Liturgy and Liturgical Books-An Update

1 Liturgy and Liturgical Books—An Update Joseph Dyer September 2022 When I completed the “Liturgy and liturgical books” revision six years ago and posted on Oxford Music Online (2018) and later on Academia.edu, I had no idea that it would be of interest to so many. As of September 2022, the essay had received more than 6,500 “visits.” I hope that most who looked at it found something of use therein, and I apologize for any shortcomings in so broad a historical survey, especially with regard to the definition of liturgy (Keller), the science of liturgics, pastoral liturgy, and the theology of liturgy. I offer the present update with a similar disclaimer. A striking development in the Roman Catholic Church prompted me to prepare this addendum: the decision of Pope Francis in July 2021 to suppress by stages the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass (henceforth simply “Latin Mass”). With the “motu proprio,” Traditionis custodes, he decreed that the Missal published in 1970 with a Mass—virtually always celebrated in the vernacular—will henceforth be the only permissible expression of the Roman Rite. This “new order of Mass” (novus ordo missae) was produced pursuant to a Constitution of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that called for a renewal/reform of the Church’s liturgy (Foley 2011). Traditionis custodes was accompanied by a letter in which Pope Francis assured his readers that “whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, especially the Roman Canon” (which is in fact rarely recited at novus ordo Masses). Testing the accuracy of this and other papal assertions (i.e., that the 1970 Mass preserves “the great richness of the Roman liturgical tradition” or that it was developed “in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II”) is one of the tasks of the present essay. Whether or not the results corresponded to what the bishops of the Council wanted or whether the “reforms” went far beyond what they intended or would have approved has been the crux of sometimes bitter debate over the last fifty years. (For a balanced “debate” see Kocik.) In response to Francis’s “motu proprio” scores of social media posts on the Internet, many from knowledgeable commentators, pointed to flaws of fact and argumentation in both Traditionis Custodes and its accompanying letter. More than five dozen of these commentaries were published in an anthology, From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War (Kwasniewski 2021a), a collection that brings together a wide sampling of thoughtful responses to Traditionis custodes by cardinals, bishops, and laypeople  2 who offer different perspectives on the papal campaign. (See also the websites of The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, the Church Music Association and the New Liturgical Movement; also Reid 2016). Recently, the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship said that those attached to the older Mass, whom he apparently identifies with those who do not accept the decrees of the Council, are more Protestant than Catholic. The remark, unlikely to be true, cannot be read as a compliment. Francis’s move to put an end to the Latin Mass brought to the fore disagreements that had been simmering for decades, among them (1) the intent of the Vatican Council’s Constitution on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) and (2) its implementation in practical terms of the general principles of the Constitution. Researching this (for the present writer, new) topic has led to many interesting discoveries, the most essential of which are presented in what follows. The most difficult challenge was separating assertions, frequently repeated, from facts that can be documented. An annotated select bibliography will be found at the end. Since the following discussion concerns mainly the Mass liturgy, I begin with a brief treatment of the early modern Roman Missal. Joseph Dyer [September 2022] The Latin Missal in the Age of Printing A missal is a book placed on the altar for Mass from which the priest reads the texts of the assigned chants, prayers, and Scripture readings for each observance of the liturgical year. In addition to Masses for the feasts of saints, it includes “votive” Masses: for funerals, for weddings, for peace, for an end to drought, etc. There is generally little musical notation save for chanted Prefaces, the Pater noster, brief intonations (e.g., “Gloria in excelsis deo”), and invitations to prayer (“Dominus vobiscum”) intoned by the priest. The invention of printing from moveable type introduced the possibility of greater standardization in books for the Latin liturgy. The Missale special printed by Johann Meister Koch (1473?), of which only three copies survive, was printed for the diocese of Constance (Konstanz; at the western end of Lake Constance). A printed missal “according to the custom of the Roman Curia” appeared at Milan in 1474. True to its claim, the Missal was based on a Court Missal from the time of Popes Innocent III and Honorius III (Celiński). The Milanese Missal was a private publishing venture, and subsequent reprintings at Milan and elsewhere introduced variants, some of them substantial.  3 The Council of Trent (1545-1563) authorized the pope to remedy the confusion caused by divergent manuscript and printed missals by preparing an editio typica of the Roman Missal. This was accomplished under the auspices of Pope Pius V (1566- 1572), hence the name “Missal of Pius V” attached to it. The book was not “Tridentine” in the sense of a missal approved by the bishops gathered at Trent. There was little new about the Missal, since it largely replicated the Milanese edition of a century earlier. The 1570 Missal was intended to purge any of the Reformers’ doctrines that might have surreptitiously crept into previous regional missals. While Pius V insisted on the obligation to employ the revised missal exclusively, he encouraged dioceses where “there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years” to continue using those same rites“ (King 1959). In addition to ancient diocesan rites, this provision protected the particular liturgies of the oldest religious orders: Carthusians, Cistercians, Premonstratensians, and Dominicans, the latter being the Order to which Pius belonged before his election to the papacy (King 1955). The Missale Romanum published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) turned out to be the final version of this venerable missal. It was replaced in 1970 by a very different missal with a normative “new order of Mass.” (If Pope John had anticipated that the Latin Mass would be replaced in less than a decade, it is difficult to understand why he would have bothered to publish a revised edition of the Missale Romanum.) The name “Missal of Paul VI” is accurate, insofar as it was imposed on the authority of this pope. At approximately the same time there were introduced new arrangements for the readings at Mass, a revised calendar of feasts, and a radical redesign of the Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours). The latter involved the elimination of psalms and psalm verses deemed to present “psychological difficulty” because of their violent language. Vatican Council II – The Preparatory Commission In January 1960, Pope John XXIII announced the convening of an ecumenical council that would bring together all the bishops of the Catholic world. Preparatory work consumed nearly three years. A detailed questionnaire distributed to all the bishops revealed that liturgical reform within the framework of the existing books was high on their list of priorities, especially with regard to participation of the faithful in the sacred rites. A “preparatory commission” developed a detailed schema for the bishops’ consideration. This commission and its two successors were incessantly plagued by  4 intrigues, personal rivalries, and maneuvers for gaining control and manipulating outcomes. The complexities of this dimension of liturgical reform prevent its consideration here (Chiron, 61-82; Cattaneo, 618-27; Reid). Named secretary of the preparatory commission was Annibale Bugnini (1912-1982), a Vincentian priest long influential in liturgical matters at Rome. Bugnini was to be the central figure in the reform of the Catholic Church’s liturgy before and after the Council. The preparatory commission consisted of voting members (21), consultors (33), who were divided into subcommittees (13), each tasked with making proposals on specific themes (Mass, the calendar, readings at Mass, Divine Office, administration of the sacraments, sacred music, sacred art and architecture, etc.). The work of all of these subcommittees went through Bugnini, who then brought it before the main commission at its plenary sessions. Only he had a clear picture of what was being done. Bugnini, a man of exceptional administrative skill, was also crafty. He made sure that language was inserted in the preparatory commission’s schema that could appear innocuous but would allow maximum flexibility of action for “progressives” committed to radical change. At the next-to-last meeting of the preparatory commission (11 November 1961) Bugnini remarked that the schema should be “formulated in such a way that much is said without seeming to say anything,” and he cautioned: “let nothing be said that suggests excessive novelty and might invalidate all the rest” (Lameri, 433). Before the Council convened, the preparatory commission was disbanded and replaced by a new commission of similar composition that continued its work during the Council. Bugnini was passed over for the secretary’s post in favor of Fr. Ferdinando Antonelli, a Franciscan friar and future cardinal. Antonelli was concurrently secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, a curial department that resented being sidelined as topics within its purview were being discussed. Bugnini had to be satisfied with a role as a peritus (expert) of the Council, in which capacity he continued to exert his influence. Vatican Council II - Sacrosanctum Concilium After much discussion bishops of the Council overwhelmingly approved the preparatory commission’s work as the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (from its first words). The introduction and general norms (Chapter 1) take up 10 of the document’s 26 pages. They stipulate general biblical and theological guidelines as  5 principles intended to guide future reforms. The ensuing chapters concern the Mass, sacramenta, Divine Office, the liturgical year, sacred music, and sacred art and furnishings. The paragraph in Sacrosanctum Concilium that opened the door to almost any kind of interpretation was Article 50: “the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.” The vagueness of this wording raised alarms for many bishops, concerns most boldly expressed by Cardinal Heenan of Westminster, who spotted the ambiguities that Bugnini had planted in the schema. (After the Council he regarded it as an ominous sign that those who had developed the schema were put in charge of its implementation [Davies, 27]). The mention of simplicity in so positive a sense would have puzzled eastern Christians, whose liturgies are filled with repeated litanies, doxologies, multiple prayers recited by the priest, and gestures of blessing. The western reformers were of a quite different mentality. To allay the misgivings shared of many of the Council’s bishops, the French bishop Henri-Martin-Félix Jenny, a member of the conciliar commission on the liturgy, assured them (5 November 1962) that the ancient Ordo Missae would remain intact: “the current Ordo Missae, which has grown up in the course of centuries, is certainly to be retained” (hodiernus Ordo Missae, qui decursu saeculorum succrevit, certe retinendus est). In printed form this statement became part of the Council’s official record. The vague reference to “holy Fathers” probably reassured the bishops that the impending reform would not stray far from the pattern established for the Missal of Pius V. The words occur in the introduction (“Quo primim”) to the 1570 Missal, where the pope states that he had sought out “learnèd men, [who] restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.” How astonished must these bishops have been, when they first opened the Missal of Paul VI (Crouan). Vatican Council II - The Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia A commission, the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia), was established by Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) to accomplish the liturgical norms approved by the Council. Bugnini returned to power as its secretary. As mentioned earlier, It had a rival in the Congregation of Rites, which wanted (in vain) the Consilium to serve  6 merely as an advisory board (Chiron, 101-9). The pope supported its independence, so the future of the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church was placed in the hands of the Consilium. Its fifty voting members, mostly cardinals and bishops, were supported by more than 200 expert “consultors” divided into subcommittees, each of which worked on a specific area of liturgical revision, after the model of the preparatory commission. As before, the reports of all the subcommittees came through Bugnini, who presented them for discussion at plenary sessions of the voting membership, but sometimes so late that a substantial dialogue was hampered. Once again, only Bugnini had a complete picture of what was happening (O’Hearn). There are reports that he would tell recalcitrant members of the commission that the pope wanted this or that, when he had not in fact expressed any opinion. Alternately, he would tell Pope Paul that a subcommittee was unanimous on a certain matter, whether it was or not. Though some of these deceptions eventually came to the attention of the pope, he retained confidence in Bugnini’s management. Fr. Antonelli was one of the members. Of the first plenary meeting (only 13 in attendance) he recorded his impression that “many of them [were] incompetent and others well advanced on the road to novelty” (Giampietro, 166). He wrote in his journal that, to his dismay, few were theologians and that procedural matters were handled in a slipshod fashion (Giampietro, 173). A show of hands sufficed for many things, and minutes were not consistently kept. All of this suited Bugnini’s strategy. What he saw happening with the Consilium must have pained Antonelli, who had given a speech before the bishops during the Council in which he promised that the reform would preserve the text and rites of the liturgical books: “genuina profecto servata liturgica traditione” (without a doubt preserving authentic liturgical tradition [Giampietro, 76]). The Vatican Council’s admonition that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them” was interpreted rather broadly by the Consilium, and the principle that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (Art. 23) hardly constrained the range of options considered in the creation of the new Mass ordo or any other part of the liturgy (Davies). Liturgical Experimentation after the Council Active participation” (actuosa participatio), a term whose meaning has been the subject of continual discussion, was to be “considered before else” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Art. 14). This was a goal of the liturgical movements of the early twentieth  7 century, and it even has precedents in the high Middle Ages (Dyer). Of equal importance was seminary instruction in the “theological, historical, spiritual, pastoral, and juridical aspects” of the liturgy (Art. 16). Just how deficient in that regard priestly formation had been became quickly apparent. Though the Council insisted that “[no] priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Art. 22.3), hardly had the Council concluded than that this prohibition was being widely disregarded by “progressive” priests and their compliant bishops (Bullivant), much to the distress of Pope Paul VI (Cattaneo, 659). Liturgical abuses did not slacken after the euphoria of the 1960s. In 1980, Pope John Paul II, expressed concern—even alarm—at “the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world” (Inaestimabile Donum). He saw the consequences of this as “doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment,” all of which could prompt “violent reactions.” A few months earlier, he had sternly rebuked any priest who “dared to make free use of the liturgical text and of the sacred rite as if it were his own property, in such a way as to stamp it his own arbitrary personal style” (Crouan, 49-53). More than twenty years later (2004) the admonition had to be repeated by the pope and the Congregation for Divine Worship. Innovation was in the air and, lacking proper liturgical formation, priests and laity sought to put the stamp of their own their “creativity” on it (Hitchcock). None of this applies to the Latin Mass, the usus antiquior. Utterly disregarded in the liturgical reform was the bishops’ insistence that, with certain clearly defined exceptions, “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Art. 36.1). The Latin language was considered a symbol of the unity of the church; a priest could say Mass in any Catholic church in the world without needing to know the local language. Granting that “a suitable place may be allotted to [the people’s] mother tongue,” the bishops also expressed the wish that “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (Art. 54). The latter wish did not carry much weight in the implementation. Cardinal Montini of Milan (later Paul VI) warned publicly against having the priest’s parts of the Mass recited “in any other language than that handed down to us by our forebears.” As pope, he soon reversed course. He insisted on the use of Latin in the chanted Divine Office (Sacrificium Laudis), but rebellious abbots led by the American- born archabbot, Rembert Weakland (d. 2022), forced him to capitulate and permit the vernacular. The monks of the archabbot’s international community at Sant’Anselmo were split up into several language groups.  8 Sacred Music and Art The role of sacred music was addressed in Chapter 6 of Sacrosanctum Concilium (Arts. 112-121). The bishops ordained that “the treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care” (Art. 114). Choirs were important, too, as was musical training in seminaries. Gregorian chant, the Church’s traditional song, commanded “first place” (principem locum) among musical idioms, polyphony being second. The virtually ubiquitous rendering of this phrase in English as “pride of place” is misleading, even taking into account the grammatical error in the Latin original (recte: principalem locum). “First place” is the evident meaning. The novus ordo missae took little notice of the Council’s wishes in this regard, and a subsequent instruction, Musicam Sacram (Congregation of Rites, 5 March 1967), allowed for omission of any and all of the prescribed Proper chants. These could be replaced by “other suitable songs” (alius cantus congruus) in the vernacular. This provision effectively severed the intimate relationship between the church’s liturgical commemorations and the music that had been an integral part of them since the seventh century (Dobszay 2010). Episcopal oversight was assumed, but it was more or less left up to parish musicians with little competence to make judgments about what music in their repertoire “fit in with those parts of the Mass, the feast, or the liturgical season” (Art. 32). Even for an experienced church musician that can be a challenge. Refrain forms and reassuring “voice of God” hymns of negligeable literary quality came into vogue (“You are holy; You are blessed; You are beloved in my eyes”). (See Dobszay 2003, 85-120, 180-93 [“High Church—Low Church”].) All of the Latin Ordinary chants of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus dei) can be used with the revised Mass, and in some churches that is happening. Paul VI promoted the popular use of simple Gregorian chants (Cattaneo, 688-90). Many chant melodies are, in fact, much easier to sing than the sixties pop-inspired musical styles favored by most parishes in the United States today. In spite of the Roman Catholic Church’s neglect of its treasury of Gregorian chant, interest in all branches of medieval chant (Gregorian, Old Roman, Milanese, and Beneventan) has blossomed over the past few decades. There has been no dearth of new recordings and reissues of high artistic merit, as can be confirmed by the exhaustive database of Fr. Jerome Weber (chantdiscography.com - with multiple search options). Worthy of special note is the astounding project, recently completed, of the nuns of the abbey of Notre-Dame de Fidélité of Jouques (France), who have  9 recorded the entire chant repertory (7,000 hours!). Accompanying each chant on the website (neumz.com) is the printed music in square notation—scrolling coordinated with the sung chant. Music for the chant Propers are also available feast by feast at: <https://www.institute-christ-king.org/resources/sacred-music>. The bishops of the Second Vatican Council affirmed that the pipe organ was “to be held in high esteem,” for it “adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies,” (120). Other “suitable instruments” could be admitted, as indeed they always had been for concerted church music and orchestral Masses. Whether piano or saxophone belong in that category is a question long since rendered moot. The “wonderful splendor” of the organ was replaced by the guitar, supplemented by electronic keyboard, drums, and whatever other instruments happen to be available. In the United States amplified “praise bands” are popular substitutes for the pipe organ. The organ is held in higher respect in Europe, which has many historic instruments, and even in North America not a few Catholic churches with sufficient means are installing new instruments or refurbishing historic ones relocated from churches that have closed. An entire chapter of Sacrosanctum Concilium (VII) was devoted to “Sacred art and sacred furnishings,” not least because “the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man's genius” (Maier). The bishops held that “the practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained” (Art. 125). Bishops were cautioned to “be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are the ornaments of the house of God” (Art. 126). Very many were subsequently removed, much to the consternation of parishioners. Few churches were spared the removal of objects the local pastor deemed inappropriate (for whatever reason) to the new liturgical norms. Secular authorities protected (if necessary) the artistic heritage of historic European churches. Observations for or against the new Mass have concentrated mainly on structure and text, but there seem to be fewer comprehensive treatments of the acoustic and visual “envelope” of worship. Nor are ritual studies or symbolism folded into such discussions, perhaps because there is relatively little of that in the simplified rites (Torevell). Nevertheless, these are all elements of the vast cultural shift that took place in Catholicism over the course of less than a decade (ca. 1965-1975). But did Catholic clergy or laity involved in such a broad-based liturgical “revolution” contemplate the consequences?  10 The Missal of Pope Paul VI While the Consilium was still at work on the new rites, a synod of cardinals and bishops, 187 in number, convened in Rome (October 1967). They were invited to attend an already developed missa normativa celebrated (in Italian and Latin) by Fr. Bugnini himself in the Sistine Chapel. Discussions of this “demonstration” Mass took place over the next few days, after which a vote on approving it was taken. There were 71 placet votes cast against 43 non placet. There were 62 placet iuxta modum, a sign of lukewarm “approval” that indicated displeasure with certain (perhaps many) parts of the Consilium’s invention. Consequently, over a hundred bishops (60%) either rejected the new Mass outright or had difficulties, theological or liturgical, with it (Chiron, 129-31). The outcome (called by one author a “debacle”) was anything but supportive. Bugnini was disappointed, but he blamed the bishops’ shortsightedness for what his “broad interpretation” of the Council’s wishes had produced: “few of the Fathers were disposed and ready for the experiment.” Still, the pope was on his side, and that was all that mattered (Bugnini: Marini). Against this background is Pope Francis’s assurance that “the liturgical books published by Blessed Paul VI were well received by the very Bishops who were present at the Council” (address to a liturgical conference, 24 August 2017; emphasis added) must seem puzzling. The Missal of Paul VI, though duly authorized, represents a decisive break in the history of western liturgy (Pagliarani), many assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Though Vatican authorities and authors supportive of the new Mass insistently deny the presence of a significant rupture, so profound were alterations to the Mass that even a cursory comparison reveals numerous dissonances (Reid 2016). The lengthy confession of sin at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass was significantly curtailed and reformatted. Also eliminated were the numerous similar prayers during the Mass in which the priest confesses his unworthiness to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass. The ninefold Kyrie eleison was reduced to the repetition of the threefold invocation by the congregation (now called “assembly”) after the priest (“presider”). (The expression “the priest who presides over the assembly” had been slipped into Article 33 of Sacrosanctum Concilium.) The gradual chant, part of the Roman liturgy since the early seventh century, was eliminated, being replaced by a responsorial psalm attested in early fifth-century North Africa. On weekdays, when not sung, it resembles a responsive reading.  11 Only one of the six offertory prayers of the Latin Mass survived. The others were suppressed in favor of two Jewish table blessings, part of the effort to redefine the Eucharist as a Lord’s Supper commemoration. There was an early backlash against that novel (for Catholicism) theological concept when the Instructions for the new Mass were published, since they equated the sacrificium missae with the cena dominicalis. Some adjustments were made, but the concept held. Immediately before communion in the novus ordo Mass, the presider says “Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.” (Cf. Rev 19:9, where the phrase refers to the celestial feast celebrating the marriage between God and his Church.) There are four Eucharistic prayers, the first being the ancient Roman Canon, parts of which go back to the time of St. Ambrose (bishop of Milan, 374-397). Pope Paul had to come to its defense against clerical critics who thought it “burdensome” (e.g., Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro), stylistically disjointed, and lacking elements of a “proper” anaphora. Eucharistic prayers III and IV of the Missal of Paul VI are the work of a Benedictine monk and theologian, Cipriano Vagaggini (Folsom). Josef Jungmann complained that Vagaggini’s work reflected “a personal theology of the author,” which is now imposed on the Church (Jungmann 1967 ‘”Um die Reform”]). A more positive assessment has been expressed by Alan Detscher (Senn). The published norms for the use of these Eucharistic prayers (May 1968) opined that the fourth one was “particularly suited to a congregation of people with a more developed knowledge of the Scripture,” a palpable restriction of is use. Pope Paul was opposed to the multiplying of Eucharistic prayers, even though agitation for them (and use of unauthorized texts) continued. Ironically, Eucharistic Prayer II, the one most frequently recited by presiders, is not “Roman” at all. It is derived instead from a collection of liturgical texts known as the Apostolic Tradition, almost universally believed in the 1960s to be the work of the priest Hippolytus, a known author and a rival of Pope Callistus (218-222/3). Here—so it was believed—was the authentic Roman liturgy of the early-third century! Further research demolished almost everything that was assumed about the Apostolic Tradition by the members and expert consultors of the Consilium. Although assembled at Rome, its contents were not necessarily used there or anywhere else before the twentieth century. The radically revised scholarly assessment of the whole Apostolic Tradition turns out to be very inconvenient for arguments about the alleged “Romanness” of any element derived from it, especially Eucharistic Prayer II of the novus ordo missae. The Eucharistic anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition is a composite prayer of West Syrian or Egyptian origin (Johnson, Bradshaw 2000). Since it could not be used “as is,”  12 it had to be adapted. According to Louis Bouyer, he and Dom Bernard Botte were forced to proceed rather hastily, adding the finishing touches to what was “strung together” as Eucharistic Prayer II on the terrace of a cafe in Trastevere (Bouyer, 255- 56). It can be argued that the new rites were duly authorized by the highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church and for this reason should be accepted by all faithful Catholics. That is true, but attempting to argue for—or simply state as apodictic—a “Roman” historicity is disingenuous. Anglicans and Lutherans made their own adaptations of the Apostolic Tradition’s anaphora (Johnson, Senn), just one of the many ecumenical influences of the liturgical changes that followed the Second Vatican Council. The priest’s final prayer before the blessing, “Placeat tibi, Sancta Trinitas,” and the Last Gospel (John 1:1-14) were eliminated. In addition to these textual and musical innovations, two other changes were (1) abandonment of the ancient “ad orientem” position of the celebrant-presider, who now faces the “assembly” across a free- standing altar, (2) the offering of communion under both species, bread and wine, and (3) the exclusive use of the vernacular in spoken parts of the Mass. In the final analysis, then, the new Catholic Mass turns out to be something of a collage that eliminates traditional elements and replaces them with older, non-Roman ones, thus producing a kind of “neo-Roman liturgy” (Dobszay 2003, 155). Use of the vernacular necessitated translation from the Latin edito typica. Given the number of languages in the world, there cannot be a “one size fits all” solution (Chupungo). Many dimensions of a given target language can be very different from those of the source language. At first (the 1969 Consilium instruction Comme le prévoit), a system of “dynamic equivalency” was encouraged. Application of such a method, whose origins lie in the world of biblical translation, favors conveying the idea intended over word-for-word translation. This requires substantial intervention by the translator. The result may be indistinguishable from paraphrase and could reflect the personal biases of the translator. This got so out of hand that in 2001 a course change was decreed (Liturgiam Authenticam): translations of sacred texts must have as their aim “rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language.” This is not as easy as it sounds, since it concerns both terminology and sentence structure (Harbert). The structure of the novus ordo reflects a modernist idealization of Christian antiquity as the “golden age” of liturgical expression. The Middle Ages, so it was believed, contributed only to its degradation. While most branches of scholarship had long abandoned that outmoded perspective (Gabriele and Perry), it persisted among liturgical reformers of the post-war period. Pius XII issued a warning against the  13 dangers of this “liturgical archeologism” in the encyclical Mediator Dei (1947), but this was not heeded after his death. So fragmentarily preserved is the western liturgical record of Late Antiquity that any attempt at recovery is highly speculative. This was recognized by Cardinal Arthur Roche (Dicastery for Divine Worship), who cited a footnote by Msgr. Louis Duchesne (here called “Father”) in his edition the Liber pontificalis (which Roche seems to date three centuries too early) about the “cérémonies de la messe romaine” in the fourth and fifth centuries being “fort peu connues” (Lib. Pont. 1:139, n.3 [italics original]). While he misunderstands Duchesne’s comment related to the use of glass patens at Mass in the time of Pope Zephirinus (278/279-217) and applies it to the entire Liber pontificalis, it raises a question. If the fourth and fifth centuries are relatively inaccessible, what about the source material thought to be of the third century that found a place in the novus ordo Mass? Reaction to the “novus ordo missae” Against the background of the liturgical chaos of the nineteen-sixties, a small, but sizable, number of Catholics refused to accept the transformed Mass ritual in which the priest stood facing the people and Latin as the sacral language of the Roman rite was abandoned (Hitchcock; Ratzinger 1989). They continued to find ways of celebrating the Latin Mass, usually to the annoyance of local bishops. The controversy abated somewhat after Pope Benedict XVI (2005-2013) by the apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum (2007) resolved the relationship between the two Mass liturgies. Benedict approved wider celebration of the Latin Mass as the “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite for the benefit of those laity who found it a meaningful form of worship. He directed bishops to respond favorably to petitions from laity who wished to have the Latin Mass celebrated, and he authorized any priest to celebrate it as need arose (Johnston; also Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy). A most surprising effect of this liberalization has been the strong attraction of the Latin Mass for young Catholics with families. Even as he took measures to suppress it, Pope Francis quoted Pope emeritus Benedict XVI’s observation that the older Mass ritual allowed especially young people “[to] discover this liturgical form [and] to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist.” In allowing wider celebration of the Latin Mass his predecessor was responding to “the insistent prayer of these faithful.” In fact, on Sundays people will travel long distances to attend a Latin Mass, whether solemn with chanted Propers or merely spoken (Elliott). One might regard this as a positive pastoral development, albeit insufficient in the Pope Francis’s eyes to save it. Male and female communities of the consecrated life which observe the traditional  14 worship (Latin Mass and Office) of the Catholic Church have flourished, thus reversing in a modest way the trend away from religious life that has prevailed over the last half century. Protestant denominations, whose numbers are dwindling, would delight in all of this exceptional “church growth.” Traditionis Custodes Pope Francis decided to call a halt to this remarkable development, rejecting in toto the policies of his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He planned to suppress, to the broadest extent possible, the celebration of the Mass in Latin according to the Missal of 1962, which had been approved by Pope John XXIII. In a “motu proprio” entitled Traditionis Custodes (Guardians of Tradition) Francis called on bishops of the world, serving as “guardians of tradition,” to assist him in curtailing and eventually suppressing celebrations of the Latin Mass in their dioceses (Kwasniewski 2021). Ironically, “guardians” of tradition are here being enlisted to contribute to the gradual elimination of a very ancient one. In the interest of “ecclesial communion” Pope Francis ruled that the post-conciliar liturgical books will in the future constitute “the only expression (unica expressio) of the ‘law of prayer’ of the Roman Rite.” Evidently, neither of his predecessors was under the impression that the publication of Pope Paul VI’s Missal (1970) utterly excluded use of the 1962 Missal. In thus restricting the celebration of the Latin Mass, Pope Francis alluded to Pope Pius V, who “abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity” (which of course the now virtually banned Missale Romanum of 1962 can certainly do). In Traditionis Custodes Pope Francis asserts that “whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite” (emphasis added). As we have seen from a review of the Missal of Paul VI, none of the evidence points in that direction. In fact, the contrary comes closer to the truth, and papal impressions do not change that. Joseph Gelineau, one of the periti who participated in the design of the new Mass liturgy, was straightforward in his assessment: “it is a different liturgy of the Mass; … the Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed (détruit).” Gelineau would hardly discover in the Mass of Paul VI “all the elements of the Roman Rite.” In the introduction to Traditionis Custodes Pope Francis referred to a “diligent consultation” with bishops carried out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2020. Catholic laity were not consulted. Though the results of the  15 questionnaire distributed to the bishops were not made public, Francis lamented that the responses “reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me.” He asserted that the purpose for which his two predecessors permitted continuance of the Latin Mass liturgy (1988 and 2007) was their desire to promote concord and unity with those who rejected the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. If such were indeed their intention, he observed, it did not work. It would be a stretch of the imagination to suppose that all who appreciate the Latin Mass—bishops, priests, and laity alike—are opponents of the Council’s decrees. Pope Francis makes it very clear that he intends a clean sweep: “previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated” (Traditionis Custodes, Art. 8). This wording, if taken literally eradicates centuries of liturgical precedent as well as potentially all of the decrees of earlier popes concerning the sacred liturgy (Hayburn). Sorting all of this out, if it is to be taken literally, will be a task of canon lawyers. Most certainly rejected is the view of Benedict XVI, who maintained that the ancient Mass “cannot all of a sudden be entirely forbidden” (Pentin). Traditionis custodes would revoke, for example, the famous “Agatha Christie Indult” of Pope Paul VI. After the promulgation of the 1970 Missal, a petition was addressed to him from prominent “scholars, intellectuals and artists” in the United Kingdom, both Catholic and non-Catholic, who were concerned about the threatened disappearance of an esteemed institution of western culture, which “has inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts.” It is said that, when Pope Paul looked through the list of signatories, he noticed the name of Agatha Christie, an author whom he admired; hence the popular name attached to the permission (1971). Ironically, it bears the signature of the then-secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Annibale Bugnini, principal architect of the novus ordo Mass. Pursuant to this indult, the Latin Mass continued to be celebrated in England and Wales under certain conditions. When the Archbishop of Westminster inquired recently about this permission, Cardinal Arthur Roche, an Englishman, professed to be unaware of the indult; he could find no record in the files of the Congregation (now Dicastery) for Divine Worship. The “Agatha Christie Indult” is so famous that it has its own Wikipedia entry—with a link to the text of the petition. The text of the indult itself is posted on the website of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales (Resources: “Heenan Indult”). Implementation of, and Reactions to, Traditionis custodes  16 Subsequent to the publication of Traditionis Custodes the Prefect of the Dicastery] for Divine Worship, Cardinal Roche, responded to “several questions (dubia) [that] have been raised from several quarters and with greater frequency” (Kwasniewski 2022) He insisted that “the reform of the Second Vatican Council has enhanced every element of the Roman Rite.” Latin Mass communities (“groups”) will in the future be permitted use of a parish church “only if it is established that it is impossible to use another church, oratory or chapel.” According to Roche, this restriction will make it very clear that “the previous rite, being a concession limited to these groups, is not part of the ordinary life of the parish community.” Banning them from their parish churches is not meant to “marginalise” them; they just need to understand that the new arrangement is intended to “provide for their good.” Since many Latin Mass communities contribute substantial sums to their parish’s budget, their exit might lead to closure of the parish. No new groups of this kind are to be formed, and no new parish can be erected for their benefit. Parishes that have already been established for Latin Mass communities are to be monitored “to determine whether or not to retain them.” Only Vatican authorities can give permission for a newly ordained priest to celebrate the Latin Mass, which they would presumably rarely do. One of the more curious points of the Responsa is the prohibition of including the time of Latin Masses in the parish Mass schedule—information readily available on the Internet (Latin Mass Directory). Reactions to the papal “crackdown” were not long in coming. Within twenty-four hours of the publication of the motu proprio, the bishops of France hastened to express to those who attend celebrations of the Latin Mass “the esteem they have for the spiritual zeal of these faithful.” (NB: The Society of St. Pius X, regarded as schismatic, is strongly represented in France. Priests of the Society—currently over 700, with more than 260 seminarians—celebrate all of the traditional rites of the Catholic Church in Latin.) The archbishops of Chicago and Washington (DC) moved more aggressively against the Latin Mass. Cardinal Gregory (Washington) limited the celebration of the Latin Mass to three locations—but only on Sundays. Cardinal Cupich (Chicago) prohibited celebration of the Latin Mass on the first Sunday of every month, on Christmas, the Holy Week Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost. Attendance being higher on these feast days, such a ban would limit exposure to the distinctive solemn Latin liturgy of these times. A bishop in Virginia (USA), after consultations with Roman authorities, curtailed celebrations of the Latin Mass in his diocese. Moved by “pastoral solicitude for those who have found spiritual nourishment in the liturgical celebration of the usus  17 antiquior,” he reduced the number of parish churches where the Latin Mass could be publicly celebrated to three—but only for a two-year trial period. Five other communities were allowed to continue, though forbidden use of a church building, save for one deconsecrated church, the ultimate goal being “a unified celebration of the sacred liturgy” in the diocese. Most bishops in whose dioceses Latin Masses are celebrated seem to be taking an irenic “wait and see” attitude à propos the pope’s restrictions and subsequent regulations. In February 2022, Francis backed down slightly and allowed members of the international Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (300 priests; 200+ seminarians) to continue celebrating the Latin Mass. Since Traditionis Custodes seeks to eliminate what the Fraternity does, the intent of this provision or what influenced it is murky. Whether smaller congregations of Latin-Mass priests will be similarly exempted from the papal ban remains to be seen. Flourishing “traditionalist” monasteries and convents that chant the traditional Divine Office and Mass in Latin would have their lives turned upside down by the severe restrictions imposed by Pope Francis. Liturgy and Church Unity Pope Francis posited that the permission granted by his predecessors to allow continued celebration of the Latin Mass “was motivated specifically by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre” (founder of the Society of St. Pius X). It is difficult to believe that either pope would have thought the Mass as other than an end in itself. From his perspective, Pope Francis regards the exclusive use of the novus ordo as an important tool that will eventually lead towards an ideal ecclesial “unity.” Archbishop Thomas Cranmer saw the liturgy in a similar light. In the preface to the 1549 Book of Common Prayer he alluded to the “great diversitie in saying and synging in churches within this realme.” With the adoption of the new Prayer Book “from hencefurth, all the whole realme shall have but one use.” Imposing that ritual unity in sixteenth-century England did not play out peacefully (Duffy 1992). Descendants of that Prayer Book, which is older than the Missal of Pius V, are in use today throughout the worldwide Anglican Communion. The thesis that church unity is inseparable from uniformity of liturgical practice is a bit fragile. Such a claim corresponds neither to the history of the western liturgy through the ages nor even to the contemporary Catholic Church, in which the Eucharistic liturgy is celebrated in many different rites and languages. Were such liturgical  18 uniformity an essential factor, the western Christian church would have splintered centuries ago. Apart from the variety of usages found in manuscript sources, there flourished many local rites: Sarum (Salisbury), York, Hereford, Nidaros (Sweden), Lyon, Braga (Portugal), Aquileia, and Milan (Ambrosian). Some of the oldest religious Orders had their own rites (Carthusians, Cistercians, Dominican). Other rites have disappeared in all or part (Gallican, Celtic, Beneventan). The liturgical practices of both the Milanese rite and that of Toledo were revived after the Second Vatican Council (Bać). As recently as 2009, a personal Ordinariate for Anglicans wishing to affiliate with Rome was established by the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. Their “Divine Worship: The Missal” (2015) is not that of the Roman Missal; it is shaped by the structure and language of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (Feulner). Imprudent striving for liturgical unity can have serious consequences. After the northern kingdoms of Spain had been recovered from the Moors, Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) suspected that the Old Spanish (“Mozarabic”) liturgy might be doctrinally tainted after centuries of Moorish domination. He solicited the help of the kings of Castile and Navarre to suppress the Old Spanish liturgy in their realms and replace it with the then-current Roman rite. Since the chant melodies were recorded only in staffless neumes, which do not allow the precise interval between one note and the next to be determined, the music of the Old Spanish rite was lost forever. Thus perished, in the name of “unity,” one of the greatest musical traditions of the Christian West. EXCURSUS: Ad orientem One final example will illustrate how challenging it can be to negotiate the current network of conflicting documents, assumptions made about them on the basis of imperfect understanding of same, and simple misstatements of fact. One of the more contentious issues concerns the direction faced by the priest during Mass. If he is to be a ”presider,” that settles the matter: he must face those over whom he presides (versus populum). If the priest faces the other way (ad orientem), as done from time immemorial, he is thought (incorrectly) to be “turning his back” on the congregants. As noted above, liturgical practices of Christian antiquity, however they were understood, were highly esteemed by the liturgical revisors of the 1960s (Bradshaw 2002), though not all of them conformed to their preferences. The Apostolic Constitutions (Syria, ca. 380) contain a reference to praying while looking toward the  19 east (book 2). This very ancient practice, shared by pagans, Jews, and Christians is implied by the deacon’s admonition, “Stand upright, towards the Lord” (Apost. Const. book 8). This common practice, which explains the “orientation” of numerous church buildings (Vogel; Lang), supports a theology of the Eucharist as sacrifice but not so well its conceptualization as Lord’s Supper, for which the priest would necessarily face the congregation. Such a conceptualization is facilitated only if the altar-table is free- standing. This required a reconfiguration of the presbyterium (chancel) area (Gamber 1976 and 1993), 137-79; Jensen; Heid: altar derived from dedicated “sacral table”). In 1965, the German architectural historian Otto Nussbaum published a bold effort, impressive in the number of buildings surveyed, to support the newly introduced versus populum celebration of Mass. Church authorities wanted this conclusion to be drawn, whether or not supported by the evidence of liturgical history or the history of sacred architecture. Sible de Blaauw, a Dutch scholar who specializes in the interior arrangements of early Christian and medieval churches, recognized the flaws in Nussbaum’s data and judged that his goal was not only to justify the celebration of Mass versus populum but also to formulate “a tacit negation of orientation toward the east as guiding principle” (De Blaauw). Nussbaum had finally to admit that rarely (in only four percent of the buildings he reviewed) would there have been no option but to celebrate Mass versus populum. In 1993, the Congregation for Divine Worship published a brief note (“Pregare ‘ad orientem versus’” [To pray turned toward the east], (Notitiae 29 [1993], 322/5, pp. 245- 49) that encouraged the age-old custom of priest and people together “turning toward the Lord“ (Dölger; Wallraff). It explained that priest and people facing east expresses in a unique way the “parousiacal” character of the Eucharist as an anticipation of the time when Christ “will come again in glory” (Creed). It also symbolizes light emanating from the East, a figure of Christ: “because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun [lat. Oriens] will come to us from heaven” (Luke 1:78; New International Version). The versus populum posture, which lacks any of this mystical meaning, is merely “topographical-positional.” Though the novus ordo may be celebrated with priest and people facing ad orientem, this practice, so rich in symbolism, has been banned in many dioceses. So strong is opposition to this venerable custom in some circles, that in 1999 an American bishop equated the ad orientem celebration of Mass with “making a political statement.” Hardly taken into account in this matter are curious passages in the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal that tell the priest to face the people while carrying out a certain action (nos. 146, 154, 157). These instructions would make no sense whatsoever, if it were assumed that the priest always faced the people across the  20 altar-table. At Högmässa some parishes in the Church of Sweden maintain the traditional Lutheran practice of the pastor turning to the congregation when addressing them, but together they “turn to the Lord” for prayer. The same is true in the United States in parishes of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and Anglo- Catholic parishes. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bać, Tomasz. “The Renewal of the Ambrosian and the Hispano-Mozarabic Liturgy after the Second Vatican Council.” Ruch Bibliyni i Liturgiczny 66/2 (2013), 197- 218. About the successful revival of the ancient rites of Milan and Spain according to Vatican II’s principle that “all acknowledged rites [being] of equal right and dignity,” are to be preserved and fostered “in every way” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Art. 4). Blaauw, Sible de, “In vista della luce: Un principio dimenticato nell’orientamento dell’edificio di culto paleocristiano,” in Arte medievale: Le vie dello spazio liturgico, ed. Paolo Piva. Storia dell’Arte 55 (Milan: Jaca, 2012), 19-48. An architectural historian’s critique of Nussbaum’s conclusions about the location faced by the celebrant during Mass. Bouyer, Louis. Memoirs. Trans. and annot. Anne Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015). An entertaining reminiscence by the famous Catholic theologian (d. 2004), a former Lutheran pastor and friend of Pope Paul VI. Valuable for candid assessments (often of the shortcomings) of clergy he encountered during the Second Vatican Council, in particular Annibale Bugnini (“a smooth-talking villain”). Bouyer was appointed belatedly to the Consilium in 1966. The hopes he expressed in The Liturgy Revived (1964) turned to disillusionment a few years later: The Decomposition of Catholicism (1969).  21 Bradshaw, Paul F. Reconstructing Early Christian Worship (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2009). The section on the Eucharist includes an important chapter on “Hippolytus” and early Eucharistic prayers. Bradshaw, Paul F. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy. 2nd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). A broad overview of ancient documents, as understood by current scholarship (as opposed to what was believed in the 1960s). Bugnini, Annibale. The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975). (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990 [orig. pub. 1983]). A memoir in which the author describes and defends his role in creating the post-conciliar liturgy of the Catholic Church. Evaluations of his influence, whether good or bad, vary widely. (See Dobszay 2010.) Bullivant, Stephen. Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America in the Wake of Vatican II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). Many sociological forces were at work even before the 1960s. With regard to liturgical reforms, the author assigns some/most of the blame “to [the behavior of] priests and bishops, who exacerbated the minimalism of the new liturgy, and the elimination of devotions considered extra-liturgical.” Many churches were stripped of decoration and statues. Cattaneo, Enrico. Il culto cristiano in Occidente: Note storiche. Biblioteca “Ephemerides Liturgiche” Subsidia 13 (Rome: Edizioni LiClarkturgiche, 1973), 618- 707, A well-documented, generally pro-reform survey by a distinguished historian of the liturgy. Celiński, Lukasz. “Per una rilettura della storia e della formazione e dello sviluppo del Messale Romano: Il caso del Messale di Clemente V.” Ecclesia Orans 13 (2016), 383-404. The author explores the origin of the Missal of Pius V in the thirteenth- century Missal of the Roman Curia, a tradition that does not go through the Missal of Clement V. Chiron, Yves. Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy (Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2018 [orig. pub. 2016]). An objective treatment of a controversial figure in the modern history of the liturgy. As secretary of the Vatican II preparatory commission and the post-conciliar Consilium responsible for implementation of its liturgical constitution, Bugnini played the central role in the formation of the modern Roman liturgy. Two chapters (3-4) summarize liturgical developments from 1945 to the early 1960s.  22 Chupungo, Ansgar J. “The Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.” In T&T Clark Companion to Liturgy, ed. Alcuin Reid (London: T&T Clark, 2016),279-95. A good overview of the post-conciliar documents. The author cites only Bugnini, his secretary (Marini), and himself. The “official Church” went beyond what the Council had mandated, “though within the spirit and the parameters of liturgical tradition.” Church Music Association of America. Publishers of the journal Musica Sacra. The large website offers many resources (Latin/English) for download and many links. <musicasacra.com> Crouan, Denis. The Liturgy Betrayed. Trans. Marc Sebanc (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000). A balanced evaluation of the usus antiquior, the new Mass, and problems with both. Davies, Michael. The Eternal Sacrifice: the Liturgy since Vatican II (Long Prairie, Minn.: Neumann Press, 1987). A lecture given in 1986 to the All India Laity Congress. Davies argues for the universality of the Roman rite of the Mass and a good introduction (with citation of primary sources) to conciliar deliberations and reactions to what the post-conciliar Consilium eventually produced. Dobszay, László. The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform. Musicae Sacrae Meletemata 5 (Front Royal, VA, 2003). A collection of essays critiquing aspects of the reform (Divine Office, Holy Week, the Calendar), music, and pastoral implications. Dobszay, László. “The Proprium Missae of the Roman Rite.” In The Genius of the Roman Rite: Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives on Catholic Liturgy, ed. Uwe Michael Lang (Chicago: Hillenbrand, 2010), 83-118. Dölger, Franz Joseph. Sol salutis: Gebet und Gesang im christlichen Altertum mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Ostung in Gebet und Liturgie, 2nd edn. Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 4/5 (Münster in Westf.: Aschendorff, 1925). The fundamental study of the virtually universal ancient custom of prayer towards the east, which influenced the alignment of churches along an east-west axis. Duffy, Eamon, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). The classic study of the imposition of the Reformation in England against staunch resistance. Duffy, Eamon. “Benedict XVI and the Liturgy.” In The Genius of the Roman Rite. Ed. Uwe Michael Lang (Chicago, Hillenbrand Books, 2010). Begins with a summary of Guardini’s The Spirit of the Liturgy and treats briefly active participation, the priest at the altar, etc.  23 Dyer, Joseph. Readers and Hearers of the Word: The Cantillation of Scripture in the Middle Ages. Ritus et Artes 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022). Treated are the deportment and participation of the laity at Mass, orientation and internal arrangements of churches, and the solemnization of the liturgy. Elliottt, Peter J. “A Question of Ceremonial.” In Kocik, ed., Reform of the Reform?, 257-73. A reminder that the kind of space in which liturgical actions take place is of great importance. Feulner, Hans-Jürgen. “‘Anglican Use of the Roman Rite?’ The Unity of the Liturgy in the Diversity of Its Rites and Forms.” Antiphon 17/1 (2013), 31-72. A much wider survey of modern liturgical history than the title might indicate. Foley, Edward. From Age to Age: How Christians Have Celebrated the Eucharist, rev. and exp. edn (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2008), 297-352. Final chapter with a broad survey of twentieth-century developments. Foley, Edward, ed. A Commentary on the Order of Mass of The Roman Missal (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2011). A substantial, multi-author treatment of each part of the novus ordo Mass from historical, theological, and mystagogical viewpoints along with assessments of the 2010 English renderings, which often paraphrase rather than translate the official Latin text. Folsom, Cassian. “From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many: How it Happened and Why.” Adoremus Online Edition 2/4-6 (September 1996) <adoremus.org/1966/09>. A revealing narrative of the contentious process, beset by conflicting priorities that produced the four Eucharistic prayers of the Roman Catholic novus ordo Mass. Gabriele, Matthew and David M. Perry. The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe (New York: Harper 2021). A recent popular history that seeks to correct modern conceptions of “dark ages” immersed in ignorance and violence. Gamber, Klaus. “Die Hinwendung nach Osten bei der Messfeier im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert.” In Gamber, Liturgie und Kirchenbau: Studien zur Geschichte der Messfeier und des Gotteshauses in der Frühzeit. Studia Patristica et Liturgica, 6 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1976). Gamber, Klaus. The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background. Trans. Klaus D. Grimm (Fort Collins, CO: Roman Catholic Books, c1993); 1. The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background - 2. Facing the Lord: On the Building of Churches and Facing East in Prayer. The author drew on his incomparable understanding of liturgical sources to address two contemporary problems. His Codices liturgici latini antiquiores (1963/1968) is an indispensable  24 reference for the liturgical historian. Gerhards, Albert and Benedikt Kranemann. Introduction to the Study of Liturgy. Trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2017 [orig. pub. 2013]) Giampietro, Nicola. The Development of the Liturgical Reform as Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948 to 1970 (Fort Collins, Colo.: Roman Catholic Books, 2005). Antonelli was secretary of the liturgical commission during the Second Vatican Council. His candid (and not always flattering) assessments of both project and participants are central to understanding the process that produced the revised rites. Grillo, Andrea. Beyond Pius V: Conflicting Interpretations of the Liturgical Reform (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013 [orig. pub. 2007]). Grillo believes that the bishops of Vatican Council II “decided the need to profoundly modify the rite of Pius V.” He is impatient with “traditionalists” who read the evidence otherwise, as well as the “regressive nostalgia” of those attached to the older Latin liturgy. The English translation includes a chapter (“Liturgical Reform and Virtual Reality”) on Summorum Pontificum, a document which allegedly “leaves the reader utterly amazed and confused.” Harbert, Bruce E. “Englishing the Mass.” In T&T Clark Companion to Liturgy, ed. Alcuin Reid (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 383-400. An excellent introduction to the problems, in good measure terminological, of translating ancient liturgical texts. Hayburn, Robert F. Papal Legislation on Sacred Music, 95 A.D. to 1977 A.D. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979). Heid, Stefan. “The Early Christian Altar.” In Sacred Liturgy: The Source and Summit of the Life of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), 87-114. An essential contribution to the early history of the Christian altar. It is not derived from an early Christian supper table, as often assumed, but from the ancient “sacral table” reserved for sacrifice. See also Nussbaum. Hitchcock, James. The Recovery of the Sacred (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1974). An insight, often prophetic, into the Zeitgeist that surrounded and influenced the new Catholic liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council. Jensen, Robin M. “Recovering Ancient Ecclesiology: The Place of the Altar and the Orientation of Prayer in the Early Latin Church,” Worship 89 (2015), 99-124. Johnson, Maxwell E. “Imagining Early Christian Liturgy: The Traditio Apostolica—A Case Study,” in Liturgy’s Imagined Past/s: Methodologies and Materials in the Writing of Liturgical History Today, ed. Teresa Berger and Bryan D. Spinks (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016), 93-120. A study of the so-called “anaphora of  25 Hippolytus,” assumed (erroneously) in the early 1960s to be an early third-century Eucharistic prayer from Rome. It became the model for the most frequently recited Roman Catholic Eucharistic prayer (II). Johnston, William H. Care for the Church and Its Liturgy: A Study of Summorum Pontificum and the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2015). A meticulous study with reflections that place SP in context.  26 Jungmann, Josef Andreas. Pastoral Liturgy (New York: Herder and Herder, 1962; orig. pub. 1960). Jungmann, Josef Andreas. “Commentary on Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.” In Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 2, ed. Herbert Forgrimler (New York: Herder, 1967), 1-87 Jungmann, Josef Andreas. “Um die Reform des römischen Kanons: eine kritische Stellungnahme zu C. Vagagginis Entwürfl.” Liturgisches Jahrbuch 17 (1967). The use of the colloquial Austrian diminutive “l” ending does not seem complimentary. Keller, Paul Jerome. “The Importance of a Correct Definition of Liturgy.” Antiphon 26/2 (2022), 154-78 King, Archdale A. Liturgies of the Religious Orders (London: Longmans, Green, 1955) King, Archdale A. Liturgies of the Past (London: Longmans, Green, 1959) Kocik, Thomas M. Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate: Reform or Return (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003). Framed as a debate between a “traditionalist” and a “reformist,” the author explores both sides. Appendices provide the texts Ordinaries of both Masses (Latin/English) and additional essays. Kwasniewski, Peter. From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War: Catholics Respond to the Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes on the Latin Mass (Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2021). Despite its title this volume furnishes a wide selection (70) of thoughtful reactions by clergy and laity to Pope Francis’s rejection of his predecessors’ accommodations for the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass. Kwasniewski, Peter. “Andrea Grillo: The Mind Behind the Motu Proprio.” Posted on OnePeter5 (18 August 2021). Kwasniewski, Peter. “‘O, What a Tangled Web …’ Thirty-Three Falsehoods in the CDW’s Responsa ad Dubia.” The Latin Mass 31/1 (Winter-Spring 2022) [CDW = Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments]. The author’s point of view can be guessed from the title, but this is an important clarification of terminology that is often confused or imprecise in official Church documents Lameri, Angelo. La “Pontificia Commissio de sacra liturgia praeparatroria Concilii Vaticani II”: Documenti, Testi, Verbali (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2013). Publication of primary documents (including oral interventions) of the Second Vatican Council.  27 Lang, Uwe Michael. Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004). A scholarly, readable survey of the theological justification and architectural proofs for priest and people facing east for prayer and the Eucharist. Latin Mass Directory. This Internet site (www.latinmassdir.org) describes itself as “a Catholic directory of approved traditional Latin Masses.” Among several other comparable sites, latinmass.com includes the Society of Pius X. Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Listings of events in the UK and useful for the “Resources” part of the website (e.g., text of the “Agatha Christie Indult”). <lms.uk.org> Maier, Hans. “Verlust des Sakralen?: Liturgie und Kultur.” Stimmem der Zeit 137 (2012), 110-20. A pro-reform statement with remarks about its effect on church architecture, sacred art, and music. Marini, Piero. The Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007). Annibale Bugnini’s personal secretary and papal Master of Ceremonies (1987-2007). Though he served Pope Benedict for two years, he had no affection for the traditional Mass, as might be expected of a Bugnini disciple. Menendez, Matthew R. “Youth and the Liturgy.” In Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Issues and Perspectives (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 156- 73. Interesting narrative of the author’s experiences (and travails) in trying to introduce the Latin Mass at Harvard University. New Liturgical Movement. A large website moderated by Gregory DiPippo with linked resources and online documents. It is updated daily with news of events and scholarly essays. <newliturgicalmovement.org> Nussbaum, Otto. Der Standort des Liturgen am christlichen Altar vor dem Jahre 1000 [The Place of the Celebrant at the Christian Altar before the Year 1000], 2 vols., Theophania 18 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1965). A wide and informative survey of church buildings, but an ultimately failed attempt to defend historically the versus populum celebration of Mass. See de Blaauw. O’Hearn, Conrad (director). Mass of the Ages. A professionally produced video about the usus antiquior (parts 1 and 2 currently [9/2022] available). Part 1 consists of testimonies by bishops, priests, and laity; part 2 is a presentation of the at times murky and contrived process that generated the Missal of Paul VI.  28 Pagliarani, Davide. “Letter from the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, in Light of the Publication of the motu proprio ‘Traditionis custodes’.” (22 July 2021). The two Masses, the traditional Latin and that of Pope Paul VI represent two incompatible world views. Pentin, Edward. “Did Paul VI Abrogate the Traditional Latin Mass?” National Catholic Register (posted 13 November 2021). The author weighs the conflicting evidence pro and con relative to the assertion made by the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship that it was abrogated. Pristas, Lauren. “The Post-Vatican II Revisions of Collects: Solemnities and Feasts.” In Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Issues and Perspectives (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 50-90, Ratzinger, Joseph. The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000). A classic study of the liturgy across time and space, its form and relationship to visual art and music. Jewish origins are somewhat overstated. Ratzinger, Joseph. Introduction to Simandron, der Wachklopfer: Gedenkschrift für Klaus Gamber (1919-1989), ed. Wilhelm Nyssen (Cologne: Luthe Verlag, 1989). A critical assessment of the process (“ein Machen”) by which the novus ordo Mass was confected. Reid, Alcuin. “After Sacrosanctum Concilium—Continuity or Rupture?” In T&T Clark Companion to Liturgy, ed. Alcuin Reid (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 297-316. Basic documents are summarized and evaluated. The many dimensions of the “rupture” await study. Reid, Alcuin, ed. Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Issues and Perspectives (London: Bloomsbury, 2016). Bishops and laity reflect on various aspects of the reform: collects, music, Scripture, Holy Week, and young people’s involvement (Menendez). Sancta Missa. Website of the Canons of St. John Cantius with video “tutorials” for various celebrations of the Latin Mass (with chants of the Ordinary and the case of the High Mass). <sanctamissa.org> Senn, Frank C., ed. New Eucharistic Prayers: An Ecumenical Study of Their Development and Structure (New York: Paulist Press, 1987). Denominational surveys are followed by examinations of individual parts of the prayers. Torevell, David. Losing the Sacred: Ritual, Modernity and Liturgical Reform (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000)  29 Vogel, Cyrille. “Sol aequinoctialis.” Revue des sciences religieuses 36 (1962), 175- 211. Churches were sited so that the apse faced that point in the eastern sky where the sun rose on the equinoxes. Wallraff, Martin. Christus verus sol: Sonnenverehrung und Christentum in der Spätantike. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband 32 (Münster in Westf.: Aschendorff, 2001).