PONTIFICIUM ATHENAEUM S.

ANSELMI DE URBE
PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM LITURGICAM
___________________________________________________
Thesis ad Lauream
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO
THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Christiaan W. Kappes
Tesi per il conseguimento del Dottorato in Sacra Liturgia
Romae 2012
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................6-12
1.0 CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................................................13
1.1 Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Consilium......................................................13-14
1.2 The Council: Sacrosanctum Concilium...............................................................14-21
1.3 The Consilium.......................................................................................................22-23
1.4 Sacram Liturgiam and the Consilium..................................................................23-24
1.5 Inter Oecumenici: The Reform Begins in Earnest.............................................24-25
1.5.1 Organization of the Consilium...................................................................26
1.5.2 Functional Structure of the Consilium 1964-1967....................................27
1.5.3 Reforms........................................................................................................28
1.5.4 Ceremonial Elements............................................................................28-29
1.5.5 Additions to the Ordo Missae.....................................................................29
1.6 Summary................................................................................................................29-30
1.7 Tres abhinc annos: The Consilium Begins Reconstruction................................31-33
1.8 Summary.....................................................................................................................33
1.9 Transitional Missal According to 4 May 1967....................................................33-34
1.10. Summary.............................................................................................................34-35
2.0 CHAPTER TWO...................................................................................................................36
2.1 From Tres abhinc annos to the Normative Mass...............................................36-37
2.2 Approved Principles of Reform for Coetus X in April 1964..............................37-41
2.3 Chronological Description of the Reform for Coetus X....................................42-43
2.4 Coetus Xs Mass Schema as adopted by the Consilium...........................................44
2.4.1 The Liturgy of the Word and Offertory..............................................44-48
2.4.2 Canon Missae........................................................................................48-53
2.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................54-55
3.0 CHAPTER THREE...............................................................................................................56
3.1 Principles of the Reform..........................................................................................56
3.2 Altiora principia: Fundamental Principles.........................................................56-59
3.3 Operational Principles.........................................................................................59-60
3.4 Commentary..........................................................................................................61-69
3.5 Ecumenism............................................................................................................70-73
3.6 Coetus X and Its Organization and Function within the Consilium................73-76
3.7 Specific Treatment of the Structure and Operation of Coetus X...........................77
3.7.1 Process of Approval of Any Reformed Liturgical Books...................77-78
3.7.2 Theoretical Organization of the Work of Each Group......................78-80
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
3
3.7.3 Procedure for Enacting Any Reform Approved by the Consilium....80-81
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR..................................................................................................................82
4.1 The Ordo Missae According to the Missa Normativa.........................................82-85
4.2 Ritus Initiales.........................................................................................................85-92
4.3 Salutation...................................................................................................92-97
4.4 Actio Poenitentialis.........................................................................................98
4.4.1 Kyrie Eleison.............................................................................98-100
4.4.2 The Kyrie in Relation to Penitential Compositions.............100-107
4.5 The Gloria..............................................................................................108-111
4.6 The Collect.............................................................................................111-113
4.7 Readings: The Liturgy of the Word Proper........................................113-121
4.8 The Credo...............................................................................................121-124
4.9 Prayer of the Faithful: Petitions..........................................................124-128

5.0 CHAPTER FIVE.................................................................................................................129
5.1 The Offertory: the Bread.................................................................................129-132
5.2 The Offertory: the Wine...................................................................................132-136
5.3 Canon Missae: The Preface..............................................................................133-139
5.4 Canon Missae: The Roman Canon..................................................................139-141
5.4.1 Canon Missae: Form A. Te igitur......................................................141-145
5.4.2 Canon Missae: Form A. Memento....................................................146-148
5.4.3 Canon Missae: Form A. Communicantes.........................................148-149
5.4.4 Canon Missae: Form A. Hanc igitur........................................................150
5.4.5 Canon Missae: Form A. Quam oblationem......................................150-151
5.4.6 Canon Missae: Form A. Institution Narrative................................151-153
5.4.7 Canon Missae: Form A. Unde et memores...............................................154
5.4.8 Canon Missae: Form A. Supra quae & Supplices te rogamus.........154-155
5.4.9 Canon Missae: Form A. Momento....................................................155-156
5.4.10 Canon Missae: Form A. Nobis quoque peccatoribus.....................156-158
5.4.11 Canon Missae: Form A. Per quem..................................................158-159
5.4.12 Canon Missae: Form A. Per Ipsum.................................................159-160
5.5 Canon Missae: Form B.....................................................................................160-161
5.5.1 Canon Missae: Form B. Memento & Communicantes....................162-162
5.5.2 Canon Missae: Form B. Hanc igitur-Supplices te rogamus............162-164
5.5.3 Canon Missae: Form B. Momento & Nobis quoque peccatoribus..164-165
5.5.4 Canon Missae: Form B. Per quem & Per ipsum.....................................165
5.6 Canon Missae: Form C.....................................................................................166-167
5.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................168-171
6.0 CHAPTER SIX....................................................................................................................172
6.1 The Our Father.................................................................................................172-174
6.2 The Our Father: the Embolism.......................................................................174-177
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
4
6.3 The Pax Domini.................................................................................................177-180
6.4 Pax......................................................................................................................180-182
6.5 The Commingling and Agnus Dei...................................................................183-186
6.6 The Communion Preparation..........................................................................186-188
6.7 The Ecce Agnus Dei..........................................................................................188-190
6.8 The Communion Rite.......................................................................................190-192
6.9 The Post-Communion Rite..............................................................................192-196
6.10 The Post-Communion Oration......................................................................196-197
6.11 The Closing rites.............................................................................................198-199
6.12 Conclusions.....................................................................................................199-200
7.0 CHAPTER SEVEN..............................................................................................................201
7.1 The Synod of Bishops.......................................................................................201-203
7.2 Query I at the Synod of Bishops......................................................................203-208
7.2.1 Query I, Section 2..............................................................................208-209
7.2.2 Query I, Section 3..............................................................................210-212
7.3 Query II.............................................................................................................213-214
7.4 Query III............................................................................................................214-216
7.5 Query IV............................................................................................................216-217
7.6 Papal Queries on the Normative Mass...........................................................217-218
7.6.1 Papal Query I: Eucharistic Prayers.................................................218-220
7.6.2 Eucharistic Prayer III.......................................................................221-224
7.7 Query II & III: The Words of Institution.......................................................224-228
7.8 The Nicene and Apostles Creed......................................................................228-229
7.9 Conclusions about the Synod...........................................................................229-232

8.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................233
8.1 Theoretical Considerations..............................................................................233-235
8.2 Altiora Principia: Principles One and Two.....................................................236-237
8.3 Third Principle: Active Participation.............................................................237-242
8.4 Other Theoretical and Operative Principles..................................................242-243
8.5 The Normative Mass and Its Overall Structure............................................243-244
8.6 The Synod of Bishops and the Normative Mass............................................244-245
BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................246-257
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
5
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Introduction
INTRODUCTION

An earnest reform within the Roman Catholic Church had already begun in the ambit of
her public worship before the formal closing of the Second Vatican Council on December 8
th

1965. This reform was inaugurated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Holy Father established a
papal organ of liturgical reform for the Latin rite known as the Consilium ad exsequendam
Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. This impetus came from the Constitution Sacrosanctum
Concilium of the 4
th
of December 1963. the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra
Liturgia, dubbed as the Consilium, thereafter was to be the authoritative voice of the Holy
Father for interpreting and applying the principles and decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council in regard to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
1
This papal organ began its task to apply the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy by means
of a full revision of the liturgical books of the Latin rite upon the Consiliums establishment as
an official body following the decree of Sacram Liturgiam on the 25
th
of January 1964. In the
2
course of that historic work of reform, specifically regarding the revision of the ritus et preces of
the Roman Missal in force, the Consilium adopted a policy of gradual simplification of the Pian
Missal (editio typica 1962). This was in order to arrive at a final and thorough revision of the
Roman Missal.
3
It is the task of the present work to describe the process by which the Consilium reformed
a specific part of the Pian Missal, i.e. editio typica 1962. The reform of the Roman missal was
4
1
P. MARINI, Il primo Periodo de attivit del Consilium: prospettive e difficolt
1
(Marzo-Giugno 1964), Ephemerides Liturgicae 107 (1993) 401-439. In Appendix I, P. Marini
reproduces the original Promemoria submitted by A. Bugnini for Paul VI, which ideas resulted in
the Consilium as a reforming agency instead of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (SRC).
PAUL VI, Sacram Liturgiam, Acta Apostolica Sedis 56 (1964) 139.
2
P. MARINI, LIstruzione Inter Oecumenici, una svolta decisiva (Luglio-Ottobre
3
1964), Ephemerides Liturgicae 108 (1994) 225.
However, it should be kept in mind that the simplification of rubrics in 1964 and 1967
4
were not considered New Missals, rather rubrical adjustments and textual deletions of the
editio typica 1962 (itself a transitional Missal according to Rubricarum intructionem) in order to
transition to a new Missal.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Introduction
meant to establish a definitive schema for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Mass. Just such a
schema was eventually proposed by the Consilium on the 24
th
of May 1966, before its debut
before the Fathers of the extraordinary synod of bishops in 1967. This work intends to limit itself
to an investigation of Ordinary of Mass celebrated before the synod of bishops. This limited area
of study had been entrusted to Coetus X of the newly formed Consilium. The new form of Mass
was officially named the Missa normativa, or Normative Mass. The Normative Mass represents
the first attempt to introduce the Church to a complete liturgical reform of the Ordo Missae of
the Latin rite in accord with the fundamental and operational principles of liturgical reform as
emanating from the Fathers of the Consilium. These principles of reform are themselves the fruit
of the Consilium Fathers and peritis reflections and officially sanctioned interpretation of
Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is the intent of this work to present the text of the Ordo Missae of
the Missa normativa in order to evaluate the resultant rite produced by the Fathers of the
Consilium in conjunction with their periti. This work also intends to shed light on the motives
and reasoning of these Fathers and periti for individual revisions and compositions of texts with
the purpose of demonstrating that the Missa normativa was not merely another transitional
form of the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy in order to arrive at the Novus Ordo Missae of
1969. Instead, this work attempts to highlight a conscious application of the fundamental and
operational liturgical principles, applied by the Consilium periti and voted upon by the Fathers of
the Consilum, that led to the establishment the basic structure of the Normative Mass. This
Normative Mass was to be the bedrock upon which any new liturgy was to be based. It will be
shown that the Consiliums approach to the structure of the Mass also admitted local variation
and innovation. Nonetheless, the skeleton of the Normative Mass was the desired final product of
the Consilium Fathers. It represented their sincere desires for a reformed liturgy. An appointed
group of voting Fathers (i.e. Cardinals, prelates and priests) were responsible for the final
approval of the various schemata as proposed by the periti of the Consilium ad exsequendam
Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. After presenting the full schema of the Normative Mass, the
present work intends to concentrate on investigating the Ordo of the Normative Mass. It hopes to
put into relief the manner in which Consilium principles were applied to some individual parts of
that liturgy. Additionally, the work plans to justify its claim that the Normative Mass was meant
2
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Introduction
to be the definitive rite of the Mass. This will be accomplished by an analysis of the individual
sections of the Normative Mass from various perspectives. The result of investigating the
historical background, application of principles, and resultant changes in a rite should
demonstrate that this form of celebration was in fact the near-final result of applying the
principles of liturgical reform as adopted by the Consilium. The reason why this claim might be
contested is due to the fact that the Normative Mass failed to gain unanimous acceptance before
the representative bishops of the extraordinary synod of bishops in Rome in 1967. At this synod
5
the bishops expressed their views on the Normative Mass in a rather negative fashion. These
responses were interpreted by the Pope and Consilium members as a failure to gain approval of
their reform efforts. This singular event led to the ultimate failure of the Normative Mass to
become the skeleton over which the new post-Conciliar liturgy would ultimately be enfleshed.
6
The method of this work will introduce briefly the historical formation of the rite itself and then
report on the work of the Consilium. The main focus of this work will be to evaluate the
individual rites of the Mass in a systematic way. This work will explain the provenance of the
various rites in the Normative Mass. It also hopes to justify each reforms value in light of the
Consiliums opinions on liturgical history and its concerns for the modern needs of man and
legitimate cultural adaptation.
In regard to authors who have studied the Normative Mass itself, none have treated
specifically the Normative Mass as a separate entity and specific area of study, except per
accidens. Maurizio Barba has published copious notes, various minutes, votes of the Fathers, and
3
The implication here is that the failure of a large project often is an occasion to re-
5
invent the project so that all the labor and work has not been in vain. Something like this can be
argued to have happened with the Normative Mass. Its failure was the occasion to start a new
project. This new project did not begin ex novo, but adopted some of its principles and structure
from the Normative Mass. These rites were then combined with various other rites suggested by
the Pope, curial agencies and through surveys provided by clerics and laypeople. This process
will be treated more amply in the main body of the work.
CONSILIUM, De liturgia in primo synodo episcoporum, Notitiae 3 (1967) 357.
6
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Introduction
discussions of the Consilium periti. His most valuable work in this area is his commentary and
7
anthology of texts found under the title: La riforma conciliare dell Ordo Missae. In this work
M. Barba has published several previously unedited manuscripts and schemata detailing the
work and discussions of the periti of Coetus X of the Consilium. In particular, he has reproduced
the proposed schemata of the rite of Mass leading up to the Normative Mass as celebrated before
the Synod Fathers of 1967 in Rome. Besides the Vatican Council documents themselves and
papal decrees in Acta Apostolic Sedis, which are the principle sources for understanding the
Churchs official process of reform, there are significant studies on the reform in general. For
instance, such documentation exists in Notitiae and within the works of several liturgical
8
writers, themselves part of the historical reform process. The bulk of documentation is published
by Ephemerides Liturgicae, which reproduced documents and materials on the same subject.
Among the principle authors of interest are Piero Marini and Aim-George Martimort. An
9 10
additional indispensable source is the Ordo Romanus Primus from among the Ordines Romani
11
and Missale Romanum (editio typica 1962) for comparing and contrasting the various parts of the
Ordo Missae of the Normative Mass to its historical predecessors. In the realm of liturgical
history, J. Jungmanns Mass of the Roman Rite is indispensable. Jungmanns magnum opus is
12
4
M. BARBA, La riforma conciliare dellOrdo Missae. Il percorso storico-redazionale dei riti
7
dingresso, di offertorio e di comunione (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 120),
CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 2002.
CONSILIUM, Septima sessione plenaria Consilii, Notitiae 2 (1966) 313. CONSILIUM, De
8
Missa normativa, Notitiae 3 (1967) 371-380.
P. MARINI, LIstruzione Inter Oecumenici, una svolta decisiva (Luglio-Ottobre 1964),
9
Ephemerides Liturgicae 108 (1994) 205-231. P. MARINI, Il primo Periodo de attivit del
Consilium: prospettive e difficolt (Marzo-Giugno 1964), Ephemerides Liturgicae 107
(1993) 401-403.
A.-G. MARTIMORT, Adaptation liturgique, Ephemerides Liturgicae 79 (1965) 3-16.
10
Ordo Romanus Primus, in Les Ordines romani du haut moyen ge 2. Les Textes (Ordines I-
11
XIII), ed. Michel Andrieu (Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense, tudes et documents fascicule 23),
Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense administration, Louvain 1971, 67-108.
J. JUNGMANN, The Mass of the Roman Rite. Its Origins and Development 1-2, tr. Francis A.
12
Brunner, Benzinger Brothers, New York
1
1951.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Introduction
important for this work not only because of its authoritative acceptance as a historical study on
the origins and history of the Roman rite, but most especially because the Consilium explicitly
favored Jungmanns historical presentation and interpretation of the Roman rite. The Consilium
praised J. Jungmanns Missarum Sollemnia as a valuable compilation and harmonization of the
entire range of knowledge from previous liturgical studies of the Latin rite. J. Jungmann had
incorporated into his work a great variety of studies and authors. Liturgical interests and studies
multiplied exponentially following the advent of liturgical movement, especially as inaugurated
during the Pontificate of Pius X.
13
There are other published studies important for this work. Vincenzo Raffa, in Liturgia
eucaristica. Mistogogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla pastorale practica, has
already outlined the rationale for many of the reforms of the Novus Ordo Missae. some of these
are germane to the Normative Mass as well. Various articles of Carlo Braga are indispensable
14
for understanding the workings and process of reform of the Consilium, as well as the thinking
of the individual periti. Their work, however, is principally concerning the Missal of Paul VI,
15
and again most often mentions the Normative Mass only in passing, i.e., a matter of proper
5
Nel frattempo per si portavano a termine anche gli studi che Pio X aveva auspicato e nel
13
1948 Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., poteva riassumerli e publicarli nella sua celebre opera
Missarum Sollemnia che stata tradotta in molte lingue e diffusa in tutto il mondo. See the
Consilium publication Memorandum sullattivit del Coetus X De Ordine Missae e sulle
esigenze, possibilit e mete della riforma dell De Ordo Missae in conformit ai decreti
conciliari. This is reproduced by J. WAGNER, Zur Reform des Ordo Missae, in Liturgia
opera divina e umana.Studi sulla riforma liturgica offerti a S.E. Mons. Annibale Bugnini in
occasione del suo 70 compleanno, ed. P. Jounel - R. Kaczynski G. Paqualletti (Bibliotheca
Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 26), Edizioni liturgiche, Roma 1982, 263-290. This last line is
meant to distinguish the liturgical movement of Dom Gueranger from the more modern
movement following the legislation and writings of Pope St. Pius X.
V. RAFFA, Liturgia eucaristica. Mistagogia della Messa: dalla storia e dalla teologia alla
14
postorale practica (Biblioteca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 100), CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche,
Roma "2003.
C. BRAGA, Instructio ad exsecutionem Constitutionis de Liturgia recte ordinandam-
15
Commentarium, Ephemerides Liturgicae 78 (1964) 421-518; C. BRAGA De liturgia in quarta
periodo Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Ephemerides Liturgicae 79 (1965) 377-387; C.
BRAGA, Istauratio liturgica: anno primo, Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 141-155.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Introduction
chronology when explaining the process of reform resulting in the Novus Ordo Missae. Nearly
everything written which touches on the Normative Mass does not intend to treat it as the focus
of a an article. As such, no specific study of the Normative Mass as a separate entity seems to
have been written. With the exception the initial work of M. Barba, there exists no evaluation of
the parts and whole of the Normative Mass in order to discern whether or not it was in fact a
faithful application of the Consiliums fundamental principles. In fact, there is nothing currently
known that attempts to treat the individual rites of this Mass in light of the tradition and
adaptation to the modern man. Only the celebrated work of Annibale Bugnini (La riforma
liturgica 1948-1975) and M. Barbas La riforma conciliare dellOrdo Missae dedicate
substantial time and effort to describing the nature and intent of the Normative Mass itself. A.
Bugnini treats both the major historical stages of the project as well as its successes and failures
before the synod of bishops (1967). M. Barba has edited many of the important schemata and
described many projects of the Consilium on the Normative Mass. He has also commented on
large sections of the Normative Mass in order to delineate the process of reform and hightlight
certain motives of some of the individual reforms. With the exception of these two works, it
seems that the subject of this thesis is unique. There seem to be no limits constraining the present
work because of studies that have already been published. The one exception is in regard to
delineation of the technical reform process in order to arrival at the Normative Mass as already
accomplished by M. Barba. A. Bugnini in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy 1948-1975
16
provides a description of the Missa Normativa and its short-lived history, but no further pastoral
or historical evaluation of the Mass has ever been done.
There are, then, several tasks left to be done with regard to this rite of Mass. There has
never been a work outlining the rationale for the reform of the individual rites, which is
6
M. Barba, in his introduction, specifically hopes that his recently published work will finally
16
spur on some students and scholars of liturgical science to take advantage of this rich field of
investigation. Non nostra intenzione offrire qui unanalisi completa dei riti, convinti che la
celebrazione liturgica esorbiti dai limiti imposti da unanalisi descrittiva. Tale volume, pertanto,
non avendo lo scopo di recondurre tutta la ricchezza poliedrica dellargomento ad una
organizzaione definitiva dei dati studiati, si auspica di lasciare aperti orizzonti pi vasti di
indagine e prospettive in altrettanti estesi filoni di ricerca. M. BARBA, La riforma conciliare
dell Ordo Missae, xxi.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS
Introduction
important for the Novus Ordo Missae as well. This is the case since many of the rites that were
altered in the Churchs actual liturgy, following Vatican II, can be traced back to the debates
involving the Normative Mass. Also, a step-by-step analysis of the methodology of the
Consilium and its application to the individual rites of Mass is missing. This analysis is
necessary to understand the way in which each reform was discussed and evaluated by the
Consilium. Lastly, there is still no full explanation as to the motives behind the Consliums
abandonment of the Normative Mass project in order to arrive at the Novus Ordo Missae in its
stead. With this in mind, apart from the mere historical value of this rite of Mass, it is important
to put into relief the role of the Normative Mass as a real reform which contributed to the
liturgical renewal in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The value of this work may be not
only its description of the history of the reform of this peculiar rite of Mass but also its insights
that explain why A. Bugnini was so profoundly effected by the lack of appreciation for the
schema of this Mass at its actual Eucharistic celebration that occurred during the extraordinary
synod of 1967. Many hopes of the Consilium Fathers and periti rested upon the success of this
Mass at the time when it was presented to representatives of the episcopal conference of the
Catholic Church. As such, it is remarkable that no one has attempted to understand why A.
Bugnini in particular, and the Consilium periti in general, valued this proposed reform of the
Roman liturgy so much. In fact, before the synod of 1967, many members of the Consilium
anticipated its complete success. In conclusion, a treatment of this theme may provide:

a. An explanation of some historical, pastoral and theological reasons as to why the
Normative Mass is the authentic expression of the Consiliums work.
b.) A demonstration that the Ordo Missae of the Normative Mass is a paramount reference
point for liturgical reform.
c.) A comprehension of the origin of several innovations within the Novus Ordo Missae, for
some of the structure and prayers of the Novus Ordo were the result of either criticisms or
suggestions for improving the Missa normativa as reformed by the Consilium.
7
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
The previous chapters sought to discover not only the theoretical principles of the
Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia, but especially attempted to
uncover how its principles were used to justify any given reform of the Mass liturgy. The Missa
normativa was the result of the explicit invocation and application of these described principles
by a select chosen group of experts with official approval of the Catholic Church. The first
chapters described the precise number of principles and their definitions. The following chapters
were an attempt to highlight which principles were applied to each section of the new Mass
liturgy. The last chapter described the Synod Fathers reactions to the periti and Fathers final
product of the Normative Mass. This study relied upon the testimonies from the Pontiff,
Roman curia, Consilium Fathers and periti. The goal in evaluating the reform was to avoid
personal interpretations or personal hypothetical justifications for the reform of any given rite.
Instead, there was a search for explicit reasons leading to the changes in the Mass liturgy
according to records and accounts of the very persons officially entrusted with the task of
liturgical reform.
8.1 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The first end, or the aim of the investigation, is none other than to find the pattern, the
logic, and hierarchy of principles applied in the overall reform. The study sought to discover
whether there was a universal or transcending principle consistently invoked and obviously
applied in all the reformed rites. If this sort of principle were discovered in each and every rite,
it would certainly qualify as an overarching principle or principium altius.
Secondly, this study sought to discover the principles by which individual rites were
reformed. An important principle could be only quasi-universal. It would be such that it affects
all instances of a large category of rites, but not all rites. Such a quasi-universal principle should
be observed in every rite that falls within such a category. A principle like this, theoretically,
should be necessarily applied any time certain recognizable conditions are present. Of course,
this principles application also presumes that there is a universal group of categories that can be
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
defined. If all rites of type A need reform by principle x, then in every instance of A one should
find traces or inspiration in any reformed rite by the application of principle x.
Like the scientist who uses repeated observation of repeated processes and predictable
patterns to formulate probable and even quasi-certain laws of the universe, this study hoped to
uncover the real logic or the system of actual application of the principles of the Consilium.
These principles and their application were investigated in concrete, i.e., their application by the
Consilium was studied to understand how they really affected the reform of the rite of the Mass.
1
If patterns emerge or cause-effect relationships are discovered through such an analysis, then one
can make a strong case for laws or regulatory ideas that determine the treatment of all or any
particular rite of a certain category (like a species or genus).
Now, outside of the field of mere theory, there is the practical side of things. This is in the
realm of action. If a theoretical principle is applied to a concrete circumstance, then there should
be an observable effect of its application. This theoretical principle or regulatory idea is nothing
else than an imposed mental category which is a necessary condition for being able to
manipulate the rite or visible ritual that is to be reformed. In the case of the Mass, the Consilium
was responsible for taking the phenomenon of the Missal of Pius V and determining what parts
of it this Missal were Roman or Latin in structure. Naturally, theological and liturgical
presuppositions needed to be adopted in this task. They would serve as an interpretive key for
judging and interpreting the phenomenon of the Mass of Pius V. Undoubtedly, this was the
privilege of the periti and Fathers in harmony with Pope Paul VI. More specifically, the periti, in
harmony with the Fathers of the Consilium and Pope Paul VI, invoked their own regulatory ideas
from at least three sources: theology, history, anthropology. Their theological and liturgical
principles were described in detail in Chapter three.
Furthermore, there is the question of laws of liturgical reform. The theoretical laws
were easily identified and enumerated (chapter three) with one surprising and major exception.
Of course, this is a posteriori. First, there are the observations of what is happening, then there
1
is are a series of propositions describing the state of affairs, and finally a reasoning process
attempting to arrive at laws.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
ecumenism was identified and applied as if it were an explicit and approved principle of
liturgical reform. However, strangely, nowhere in Papal pronouncements, or in official lists of
principles enumerated by the Consilium, will one find this as an official principle of reform.
Perhaps one should look to Unitatis redintegratio? Yet, if one looked to this document as the
charter or impetus for such principles, ecumenisms principles do not seem to demand liturgical
reform. Certainly liturgical reform does not absolutely demand ecumenism. Instead, what was
2
discovered is rather strange. There is no explicit regulatory idea of ecumenical sensitivity (or
considerations) in the official liturgical reform of the Catholic Church. The result is something
unable to be explained; namely, the explicit concern for and even explicit use of ecumenism for
the reform. It was used in the adoption or change of many rites of the Missa normativa through
explicitly invoking ecumenical considerations. Several rites underwent significant change by
invoking this quasi-principle. The question becomes, if the principle was so common and if it
were so important, how did it escape the members of the Consilium to publish it? Like the other
principles, one would expect that ecumenism would be either a fundamental or operational
principle of liturgical reform. However one would look in vain to find it mentioned. It is clear,
from the investigation, in chapters four through six, that both the pope and the Consilium Fathers
were comfortable and encouraged with regard to ecumenical considerations in liturgical reform.
However, it must be said that one can not find it invoked as a formal principle. One can only
conclude that it was something that creeped into the liturgical process of reform as a
commonly accepted a priori.
In conclusion, other than the quasi-principle of ecumenism, a clear delineation was
provided by the Consilium for how it was to consider reforms, i.e., the application of the
principles in chapter three.

CONCILIUM VATICANUM II, Unitatis redintegratio, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965) 243-274.
2
For an exptrapolation of the principles of ecumenism see the summary: VATICAN COUNCIL II,
Catholic Principles of Ecumenism, in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979. Conciliar. Papal
and Curial Texts, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville 1982, 47.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
8.2 ALTIORA PRINCIPIA: PRINCIPLES ONE AND TWO
Next, the study needs to ask whether or not there arose out of the reforms an overarching
or universal principle? Was there one principle or were there many applied in concrete reforms?
First of all, there is the principium altius that considers the Liturgy as an exercise of the
priestly office of Jesus Christ. This was meant to underline the paschal mystery as the central
liturgical theme. It emphasized that all liturgical actions are by their nature public. This is due to
the fact that the paschal mystery is the common inheritance of all men. For example, when the
Mass is offered the sacrifice is potentially efficacious for all who willfully participate in it. No
one person can be the unique or private recipient of the graces of the paschal mystery to the
exclusion of another who wishes to participate in the same sacramental graces. Sanctifying grace
is available to all depending on their subjective dispositions. Each Mass, then, is directed toward
the entire Christian community for its sanctification. The Mass is never directed uniquely to one
individual to the exclusion of another to receive sacramental graces. The Mass cannot be
exhausted by one person. Also this principle was considered a foil against sacramental
minimalism. Any attempt to reduce the sacrament to its bare essentials so that one could
celebrate it validly was foreign to the mysterys nature. Each mystery has rituals and presumes
a generous participation of the faithful. Any attempt to discourage an ample use of rich liturgical
symbolism or the assistance of the faithful tends to psychologically convey that the act is a
private possession for an exclusive number of individuals. With this in mind, there is no question
that all the reformed rites within the Normative Mass conformed to this principle. It is a
transcendent principle of Consilium liturgical reform. No rites that were reformed attempted to
make a distinction between public and private liturgy. They attempted always to show
conscious inclusion of the hierarchical structure of the Church. There was special consideration
to include lay participation in the sacred rites of Mass. In this regard, one has little difficulty
seeing that the Consilium was always concerned with the public nature of the celebration of the
Mass.
The second of the altiora principia, i.e., the liturgy is the summit and source of Church
life, is presumed by the Consilium members in the reform process. It simply states the centrality
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
of the Mass and that it is a hierarchical celebration expressing unity. This was a consistent point
of departure in the liturgical reforms of the Consilium with the Mass.
8.3 THIRD PRINCIPLE: ACTIVE PARTICIPATION
Thirdly, there is the principium altius of full, conscious, and active participation. Looking
at chapters four through six, what can be concluded -methodologically- from the application of
the principle? First of all, it was indeed often invoked. Many rites (e.g., the offertory, the
acclamation at the Eucharistic prayer, the communion meditation) were all reforms that
attempted to inculcate different forms of active participation. Formerly there had been no
participation by the faithful in these rites. These examples above are not random.
First, there is the offertory reform. However, it does not represent vocal participation.
The faithful perform tasks like offering and presenting gifts of bread, wine, and things for the
poor. It is active and conscious participation accomplished by the faithful really performing
liturgical functions according to their rank as laymen before the liturgical assembly. This first
kind of participation is an example of ritual participation through ritual actions of a non-verbal
nature.
Secondly, the acclamation at the Roman Canon represents the reforming of a rite
formerly reserved only to bishops and priests. This rite has now been transformed to include
verbal participation in the liturgical rites, where formerly there was none at all. This represents
the application of active participation at the verbal level.
Lastly, the reformed Mass presupposes the use of a meditative communion song
according to local custom. This is an example of something that is neither ritual participation
(like an offertory procession) nor verbal participation (like singing aloud a hymn). Here the idea
is to inspire active meditation on the words or theme or to produce religious sentiments out of the
experience of culturally meaningful musical compositions. This may or may not be accompanied
by words. This is an example of the interior aspect of active participation.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
However, it is one thing to say that a principle is often invoked, yet another to say that
it is transcendental (trans-ritual) and is applied in the reform of each and every rite. For example,
the offertory prayers in the Normative Mass represent prayers that were not meant to invite
verbal or ritual participation actively by the people. They may invite the faithful to interior
reflection and meditation. However, this can be said of each and every rite that is said aloud and
in the vernacular. Because language is, by its nature, something that fosters active participation
(at least internal participation), one can argue that this principle is indeed transcendent in the
3
Normative Mass. This means that every single category of rite of the Mass was penetrated or
informed by the principle of active participation. Insofar as the vernacular represents the
application of this principle (See chapter three, letter c.), it is applied in every rite of the
Normative Mass. The vernacular was also consistently applied to all the rites of the Normative
Mass. The question of active verbal participation and ritual participation is different. Each
reformed rite cannot be said to do this. The celebrants silent prayers before communion, his
private prayers at communion, and certain quasi-private gestures (signing of the Gospel book)
obviously exclude ritual or verbal participation by the congregation or even the other clergy.
Thus, a question arises. By what criterion does one judge that some rites merit ritual participation
of the faithful (like the offertory) or verbal participation of the faithful (like the Canon)?
Obviously, the liturgical history of the Roman rite is not helpful to discover such a
criterion, if it even exists. If history where the source of this regulatory idea that demanded that a
rite include ritual or active verbal participation, then certain reforms could not be justified. For
example, if the history of the Roman Canon in the Latin rite (according to liturgical books and
ancient witnesses) is the norm, then a serious difficulty arises. The history of eucharistic prayer
(i.e., Roman Canon) in the Latin liturgy, at least since the fourth century, has no evidence of an
4
acclamation made by the people during the Canon. The peoples active verbal participation is
limited to the great Amen.
This is explicitly the case as mentioned by the Consilium as outlined in chapter three.
3
It is difficult to say anything about the liturgy of the 3
rd
century, since the chapter dealing with
4
the eucharistic prayers referred to G. Metzger and P. Bradshaw. They have seriously called into
question the so-called Hippolytus of Rome and his church order.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
One might expect some sort of scientific or systematized evaluation of each rite to reflect
its nature and adaptability to ritual and/or verbal participation. For example, one can ask a
series of questions for each rite as divided into sections by the Consilium. There are 94 sections
into which the Mass liturgy is divided. For each on the rites (1-94) a logical series of questions
might be:
1.) Is this rite one that historically contained one of these three forms of active
participation in the manuscript tradition of the Latin rite? If so, which forms?
2.) Is this rite of Mass intrinsically determined to verbal or ritual participation by the
faithful? Is it composed for only the priest or deacon to perform or say? Is it meant to be s a i d
aloud or silently?
3.) Does this rite represent something that impedes active participation? And if so, by
that fact alone, should it be eliminated or reformed?
Perhaps this might be illustrated by a simple example. An important illustration might be
the Canon of the Mass. If one were to evaluate the historical and intrinsic nature of this
composition one would look in vain to find a justification for a post-consecratory acclamation
within the Latin history of liturgical composition of its eucharistic prayer. This is a question that
bothers the Members of the Consilium too. Writing an apology for this very instance, A. Bugnini
contrasts the the Latin tradition of one eucharistic prayer with the authentic tradition that
contains many (although not necessarily a determinate number) of eucharistic prayers. The
5
implicit admission here is that the Roman rite has but one eucharistic prayer. At the same time it
is implied that what is a unique trait of the historically verifiable Roman rite is contrary to the
authentic tradition. In many instances this kind of evaluation seems to create irresolvable
problems. This conflict leads to the exposure of deeper underlying methodological questions
about a hierarchy of principles and their relation to one another. It may be of use to look at other
facets of the Roman Canon to illustrate this more fundamental problem. In the absence of a clear
A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 443-445.
5
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
hierarchical order of principles, or an order of precedence in their application, contradictions
arise. For example:
1.) A. Bugnini implies above that the Roman Canon is only eucharistic prayer in the
entire history of the Roman rite. If this is the case, then it presumably represents the norm of
the ancient Fathers for worship in the Roman rite. Is this historical fact the source of an objective
principle for judging something that defines or specifies the Roman rite with a positive
feature? On the contrary, does the exclusive use of the Roman Canon represent a weakness of the
Roman rite as opposed to the authentic tradition? It would seem that the higher principle of the
authentic tradition is drawn from what a majority, or at least a plurality, of non-Roman rites
observe in a parallel part of their own liturgies.
6
2.) Another example within the Roman Canon is the Mysterium fidei. The Consilium
periti were already cited because they asserted that this insertion into the institution narrative
represents something that is unique to the Roman rite. It is not found in other non-Roman
liturgies. Again, which principle decides that this trait unique to the Roman rite is something
that is either specifying (a positive distinguishing trait) or something corrupting? The arguments
for removing it were already seen. There were basically three: a.) it is only in the Latin rite, b.) it
is theologically uncertain as to its meaning, and c.) it is pastorally and linguistically difficult to
explain. Although, certainly letter b is a serious consideration, it is not at all clear why letter
a is an argument. Differences either specify something or they are accidental. Differences are
judged meritorious if they contribute to some end, function, or pertain to the proper definition of
a thing.
3.) One last example within the Roman Canon may again illustrate this point. With regard
to the the words of institution, the complaint was made (in chapter seven) that the words of
institution were non-biblical. Furthermore, certain Latin phrases were argued as undesirable
(e.g., the consecration of the chalice: haec quotiescumque) since they are not citing scripture.
A. BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 443-445. This case is just one example from among many
6
that can be cited. This one is outstanding since A. Bugnini chooses to emphasize the contrast
between authentic tradition and certain practices unique to the Roman rite.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
Again, a rite that is uniquely Roman is rejected because it is not found in other non-Roman rites.
However, one would expect an appeal to the authentic tradition here (as in other instances) as
the litmus test to judge the haec quotiecumque as unacceptable. Instead, J. Jungmann underlines
just the opposite (in chapter seven). All known liturgies of the past and present do not cite or
follow any biblical narrative verbatim.
These three examples are merely meant to illustrate the fact that the application of the
principle of active participation or other principles could find itself in conflict with seemingly
distinguishing marks of the Roman rite. Sometimes, one principle could be invoked but was in
conflict with another Consilium principle. Either one or the other principle was invoked for any
given reform, but both could not be applied without contradiction.
Finally, whenever a principle does not permeate each and every rite, there must be a
necessary condition when it is applied. When and what is that condition? Also, if one principle is
imposed on an individual rite, how does one solve a conflict that arises when the application of
this principle changes the historical model of the rite (like the Roman Canon)? Serious questions
remain. It is an open question as to whether or not active participation (or other invoked
principles) is sufficiently powerful to override the historical forms of any and all authentic texts
and rituals of the Roman rite. If this principle, or another (e.g., ecumenism), is a
7
transcendental or trans-ritual principle, it might be powerful enough to modify any text or
ritual that is commonly agreed upon to be historically Roman. Is a super-principle (like active
participation) the dominant principle over and above all others? Is the force of this principle ever
suspended or equal to other super-principles? The answers to these questions are not certain. The
Consilium does not appear to have thought along these lines in the reform process. Rather, it
appears to have invoked certain principles at one time or other according to a certain consensus
of periti that arose out of the debates in the various Coetus.

This is a reference to texts and compositions that the periti admit are authentically Roman, like the Roman Canon.
7
Another example might be the style and content of the Collects at Mass.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
8.4 OTHER THEORETICAL AND OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES
Generally speaking, each principle was invoked at some time or another in the reform of
the Mass. The difficulty, however, has already been illustrated above. The central debates were
discussed in the reform of each individual rite. Sometimes the debates centered on a concern for
historical authenticity of a text, sometimes a concern for the modern mentality and needs,
sometimes for active participation.
Nonetheless, until one has ascertained securely that a particular rite is properly Roman,
then it would seem logically impossible to know how to restore the rite of Mass as a whole.
Some nuclear or essential qualities of the Roman rite must give it a flavor or character of being
Roman. This character is that which distinguishes it from its sister rites. If this character is
eliminated, then the Roman rite ceases to have such a flavor or character. No list of such positive
characteristics was compiled by the Consilium before beginning the reform process. This means,
before beginning the process of reform, there was not a universally accepted series individual
rites considered authentic and irreplaceable or irreformable. There was also no a priori
presumption that forbade the retouching, interpolation, or recomposition of certain authentic
Roman prayers or rites. This ambiguity risks conflict with other principles. If the mentality of
modern man or cultural considerations are in conflict with a particular rubric or composition
judged as historically Roman, there is no methodological or hierarchical principle that has sway
or is automatically operative.
In conclusion, many of the principles of the Consilium cannot be considered absolute a
priori principles that are to be applied to each individual rite (nos. 1-94) in the reform of the
Mass. Instead one must consider an a posteriori approach. Although there are certain theological
truths (i.e., dogma) that were a prioris, most other principles seem to have been applied
according to an evaluation a posteriori. First a rite was investigated by a select number of
experts. They presented their findings to the Coetus. The periti then proposed reforms by
suggesting the application of this or that principle to the rite. Each suggested what seemed to him
to be reasonable. Sometimes this was a prudential judgment of active participation, sometimes of
updating the liturgy, sometimes no revision at all. Sometimes compromises had to be accepted
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
because it was not clear that a dominant principle had carried the Coetus or persuaded the
Fathers of the Consilium. This means that the theoretical and operative principles were, for the
most part, reference points or guide posts for proposing reforms. There was no apparent
unchangeable ritual because of its historical authenticity (e.g., Roman Canon). Principles were
points of reference or important considerations. However, they do not seem to have been
hierarchically determined or absolutes in reforming any given rite (other than the universal use of
the vernacular). This makes sense in light of the fact that the entire reform was above all a
pastoral attempt to engage the modern man according to his mentality and needs. This called for
8
a series of prudential judgments of a psychological and anthropological nature. Cultural and
temporal considerations like this are always contingent and fluid. As such, the rites were
subjected to reforms based upon what seemed to be a balance of considerations from active
participation to any of the other operational principles (mentioned in chapter three).
8.5 THE NORMATIVE MASS AND ITS OVERALL STRUCTURE
With this in mind, it is not surprising that the initially strict parameters (i.e., principles)
for the reform had to be adjusted. New circumstances and new cultural concerns could always
surface and dislodge a rite. A ritual formerly believed to be on solid footing, from an historical or
theological point of view, might become of little concern because of new developments in
catechesis, psychology or culture. Cultural or psychological needs of the modern man could in
fact relegate the ancient form of a text to only secondary importance in the reform process.
However, even with this in mind, the Consilium had remained rather internally consistent
in its application of a couple points.
First, the Ordo I of the Ordines Romani was consistently used as the structural point of
reference among the Consilium periti. It was only outside curial interference (e.g., F. Antonelli)
or papal inspiration (e.g., the new eucharistic prayers) that caused the experts to deviate from
GIOVANNI CAPRILE, Il Sinodo dei vescovi. Prima assemblea generale (29 Settembre-29 Ottobre
8
1967), La Civilt Cattolica, Roma 1968, 443-444. The synod was told that the entire rationale for
the the Consliums work was pastoral.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
their basic text meant as the underlying skeleton for the new liturgy. Ultimately, the periti had to
depart from this model when they composed new eucharistic prayers and were forced to insert
private prayers for the celebrant along with a penitential rite (in addition to the Kyrie, eleison).
Secondly, the Consilium had been fairly consistent about eliminating almost all
genuflections, signs of the cross and other ritual actions that were Gallican in nature. The few
that remained were simple. They served as introductory or conclusory parts of individual rites
and were generally brief or apt to draw active participation in the minds of the periti.
8.6 THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS AND THE NORMATIVE MASS
The work of the Consilium was not unanimously received by the bishops. At least the
votes on individual rites were more promising, because these were supported by the majority
votes of the synod Fathers. This was not true of the voting on the overall structure of the
Normative Mass. Following the iuxta modum responses and the various speeches and
commentaries made by synod Fathers, it became obvious that a pastoral liturgy was difficult for
the bishops to accept. If pastoral liturgy is by its nature an application of prudence in contingent
9
matters, then each bishop voted according to this criterion (unless he merely reflected the vote of
his national conference on the written text of the Normative Mass). Each bishop had presumably
the same theological principles that animated his life of faith in the realm of dogma. However,
the application of general principles like this into the realm of art, language, mentality, culture
and other factors hardly admits of unity. The failure of the Normative Mass to gain definitive
approval may easily reflect the diversity of opinion and understanding of application of
theological principles to the situation of the modern man. How does man interpret this or
that sign? How does man interpret a verbal sign or art? What is the best number of crosses or
greetings in this or that culture to optimize an experience of participation or dialogue? These
questions simply cannot be answered apodictically. They can only be answered by proposing
reasonable arguments. However, given the diversity of conditions and knowledge that each man
has, his acts of prudence will vary.
G. CAPRILE, Il Sinodo dei vescovi, 479-524. The author presents abstracts of all the major
9
speeches for and against the liturgical reform on the part of the members of the synod.
THE MISSA NORMATIVA OF 1967; ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES AS APPLIED TO THE LITURGY OF THE MASS Conclusions
The criticism of the periti that many bishops voted because of (liturgical) ignorance, the
environment in the chapel, or the negative propaganda in Rome, must be taken into account.
However, this Mass ultimately failed to gain decisive acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church
because the results of the application of prudence in contingent matters cannot be controlled or
anticipated. Each bishop had his own reasons for rejecting the overall structure of the Mass.
Some rejected it because it was too radical, some because it did not go far enough. The
Normative Masss failure was a democratic failure. the Fathers cast their votes after taking into
account both their personal experience of a rite and after a detailed study of its texts. The Fathers
did not reject the methodology to arrive at the reform, many did not seem to know what the
methodology even was.
In conclusion, the methodology of the Consilium included utilization of current structures
within the Roman curia as its organizational model. Yet, It adjusted, developed, and eliminated
some of these structures by a process of trial and error. It used a variety of men and studies for its
work. It experienced interference from both the Roman curia and Pontiff in its work. Perhaps,
one can both find reasons to praise or criticize the rather fluid structure of the Consilium.
However, it is more difficult to justify the lack of a clearly hierarchical and organized application
of liturgical principles to reform the Mass. At this time there is no way that such principles may
be delineated in their hierarchical order of precedence in the overall structure of the Mass reform,
or in many of the individual rites of the Mass.

1 Christiaan Kappes 2012






APPENDIX I
ORIGINAL PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE CONSILIUM
March-April 1964


Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro, President 20-30 bishops
Consiglieri Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri, Vice President
(June 1964) (voting members)
Annibale Bugnini, Secretary
Consilium Presidentiae
1



___________________
Relator
Secretary
!!!!!!!!
5-7 Members Group1 Group2 Group3, etc.


(a.k.a Consultors)

___________________

Section 1 of group 1 Section 2 of group 1, etc.
(Coetus peculiaris)











1
September 1966. Seven bishops are members: Msgr. Ren Boudon (France), Msgr. Msgr. Pellegrino (Italy), Msgr.
Ott Splbeck (Germany), Msgr. Vicente Enrique y Taracn (Spain), Msgr. William Conway (Ireland), Msgr. Jos
Clemente Carlos Isnard (Brasil), Msgr. Jean Bluyssen (Netherlands). It meets eight times, generally coinciding with
Adunanze plenarie.
! "#"$%& () (%*
! +*$,*(",- ). (%*
/)0123245
/)0143("
! 6%* 5)1( (,41(*7
5*0 ",*
(%*,*3"(),1
/)0143(),1
",( "07
%21(),-
5412$ "07
$43(4,*

84,219,47*0
$*
(%*)3):2$"3
3";02(-
<07*,1*$,*(",-
/",3)
=,":"
<07*,1*$,*(",-
>)#",7)
?"1@4"3*A
9",(B;5* 1*$,*(",-
?2*,)
C",202
2 Christiaan Kappes 2012






APPENDIX II
FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE CONSILIUM 1964-1967

Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro, President 20-30 bishops
(voting members)
Consiglieri
(June 1964)


Consilium Presidentiae
Annibale Bugnini, Secretary


Relators of the various Groups (Consulta-Coetus Consultorum)

Observers
(Oct. 1966)



I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII = divided by lit-

urgical books



VII. Martyrology = Coetus 24. Revision X. Non-Roman rites = Coetus 27. Elements appliable to others
VIII. Songs = Coetus 25. Revision of hymnals XI. Code of Liturgical Law = 28 Prepare a Code
IX. Ceremonial = Coetus 26. Revision XII. Papal Chapel = Coetus 29. Revision of Rites
N.B. Sections 30-39 correspond to the special groups for special revision (p. 35 elaborato). The settori (coetus
peculiaris) mentioned above are not realized. Both the special revision groups and subgroups are select consultors.
!"#$%&$'%$()%*
,)%-. /%)0)
!"#$%&$'%$()%*
1.2)%#.
3)&45)-$6
7(8$%&
9:$"(5)--* ";"$
(.()- <$" &$%:$# )&
5"#$%&$'%$()%;$&
=
,)-$"#)%
> 1%.5? @
,.$(5& @
> ,)-$"#)%
==
7A'$
> 1%.5?& BCD
,.$(5&
B
> 3&)-($%
,.$(5&
E
> F;&(%;G5H."
,.$(5&
I
> /;G-$ %$)#;"0
,.$(5&
J
> 3)(%;&H' %$)#;"0
,.$(5&
K
> L)0;.0%)?8*
,.$(5&
M
> L*<"&
,.$(5&
N
> ,8)"(&
,.$(5&
NG;&
> 3%$'$&
,.$(5&
D
> 7A'$ O(5%'(5%$
===
P;&&)-$
> 1%.5?&
@QC@K
,.$(5&
@Q
> 7%#;")%*
,.$(5&
@@
> R$)#;"0&
,.$(5&
@B
> 3$HH."&
,.$(5&
@E
> S.H:$ P)&&
,.$(5&
@I
> ,8)"(&
,.$(5&
@J
> P)&&
O(%5'(5%$
,.$(5&
@K
> ,."'$-$G%)C
> H."
=S
=S
,.<<."
$-$<$"(&
P;&&)-
7A'$
> 1%.5?&
@MC@D
,.$(5& @M
> R;($& .T
(8$
-;(5%0;')-
*$)%
,.$(5& @N
> ,.<<."&
,.$(5&
@NG;&
> 7%)H."&
> 3%$T)'$&
,.$(5& @D
> R5G%;'&
S
3."HU')-
> 1%.5?&
BQCB@
,.$(5&
BQ
> R$:;&;."
> /..V =
,.$(5&
BQG;&
> S;%0;"& W
R$-0;.5&
,.$(5& B@
> /..V == W ===
,.$(5&
B@G;&
> F$#;')H."
,85%'8 W
X-()%
S=
R;(5)-
> 1%.5?&
BBCBEG;&
,.$(5&
BB
> O)'%)C
<$"(&
,.$(5&
BE
> O)'%)C
<$"(&
,.$(5&
BEG;&
> 3$")"'$
3 Christiaan Kappes 2012

APPENDIX III
HISTORICAL PROCESS FOR A COETUS AND APPROVING A REFORMED
LITURGICAL RITE

PT. 1 GENERIC METHOD

A. METHOD: OVERVIEW OF HOW A COETUS WAS ESTABLISHED

March 1964 Divisions of liturgical book sections I-XII determine which group will
receive a certain rite to reform. Liturgical book section III includes Groups (Coetus) 10-16
(elaborato, 21). After Cardinal Lercaro and A. Bugnini convene their first adunanza plenaria
(March 1964), they assign Relators, Secretaries, and Consultors to various Groups (eventually 1-
29). In this study case, Group (Coetus) X receives the Ordinary of the Mass to update. After
the Coetus is erected and officially commissioned, it is expected to organize its own internal
rules of order, methodology, locations of reunions, and modus operandi.
In the case of any Coetus the individual Consultors are each approved by Pope Paul VI in
private audiences with Cardinal Lercaro (and also A. Bugnini). Each member, i.e., Relator,
Secretary, Member of a Coetus is technically a Consultor by Papal appointment (elaborato,
17). Relators and Secretaries of Coetus are merely appointed by Cardinal Lercaro and A. Bugnini
(A. Bugnini effectively proposed the vast majority of names and Cardinal Lercaro is not known
to have rejected any suggestions).
Coetus X, erected officially in the plenary audience in October of 1964 (elaborato, 26),
had J. Wagner as its life long Relator, A. Hnggi as its initial secretary, and seven additional
Consultors.
2
After the first plenary audience in March, The group of Consultors of Coetus X
received the job of reforming the individual parts of the Order of Mass. However, the same
Coetus X was only officially commissioned to produce schemata of a reformed Mass following
the 5-6 October Plenary Audience of the Consilium. At this audience, in addition to the general
reforming principles of reforming the liturgy as proposed by the Consilium (BUGNINI, La riforma
liturgica, 53-62), and the internal principles worked out by the Coetus X itself, the Consilium
established nine other guiding principles of the reform of the Order of the Mass (elaborato, 26).
After all theoretical and operative principles were recognized and established, the job of
producing a schema was bequeathed to Coetus X. They were prepared to produce there first
chronological, rite by rite, schema by October of 1965 (elaborato, 26, ft. note 101).






2
Coetus X initially (1964) consisted of the following members: J. Wagner (relator), A. Hnggi
(Secretarius), M. Righetti (Consultor), T. Shnitzler (Consultor), P. Jounel (Consultor), C. Vagaggini O.S.B.
(Consultor), A. Franquesa O.S.B. (Consultor), P.M. Gy O.P. (Consultor), J.A. Jungmann S.J. (Consultor). Later in
1967 the Consilium contained the following: J. Wagner (Relator), A. Franquesa O.S.B. (Pro-Secretarius), M.
Righetti (Consultor), T. Schnitzler (Consultor), A. Hnggi (Consultor), P. Jounel (Consultor), P.M. Gy O.P.
(Consultor), J. A. Jungmann S.J. (Consultor ), L. Agustoni (Consultor), J. Gelineau S. J. (Consultor), C. Vagaggini
O.S.B. (Consultor), L. Bouyer C.O. (Consultor), S. Famoso, K. Amon, J. Cellier, F. McManus, V. No (Consultor),
H. Wegman (Consultor), J. Patino (Consultor). See: BARBA, La riforma conciliare dell= AOrdo Missae@, 73-77.

4 Christiaan Kappes 2012

B. METHOD: CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD OF
REFORM

During this period of time between March-October 1964 Coetus X operated as follows
(For references to times a places of Coetus X plenaria and schemata, cf. BARBA, La riforma
conciliare dellOrdo Missae., 65, 78):

1.) J. Wagner is alerted to the fact that he and several others will be the members of Coetus
X (elaborato, 22). He proposed several plans of reform in the first audience (11 March
1964).
2.) J. Wagner in consultation with other newly appointed relators (Consulta) isolates the
essential sources and models to be used by Coetus X for liturgical reform (elaborato, 23-
24).
3.) He personally presents this plan to the second Plenary Audience 17 April 1964. It is
approved
4.) In consultation with his Members, they agree to have their internal Plenary Meeting 8-10
June in Treveri to present the results of their assigned tasked as apportioned by J.
Wagner.
5.) This happens again in Einsiedeln 5-7 June 1964. This work results in Quaestiones
tractandae at the 3 Plenary Audience 18-20 June.
6.) Following August and September Coetus X plenary in Freiburg and Rome, they are able
to present a Relatio to the Secretary of the Consilium. He presents it at the Consilium 4
Plenary on 5-6 October. The corrections and suggestions result in Schemata nn. 3-5.
7.) From the October 1964 Plenary Audience until the 26-30 April 1965 5 Plenary audience
Coetus X produces schemata 9-11. N.B. There is no Plenary Audience of Coetus X
during this time. All revisions are done by individual consulting between the Secretary
of the Consilium and the Relator-Secretary.
8.) From the 5 Plenary Audience until the October 1965 6 Plenary Audience The Coetus X
schemata nn. 12-14. The Coetus X Plenary Audiences was 18-23 June in Paris and 15-20
September 1965 in Rome.
9.) The first full schema of a reformed Mass is presented as a homogenous unit. Questions
are voted on regarding the rite by the Fathers of the Consilium in the 9 October 1965
Plenary Audience.
10.) There vote results in further revisions of the new Normative Mass. From the
October 1965 Plenary Audience until the Consiliums 7 Plenary Meeting (6-14 October
1966) Coetus X produces Schemata 15-23. There are no Plenary Audiences of the
Coetus during this period in question. Much of the work has been accustomed to be
accomplished in intensive sessions of Relators and specialists with A. Bugnini (BUGNINI,
La riforma liturgica, 163-165).
11.) From the October 1966 7 Plenary Audience until the 10-19 April 1967 8 Plenary
Audience Coetus X produces schemata 24-34. There are two last Plenary Audiences of
Coetus X in Switzerland and Rome on 24-30 January and 8-12 March 1967 respectively.
12.) The culmination of Coetus Xs work is presented in the10-19 April 1967 Plenary
Audience of the Consilium. This is the point at which the Normative Mass overall
structure is solidified.

5 Christiaan Kappes 2012

PT. 2 SPECIFIC METHOD OF REFORM ANY GIVEN RITE
Continuing to use Coetus X as an example, one can propose a hypothetical mode for the
reform of any given rite.
Having received ones section and Coetus X, one might propose a schema in one of two
ways. For instance, if one wished to change the words of institution from pro multis to pro
omnibus in the Missa Normativa, then one could a.) propose a series of quaesita to the Fathers of
the Consilium to be discussed and voted on in on of the Plenary Audiences b.) or retouch the
current schema of the Missa Normativa. Either of these proposals goes through the same
process. Finally, at the desire of the Relator, studies and notes can be attached to the schema or
quaesita in order aid the Fathers discussion and clarify the theme.
1.) Hypothetically, if Coetus X proposed the pro omnibus change, then one of the
Members of the Group will bring up the subject when presenting his work at the
Plenary Session of the Group X. However, all suggestions and operations of the
Group have their ultimate arbiter in the Relator (i.e., J. Wagner).
2.) Normally, The relator, having approved the schema prepared by his secretary will use
his secretary to relay the information and notes to the Secretary of the Consilium.
3.) Having received this proposal, the Secretary may make corrections and then he
presents the schema to the President of the Consilium. The President may choose
personally (or use his Secretary) to either work with Consultors (Consulta) or
Counselors (Consiliarii), or his Consilium Presidentiae to review and correct the
schema to prepare it for a vote before the Plenary Session.
4.) If the proposal to change the words, in this case, is acceptable then the President gives
a positive judgment to put the schema on the docket for the Plenary Session. If not,
the debited corrections are made by the Secretary of the Consilium and the 1 general
relation (relazione generale) is given back to Coetus X.
5.) The 1
st
relation is corrected along the lines of those written down by the Secretary of
the Consilium in the name of the President. After the Group has made the due
corrections it is re-submitted to the Secretary of the Consilium in a 2 relation.
6.) If the Secretary is satisfied with the corrections and 2
nd
draft, he may seek the
permission of the President to present the Fathers of the Consilium the corrected
relation. This is done at a Plenary session.
7.) The vote of the Fathers is either positive or negative. If a majority of the Fathers vote
a placet then the change will be added. If the Fathers vote the question as non placet
or placet iuxta modum, then the suggested change ordinarily will not pass. If the
President judges that the iuxta modum votes are substantial, then he may return the
schema to the Group to rework the schema according to the Fathers suggestions.
8.) If the schema presented is approved with any corrections, then the schema is sent
back to the Group from where it came (e.g., Group X). Then, the Group incorporates
the suggestions or corrections. After this is done, the Group returns the schema
generale to the Secretary of the Consilium.
9.) The Fathers of the Consilium are then able to review the corrections and give the
consent to the schema.
10.) This final schema is presented to the Pope (By Lercaro/Bugnini) during a private
audience for his approval. Following this approval the SRC publishes it with a decree.