions are not found in the Code, then where do we look for them? The principal places are: (1) the Roman Missal and other liturgical books such as the Ritual and the Ceremonial of Bishops; (2) Conciliar canons and decrees, and (3) Pontifical or Curial legislative pronouncements.⁸

This is extremely important because we have to know their legal origin and status before determining which practices are mandated, optional or forbidden for each form of the Mass.

Questions and Challenges Arise

It came as no surprise that the publication of SP on July 7th would give rise to many questions. Just one example is the proper interpretation of coetus and idoneus, which in SP, Art. 5 have been rendered respectively as "stable group" and "qualified." There is some concern that these terms as they appear in the "unofficial" English translation of SP will make it possible to erect overly difficult barriers to the realization of the Holy Father's wishes. Additionally, the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy prepared five dubia for submission to the Holy See; although it provided no further details.⁹ Recent news reports indicate that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is in the process of preparing a clarifying document that we hope will not be long in coming. Perhaps we will see something equivalent to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which would apply to the 1962 Missale Romanum.

The question we are discussing here is to what extent, if any, should liturgical laws governing practices that have come into existence since 1970 be incorporated into Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal? Already, discussions are under way. Some are private but others have been conducted on the Internet for all to see and join. For example, on September 19th, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf posted on his popular web site, What Does the Prayer Really Say, a statement by Mr. Paul Inwood, the Liturgical Director of the Diocese of Portsmouth in England. An abbreviated version of Inwood's statement follows:

Some of the liturgical laws in force in 1962 have been abrogated or superseded. For example, in 1962 a Tridentine Mass could not be celebrated in the afternoon: that prohibition has now ceased. The faithful are no longer required to fast for three hours as they were in 1962, and a priest may not deny the reception of Holy Communion in the hand if someone requests it. Concelebration and the reception of Holy Communion under both kinds may both take place in Tridentine rite celebrations, if desired. A community that wants to make use of girl altar servers and scripture readings in the vernacular may do so, even though females were formerly prohibited from ministering in the sanctuary under the previous legislation. Whether those taking part in such celebrations will want to observe any of these changes is another question, and they are not obliged to, though if anyone asks for any of these differences to be incorporated it would be wise pastorally to accede to such requests.¹⁰

Judging by the information given on the referenced site, Mr. Inwood is a composer, musician and liturgist. No mention was made that he has any training in canon law, yet the full text of his comments contain expressions which it is unlikely that one without such training would use. Whatever the case, no matter how much we may disagree with them, these arguments need to be taken seriously. Therefore, I circulated the full Inwood statement among two consulting canonists and members of our staff and asked for their comments. This is a common procedure that we follow in handling many cases. However, we rarely publish this kind of in-house communication, but I decided to make an exception here. I thought that our readers might find it interesting to see how we discuss things with one another. The following comments have been slightly edited and I ask that you keep in mind that they are preliminary observations rather than actual legal arguments. The first comes from consulting canonist Philip Gray.

As offensive as they are, the canonical arguments are not without some foundation. That's not to say I would agree with them or accept them at face value. But, I think my first observation is that those who seek a celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal hope to avoid the liturgical disasters that plague the "ordinary" rite. If the arguments are found to be "legally correct" and adopted by the powers that be, then many people will quickly abandon efforts to seek more Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. After all, it's not only about Latin (contrary to what many like to believe), it's about true liturgy. That having been said, there are some finer points not addressed by Inwood that may be helpful to explore.

(1) Inwood cites general principles of law, and from that makes certain applications. But, he does not address all the principles of law that may apply. For example, he does not address the fact that the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei required use of the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal. The rubrics of this edition would most likely correspond with liturgical laws in force at that time, and in fact, would presuppose them. Thus, while those liturgical laws may have been abrogated, the Motu Proprio would re-establish their application insofar as they relate to the 1962 Missale Romanum.

(2) Law is reasonable. And, statutory law in the Church is not as prevalent as custom and application of principles of law. This is particularly so when considering liturgical law. I haven't done the math, and I haven't researched it enough, but it very well may be that customary law would prohibit the very things Mr. Inwood claims are legitimate. Legally speaking, as Chuck has suggested, we may need to study the relevant liturgical laws and determine what relationship exists between them and the practices we commonly associate with the Traditional Mass. That will help us determine which "abrogated" laws have been "re-instated" relative to the present use of the 1962 Missal. Also, I think it would be helpful to evaluate the application of custom relative to liturgical practices and how they can be applied to the use of that Missal today. Realistically, we need to recognize that what he is saying is, and will be used as, a way of diminishing the intended, liturgical atmosphere/celebration/grace of the 1962 Missal. If a diocesan bishop says, "Sure, we'll do the 1962 Missal Mass for all you folks, and I've got specially trained altar girls and liturgical dancers to assist in the celebration . . . " we know what will happen. But, we need to be prepared for that probability as well.

This is off the cuff, and not as exacting as I like, but I hope it advances the discussion somewhat. Phil

The next observation was received from our Vice President and Member of our Board of Directors, Duane Galles.

I think Phil has put his finger on the problem.

The first rule of interpretation, according to canon 17, is to look at the language of the text itself. This is doubtless because to most people other than deconstructionists one is presumed to mean what he says. If one looks to the text, it seems to say that it aims to provide permission for a wide celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal as an extraordinary form. The common sense meaning of this would seem to be that the Mass would be celebrated according to the liturgical laws in force in 1962. If the pope had intended the Mass to be celebrated "according to the 1962 Missal, except as updated by liturgical law since then," one would have expected him to have said so. Canon 17 further says that if doubt remains, look to the mind of the legislator. This is now the third attempt by the legislator to permit a wide access to the 1962 Missal. In his Letter to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of SP, the Holy Father urged them "to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew." These folks want the 1962 Missal pure and without admixture. It seems clear that it was the intention of the pope to give them what they wanted. There seems no reason, therefore, following this rule of interpretation to have resort to further analysis. But lawyers can sometimes be funny folk. A wag once said that if Parliament enacted a statute outlawing black cats from England, an English court wishing to preserve the critters for the realm would simply hold that, although Parliament has plenary authority to legislate, its must be presumed that its legislation is not irrational or silly. To ban all black cats simpliciter without some showing of harm would be irrational. Hence, we must interpret the statute to mean that Parliament intended to ban only those black cats which were diseased or shown to be harmful to humans. We, therefore, adopted this narrow construction of the statute as its true and intended meaning. Cordially, Duane

Should we need to respond more fully to those who argue that the innovations associated with the Pauline Mass can and should be grafted onto the Traditional Mass, the preceding comments are a first step.

What Now?

We can't very well develop a sense as to where we're going until we glance at where we have been and where we are now. And because many of the problems we are facing today had their beginnings over two hundred years ago, even the most superficial glance at the distant past would be impossible in this limited space. Fortunately, a superb account of what led up to the present crisis has recently been written by the English scholar, Philip Trower. I recommend it highly.¹¹

Looking at our own time is easier. As many of us can recall, the contemporary ecclesiastical meltdown occurred mostly in the fifteen years immediately following the Council. Pope Benedict XVI himself, as noted by the Senior Correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, remembers how things were at the time and, in many ways, still are:

As a young German priest and theologian, Joseph Ratzinger served as a theological expert at Vatican II, where he was seen as part of the broad conciliar majority in favor of a reform position. In the post-conciliar period, however, Ratzinger became increasingly alarmed at what he saw as steadily more progressive theological positions that, in his view, could not be reconciled with the church's traditional faith.¹²

Philip Trower also remembers some of the fallout from the theological tumult:

The explosions ranged from well-meant if mostly misguided attempts to carry out what it was thought the Church wanted, to straight heresy and vandalism. The Blessed Sacrament having been banished to a cupboard in a side wall or a remote "prayer room," sanctuaries were stripped, altar rails removed, statues and stations of the cross chucked out, silver or silver gilt vessels replaced with pottery cups and plates. Confession was abandoned, along with Benediction, the rosary, and Corpus Christi and May processions. Priests started referring to themselves as "presidents" or "animators" of the assembly, and in the worst cases even said Mass dressed as clowns, Father Christmas or even as the Easter Bunny.¹³

There were more basic liturgical changes made in addition to furnishings and accessories. Some were of questionable origin:

Latin was already being abandoned before the Council was over and Mass facing the people became all but universal shortly thereafter. Then a succession of further changes were introduced at national level, sometimes with, sometimes without, encouragement from the local bishop, against the wishes of Rome; for example, Communion received standing and Communion received in the hand. When these practices became sufficiently widespread, Rome would be petitioned to authorize the innovations on the grounds that they had become established tradition or local custom. The motives behind these and other measures . . . varied. But their general tendency has been to weaken understanding and reverence for the Real Presence, and the Mass as a Sacrifice.¹⁴ Pope John Paul II added his views on the matter:

In some countries the practice of receiving communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual Episcopal Conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the Church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist.¹⁵

Surely, all this is well known to CHRISTIFIDELIS readers.

It is included here simply to frame the question: If the Pauline Mass could not be protected from abuses or even authorized changes that tended to erode belief in the Real Presence, will the Traditional Mass fare any better?

The Basic Question

The title of this article asks if it is likely that problematic liturgical practices will occur in celebrations of the Traditional Mass. My answer is not only is it likely; it is certain. We know that it has already happened. The key question now is, how extensive will it be in the future? We need to be prepared just in case. We will also need the assistance of our readers and other faithful Catholics in reporting specific abuses to us. Much hangs in the balance and the months ahead will be critical. May Saint Joseph be our guide may Saint Michael the Archangel defend us in battle.

Endnotes

1. Philip Gray is a canon lawyer in private practice who has also served for many years as one of the Foundation's Consulting Canonists. Duane Galles is our Vice President and a Member of our Board of Directors. I also acknowledge the assistance and advice of our Vice President and General Counsel, R. Michael Dunnigan, JD, JCL.
2. Testo in lingua Inglese
3. "Summorum Pontificum: The Musical Consideration," by William Mahrt, Sacred Music, Volume 134, Number 3, Fall 2007 [http://www.musicasacra.com/Summorum].
4. The Foundation provided extensive advice to EWTN in this matter. Ordinarily, I could not discuss the case; but the judicial vicar of the diocese of Birmingham made it the subject of an address to the Canon Law Society of America at its Annual Convention held in Portland, OR October 13-16, 2003. The address was later published. See "Tensions in Subsidiarity: Illustrations from the Diocesan Church" by Rev. Gregory T. Bittner, JCL, CLSA Proceedings 65 (2003) 1-30.
5. See Grothe, Dr. Mardy, Never Let a Fool Kiss You or a Kiss Fool You: Chiasmus and a World of Quotations That Say What They Mean and Mean What They Say, Viking Penguin, 1999, Chapter 15.
6. See Code of Canon Law Annotated, (Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, 2004), Appendices I-III, pp. 1379-1791. Universal Law outside the Code includes several Apostolic Constitutions, Responses by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts and Complementary Norms to the Code promulgated by various Conferences of Bishops.
7. Peters, Dr. Edward N., Curator, The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law in English Translation With Extensive Scholarly Apparatus, (San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 2001), p. 29.
8. See "Liturgical Law" by Duane L.C.M. Galles, CHRISTIFIDELIS, August 15, 1995, http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/LITLAW.htm
9. Committee on the Liturgy NewsLetter, Volume XLIII, August 2007,p. 2.
10. What Does The Prayer Really Say? — Slavishly accurate liturgical translations & frank commentary on Catholic issues — by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf: Statement from D. of Portsmouth on the Motu Proprio
11. See Trower, Philip, The Catholic Church and the Counter-Faith, Family Publications, Oxford 2006.
12. "Benedict XVI: After the Council, I was 'too timid' in challenging liberals" by John Allen, NCRcafe.org, October 20, 2007, http://ncrcafe.org/node/507.
13. Trower, op. cit., p. 283.
14. Ibid, p. 281
15. Dominicae cenae, No. 11.

© St. Joseph Foundation

This item 8067 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org