The Original Novus Ordo: the "Experimental Mass" of '67
A most interesting peek back into history, to a time when the New Mass was just being constructed and tested out on various observers.
The date was October 24, a Monday in 1967 - just about a year and a half before the Mass was officially promulgated, and almost exactly two years to the date of the Ottaviani Intervention.
The Mass was celebrated "experimentally" in the Sistine Chapel before about 75 Fathers; all participants were given booklets containing the prayers and chants - the goal was meant to be full and active participation, after all! At this Mass, Eucharistic Prayer III made its first debut - a debut which, apparently, required the permission of the Pope. But since it was his personal wish that this prayer be used, permission was readily granted.
The following report on the experimental Mass is taken from the mouth (or pen) of Bugnini himself:
Now watch as Bugnini has to furiously backpedal in order to play down the fact that his beloved pet project went over like a lead balloon:
Ahhh ... interesting admission, isn't it? The Novus Ordo Mass was too "popular" (a more descriptive and suggestive synonym might be "vulgar") to be effectively celebrated with success in such an "elitist" setting as the beautiful Sistine Chapel.
There was an apparent clash; perhaps like trying to model a "popular" pair of jeans in the "elitist" setting of a ballroom dance?
Don't you just love it? Once again, the New Mass was - by Bugnini's own admission - so dumbed down that it was only going to work with an "assembly of ordinary people"; it just didn't work with "illustrious ... dignitaries." Perhaps it was too undignified, too banal? Beyond that, the very things that were supposed to encourage active participation - "many sung parts" for the congregation to join in, and the vernacular "Italian language" - ended up being "a further obstacle to participation."
I'm just trying to envision the scenario wherein these stately, "illustrious Church dignitaries," who were used to assisting at or celebrating the mysterious, hushed, reverent Tridentine Mass, were suddenly assaulted with a Mass in a language they couldn't all understand, being made to sing "many ... parts" that they didn't know.
If that doesn't sum up the Novus Ordo ... the celebrant and his gaggle of cantors, lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, etc., effectively in your face at every moment challenging the audience, "come on, everybody, let's participate! It will be fun!" ... and all the people want to do is pray and be left alone.
You don't say? This is too rich. For the full effect, and that none of the beauty of this be lost, I add:
Artificial: humanly contrived often on a natural model
Pedantic: of, relating to, or being a pedant ("one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge")
Parochial: of or relating to a church parish (remember, Bugnini said his New Mass was perceived as unparochial - i.e. something not related to a church parish - something profane?)
It just gets better and better. The Fathers could not envision this Mass being at home in a parish. Quite naturally, they thought it "impoverished" in comparison to the Tridentine Mass. But this is the best part of all:
There you have it. The New Mass was too vulgar, too profane, not dignified enough, "impoverished" in comparison to the Old Mass, apparently seen as a danger to the dogma of the "real presence" - in a word, "too radical."
And somehow it made it through the bureaucratic process, didn't it?
This is where the Ottaviani Intervention picks up, with the relation of this event: "In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a 'standard' or 'normative' Mass ... The international press spoke of the Synod's 'rejection' of the proposed Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence."
The basis of the Ottaviani Intervention was the fact that the Synod hated this Mass, but even so, despite this rejection, "we now find that the same 'standard Mass', identical in substance, has reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). In the two years that have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national bishops' conferences (at least as such) have not been consulted on the matter."
Now go read the rest of the Ottaviani Intervention in light of this historical context ...
The date was October 24, a Monday in 1967 - just about a year and a half before the Mass was officially promulgated, and almost exactly two years to the date of the Ottaviani Intervention.
The Mass was celebrated "experimentally" in the Sistine Chapel before about 75 Fathers; all participants were given booklets containing the prayers and chants - the goal was meant to be full and active participation, after all! At this Mass, Eucharistic Prayer III made its first debut - a debut which, apparently, required the permission of the Pope. But since it was his personal wish that this prayer be used, permission was readily granted.
The following report on the experimental Mass is taken from the mouth (or pen) of Bugnini himself:
It must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success and even that it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in the negative vote that followed. Few of the Fathers were disposed and ready for the experiment; this was even more true of those who had grasped the value and essential character of the normative Mass. The majority of the Fathers entered the Sistine Chapel with their minds made up and ill-disposed to the new Mass. (Annibale Bugnini, The Reform the of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990], p. 349)
Now watch as Bugnini has to furiously backpedal in order to play down the fact that his beloved pet project went over like a lead balloon:
The ceremonies and chants had been worked out in the smallest detail, and as far as these were concerned the celebration went very smoothly. The setting, however, was completely unsuitable. In the first place, the Sistine Chapel lends itself to elitist, not popular celebrations. (ibid., p. 349)
Ahhh ... interesting admission, isn't it? The Novus Ordo Mass was too "popular" (a more descriptive and suggestive synonym might be "vulgar") to be effectively celebrated with success in such an "elitist" setting as the beautiful Sistine Chapel.
There was an apparent clash; perhaps like trying to model a "popular" pair of jeans in the "elitist" setting of a ballroom dance?
Most important of all, the congregation was in a false position. The Fathers of the Synod had to imagine a fine assembly of ordinary people present in the hall, for it was with such a congregation in mind that the songs, rites, language, and tone of the homily had been chosen. Instead, the Fathers saw around them a gathering of illustrious Church dignitaries. The Italian language and the many sung parts were a further obstacle to participation. (ibid., pp. 349-50)
Don't you just love it? Once again, the New Mass was - by Bugnini's own admission - so dumbed down that it was only going to work with an "assembly of ordinary people"; it just didn't work with "illustrious ... dignitaries." Perhaps it was too undignified, too banal? Beyond that, the very things that were supposed to encourage active participation - "many sung parts" for the congregation to join in, and the vernacular "Italian language" - ended up being "a further obstacle to participation."
I'm just trying to envision the scenario wherein these stately, "illustrious Church dignitaries," who were used to assisting at or celebrating the mysterious, hushed, reverent Tridentine Mass, were suddenly assaulted with a Mass in a language they couldn't all understand, being made to sing "many ... parts" that they didn't know.
If that doesn't sum up the Novus Ordo ... the celebrant and his gaggle of cantors, lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, etc., effectively in your face at every moment challenging the audience, "come on, everybody, let's participate! It will be fun!" ... and all the people want to do is pray and be left alone.
The celebration must therefore have left many of the Fathers with the impression of something artificial, overly pedantic, and quite unparochial. (ibid., p. 350)
You don't say? This is too rich. For the full effect, and that none of the beauty of this be lost, I add:
Artificial: humanly contrived often on a natural model
Pedantic: of, relating to, or being a pedant ("one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge")
Parochial: of or relating to a church parish (remember, Bugnini said his New Mass was perceived as unparochial - i.e. something not related to a church parish - something profane?)
Some of them thought that such a Mass could not possibly be celebrated in a parish. The very term "normative" suggested, incorrectly, that all the parts sung in the Sistine Chapel would have to be sung always and in all circumstances in every parish. Other Fathers, accustomed to individual celebration, found this Mass to be impoverished by omission of the priest's private prayers.
It just gets better and better. The Fathers could not envision this Mass being at home in a parish. Quite naturally, they thought it "impoverished" in comparison to the Tridentine Mass. But this is the best part of all:
Still others, incited by the dogma of the real presence [sic], looked with concern on any reduction in gestures and genuflections and on the lengthening of the liturgy of the Word. In short, the changes in the Mass seemed too radical. (ibid., p. 350)
There you have it. The New Mass was too vulgar, too profane, not dignified enough, "impoverished" in comparison to the Old Mass, apparently seen as a danger to the dogma of the "real presence" - in a word, "too radical."
And somehow it made it through the bureaucratic process, didn't it?
This is where the Ottaviani Intervention picks up, with the relation of this event: "In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a 'standard' or 'normative' Mass ... The international press spoke of the Synod's 'rejection' of the proposed Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence."
The basis of the Ottaviani Intervention was the fact that the Synod hated this Mass, but even so, despite this rejection, "we now find that the same 'standard Mass', identical in substance, has reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). In the two years that have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national bishops' conferences (at least as such) have not been consulted on the matter."
Now go read the rest of the Ottaviani Intervention in light of this historical context ...
<< Home