|
Novus Ordo Missae"Novus Ordo Missae" (New Order of the Mass) and Mass of Pope Paul VI or Pauline Mass or Second Vatican Council Mass are terms used to refer to the liturgy of the Mass as revised by the Roman Catholic Church by decree of the Second Vatican Council. The document[1] (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm) by which Pope Paul VI ordered publication of a new edition of the Roman Missal, revised in line with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, was dated Holy Thursday, 3 April 1969. The Missal itself was published in 1970. The Ordo Missae(literally, “Order of the Mass”, though in the past it was usually called in English “Ordinary of the Mass”), is a section of the Roman Missal giving the common prayers and general rubrics for the celebration of Mass. In the 1970 Missal, another section, the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (“General Instruction of the Roman Missal”, hereinafter referred to as GIRM), available on the Internet in English translations of its 1975 version[2] (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/4/SubIndex/67/DocumentIndex/1) and its 2002 edition,[3] (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) replaces the sections Rubricae Generales Missalis, Additiones et Variationes in Rubricis Missalis, Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae, and De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus of the pre-Vatican-II Missal. The Roman Missal has always had many other sections; and use of the term “Novus Ordo Missae” in the sense indicated above, nominally reducing the 1970 Missal to an Ordo Missae, usually betrays a negative attitude in its regard.
Revisions of the liturgy of the MassThe Roman Missal published by Pope Pius V in 1570, seven years after the final session of the Council of Trent (see Tridentine Mass), was itself a significant revision of the existing texts, involving research done to restore the Missal “to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers” [4] (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm). Later Popes too made alterations or even wholescale revisions.[5] (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/314) [6] (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403) [7] (http://ordorecitandi.com/nav/CalendarComparisonMay2002.doc) But, with the sole exception of Pope Pius XII’s substantive revision of the section of the Missal governing the Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Vigil liturgy, inserting novelties such as the Renewal of Baptismal Promises, these were less profound than that by which Pope Paul VI implemented the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. On the other hand, the 1970 revision was itself minor in comparison with what occurred at Rome at some time between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries, when “the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast” (article on the Mass[8] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm) in the Catholic Encyclopedia). Text changes in the 1970 Roman MissalThe Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, [9] (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm) promulgating the 1970 Roman Missal, singled out for special mention the following changes: 1. Three new canons or eucharistic prayers were added to the single one that the Roman rite, in contrast to other rites, previously used. The only obligatory alteration to the traditional Roman Canon was that, at the consecration, the words “Mysterium fidei” were removed from the context of the words of Christ. They are now said by the priest as an introduction to an acclamation by the faithful. 2. The rites indicated in the Ordo Missae were “simplified, with due care to preserve their substance”; “elements which with the passage of time came to be duplicated or were added with but little advantage” were eliminated; and “other elements which suffered injury through accidents of history” were restored “to the earlier norm of the holy Fathers” (a phrase echoing Pope Pius V’s Bull Quo primum[10] (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm)). The phrases here enclosed in quotation marks come from the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.[11] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html) [12] (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2litur.htm) 3. A much larger portion of the holy Scriptures is read to the people: the present three readings (four, if you count the Psalm) over three years of Sundays more than quadruple the previous two readings in a single-year cycle; and, in addition, a two-year cycle of readings from Scripture has been assigned to weekdays, which previously, except for Lent and a few other days, had only a repetition of the previous Sunday’s readings. In addition to these three changes, the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, [13] (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm) mentions that the revision considerably modified other sections of the Roman Missal, such as the Proper of Seasons, the Proper of Saints, the Common of Saints, Ritual Masses and Votive Masses, adding that “[the] number [of the prayers] has been increased, so that the new forms might better correspond to new needs, and the text of older prayers has been restored on the basis of the ancient sources.” Other changesVernacular languageRecognition of the benefits of using the mother tongue in the Church’s rites, already mentioned by Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) in his encyclical Mediator Dei, 60[14] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.htm) was applied by the Second Vatican Council to the liturgy of the Mass also.[15] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html) [16] (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2litur.htm) Permission was therefore granted for national conferences of bishops to authorize the use of vernacular languages in place of Latin. Communion under both kindsThe 1970 Roman Missal envisages the giving of Communion to the faithful under the appearance of wine as well as under the appearance of bread. The very few circumstances (GIRM (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/175/Start/1), 242) in which this was at first permitted were gradually extended. As a result, in many churches it is availed of at every Mass. This is a return to a practice that had largely fallen into disuse in Western Europe even before the Council of Trent, and the revised Roman Missal therefore insisted that “Priests should use the occasion to teach the faithful the Catholic doctrine on the form of Communion, as affirmed by the Council of Trent. They should first be reminded that, according to Catholic faith, they receive the whole Christ and the genuine sacrament when they participate in the sacrament even under one kind and that they are not thus deprived of any grace necessary for salvation” (GIRM (http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/GIRM/cfptoc.htm), 241) The priest's orientationBefore the revision, priest and people generally faced in the same direction for the canon of the Mass. Most altars, topped with a tabernacle and often built against a wall or backed by a reredos, were designed with this orientation in view: that, when Mass was celebrated at the main altar, all would face the apse of the church, which was generally to the east. However, this was not universal: at the high altars in the major basilicas in Rome the Popes traditionally celebrated Mass facing the people, and even in small, but ancient, churches, such as that of the Four Crowned Saints in Via dei Santi Quattro, the altar was arranged so that the priest necessarily faced the people throughout the Mass. Indeed, the text of the pre-Vatican-II Missal (Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, V, 3) expressly envisaged this orientation. Without imposing it, the 1970 Roman Missal called for it to be made possible: "The main altar should be freestanding so that the ministers can easily walk around it and Mass can be celebrated facing the people" (GIRM 1975,[17] (http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/GIRM/cfptoc.htm) 262). The 2002 edition of GIRM added a phrase declaring a freestanding main altar “desirable wherever possible" (GIRM 2002,[18] (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter5.htm#sect2) 299). The facing-the-people orientation, though by no means obligatory,[19] (http://www.adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html) has in practice become almost universal. At four points the 1975 GIRM[20] (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/4/SubIndex/67/DocumentIndex/1) (86, 107, 115, 122) prescribed that the priest should face the people, namely, for the opening greeting, for the invitation to pray (“Orate fratres”) before beginning the eucharistic prayer or canon of the Mass, when displaying the consecrated host before receiving and giving communion (“Domine, non sum dignus”), and when inviting to pray (“Oremus”) at the postcommunion prayer). The 2002 edition[21] (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.htm#sect1) (124, 146, 154, 157, 165) adds the point at which the priest gives the greeting of peace (“Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”). The pre-Vatican-II Ordo Missae gave the same indications as the 1975 GIRM, except that it ignored the Communion of the people, mention of which was found in the Missal only in its Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, X, 6, with an outline of the rite, not the full text. GIRM directs the priest to face the altar at several points, exactly as in the pre-Vatican-II Ordo Missae. Usually, because of his orientation, this means he also faces the people. Repositioning of the tabernacleThe change in orientation meant that, in general, the tabernacle cannot be on the altar at which Mass is celebrated. For its consequent placing, the 1970 Missal gives the direction: “In accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer” (GIRM, (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) 314). Criticisms of the revision“The revised Mass is less beautiful, less holy-feeling, more boring.” “Saying the Mass in the vernacular instead of Latin is at odds with the history of the Church.” Yet Latin was once the vernacular in Western Europe. Where Greek was the vernacular, Greek was used. Where Aramaic was the vernacular, Aramaic (also called Syriac) was used. Ninth-century Pope Hadrian II, against the objections of many bishops, approved the choice by Saints Cyril and Methodius to employ the Slavonic vernacular in the celebration of the liturgy. Still, in more recent times, the language and liturgy being the same in all Roman Catholic churches of the Latin rite in the world was a powerful sign of the unity of the Church. Since the introduction of the vernacular, it is not so easy to follow the Mass when in a country whose language the visitor does not speak. Moreover, the Second Vatican Council did not abolish the Latin Mass altogether. The rule on the use of Latin is as follows: "Mass is celebrated either in Latin or in another language, provided that liturgical texts are used which have been approved according to the norm of law. Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin" (Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum,[22] (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html) 112). But though Mass is in some places also celebrated in Latin, the use of the local language has almost become universal. “The new Priestly vestments lack the spiritual and historical significance of the traditional vestments.” No new vestments were introduced in the revision of the Roman Missal in 1970, before which date it had already begun to be customary to choose chasubles of more ample size than those cut short at the arms in a curtailment that reached its maximum in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a shape in which it is extremely difficult to see any particular spiritual or historical significance. For the now predominant style, see the picture of a pre-Vatican-II Mass at the end of the article Tridentine Mass. “The style of music played in many Masses became more earthy and less likely to help the faithful to lift their hearts up to God.” This development was not countenanced by the revision of the Roman Missal, the topic of this article. “The innovation of Altar girls was not good.” This innovation has nothing to do with the revision of the Roman Missal. Permission for it was granted much later on the basis of an official interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, not of the Roman Missal. “Lay participation at the altar was unseemly and at odds with Church dicta about who may touch sacred vessels.” The presence of lay people, other than altar servers, within the sanctuary for reading etc. is permitted more widely than before, but their presence at the altar is allowed only briefly and on extremely limited occasions (cf. Instruction on Certain Questions regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests (http://www.cin.org/vatcong/collmin.html) and the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html) “The number of genuflections during the Mass was reduced considerably.” The only change for the people is that, in reciting the Creed, the previously traditional genuflection at the mention of the Incarnation is replaced by a bow except on Christmas Day and the Feast of the Annunciation. “The length of time spent kneeling at Mass is reduced.” “The priest is no longer instructed to do several actions which would prevent particles of the host from falling from his fingers.” The only change is that the priest is no longer obliged to keep the tips of thumb and forefinger joined after the consecration. Instead, he is to remove any particles that may be attached to his fingers by cleansing them over the paten, which is now on the corporal since before the consecration. Under the former Missal, the paten became available to the priest only after the Pater Noster. “The use of the words ‘sacrifice’ and ‘altar’ in the text is markedly reduced, while the use of the words ‘supper’ and ‘table’ is markedly increased.” In the revised Missal there is no reduction whatever in the use of the words “sacrifice” and “altar”. The word “table” (in Latin, “mensa”) is used, as before, in a concrete sense, to indicate the horizontal top of the altar (GIRM (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) 73, 301, 303, 306), as opposed to the base of the altar, and also in a more poetic sense, in the phrases “the table of the word of God” (GIRM (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) 28, 57, 355), “the table of the Lord” (GIRM (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) 96, 256), “the table of the eucharist” (GIRM (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) 73). Not even once does the word “table”, on its own, take the place of “altar”. “Supper” appears many times in direct reference to the Last Supper of Christ, but only twice (GIRM (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) 17, 27) in reference to the Mass, in both instances in the phrase “the Mass or the Lord’s Supper”. “Protestantizing intentions”A speech by the then 85-year-old Cardinal Alfons Stickler, as reported in the Summer 1995 issue of the magazine The Latin Mass, attributed to French philosopher Jean Guitton the statement that "Pope Paul revealed to him that it was his [the Pope’s] intention to assimilate as much as possible of the new Catholic liturgy to Protestant worship".[23] (http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.asp) [24] (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/stickler.html) However, the speech gave no source for this claim and questioned whether the alleged remark should be interpreted in its superficially apparent sense, "since all the official statements of Paul VI—especially his excellent eucharistic encyclical Mysterium Fidei of 1965,[25] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html) issued before the end of the Council, as well as the Credo of the People of God,[26] (http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06cr.htm) demonstrate his absolute orthodoxy". Critics falsely attribute to Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the body that Pope Paul VI set up to implement the Second Vatican Council's decree on the liturgy, the statement: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants", and claim that this was published on L'Osservatore Romano of 19 March 1965. The bad-faith attribution to Father Bugnini of these words is evident, when they are compared with what he actually wrote on that issue of L'Osservatore Romano: "Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, by removing anything that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the road to union on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices" (page 6, column 4). The sacrifices that Father Bugnini felt were painful to make concerned some familiar words omitted from one particular prayer in the Good Friday liturgy. This prayer, previously titled "For the unity of the Church", is now headed "For the unity of Christians" (the Church is always one). Instead of "heretics" and "schismatics", it now speaks of "all our brethren who believe in Jesus Christ" and asks "that God may gather and keep together in his one Church all those who seek the truth in sincerity." (Typical of fault-seekers is to complain that the revised prayer does not concentrate exclusively on the negative aspects (heresy and schism) and that, when asking that non-Catholics who believe in Christ may be gathered and kept together in God’s one Church, the prayer speaks of their seeking the truth in sincerity. This, they say, “emphasizes the new theology that the Church is larger than the Catholic Church and focuses on personalist and charismatic approaches.” Father Bugnini, instead, wrote of the need for the separated brethren to come to union with the Church. The prayer does the same.) Pope Paul VI's change in this prayer followed and was in line with Pope John XXIII's dropping of the adjective "perfidi" (too often mistranslated as "perfidious") from the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. “Sacrifice de-emphasized”GIRM (1975), 7 states: "At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: 'Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt 18:20 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=018&l=20)). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in His name; He is present in the person of the minister, in His own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements."[27] (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/165/Start/1) Critics say this places special emphasis on the supper element,[28] (http://www.ihsv.com/ottaviani.html) and diminishes the sacrificial element (a) by placing it after the supper element, (b) by placing it after the mystical presence of Christ, and (c) by including it in an array of statements which also relate to the mystical presence. They claim to see a shift in the 1970 Roman Missal toward the supper dimension away from the sacrificial, and call it the new "Paschal Theology."[29] (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_September/Pius_XII.htm). Obviously, an at least equally credible interpretation of the passage in question is that it is constructed to lead from minor matters (e.g. people of God called together) to the culminating points of the eucharistic sacrifice and the substantial and permanent presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements. “Tabernacle de-emphasized”“In keeping with the emphasis on the supper element, the priest faces the people, who together form a communal gathering amongst themselves; the tabernacle is set aside, no longer in nobilissimo loco, which is not in keeping with liturgical tradition, a key portion of critics' observations. For example, they observe that in the liturgical and architectural changes that were coterminous with and supported by the new theology of the Novus Ordo Missae, the tabernacle was placed in locations lacking liturgical significance, and were also redesigned often by modern artists, a trend documented by Michael S. Rose in his work, Ugly as Sin. In some churches it became difficult to locate the tabernacle that had always been central. The tabernacle was always to be given the most prominent location in the Church, according to Paul VI, who, in the Latin translation of Mysterium Fidei, called that place ‘the “most prominent place” (“in nobilissimo loco”).’[30] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_19650903_mysterium_lt.html) The removal of the tabernacle is intimately connected with the New Rite of Mass which is designed to emphasize the concept of a communal Jewish Seder Supper, an association emphasized to catechumens, i.e. those in process of joining the Church, and to de-emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass.” Rather than “in the most prominent place”, "in nobilissimo loco" can mean, “in a very noble place”, such as on an altar either within the sanctuary or in a special chapel. “A very” (not “ the most” is what appears in the Italian,[31] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_it.html) as well as the English[32] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html)and other versions[33] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_fr.html) [34] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_po.html) of the encyclical, a clear indication of what Pope Paul VI actually wrote in the encyclical Mysterium fidei. GIRM, 314 uses an equivalent word, rendered in English as "truly noble"[35] (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) GIRM, 315 (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.htm) indicates that the preferable location for the tabernacle is: “a. Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration. b. Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.” Either of these locations is clearly “a very noble” or “truly noble” place. “Awareness of Real Presence de-emphasized”“The 1970 Missal diminishes awareness of the Mass’s sacrificial character and of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a dogmatic Catholic belief previously recognized through the prayer ‘Receive, Most Holy Trinity, This Oblation’, which is now omitted.[36] (http://www.ihsv.com/ottaviani.html) This prayer, which the priest said before he began the eucharistic prayer or canon of the Mass, refers to the sacrifice that is to come, and asks the Holy Trinity to receive it.” However, its use of the present tense, rather than the future, while only unconsecrated bread and wine are yet present, though legitimate, constitutes an ambiguity that is even more striking in two preceding prayers formulated as offering at that very stage "this immaculate" host or victim and the "chalice of salvation". These two prayers also have been omitted in the revision.. “The revised liturgy calls for fewer acts of reverence for the Eucharist in the form of signs of the Cross and genuflexions by both priest and faithful. These reductions are intended to reduce the reverence by the faithful for the sacrifice which occurs at the mass. The reformers of the liturgy may have believed that changes in cultural conventions, as seen also in civil ceremonies, made less reverence necessary, but in the Catholic faith, God is unchanging. The Church has effectively exaggerated the trend away from reverence in society.“ The revised liturgy has indeed reduced to a bow (except on Christmas Day and the Feast of the Annunciation) the genuflection by priest and people at the mention of the Incarnation in the Creed. It has also cut down by five the genuflections by the priest during Mass (the two genuflections previously prescribed after the consecration of the bread and the wine and at the priest’s communion have in each case been reduced to one, and the genuflections before and after breaking the consecrated host have been omitted). It has abolished ten signs of the cross that the priest made over the bread and/or wine before consecration and eighteen that he made over the elements after consecration, which liturgists explained in various ways, since it might seem that the priest was repeatedly “blessing” already consecrated bread and wine. The critics also claim that the priest, rather than the Eucharist, is now the centre of attention, encouraging a focus on the human rather than the divine, and presenting the priest as “performing”, while previously, because of his orientation, he was seen clearly to lead the people and worship with them. For English-speaking countries, the acclamation "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" was added to the three post-consecration acclamations given in the 1970 Ordo Missae. Like them, it expresses the faith in the final coming of Christ that has always been linked with the eucharistic celebration (cf. 1 Cor 11:26); but opponents of the revision see this mention of a future coming of Christ as disregarding his actual Real Presence in the consecrated elements. “Remission of sins de-emphasized”Critics quote Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who, in a comment on a draft version of the Ordo Missae, considered that "instead of emphasizing remission for sins for the living and the dead, the new rite [in the prayers included and excluded] stresses the nourishment and sanctification of those present."[37] (http://www.ihsv.com/ottaviani.html) One critic then adds that this relates to “the communal aspect in which the priest faces the people: there shall be a nourishing meal, rather than a prayer session led by the priest for the remission of sins.” Apart from this strange description of the Mass as “a prayer session led by the priest for the remission of sins”, it is worth remarking that, after the definitive Ordo Missae appeared as part of the revised Roman Missal, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote that Pope Paul VI’s doctrinal exposition of the revised liturgy meant that “no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized”.[38] (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#III.%20What%20about%20Cardinal%20Ottaviani’s%20Letter?) Summary of criticismsIn summary, critics of the revised liturgy maintain that Mass celebrated in accordance with the 1970 Roman Missal is either entirely invalid, or at least deficient, claiming that its theology, prayers, and ritual actions do not adequately support the faith. Others consider their allegations groundless. The main problem of traditionalists seem to be not so much with the revised Roman Missal itself, but that its introduction gave place in some communities to interpretations and practices that are more reminiscent of Protestant and Pentecostal ways of celebration than of the traditional Roman Mass - especially concerning reverence during Mass and the role of the laity (lay preaching, dances and applause during Mass, introduction of non-Biblical texts in the liturgy, etc.), abuses that the Holy See has tried to curb, particularly in its 25 March 2004 document Redemptionis Sacramentum.[39] (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html) External linksA) Revision of the Roman Missal
B) Polemics
|
|
|
Custom Search